Facebook is not a universal tool that is used the same way in every country in the world. As a start, there are more Facebook users in Canada both in absolute numbers and percentage of population than in Belarus. Internet censorship also doesn't help.
The countries that would need this the most are usually also the countries where it is the hardest to reach their population from the outside.
The last significant DOSBox update (ignoring 0.74-3 which was not significant) must be over 10 years ago by now. In that time, forks like DOSBox-X have made tremendous progress in compatibility and accuracy. The original DOSBox is essentially frozen in time at this point, with many things not being emulated correctly.
For real. There has to be an RSS fan high up in the company, because RSS allows users to bypass the very thing YT are pushing so hard for i.e. recommendations and shorts.
While the timing with the copy.fail patches mentioned by a few comments here seems suspicious indeed, I have seen this repeating over the last few weeks: packages.ubuntu.com was hardly reachable on some days, causing apt-get to take forever to update the system. They have been struggling hard recently, it seems.
Best of luck to the people having to deal with this mess on a holiday!
The point of coincidental timing with copy.fail patches is that by DDoSing an upgrade mechanism for one of most popular distributions, you extend the time window certain systems remain vulnerable in order to exploit them.
Specifically, it means that more information is required to complete the task (e.g. requesting the filename for saving a file). If the action is literally about opening that dialog (e.g. something like "Show Properties"), the ellipsis is not needed.
The practical use is that the user knows they will still have the opportunity to back out of the operation, and not commit to it by the first click. I don’t think “will need more input” is that useful as an information by itself.
At first I was going to say that the opportunity to back out and the need for more input are identical: if the dialog consists only of a button to proceed and a button to back out, the user needs to choose one of those as input, and eliminating that need for input means eliminating the opportunity to back out.
But now I'm thinking that a need and an opportunity are very distinct. For example, browsers used to present a Save dialog during a download: was there a need for input? No, accepting the default filename works, and based on that, they no longer offer the opportunity to choose a filename. Thus, "..." indicates the opportunity, even if there is no true need.
In addition, if you consider a "Print" dialog, it would be conceivable that it only provides a print preview, but no further inputs, and has only command buttons "Print" and "Cancel". In that case, I still think the menu item should be "Print…" with an ellipsis, despite the lack of further input.
Conversely, you might conceivably have a command that requires additional input, but where the dialog box taking the input doesn't offer the option to cancel the operation. In that case, I would consider an ellipsis misleading, even though a lack of ellipsis might be confusing as well if the command doesn't make sense without additional input.
reply