I mean, they haven’t had that much trouble. Last I checked they had portions of the French and German governments using Matrix as a secure messenger. (To be fair, those both came after the rename.)
My personal experience with computer monitors is that they work great except they always seem to cheap out on speakers if they have built in speakers. Tiny, tinny things whose volume is always way too low.
I don’t mind having separate speakers, but once in a while it would be nice to not need them.
You actually can buy quality dumb TVs, but you have to do the legwork and do research on what are often referred to as “commercial displays.” I see them everywhere in businesses for ads and showing the menu. They’re sometimes a little pricier, but they’re usually built a little “beefier” too, as they’re expected to deal with more rough usage in like a restaurant context.
However, the other solution is the one you’ve already mentioned where you never plug the Smart TV into the internet, and instead bypass the “smart” on the TV with your own streaming boxes.
I think as more people realize there is a market for dumb TVs, you’ll start to see that market grow more and more until they no longer just “commercial displays.” Just gotta get enough people buying them and not buying Smart TVs.
The short answer is HDMI was mainly developed by a consortium of Stereo and Television manufacturers whereas DisplayPort was firmly always developed as a modern replacement for VGA.
Somehow, I trust the people in the computer industry to make better and more strict standards than I expect from the audio/visual industry. There’s a lot more advertising fluff from those groups while PC stuff can generally be nailed down by checking benchmarks against each other. How would you even benchmark two different stereo systems? (If I’m wrong and there is a way to benchmark them, cool, please share!)
Anyway, yeah, HDMI was for “Home Theaters” and pushed by the industry that builds that kind of thing and DisplayPort is for computers, period.
Nope, I meant to reply to you, but apparently didn’t make it clear to you that I was actually referring to the person above the person you were responding to. I changed the wording to reflect this a little bit. I’m sorry for the confusion, that’s my bad. You’re swell and have been. The other fella came and was rude about CloudFlare and didn’t offer reasons or alternatives. Once again, sorry.
It’s frustrating when people do that because there’s definitely valid critiques of CloudFlare, but that other guy calling them Clownflare and then not coming back to explain why is pretty juvenile and unhelpful (luckily another user came with a more realistic critique). Like, if it’s so bad, please offer alternatives and reasoning. I’m glad you liked Quad9 that I referenced elsewhere in the thread.
I’ll admit, the reason I ended up reading the whole article were the words “Ben Schwartz.”