Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bigjay517's commentslogin

I find that Logi Options+ mostly just stays hidden and works. It does use more RAM than I'd like (125.8MB right now). When it does break it's disruptive, or they add some feature I don't want.

- AI Prompting (enabled by default)

- Auto update stuck wasting CPU cycles

- The recent certificate issue

I'd like to find a replacement because I am annoyed by it, but I have not found a replacement that matches ALL of the features I use from Options+.

I keep the default settings in Options+ but in my testing I can't match all the same behavior with the 3rd party solutions:

- Pointer acceleration

- Workspace switching speed

- Smooth scrolling speed / acceleration

Scrolling is usually my main problem where scrolling in one direction jumps in the wrong direction first before correcting. This is most noticeable when scrolling line by line.

I've tested all the 3rd party options mentioned here(with the exception of Mouser). Does anyone else have these problems with the 3rd party alternatives?


I’ve been using the offline version of Options+ that somebody recommended me a while back, it removes AI and auto updating and has done the job for me.

It’s kind of hidden on their website but you can grab it here:

https://hub.sync.logitech.com/options/post/logi-options-offl...

That said I think this will be my last Logitech device. They’re just not very durable products and die too quickly


Thanks for pointing this out. I had no idea it existed. The other options in the comments just didn't quite work the way I would like.

- The main topic requires me to pull python dependencies, build, run manually on Mac - All others can't reassign the button below the scroll wheel on the MX Master 3/4


I switched to the offline version right after Logitech forcefully and without my permission downloaded and installed bunch of crap software on my Mac. I was furious that a stupid mouse driver app has the right to install a random crapware. I’m still fuming about it when I remember it.

> It does use more RAM than I'd like (125.8MB right now).

For me it regularly ballooned to 1+ GB somehow, until I removed it entirely in favor of BetterMouse.


125.8MB right now

20 years ago that would be insane (many machines still had only 512MB of RAM total), and "AI Prompting" sounds like satire, and yet this is the reality we're in now --- all that just to configure a mouse.

Personally my mouses don't need anything more than the OS' default settings.


My first machine with a mouse had 1 meg of ram. Mouse.sys was loaded into himem from memory and used something like 30kb of precious memory.

My first wheel mouse which looks exactly like my current mouse ran on my 4meg 486.


Even back then we were looking for alternative mouse drivers with lower memory footprints, though =D some wouldn't load high (or not work im games when they were). Conventional memory was such a precious resource in DOS. With a bad mouse driver, you might've had to choose between having sound or mouse control in your game.

For emulated systems, I mostly use CuteMouse now, which occupies less than 4 kB. It sure would've been nice to have had that back in the day.


Is this really true? Looking at the Yubikey Shop I see that the purchase page explicitly states that the key is shipped with Firmware 5.7 (the fixed version). If a device is received with the old firmware, I would believe that this not intentional and support would resolve the problem.


They're still selling the FIPS series with firmware 5.4: https://www.yubico.com/us/product/yubikey-5-fips-series/yubi...


This is a good point. I think a simple remedy would be to include the IP the server should allow connections from as part of the authenticated payload from the client in the request.


That defeats the purpose of port knocking. If you know which IP connections comes from and you trust it - just allow connections in firewall. Port knocking is for temporary allowing certain incoming IPs.


I actually have switched to Localsend from Pairdrop. My experience is that is Pairdrop is slow especially compared to Localsend. This is while hosting the application on my local network.

I do prefer the WebApp approach so I don't have to install something on each machine before sharing files, but the bug ticket in Pairdrop does not make me hopeful for a good solution (see: https://github.com/schlagmichdoch/PairDrop/issues/44)

Are you able to achieve similar performance in Pairdrop that you did with Localsend?


I haven't compared performance, as it's not a bottleneck for me. A 70mb file took a few seconds. Localsend could very well be faster, being a native app.


The comments I am reading here seem to imply that this is more privacy invasive than tracking cookies. Steve Gibson did an analysis on Topics and his conclusion was that this is an approach to provide targeted ads (which websites need to make money) without being invasive.

Here is a link to his podcast where he explains the specification: https://twit.tv/shows/security-now/episodes/935?autostart=fa...

Although if you believe that being online you should be 100% anonymous and share 0% of personal data then of course Topics is not good (but then no other ad targeting solution will be either).


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: