Para_lyzed @ Para_lyzed @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

185

Joined

2 yr. ago

You underestimate the power of Emacs!

I used Wayland for a couple years on AMD hardware and it was fine; I didn't really have any issues. Since acquiring a laptop with an Nvidia card as a gift about a year agi (it was a hand-me-down), I switched to X11 because it is still more stable for Nvidia. I will be switching back to Wayland (with Nvidia) when Fedora 40 releases. Hopefully the support for explicit sync patch will be available by that time, but if not I won't be heavily affected, as I am not playing games currently. I expect that patch to fix the black frame insertion during VRR that people have been complaining about, at which point Nvidia will be viable (for me) on Wayland.

I've been on the Wayland train for quite some time now, it's only really had issues with Nvidia because Nvidia refuses to adapt their graphics driver for it. We have to rely on the Wayland and XWayland projects to fix the incompatibilities that Nvidia is too lazy to fix themselves (like not supporting implicit sync). Luckily AMD is on top of things and has worked very well with Wayland for years now, so those with AMD hardware are better off.

EDIT: Here's a link to a Lemmy post about the explicit sync patch. Looks like Nvidia drivers plan to support it in the May 15th patch, so about a month after Fedora 40 releases.

There's no useful information to glean from this image other than the fact that we finally found someone who uses light mode on Discord.

shady VPN company

First off, everything Mullvad deploys is open source, from their clients to their servers. They have been audited and checked by 3rd parties to ensure their servers are running the source code they released. They are not some "shady VPN company" like Nord. They have a continual commitment to transparency that has been tested and true for many years.

Second, MullvadVPN has very little to do with the development of the Mullvad browser. It's just a fork of Tor Browser maintained by the Tor Project as a collaborative effort towards a uniform browser with the benefits of Tor Browser, but to be used without the Tor network. It is funded by Mullvad, but maintained mostly by the Tor Project. Do you not trust the Tor Project? The non-profit that has been open source and audited constantly throughout its lifespan? Here's the source code on the Tor Project's repo: https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/applications/mullvad-browser

The only Mullvad affiliation is the Mullvad extension that comes preinstalled (which you can uninstall, of course), the name, and the logo. That's about it. No need to use their VPN, no need to buy anything from Mullvad, it's basically just the Tor Browser without Tor.

If you're referencing an isolatedProccess implementation, the benefit is that each site is isolated in its own process, and any exploit would only have access to its own process (the data that the site sees anyways) without further escape (kernel exploit or meltdown, for instance). Without this isolation flag, sites are not sandboxed from each other or from the browser's process itself, meaning an exploit could access any data from any other active site or from the browser's process (such as accessing browser settings, bookmarks, history, or the built-in browser password manager). This has a massive implication on security. I'm unaware of the sandboxing you mentioned before Chrome, so I can't comment on that, but you gain a lot of security from proper per-site process isolation. Yes, the app lives inside its own sandbox, but there's plenty of data within that sandbox that you may not want a site to access, hence the importance of the isolatedProcess flag.

Cromite is the best recommendation I can give. It is currently under consideration to be added to privacyguides.org (you can find it on their issues page on the GitHub), and it is expected to be added (as was Bromite, which is where Cromite forked from after development on Bromite was stopped). The main developer of Cromite (uazo) has actually asked the evaluation to be paused until the licensing for aac and h264 are figured out, as licenses are very expensive, and a recommendation on the PrivacyGuides website would likely draw many more users to the project, potentially causing legal trouble. You can track progress on this issue here. It's worth noting that the dev of Cromite was an active dev of Bromite before Bromite's lead dev abandoned the project.

The only issue they have with sandboxing is on Android, as they have yet to implement per-site process isolation despite it being present on desktop Firefox and Chromium Android for many years now. I've been tracking the development of Project Fission on Android (Firefox's per-site process isolation) for years now and it still isn't even ready for testing. Additionally, Firefox Android does not use Android's isolatedProcess flag for sandboxing, which is another area in which it is behind Chrome. For that reason, I cannot recommend Firefox on Android, and instead recommend Cromite (fork of Bromite after its development was abandoned) which is based on Chromium.

Chromium-based browsers have inherently weaker extensions due to Manifest v3 and many other targeted attacks on adblockers. If you want a browser that works far better and provides a much higher level of privacy, use Mullvad Browser (worked on in collaboration with the Tor Browser, just without Tor integration) or LibreWolf. Both are Firefox forks with Firefox telemetry removed and anti-fingerprinting measures. You don't need and absolutely should not install any extensions beyond the default installed in those 2 browsers (except perhaps a password manager), as that will dramatically damage the fingerprinting protection they provide. Both will have a much higher level of protection than you could ever realistically expect from any Chromium-based Browser.

Alpine is much more targeted towards containers, virtual machines, and embedded devices. The most common use is for containers (Docker, Kubernetes, Podman), as it is incredibly small and efficient, and containerized applications can be specifically designed to run in Alpine. It could be used as the main OS of a production server, but isn't especially common to my knowledge. Its biggest advantage is its incredibly small size, which is what makes it so great with containers and embedded devices. It is not targeted towards desktop use, so desktop support in Alpine is an afterthought more than anything.

Of course, you can feel free to use Linux however you like and choose whatever distro you like, but it's very likely the problems you're having are centered around musl.

As far as I know, it should be vanilla. I haven't tried the KDE version though, as I'll be switching to Kinoite/Fedora Atomic KDE when Fedora 40 releases. My understanding is that Fedora doesn't really make opinionated changes to their DEs, but I don't know that for a fact.

Probably the Fedora 40 KDE spin, which will come out in April

If you're just referring to the color scheme, you can adjust that to your liking in the preferences section of menu in the top right of Gnome Terminal.

It seems you misunderstand what the other commenter meant. By "auto-update", they mean that the package is fetched and updated when you request your package manager to perform an update/upgrade (meaning that the user specifically requested the packages be updated, not that it happened on its own). This comes from my use of the term "auto-updating" in reference to Nvidia drivers on Windows, which will automatically check for updates on boot, in comparison to the closest equivalent with Linux distros in which the drivers would be updated by the package manager (but still do not require the user to manually install a new version separately, as would be the case if trying to use Nvidia's official runfile installer). I grouped the Linux drivers from a package manager into the "auto-update" category, which I realize in hindsight is a bit confusing given the nature of updating through a package manager.

Just because I didn't see you respond about it, Piper is great, so I second that user's recommendation! I highly recommend you check to see if your peripherals are supported, as I use it on my Logitech mice to edit my mappings, DPI settings, and profiles (and while I don't use the function, you can edit your LEDs in Piper as well). https://github.com/libratbag/piper

I do agree with you that these problems are not the fault of Linux, but I never meant to imply that they were. The average PC user has absolutely zero care for where the fault is, the only thing that matters to them as an end user is their experience while using the operating system. Users who actually care about the quality and ethics of the software they use are likely to already be using Linux anyway, but that is very much not the norm. The layperson is perfectly happy to never care or understand a single thing about their operating system. I will be answering your response to each of my points, as well as rebuttals for this:

The Linux way to do most of them is using the package manager, and that's much simpler than searching the internet for the correct download.

in the following:

Distro specific. It should be just like installing anything else, and it is for some distros, certainty for the ones I've been using.

They are pre-installed in Windows. In fact, most people won't even understand why their media isn't playing, and won't even know that they need to install something, or how to install it. Some distros have them pre-installed, but there are plenty that do not. The point here is that it is inherently less intuitive and more difficult in Linux than in Windows.

This doesn't require installing anything in Windows. This is purely easier in Windows for many distributions, and equal at best for those who have them installed by default. Thus using the package manager is not easier or more intuitive in this sense, especially since the packages have strange names (so you'd have to look up how to do it as a new user).

Distro specific, I've had NVIDIA drivers auto-updating for the past 15 years or so, long before Windows had that same capabilities. And it updates with my regular system update, no need to use any special GUI for it.

Nvidia's driver software comes pre-installed in a lot of pre-built systems nowadays. It has automatic update checking so it will prompt you on boot to ask if you want to update. Even if it didn't come pre-installed (which is also the case with most Linux distros), Windows users don't have to look up a tutorial on how to download and install the drivers. In Linux, the package names and installation methods vary so greatly between distros, that I still have to look it up every time I set up a new distro, even with a decade of Linux experience. In either case, the user will need to use the Internet to search for a page (either the Nvidia driver site, or a tutorial for how to do it on their distro). And no, I'm not talking about Nouveau here, it still has lots of issues and delivers much worse performance than the proprietary driver. Sure, using an AMD card is easier, but the current market share suggests most people will be coming over with Nvidia hardware.

When all the first results are the Nvidia website with official driver downloads, and don't require the user to use the terminal (and make sure the tutorial works for their distro), Windows is easier there. You just download an executable and run it. No need to add non-free repositories to your package manager, no need to use the terminal, just a search, 4 clicks, and you're done. Yes, it's a very "Windows way to do things", but it's also objectively easier than it is in a variety of Linux distros. A select few distros have a GUI way to manage this, which I'd rate as slightly easier than the manual Windows way, but still more difficult than the "this is already installed on my system" way that's the case for many pre-builts and laptops.

Not Linux problem. Also, while I can see the argument that's easier to use what's already installed, that tells you nothing of how easy one thing is in comparison to the other. If computers came with the most convolutedly complex and unusable crap of an OS, full of bloatware and spyware pre-installed people would still use it. Not to mention that the Linux installation process was much easier than Windows for the longest time (until windows finally implemented automatic driver installation)

You seem to have answered this for me. People will use what is pre-installed on their system because it is easier for them to do so. Again, not the fault of Linux, but it adds a layer of difficulty to those who want to switch. The layperson doesn't know what an ISO image is, or how to make a liveUSB out of one.

This has nothing to do with using a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".

Not Linux problem. Although this is something to bear in mind while choosing your OS, it's the companies that make games that are at fault here, there's nothing Linux can do to remedy this situation, so it's unfair to judge it for it. That's like saying Windows is harder to use because running docker containers in it is impossible without some virtualisation, while this is something to consider when deciding what OS will you use to self-host, it's not per-se a reason why Windows is more difficult to use.

Most end users will not care whose fault it is. The fact of the matter is that it will dissuade a large portion of gamers away from Linux, as Riot games don't run at all. It's much more difficult to convince someone that they should switch to another operating system when the games they play or programs they use (like Adobe software) won't work. Sure, in many cases there are alternatives, but that's a massive layer of difficulty, especially if you're expecting people to learn new, alternative software with equally steep or steeper learning curves than the Adobe suite, or give up games they've been playing for years.

Again, nothing to do with a package manager or the "Linux way to do things".

Same as above.

Again, the end user doesn't care whose fault it is. If they can't access the features their laptop or PC came with (like the ability to use their discrete GPU), then that's going to be a hard sell. And even if they can by installing something like rog-control-center, that is still another layer of difficulty.

If there is a solution available for a specific computer, it is inherently more difficult on Linux. The computer will come pre-installed with the correct software (no download necessary), and even if you were to reinstall, all you have to do is download a single executable and run it. On Linux, however, you have to research and figure out what kind of software would even do this (asusctl or rog-control-center, for instance), then you have to check the model number of your laptop or motherboard for compatibility because only a select few will be compatible, then you have to add a PPA/repo to your package manager (if the solution even has that available; some will require you to build from source and/or update manually every update), and only then can you install the package. Far more steps, far less intuitive, and far more difficult for an average user.

I gave you examples of things that are more difficult in Linux than Windows. None of these things have to do with a difference in perspective on how to install software, or an investment in the "Windows way" to do things. I've been using Linux for around a decade, and I've had recent experience with each of these things in Windows while helping other people. They are simply easier in Windows. I want to again make it clear that I never said any of these were the fault of Linux, but you can't merely overlook them simply because Linux isn't at fault. New users would still want/have to do these things, and doing them can be difficult or impossible depending on compatibility. There are plenty of arguments for Linux, but the argument that it is simpler or easier in any overarching sense is not one of them. There are very specific instances where things are easier in Linux, or the experience of a user is simpler in Linux, but those few cases do not encompass the entirety of Linux. You have said yourself that you have not used Windows recently, and that seems very apparent to me. I dislike Windows, but Linux has not gotten anywhere near a point where one of my recommendations for switching to Linux are that it is easier or simpler.

I agree that the package manager is a much better solution than the Windows way of doing things, but it has nothing to do with most of the points I made.

Just to be clear, I agree with you practically 100%, and you can see my response to this person in the same thread as well, but I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'll give you a few examples of things that are easier on Windows (and most also are easier on MacOS) than they are on Linux (or at least some distros depending on which you pick):

• Using proprietary multimedia codecs (Fedora)
• Installing Nvidia drivers that have the capability of auto-updating (any distro that doesn't have a GUI for driver downloads)
• Installation (most people simply use the pre-installed OS and never reinstall or install anything new)
• Game compatibility (Linux gaming is great, but there are still major titles not supported)
• Accessing firmware settings and profiles for laptops while booted (like Armoury Crate for Asus laptops (yes, I know about rog-control-center and asusctl, but those don't work for all devices, and are harder to set up))

There are probably plenty more, and there are things that are easier on Linux. But again, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Each of those examples are less intuitive to complete on Linux (or at least some distros) than they are in Windows. As someone who has been using Linux for a decade, I don't think that they are all hard, but many are also less intuitive in Linux than MacOS, just to address your first point. When you have to start adding PPAs/repos to get specific things, I'd argue that's objectively less intuitive than the alternatives in other operating systems, and not merely a different way of thinking. In many cases though, for most things, there are intuitive solutions that exist in Linux. There are plenty of cases where someone overcomplicates something they want to do in Linux by using a Windows mindset, so I still agree with you there. I just think it's a little more nuanced than you seemed to imply.

Great answer, I recommend OP tries this. I was actually going to link to the same exact article about the drivers, and that should work for installing them.

To address your edit, you can actually add non-Steam games to Steam. I'll provide a link that describes the process, but you may have mixed results (though you may be surprised how many of them "just work"):

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/2019/07/a-simple-guide-to-steam-play-valves-technology-for-playing-windows-games-on-linux/

You'll find instructions in the section labelled "Can Steam Play be used for games not on Steam?". I believe these instructions still work, even though they're a few years old. If not, then there's always the option to use Lutris or Glorious Eggroll, which I recommend looking into yourself if this solution doesn't work (Lutris should be pretty easy to set up, so I recommend trying that first as I've had a good experience with it).

This is a discussion about Docker, which is a complex terminal-based containerization system. This is not a program that is typically used by the average user. Docker's complexity does not imply that Linux requires this kind of set up to use as a normal desktop. This is usually server software. Docker is also available on Windows and MacOS, and is partnered with Microsoft (you know, the company that makes Windows? The desktop OS with the highest market share?). Are you going to complain about how Windows will never reach mass adoption because users are able to install complex tools that require a steep learning curve to use? You can install Docker on Windows and use the same commands and configs, so do you believe that Windows suffers this same problem?

Before you point out the start of that comment with the "Linux mentality" stuff, while some of that is certainly true, you can now do everything an average user needs to do in an intuitive GUI, just like Windows (better in many cases, actually). Half the listed commands (making directories and files) can be done in the file manager just like Windows, normal apps can be managed in app stores, and the rest of it is docker specific, which is (again), server-oriented software. I'm not a fan of their mentality about how things work in Linux, because it's very much an old mentality that doesn't account for the immense amount of change that has happened in the past decade to make Linux more accessible.

I don't understand why people come to the Linux communities to complain that Linux is "too hard" or "too complex" to be usable. If you don't have an actual interest in Linux, find another community. If you want a simple experience, use a simple distro that's meant to be easy to use, and use software that is easy to use.

That makes sense to me. Further down in the comments they were talking about how they wanted to run Adobe Premiere and Fusion 360 in WINE, so I already felt like open source wasn't their reason for choosing Linux, but of course it doesn't have to be, there are many other benefits. They expressed in a comment to me that the only reason that they're using Linux is that they dislike Microsoft and Apple more.