Thanks to you I found something really useful. With this I can finally have the convenient replacement for the good old private window which gets overused for logging in to multiple accounts simultaneously.
An incredible project considering the average longevity of other vim key browsers and their limited communities. This one is loads better with a good renderer unlike most light weight browsers. (Qtwebengine which is just qt for blink because webkit is old now). It even has adblock.
Also, QtWebEngine isn't just Blink. It's basically a stripped down version of Chromium as a library, also containing things like the network stack, the JS engine (V8), etc.
Not all systems support qtwebengine (by support I mean: have the current version of qt), and the developer still has qtwebkit as a fallback. Both implementations differ a lot, and I'm happily impressed to see support for both at the same time!
Or OpenMW which does the same thing for Morrowind (The Elder Scrolls 3). The main difference here being it runs on Linux natively and fixes tons of engine bugs that never were. They even have their own map editor for Morrowind which is just awesome.
Engines are easier compared to the assets. You only need programmers writing code (hard but easier than finding teams to work on assets)
I think upx is more useful for static binaries like that of Haskell applications which is kinda huge. (GHC produces huge binaries - eg. pandoc or ghc-mod). A 100 something mb binary is not what you usually have. UPX can work its magic stuff like that. More manageable not necessarily essential but when you need it you need it badly.
When I first found upx I did this a couple of times only to fail pretty badly and then I stopped doing it. This was like 7-8 years ago when I first tried the portable version. Never found the cause till today.
Does proper version control mean using github or just a git repo or something of that sort? I guess the developer wants to keep it a single dev project (old fashioned but the small project size means it doesn't make a big difference).[1]
The .NET stack inside UWP is .NET Core (for the most part), but the UI stack of UWP is WinRT controls [you can read that as modern COM controls] implemented mostly in C/C++ and directly a part of Windows.
So .NET Core doesn't benefit from UWP UI library, but UWP typically benefits from .NET Core upgrades.
If keepass were a .net standard library, you could have different front-ends for various platforms. Making the front-end crossplatform is a good goal too. I'm sure you could use bindings to Qt or gtk. There's various native crossplatform front-ends in the works too. See my comments below.
This may be because there is so much low quality stuff everywhere while only the good and high quality ones survived from the past (Survival of the fittest I guess). So the past looks like it was all good but the present is mostly rubbish.
