Isn’t macOS doing that? The Mac App Store only allows sandboxed apps and macOS allows almost only apps from the store to be installed (+ certified developers) unless you change the system's settings.
On macOS some protection was added, so apps cannot write to system protected directories.
But I was talking about all files that app creates. Like files in home dir (eg. ~/Library). If you remove the app, those files stay there and occupy space.
The only way you can partly clean up the mess, is to delete home dir from time to time (but backup important files first). Even then, there might still be files in /usr/local etc.
A macOS app installed from the app store can only write to ~/Library/Containers/name.of.app.bundle. Those are not automatically trashed (as far as I know), but it is much easier to clean than the whole ~/Library. Actually, if all your apps are in /Applications it would be easy to write a small script that deletes everything in Containers that's a: not from Apple and b: doesn't have a app bundle identifier in /Applications
TBH I didn't know about that. Probably same situation is with Windows UWP apps installed from store (but there is special permission to grant access to whole fs, which allow app write outside it's sandbox dir). Anyway there are so many apps that are not installed from app stores. IMO having proper sandbox is still a thing in 2018.
The app I use to do that is literally called AppCleaner, been using it for years it’s one of the first things I install.
For example, the other day I moved Word to the trash, 5 seconds later I get the AppCleaner pop up letting me know it found an additional 2GB of shit that Word just littered around my machine that wouldn’t have gotten removed by just deleting the app. And unfortunately, that definitely hasn’t even been the worst offender I’ve run into, and at this point I’m very rarely not surprised by the amount of leftover crap that doesn’t get removed when deleting an app.
I call about 2 hours a week and still manage to use my phone more than 20 hours a week. Is calling still the primary function of my "phone"?
We just call it phone because that's what we attached a computer to, but it's more like a pocket computer with LTE modem for most people. I'd call it Pocket PC if I could!
Microsoft's trademark on Pocket PC is most likely dead, as it hasn't been seen in commerce in a long time, so you can probably call whatever you like a Pocket PC
In many countries they're just called "mobiles" or something to that effect in the local language. Originally short for "mobile phone" but it shortens down nicely generic.
Most standalone browsers use WKWebView, which is a WebKit-based UI component that applications can interact with. SFSafariViewController is more appropriate for in-app browsers, because it provides UI and has very few customization points.
Most small apps have ditched the web view for safari due to speed, maintenance, and integration with things like password management and content blocker support - but the big guys like Google and FB which don't want to support an ad blocking vector or native share extensions still tend to use the WK framework.
WkWebView is used a lot in apps to present content that isn't immediately obviously web content, rather it is just using HTML/CSS as a presentation layer. One example is the activity feed in Instagram - I only know this because once upon a time the page lost CSS on a reload and I got to see it in all its link-blue-bordered glory.
The Safari controller is for when you're linking out to an external web site and want the user to behave the way they would in a normal browsing session.
A notable reason to use UIWebView is that it allows for changing network requests (for example, to add special headers). WKWebView does not because it runs out-of-process. So some of the web views you're seeing might actually be UIWebViews, depending on the context you're seeing them in.
Yes, you create your own. In my example of the Instagram activity feed you'd point the view at instagram://activity-view or something like that in order to intercept the request and send a custom response. You could use the same method to "proxy" through to HTTP.
Like I mentioned, SFSafariViewController and WKWebView serve fundamentally different purposes; the former is for when you are trying to open a link and don't particularly care how it would be shown, and this would replace your own custom in-app browser implementation or opening links in Safari. The latter is used when you want to display a webpage and have full control over the content and the surrounding chrome, which makes it useful as both a general-purpose embedding view as well as the centerpiece of your browser app.
There's no reason to commit your dependencies if your intent is security. Just use the lock file. The packages won't change on npm and you'll always get the same version for all sub-dependencies.
Perhaps, but building from a controlled body of code fully under your own control also has some big advantages over the typical package management and development culture in the JS world, which I think it's fair to say has been a pretty good representation of how not to do robust, professional software development for years.
This article is about the latest high-profile mess with event-stream, but it follows years of interrupted work because NPM was down again, several generations of tools that couldn't meet basic requirements like reproducible builds, excessive dependence on near-trivial packages like left-pad, and of course the overall problem that managing thousands of such dependencies is basically an impossible problem and inevitably leads to problems with trust, reliability, licensing and legal matters, and so on.
Well, just an actual HTTP proxy would work for that, properly tuned. But the JS world mostly doesn't bother, maybe due to long history as a browser-based language, where the webserver serves that function for the browser.
The ones who do are focused on caching private npm servers like verdaccio.
It probably is fair to say that the state-of-the-art tools for JS development today are at least 1-2 decades behind the state-of-the-art for programming more generally. Trying to build larger applications in JS is a relatively new thing, and a community full of people who are enthusiastic and keen to do new things but often lacking in experience with larger and more long-lived software systems is getting a crash course in what does and doesn't work at that scale. Give it another 5-10 years and/or the more dramatic replacement of JS with better languages if new possibilities like WebAssembly change the landscape, and hopefully more of the experience will transfer over and the tools will catch up.
npm handles sub-dependencies with ease so people aren't afraid to pull in smaller dependencies.
Also since the code has to be downloaded (or uploaded to small lambdas, for example), JS developers are generally weary of depending on large libraries.
>Also since the code has to be downloaded (or uploaded to small lambdas, for example), JS developers are generally weary of depending on large libraries.
Isn't a dependency tree of thousands of small, interdependent libraries essentially just a large, distributed library?
Is there really a benefit to that versus compiling those dependencies to a single file, especially given how many NPM packages are just a single small function? The end result in many cases would probably be smaller than a lot of old JQuery plugins.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t fix it. But using a workaround until they do is probably not a bad idea. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a quick fix seeing how this is less than ideal for 10 years already.
Most Italian words pretty much match their IPA representation, minus the pretty regular exceptions like Q, C, G, Z and H and the rare irregularity.
It may be difficult to an anglophone, but I'd argue that the phonetic irregularities of English are much more of a problem to a learner. "though/tough/through" never happens in Italian.
agreed, the accent location (stressed syllabe) comes down to knowing the word, but only a few cases of wrong accent give you a different word... in english you can change the word by mispronouncing the lenght of the first vowel in words like sheet, beach... both long vowel, different way to write it... although I'm sure I'm being imprecise on "long vowel" (don't know anything about phonetics), but I can't think of an example of non-accent based, italian equivalent
That's a good way to see it, but the copy-paste comparison is bad. Copy-paste is so low-level that I can do everything with it, without the iOS having to wait years to get the functionality (if ever)
e.g. I want to translate a message. Either I wait for every messenger/OS to get a decent in-app translator, or I use copy-paste into Google Translate — very clunky, but better than not being able to.
The copy paste is bad indeed. But for me it was the first time I saw the difference between what I want and what I need in software. Apple was definitely to late with adding it to their iOS and has not been active enough in providing proper alternatives to copy and pasting like I mention above. Although I'm somewhat of an Apple fanboy (no iphone btw), they really disappointed me with this.
But with most things people hate change and will often not adopt to new things. The famous non Henry Ford quote comes to mind: If you asked people what they want they would wanted a faster horse (and not a car).
I think I'm just sour Apple didn't seize their opportunity to provide the proper alternate solutions for copy paste (before/alongside with it) when they had the chance.
I don't know what the current state on iOS is, but on android you often have context buttons (dial, navigate) next to copy/paste buttons when you select a address or phone number.
Accepting 1500 friends and then complaining they’re too many. Who’s to blame here?
Facebook is what you make of it. It offers relatively granular control over who you want to see so if even you must be friends with someone, you can still unfollow them.
Surely the default is a bit annoying, especially when joining groups, but those can be unfollowed too.
The only thing I can complain about is “your friend reacted to or commented on some post” I don’t care about. That’s Facebook’s fault but your friends are your fault. Most of the time I add friends and promptly unfollow them because they share memes.
> Facebook is what you make of it. It offers relatively granular control over who you want to see so if even you must be friends with someone, you can still unfollow them.
Recent events have demonstrated that the privacy controls are not what people think they are. Cambridge Analytica was able to access data belonging to the friends of people who granted certain permissions, and there was a recent data breach caused by a bug in an impersonation feature. Advertisers are able to see quite a lot of information too.
I don't think this is related to what bfred_it is saying.
To me, he's saying "if you have 1500 friends, use Facebook's follow/unfollow feature to improve your S/N ratio while still being friends with those people." That is, rather than privacy (controlling outgoing information), he's discussing the ability to filter incoming information.
I started getting friend suggestions from facebook very regularly about 6 months ago. They show up as notifications and there are typically more suggestions then actual direct communication notifications. I used to see things like: you were tagged in photo, friend commented on your post, etc. Now all I see is: you might know John Johnson. I don't even see a setting to disable these suggestions. So it's not surprising to me how people end up with 1500 friends.
A computer match wouldn’t have either