I'm aware. What does it change?

It directly addresses your complaint, a confusing complaint to make if you were already aware that Linux and Windows versions are coming soon.

Unless, of course, you're holding out for, I don't know, a BeOS version.

I just don't think one can seriously say "Orion browser is a thing" if it is definitely not a thing for 95% desktops out there (the exact % may be different depending on the source of data, etc.). And Windows (around 70% of the market share) version is not expected until late 2026.

What an incredibly unfair and even fanatical take on what happened.

Apparently I'm a downvote bot, a honeypot and member of a mob. My life is much more exciting than I realized!

Your repeated unsubstantiated claims about GrapheneOS just don't ring true with my experience as a user across multiple devices for years. It is an excellent AOSP fork, and has numerous security and privacy enhancements. Every time I've asked you to explain your position, you fall back on, "do your own research." I've done plenty and it's why I switched to GrapheneOS and remain on it.

LineageOS is great for its purpose: supporting a long tail of legacy devices. But as a result it is less secure than stock AOSP. Switching a recent Pixel from GrapheneOS to LineageOS is a baffling proposal for all but the tiniest of edge cases.

A site in '96 would have been built largely with tables, not CSS. CSS didn't become a thing until a couple of years later.

I know this because I'm still salty about the transition. For all of CSS's advantages, we lost something when we largely moved away from tables.

We lost something for a time but flex box and CSS grid (which came more recently) are objectively better than tables.

How are they objectively better? They seem way too complex for me

You can still use tables.

Of course, as implied by, "we largely moved away from tables."

> It is a dodgy Android distro for several reasons.

What are these reasons?

> LineageOS has no such shenanigans nor has a pattern of suspicious funding.

What pattern of suspicious funding?

There are threads on YC almost every week/month promoting that dodgy distro. Inside them are the comments with proper details from plenty of other YC users.

For the sake of avoiding repetition or bias, just do your own research. There is a search box at the end of the page.

> That distro is seriously not good for your privacy.

How so?

> DYR (deeper)

Care to help with that?

That distro is promoted ad nauseam here, most cybersecurity experts write their arguments to warn people but it gets tiresome to repeat the same arguments over and over again every week.

There is a search box on the bottom of this page, just research for yourself and learn what this is about.

> is it time to worry?

Shouldn't the device be the judge of that?

The GGP's comparison was KDE vs. macOS, so that's the most charitable interpretation I can think of.

The comparison also holds. With every major release macOS has become more like iOS and iPadOS much more so than iOS and iPadOS have become like macOS.

It's a shift I loathe, but Apple has a much harder time selling Macs to iDevice owners than the other way around. It's an understandable and maybe even unavoidable shift for Apple to make, much as it will drive a small number of die-hards elsewhere.

As someone who does not use Stage Manager, I don't find that the other ways macOS has become more like iOS were, to me, bad ways. The most notable changes I find were that the Settings app became far more organized and consistent, and the Control Center has tons of convenient shortcuts with a very high level of customization.

In fact, Control Center is currently less customizable than iOS because you've been able to fully rearrange the controls on iOS for an entire year now. If anything, it could stand to be more like iOS in that regard, though it's not a huge deal either way.

I don't particularly use widgets much either, but I never felt their inclusion was a net negative, they're just not as useful as other interfaces already available on macOS.

One thing I'll definitely cede though: having some "macOS" apps actually be iOS apps, like Home, is weird not just because the UI design is unusual but also because there's been no attempt to make standard desktop hotkeys work, not even Esc.

Good news, maybe: macOS 26's Control Center is much more like iOS in that way, and they've also added an API that will let third-party apps offer their own control center widgets.

I think the broader point here is that regulation is a double-edged sword. There's an argument to be made that a body which has the power to impose a particular charging port on your phone also has the power to impose what it would view as 'common sense' chat control and CSAM scanning.

Europe went from many years of regulating cell phones to mostly ensure they don't cause interference or spontaneously combust, to fairly rapidly achieving a normalized position of regulating ports, app stores, and software. (I suppose another way of looking at it is that the EU didn't seem to much mind when Nokia dictated most everyone's charging ports.)

I'm not taking a position on one side or the other on the above, there are compelling arguments for and against both, and millennia of political philosophy has attempted to grapple with the issue of how much power the people should permit the state to have, what those checks and balances should be, and how they should be enforced. Some will reliably naively assert we should only permit well-informed, well-intentioned, good-hearted people to enter into positions of power, but we've seen that play out too many times for it to be considered a viable assumption.

So a discussion worth having is whether existing constraints apply, and if not, what hard constraints can be placed on regulators to limit them from acts like this? We've normalized their ability to regulate the device industry to this degree, and they're overstepping. Does Title II Article 7 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the European Union prevent this? Or is a new solution needed?

Universal charger = good

STASI/GESTAPO 2.0 = bad

To the rest... install Tox, QTox/UTox for PC (any OS) and Atox under Android. Never post personal data, ever.

Learn to set up i2pd on Trisquel/Ubuntu distros and set it as a daemon. Set up Links with 127.0.0.1:4444 as the proxy for everything and MARK the checkbox that says "tunnel everything to proxy" or similar. Disable cookies in the settings and DO NOT login to any web. Don't use "links -g", but "links in the terminal".

After you finish setting it up, save the settings.

Do the same with IRC clients, prefer simple ones such as IRC. Be aware to delete ANY metada and don't put your username as the login one under Unix/Linux, ever.

Get some Mutt config for it for the tunnel at /etc/i2pd/i2pd-tunnel.conf. Again, if it's a bit technical, use Claws Mail and disable any enabled metadata for your account.

> Universal charger = good

> STASI/GESTAPO 2.0 = bad

That much is obvious.

The problem is when you delegate power and authority to a body which enables them to impose both, you're going to wind up with the port first, Gestapo second.

Edit: Your edit thereafter is all a nice idea, but not a viable solution, as the same body could classify much of what you describe as criminal activity. That, and a solution which requires everyone to live like La Résistance in perpetuity is not a solution, but a precursor.

Would you pursue that line of justification if the issue were ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, and/or gender expression? I'm not saying you should or shouldn't, and there are sound arguments for and against equating those things, but it seems like it merits consideration before one comments, not after.