I think that is the main issue. 90% games is a lot, but is not nearly enough when the most popular multiplayer titles simply do not work due to usage of anti-cheat. For example you cannot play the new Battlefield 6.
As for GIMP, while I understand it can do many things as Photoshop, it is not close in terms of features and the UX is unfortunately terrible.
While I can understand that it's frustrating. Kernel level Anticheat is a abomination in itself and should in no way be supported. It is a security flaw in itself!
It's also unfortunately impossible to have a good competitive multi-player online experience without kernel-level anti-cheat. It's simply too easy to cheat at many of these games in the absence of strict control measures, and even a single cheater can ruin a game session for every other gamer.
No one reached directly for kernel-level anti-cheat. It was the result of an escalation of the sophistication of cheating solutions.
GIMPs UX is wonderful, and Photoshop UX is poison. The problem is that after torturing yourself to learn Photoshop, and sitting in it for 8 hours a day (for many people; I worked in prepress) makes you think that it has been designed rationally rather than simply cobbled together and stuffed with ads. Illustrator, being older, is even worse.
People who work with Photoshop have never worked with any other thing. The way they learned to edit bitmaps was through Photoshop. They can't separate the act and the product in their heads. Thank god for Affinity getting into the mix.
One just has to deal with GIMP as it is, and stop trying to project Photoshop paradigms onto it. People just need to stop thinking of FOSS as the generic, off-brand or ersatz versions that pass or fail due to their degree of imitation of some other product.
IMO, every step GIMP takes towards Photoshop UI is a regression. GIMP's problems have been technical, such as color management and non-destructive editing, and they're gradually falling away.
Anybody who plays games is not happy about this. Activision is the worst of the worst and the Microsoft deal was a chance to make their offering more refined and accessible via GamePass. Especially it was about saving Blizzard from turning into total shitshow. Id this deal will not go through, nothing will change. CoD will remain trash, Diablo IV will have micro-transactions in addition to its $70 price tag.
Unfortunately Microsoft's overall size causes people to have knee-jerk reactions about them being "too big" without looking into the context: Microsoft is in last place in console market share this gen and the previous gen. In the gaming space Microsoft isn't a monopoly, they are the underdog that antitrust is supposed to product.
Anybody who plays games is very happy about this. Activision is the worst of the worst and the Microsoft deal was a chance to cement this problem or make it even worse.
Per the agreement in the deal, when the deal closed Bobby Kotick would be out as CEO and replaced with Phil Spencer who is VERY well respected in the gaming community.
You actually have to make an argument, which you didn't.
The argument for why Microsoft would make things better is that we can look how great Microsoft has been handling similar gaming acquisitions, like Minecraft.
Your "argument" though seems to be repeat back someone else statement while saying "Nuh uhh!".
Do have an actual original thought here, as for why you think Microsoft would make things worse, when the evidence we have shows otherwise?
Or is the extent of your argument "Nuh Uhh!" And "I said the opposite of what you just said!"
Poe's law is difficult. I have no idea whether you actually believe that was the "argument" (nope, not even close) or whether you are trolling. I am going to go with the latter.
MS also puts micro-transactions on their 1st party titles, plus their 1st party titles have not been so great since the Xbox 360 days. Halo is a shade of what it was for example.
Millions of users around the world, including many of the world’s largest organizations, trust Bitwarden to protect their online information using a transparent, open source approach to password management. Open source software sets Bitwarden apart as the solution trusted by businesses and individuals to manage their online information easily and securely.
Our user community loves us and we love them. Come to work each day with a sense of purpose as we bring a more secure internet experience to everyone––from our friends and family to the world’s largest organizations.
I wonder why there hasn't been some rather cheap, open-source solution for home printing? Why does every single printer manufacturer needs to be so scummy? HP, Epson, Conan. They're all horrible in terms of user experience. Is it so difficult to make a $100 printer that just prints? instead of bricking itself everytime it is actually needed.
I expect the answer is that printing is a rat's nest of patent protection, trade secrets, etc.
It's not easy to make a laser printer from scratch.
And now you want a business model based on charging commodity costs for both the hardware and consumables. Which leaves essentially $0 for development costs, which are substantial.
and to an extend how do you keep track of which unique part is active in which site if e.g a website gets hacked and resets your current password, because in case of a password manager i just create a new one and be done, on top of my mind i would have the question for you: would you recreate all websites with a new unique part or just create a system for outliers?
not to offend, just had several of these incidents in my years and for me a password manager is much more piece of mind
As for GIMP, while I understand it can do many things as Photoshop, it is not close in terms of features and the UX is unfortunately terrible.