You can block your own internet, if you feel that way.

I think the most you can say is that they recognized that many male propertied white protestant Americans are American. Maybe some more qualifiers are necessary.

So are the other browsers on iOS.

It's not just the WebKit bit, basically the entire app implementation is actually shipped as a "Private Framework" which lives outside the .app bundle. e.g. on macOS % otool -L /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/MacOS/Safari: /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/Safari.framework/Versions/A/Safari (compatibility version 528.0.0, current version 623.1.14) /usr/lib/libSystem.B.dylib (compatibility version 1.0.0, current version 1356.0.0)

There's a bunch of other private frameworks (SafariCore.framework, SafariFoundation.framework, SafariPlatformSupport.framework, SafariShared.framework, SafariSharedUI.framework, SafariSwift.framework) as well. I haven't checked but I assume it's similar on iOS.

Not in the EU...

While alternative browsers are legally usable on iOS, nobody has really published one yet.

Maintaining a browser is expensive and with the way Apple implemented their obligations, it's not worth it for existing browser companies to ship their own engines (and have twice or more the maintenance).

Yes in the EU. Apple made the alternative browser requirements impossible to meet, and somehow got away with it.

Yes also in the EU.

I use Linux on the desktop since 1997, and there was no point where Windows was even slightly more attractive.

I don't know what "prime time" means here.

edit: apart from, you know. Applications and drivers for random hardware.

With prime time I mean being comfortable enough to install it for a non-technical user. Even during Ubuntu's Unity days it didn't feel like I could install it on a computer for my parents or siblings for them to use as a daily driver.

My parents did fine with Linux. My mom still does; it's certainly less maintenance effort from me than Windows would require.

It was fine for non-technical users since at least early GNOME 2, if you're ready to help them set up and maintain. Semi-technical users (Windows power users, gamers, &c — people who like to install and configure things, but fear the deep dark abyss of the terminal) were and remain more problematic.

Unity days were the nadir of linux desktop ux — it was when Gnome 2 was gone, and 3 not yet there. Still better than contemporaneous Windows 8, though.

I can bet there’s no OS that are easy to install for a non-technical user. And that start from booting the installation media. Give someone a OS with their software already installed and they will use whatever OS that is.

People are always task-oriented, not tool oriented unless they’re nerds.

I had Kubuntu installed on my grandfather's computer for a year. I ended up replacing it for Windows because my aunt likes to install stuff on it. But my grandfather was happy with it. He only needed a working web browser and a program to use the TV tunner.

At this point, it isn't clear why federation is in there at all. The "forums, bit twitter" concept does produce nice places, but federation seems like a net negative for that.

Federation is good if you want to stay within a community but also have a chance to interact with others.

I.e. you mostly care about technology foo but occasion delve into epic poetry, and it's nice to interact with both footech.social and epicpoems.read. Also, being able to consume personal publishing (blogs!) from within the same app is quite nice.

Why not several identities, and aggregation in the client? You seem to need to be in the community to fully interact with it on Mastodon, anyway.

The steelman for federation is that email survived the rise of the big platforms despite no-one owning email, so making other applications follow the email model means they too could be free from central ownership.

So did forums, even with no federation.

You'd have to have a lot of trust that the one instance wouldn't get enshittified and end up as another X / Truth Social / BlueSky.

Different instances can also have different rules, different moderation and different federation.

Edit: and exist in different legal jurisdictions, and also be harder to ban or regulate.

Having many instances is not the same as federation.

Isn't one a subset of the other? A system with federation must have multiple instances, but a system with multiple instances doesn't need to federate (in the sense of information passing between independently managed instances.)

Yes. My original question was whether federation is necessary for the kind of communities Mastodon serves, not whether the web must have multiple websites.

The one with the smaller cemetery.

Oh, and you don't hve to use cloud subscription services.

Obsidian is an itertion on text notes. Too many waves of this over the years.

There is indeed a lot of hardware progress, including 3D printing, but also a general shift to laptops, need to sync with phones, much better connectivity, sufficient performance for good video, and high-density screens. Looking at the software I use vs what I used ~2005, most positive changes are due to that.

It's in a stage of the hype cycle where asking that question is pointless.

> That seems mich saner

Normal people just message themselves on tg or wherever you send and receive messages.

Geeks use KDE Connect.

Whatt you do is weird.