Mint Mobile Drops Data Cap from Unlimited Plan cordcuttersnews.com/mint-mobil…
Mint Mobile Drops Data Cap from Unlimited Plan | Cord Cutters News
Mint Mobile is changing the way its users consume unlimited data. According to a post spotted on Reddit, Mint is notifying users that it is goodbye to its 40GB data cap, making it “now truly unlimited.Raymond McCain (Cord Cutters News)
Sonny
in reply to Jordan Petridis • • •Please remove "Hardware Probe" — it is not a desktop application, and has surprising network activity
Flathub DiscourseMatthew Miller
in reply to Jordan Petridis • • •I'm sorry for painting with a too-broad brush in trying to make a distinction. I don't think it's unfair to say that Flathub's requirements (which I have read) are a lower barrier than all this: docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/p…. The Fedora guidelines are much longer and use "must" instead of "should" a lot more times. I also think it's fair to say that developers prefer the Flathub approach. But I shouldn't have made it sound like the wild west.
Earlier in the day, I had checked with someone who should know about the privilege escalation possibility, and it turns out they were mistaken and I repeated that. I'm sorry for that, and glad to be wrong.
I obviously wasn't clear enough to on what I said about the verified check — I certainly didn't think I was saying anything different from your longer version.
Fedora Packaging Guidelines
Fedora DocsMatthew Miller
in reply to Matthew Miller • • •Felipe Borges
in reply to Matthew Miller • • •@mattdm it was @Conan_Kudo who said it.
IMO that Fedora Workstation WG meeting was a shitshow of misinformation going unchallenged. The Fedora Flatpak contributor had a monologue promising he's got most issues fixed, new contributors coming in, etc... Yet nobody was invited to provide a counterargument or offer an app developer's perspective.
Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ)
in reply to Felipe Borges • • •@felipeborges @mattdm It is true though. I attended a Flatpak / Flathub discussion last year at FOSDEM where this was extensively discussed. Not everyone was happy about the topic, but it was a direction that things were going because they wanted ISVs to own the pipeline more.
The examples of OBS and Firefox were literally used in that discussion.
Adrian Vovk
in reply to Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) • • •@Conan_Kudo @felipeborges @mattdm Sure, but presumably that comes with significantly more scrutiny for Flathub's side. I.e. stricter restrictions on static permissions
I didn't participate in the discussions at FOSSDEM, so I'm not sure if that was discussed. I would assume so
Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ)
in reply to Adrian Vovk • • •Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ)
in reply to Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) • • •@AdrianVovk @felipeborges @mattdm The position was that by getting out of this stuff, they can focus more on "storefront" things like publisher verification, payments processing, etc.
There was also an argument that not knowing how the Flatpak is built lowered the risk to Flathub, but I don't really buy that.
Sonny
in reply to Neal Gompa (ニール・ゴンパ) • • •@Conan_Kudo @AdrianVovk @felipeborges @mattdm
The discussion happened, but many people pushed back, and it didn't end with “yeah let's do it”.
I personally think it is a bad idea for OSS, no matter the restrictions.
People should be able to inspect manifests and trust the binary is its output
Maybe @barthalion can shim in about what the plans are.