Assuming this is a sincere question...there are a good number of reasons for this.

For starters, it seems that there is an assumption that as long as a particular category of software is available, that it is interchangeable with industry standards. KDenLive is indeed great software, but exceedingly few third party plug-ins support it. I recently purchased Beauty Box to help smooth out some overly hard face lighting; I don't think KDenLive supports this, or most other plug-ins that are used by many creatives. KDenLive doesn't import most forms of project files, and while I might be able to get at least some older projects imported via EDL, it's still a headache to implement. Scribus is good if you're starting out with it and have a background in DTP, but it's neither as simple to use for novices as Canva, nor is it truly familiar to InDesign users, nor can it open existing Quark files. You're right that there are plenty of good games for Linux, but that doesn't help if your friends are playing Fortnite.

More to the point, while Linux is easier than ever to migrate to (especially with so much software being browser-based these days; not sure if it's a "win" if people can use Linux because all the software they depend on can't run on their own computer irrespective of the OS), it's still not something that can be expressly selected. The closest there's been has been ChromeOS on a Chromebook, but none of the listed software works on a Chromebook, and even if it did, they tend to be pretty poorly spec'd, because their job is to run Chrome, and nothing else.

Pretty much everyone in the corporate world, from your tax professional to your dentist to the CnC mill that makes the parts for your car/bus/helicopter, to sign maker who silkscreens awnings, and 1,001 businesses in between, have line-of-business software that simply doesn't exist elsewhere. Even LibreOffice is pretty hit-or-miss with macro compatibility, and while they're used less than they used to be, they're mission critical where they still exit.Oh, and Linux still has no meaningful alternative to Quickbooks, which most small businesses run (despite Intuit seeming to see if they can out-evil Oracle).

Sure, some of it is moving to browser-based SaaS (congrats, Linux became viable by virtue of users losing control of their software *and* the data it creates), but even if a business were to be able to perfectly align their use case with software available for Linux, basing their business on it would mean that any future software would *also* require Linux compatibility...and the first time that roadblock was reached is the last time Linux would run in that environment. There are areas where Linux can still make inroads like point-of-sale and digital signage, but on desktops? The trajectory for success in that arena seems to be by removing software from the desktop at all; I'm pretty sure that's worse than Windows.

So yeah, it's great that Linux is more viable than it's ever been, and I have tremendous respect for all of the developers who have worked so hard to provide an alternative to many commonly used software titles to make it viable to leave Microsoft behind. Unfortunately, it's almost as impossible for volunteer efforts to effectively displace solutions filled with career coders, as it is for companies to sustain themselves by releasing FOSS software. That is, examples exist, but unfortunately, they're the exception, not the rule.

Because Proxmox Backup Server has a number of limitations.

Can I add an SMB or NFS location for backup? Only if I mount it in /etc/fstab and tell PBS to pretend it's a folder; it doesn't allow LAN storage natively as a repo.
Can I back up to a cloud repository? Only with some very hackneyed, unsupported workaround.
Can I back up to rotated USB drives? Not if there's an incremental chain involved.

So, Proxmox Backup Server is pretty good if the destination is the internal storage of the backup server or a tape drive. Anything beyond that and PBS starts showing its limits. Also, my server does this odd thing where every so often, one of the LXC containers don't want to take a snapshot and it causes the entire host to go wonky and leaves the LXC container in a locked state with a partial snapshot. ...So yeah, PBS is a good start, but it's not a replacement for the dedicated products in the space.

yes, because it also has a row of common symbols, as well as completely disabling autocorrect. No more adding exceptions for sid, awk, and capitalization...and it ALWAYS has an 'enter' button, which i appreciate even outside of JuiceSSH because I can always create a new line in apps that replace 'enter' with 'send'.

So, two things.

First off, the mint leaf is green. Even if the extract is clear, far more people would associate green with a mint flavor for that reason.

Second, it's a visual cue that distinguishes mint chocolate chip from regular chocolate chip. For those who have a strong preference or aversion, it helps in the decision making process regarding whether to consume, or how much.

To your point, I'd probably prefer a tint of green closer to a mint leaf, or perhaps actual mint leaves in the ice cream to accomplish this goal, but I do think there is at least some reason why mint chocolate chip ice cream is traditionally green.

THIS is the sort of content I still come to Slashdot for.

I don't think it's actually working.

Yes, the numbers look good *right now*, at the one-year mark, because of purely artificial reasons. Most companies who had annual support contracts probably needed to renew them while they worked on moving away, so of course they bought the biggest bundle to ensure there weren't any licensing woes for the interim.

I'm pretty sure that nearly all of them have already invested into some sort of not-VMWare solution, be it Nutanix or Hyper-V or Proxmox, and have moved at least some of the workload to those. As the hosts can be freed up and converted, and as SANs are restructured or replaced, and as things that were candidates for AWS/Azure migration are migrated, there will be fewer and fewer VMs on VMWare hosts.

Proxmox's live migration tool is still in alpha mode, and Veeam's support for Proxmox is functional, but unpolished. Nakivo and a few other backup solutions also support Proxmox / Nutanix / Xen, or are in the process of implementing it.

The question wasn't whether renewals would look good *this* year, it's what they look like *next* year. The problem with 300% YoY growth is that the suits are going to want growth on top of that next year. If they squeeze that hard, again, the fearful suckers will learn that they'll either have to move, or hand *their* bonus checks over to VMWare.

Will VMWare be able to survive on 1,000 customers writing seven figure checks or more? Probably, but catering exclusively to whales means that losing even one of them means missing revenue forecasts. It also means that they're unlikely to find any new clients, making it harder to replace those whales.

Now, to another commenter's point, it's entirely possible that this acceptable to a good number of folks - as long as the acquisition breaks even and they show enough YoY growth to cash their check and leave someone else holding the bag, they achieved their goal, and a second year of $15B gross revenue is likely enough to ensure the checks clear. Anyone relying on those numbers in year three, however, is likely to find themselves in a similar spot as anyone currently holding on to NFTs.

With the semi-exception of Hacker Keyboard (which I use when I'm using a CLI on my phone due to it having all the useful CLI buttons that most other keyboards don't), Swype is *still* the best keyboard on the market, and it saddens me that I can't seem to get it to run on Android 15, even with the custom APKs from XDA and installing via USB Debug with the SDK override...

Don't be ridiculous. Both Google and Microsoft (and Mozilla, apparently) have the same M.O.: unnecessary, overreaching, unilateral, anti-consumer data collection is okay when WE do it.

I'm surprised that no one has yet pointed out the hypocrisy on this matter.

Yes, obviously, I agree with him that the UK is overstepping. However, back in 2016, his solution to the FBI's inability to unlock the iPhone of the San Bernadino shooter was for the general public to boycott Apple until Apple decided it was willing to give the FBI the passcode.

Now, it's possible that his mindset on the matter has evolved over the past decade. Perhaps he's gotten an ever-so-slightly better understanding of the problems with government back doors, perhaps the mindset has shifted due to personal experience on the matter...and possibly, it's nothing more than "do the opposite of what other governments are doing which causes controversy with their citizens". ...however the fact that *he* has not acknowledged the fact that he went from "boycott Apple to punish them for not giving up information they totally have", to "the UK shouldn't have the sort of back door that would be super helpful for law enforcement", is pretty telling.

I don't think that was it. It certainly didn't help, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that the phone number method was the sole, or even primary, reason for this.

I think that most of the IM services of the 90's had trouble making the transition to the mobile space. I'm hard-pressed to think of even one that managed to make the transition. Most surprising to me was AIM; they had mobile apps before smartphones were a thing - it was possible to use AIM on a Motorola Razr, and Cingular (later AT&T) even had commercials advertising this service.

For AIM specifically, I know that one of the challenges was how many people just left it online, with an indefinite away message, or logged in under the invisible mode, where they wouldn't appear as online unless they sent a message first. If you don't know who's really reachable or not, it made instant messaging unreliable. SMS, however, was a bit better of a system - people didn't *have* to answer immediately, but the message would be delivered to their phone. Facebook solved this pretty well by having the default being "if you're on the website, you're reachable, period" - I think Facebook's system was the nail in the coffin for AIM/MSN/ICQ/YM, and they were fortunate enough to do it with better timing.

Skype lasted a bit longer than the others, I think, due to voice calls. It was a better-than-most solution, especially since international calls were cheap, giving it a niche that lasted for quite a while. It was good as an IM client, but when standard 1/8" microphones had a "works with Skype" logo on their boxes when displayed at Best Buy or Office Depot, you know that voice calls were particularly important.

What I really think killed Skype though, wasn't (just) Microsoft - it was WhatsApp. What was incredible to me the first time I traveled to Central America was how many businesses prominently displayed their WhatsApp number, with their phone number and website being an afterthought. Some businesses - with storefronts - didn't have anything *but* a WhatsApp number for contact. Perhaps, to your point, the ability for WhatsApp to use a phone number helped solidify it to handle voice calls much more seamlessly, enabling it to become a 'killer app' for smartphones in many regions.

While Skype wasn't doing *great* in the IM wars of the 2000s (the MSN Messenger transition and the Skype-for-Business debacle certainly doing no favors), its niche was entirely taken over by The Green App.

Most valets I've worked with are pretty good at remembering faces. Asking the person to describe their car is a good start; if the face and the car both look familiar, that's usually a step in the right direction. Showing the receipt from the restaurant is also helpful; if the valet ticket is roughly an hour older than the receipt, the person probably came in at the right time, and someone attempting to socially engineer a car theft would have had to walk to the restaurant and order dinner, leaving just a minute or two before the person who's car is looking to be stolen.

In an extreme case, one could probably use the registration in the car, or its license plate, to call the local PD and get the name of the car's owner, then compare it to the driver's license of the person requesting the car. Parking garages tend to have similar systems in place; I've lost my ticket once or twice, and have simply shown my driver's license to receive my car back.

"but what if it's a rental!" or something like that, you say...we're starting with a corner case (a lost ticket, which happens very rarely since it really could have only been lost in a finite period of time, in a finite location), and we're adding in an even more extreme case of that happening with a rental. That sort of one-in-ten-thousand case can be handled by managers and supervisors who's job includes training on extreme examples, and what the company policies are about them.

None of this is unsolvable without an app.

"So, we're at an impasse. I'm not downloading an app or going to a website or creating an account. If you can't valet my car without involving a smartphone, I'll park somewhere else, probably at a different restaurant."

A variant of this: keeping a dumbphone in the car, even as a prop. "I only have a dumbphone; can I not park my car here?" can help with this, too.

One of the things i've found despressing, along this vein, is at the airport, when the TSA wants to take one of those FaceID photos. Last time I was at the airport, there were three different places where they indicated that the photo was optional...and yet I was the *only* person opting out. It took no less time for the agent to eyeball my passport, but everyone just went along with the facial recognition photos.

*we* decide who gets the information...and I get less spam e-mails and texts and targeted ads than almost everyone else who doesn't make it a point to opt-out.

Apple is no longer encrypting iCloud data because of a back door request?

The UK government shouldn't have one, sure, but it sounds like Apple's solution to "one too many people having a key" is "nobody needs a key". I don't like that my landlord has a key to my apartment, but I don't think the solution is to remove the lock on the doorknob and make the data that much more vulnerable.

It probably would make more sense for the iCloud screen to have a permanent yellow triangle in the UK, with a banner that says "warning: data stored here may be accessed by law enforcement at any time without your consent." It raises awareness while also providing a certain amount of security from non-government entities. The banner could also turn red if the key is ever suspected of being compromised.

Why go full-decryption instead?

The problem is that HP printers - primarily the home user inkjet ones - require phone calls in the first place.

The HP Smart app, and the mandate for an online account to scan to a computer on the same LAN, and the InstantInk subscriptions that are the default without necessarily being clear, and the tying of a printer to an online account with a highly obfuscated means of avoiding it...I'm sure that many, many of the support calls can be tied to these things.

So, it seems like a self-inflicted wound. I'll still sometimes opt for HP Enterprise printers that still avoid most of this, but comparatively few people are willing to start the bidding for their new printer at $1,200. Canon and Brother have still managed to avoid the worst of this anti-consumer push in their $300-$700 product ranges.

They may not have. Don't forget about the 2017 hack of a casino who's point of entry was a fish tank. Assuming the fish tank appliance was able to function as an SSH proxy, all one had to do is configure Firefox to send its traffic through the fish tank, and boom! 'internal' access to the firewall's webUI.

Also, I've had situations where firewall rules on DMZ/Guest networks could still technically access the WebUI - they couldn't log in even with admin credentials, but the page loaded.

Some firewalls have a WebUI in place for VPN users to log in and get the VPN client or to set up TOTP-based 2FA. It's unclear from the summary whether the VPN WebUI (if any) was vulnerable to this exploit, but such a page would necessarily need to be publicly accessible.

There's always the classic "We are Online Support Department, your computer is compromised, we must do the needful...", which can get enough access to leave a RAT, which in turn allows access to the firewall later, even if admin credentials aren't present on the machine itself.

So, yes, having the WebUI publicly accessible is dumb. However, the concern about the exploit is that there's more to the attack vector than simply allowing the WebUI to be remotely accessible.