Idk about that, Gabe did a bunch of interviews around the time of windows 8 saying that signed app requirements and the windows store fiat that MS was trying to implement was an “existential threat” to valve and that they needed to migrate to a neutral OS as much as possible.

I’d argue that what we’re seeing now from valve is the fruits of a 10+ year campaign to undermine windows. And MS has been digging their own trench undermining windows at the same time, making their job even easier lol

But idk if it’s fair to call what valve is doing as “don’t worry about the competition” - I just think they (accurately) view MS as their competition instead of epic or EA or whoever is trying to do pc game stores

Thank you!

Cool but you are actually wrong. I’m not even the first guy you were arguing with. It works you’re just bad at computer and that’s OK

No u

You said “no screen sharing software works on it”. If “it” is anything other than your POS laptop, then you’re a fucking liar

What you said is literally incorrect. There are screen sharing applications that work on Wayland. I just used one ten minutes ago.

Dark Place was amazing and stupid. Totally forgot about that one

Many GraphQL and gRPC APIs do exactly that and return HTTP 200 even if the request didn’t auth.

Just because you are heavily biased toward using HTTP status for application layer errors doesn’t make it right. It is so wildly common that people can’t imagine it working another way, and I get that.

But it’s not “wrong” to do application layer auth status codes and apply no transport layer auth status codes It’s just a different paradigm than most devs are used to.

What do you mean? You can literally run GraphQL without HTTP. This isn’t just a GraphQL-ism, gRPC also does it https://grpc.io/docs/guides/status-codes/

I understand that most people use GraphQL over HTTP and that from a developer perspective you’d rather have HTTP status codes like every other REST API. To which I’d say, why don’t you just use REST instead?

There are a bunch of legitimate reasons why a clean separation of transport layer and application layer makes sense - you just aren’t using them so it feels like an arbitrary frustration to you.

Have you ever run an application like a golang REST API behind an envoy or nginx proxy or load balancer and gotten an HTTP status 500 back and wrongly assumed it was coming from your application/golang code, only to later find it was a problem at the proxy or load balancer? If so, you’ve experienced the misdirection of combining transport and application layer being forced to share a status field. This isn’t a trivial example - time is wasted every day by developers misdiagnosing errors originating from transport as application errors, and vice versa.

You might not like it, but separating them IS smart design.

That’s true, but for a good reason. GraphQL is transport agnostic, so using HTTP status to represent errors doesn’t make sense. HTTP is just a carrier for GraphQL, and the status code represents whether or not the HTTP part was successful.

Can we try to land him in his stupid fucking orbiting car or whatever