At what point would they effectively be selling you a VM with 1TB of storage for 4 EUR a month? :D

There is a least one provider that sells a full VM with 1 TB for 5 € a month (AlphaVPS).

Seconded, the Flatpak is the way to go.

I don't think price is the main issue for most people in tech

For many people in tech price of the new MacBook is greater than monthly net salary.

+ 1. to get a usable MBP spec (i.e. at least 1TB disk and 24GB RAM) you’re looking at a 2,689€ price tag here in Germany. Not an issue if it’s company provided, but outside, this is more than two months worth of rent and a substantial part of a post tax income of a software engineer in Germany.

The equivalent Dell Precision laptop is about the same price. A laptop lasts for several years so thats only a few hundred euros per year.

This comment only applies to tech people working in the US, and mostly California.

Depends where you were born ig

I enjoyed their comment, thanks...

You're being a jerk, someone shared something they were proud of that's relevant to the discussion. What's the problem?

> They would be responsible for supporting users in using the server, which could be little or big additional work.

From the MIT license (and similar with many others):

... THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

Obsidian is not open source. And users don't care for this nitpick. For a company it's necessary to maintain an image; leaving your users alone with their problems with your software, is bad marketing.

Exactly - as long as the delivered data is of "expected" quality, I don't (want to) care.

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the ravynos.com's top part of the page performs very poorly under Firefox, most likely due to some animation overload. Was firefox considered in the tests?

It's due to the use of the blur backdrop-filter which seems to have been enabled by default on release builds of Firefox relatively recently.

Interestingly, it's a feature introduced to CSS way back in 2015. There must have been some major blockers on getting that out the door if it took ~7 years.