I have no interest in engaging further with your pedantic hypotheticals. Go move the goalposts with someone else.
I wasn't even trying to argue with you. It was just info that didn't require a response since not everyone lives in a corporate computing environment. You are the one who wanted to tilt at imaginary goal posts for no reason. Not every comment in a thread is an argument.
Touch grass and relax a bit. The corporate environment can be properly maintained another day.
Some people aren't a fan of F-droid managing the signing keys and that sometimes F-droid builds/deployments can take a bit. There is an argument for developer-managed signing keys being better than registry-managed signing keys for trust, but that also doesn't make F-droid "bad". While I'm not fully versed on it, I think the issue here only applies to the main F-droid repo since other repos might have different policies around builds and signing keys.
Personally, I like the experience of managing my most used apps through Obtanium via the devs git releases, but I only use that if the dev is good about publishing their signing key so it can be verified with AppVerifier. Otherwise, F-droid is safer than running an app installed without verifying the signing key.
Not everyone at a company can be managed by group policy or in-tune or whatever. Like if they aren't using windows. You can run into the same situation on macOS or Linux depending on if you have the old and/or new clients installed at the same time.
I was curious too (tho I don't really partake in the community) and this explains the situation:
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/20976989
Prob a highlight of how Lemmy needs to solve community migration cross-instsnce properly as well as how community moderation vs. instance moderation will always be a problem in reddit-like fediverse implementations.
While this is the answer for an IT Admin, it isn't for companies on not-Windows and all the small/medium companies on O365 who were sold it on the promise of not needing IT Admins for their stuff.
Microsoft doesn't ACTUALLY care about teams so it's a nonstop bad UX, then they try to fix it, then they go a different direction, and so on. To Microsoft, its an add on that they mostly use to keep people away from Slack. When they spend time on it, all they are doing is enough to keep people away from Slack.
Its been like, what, 2 years there they've shipped a "new" client seperate from the existing client (at least on macOS)? People are constantly using the wrong one or switching when one breaks, and Microsoft constantly breaks the new one.
On windows the existence of the built-in "Teams" App is constantly confusing when people are trying to sign into a work account, which requires a different client. This is because the "Teams" App in Windows is just a rebadged Skype.
Before 2022 when I used it for some meetings (we used slack in our unit since we had some of our own budget, but the wider corp was on teams) it was a daily toss up as to whether video calls would work on macos or linux.
Most of my frustrations come from having to develop some integrations with teams:
Right now there's a massive bug for the templating language to render cards in the UI and Microsoft's answer has largely been a big shoulder shrug.
There are several really easy ways an admin can break a custom integration via azure. Obviously an app-based integration is better, but it's also really common in b2b to have more ad-hoc setups to send some data to teams. Even better, lots of small/medium companies have been convinced that they don't need IT people to help them with their Azure configuration, so no one ever knows how to solve any problems they create (this also applies to email fwiw... Unbelievable how many small/medium O365 customers have very broken email servers)
Microsoft's implementation of federation between O365 users is a mess of tiered settings, and figuring our if rhe issue is on the business side or your side is a sysiphean task. If you are in an org which doesn't have a domain hooked up to your setup (as in you use username@company.onmicrosoft.com) there is a very specific sign in page you have to use or it'll blow up on you. And it's not the generic sign in page you get when going to teams or O364's web site.
Tl:dr; Teams is a hacked together mess of bubble gum and toothpicks masquerading as a chat app. Its a miracle ir works as well as it does for "normal" usage, but it's a joke compared to Slack in every other way and quickly becomes a nightmare if you are working on integrations with it.
Kickstarter coming sometime soon to get some more resources going for it and related projects. will be interesting to see if it's effective.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pixelfed/pixelfed-foundation-2024-real-ethical-social-networks
Dan tends to work on too many things simultaneously (which isn't bad per say, and he thrives doing so) which means things get stalled and its a little hectic. Hoping more funds and community excitement will help spread the work out more and allow him to keep working as he does without other projects being on pause in the meantime.
Wild that people are concerned when Bazzite has a completely different underlying toolset vs SteamOS.
Want arch? SteamOS Want fedora? Bazzite
Tbh Bazzite has an important role going forward: pointing out any bad decisions by valve and offering an off-ramp if valve enshittifies.
Speaking as an engineer doing a lot of web dev, I think people underestimate how much work Mozilla does in standards and low-level shared API's via w3c and others, and how important it is that google isn't the only one in there making decisions. Most w3c standards decisions are made with google, Mozilla, Microsoft, and apple representatives in committees, and as we know, two of those are much more aligned in their own best interests these days, while one kinda wishes mobile web browsing didn't exist.
Would we have a better browser with less Mozilla baggage? Possibly.
Would the web standards that make everything work be better off without Mozilla? No, absolutely not.
Safari's team does what they can within Apple's bullshit intentional deprioritization of anything that could compete with the App Store, Edge's team has brought some sanity to the chromium side and toned back some of Google's wilder standards proposals and intentions. The fact that there are now 0 legitimate reasons for a website to "only work in chrome" (aside from some mobile safari things still) nowadays is all the stuff behind the scenes that matters. Even google is doing less FAFO shipping features and not caring about what other browsers need.
That said, maybe a disruptions is needed to a new paradigm could step in. Maybe a Mozilla Foundation placed under other ownership with a narrowed focus.
In the Linux space, the massive investments that GNOME, KDE, and others have been able to garner the last few years from governments and interested organizations is promising. There could be a similar interest in a web-focused org that could champion things without the Mozilla baggage and intent to avoid the same fate.
Y'all realize a random employee performing the add-on store review process isn't representing Mozilla's or the Firefox teams entire position yeah? This kind of stuff happens all the time with all stores that have review processes.
Firefox Addons store prob needs to improve its process, gorhill is justified in being mad, and I understand if he needs a punching bag between this and google, but, as someone who also develops extensions.... These things happen. It's just a part of building browser extensions.
License settings are available on the website settings
Probably the app. I've actually switched to a third party App (Pixilex on android) because I was experiencing a lot of buggy behavior with the official one. It's definitely not ready yet and seems to be buggier on android.