thingsiplay @ thingsiplay @beehaw.org

* https://thingsiplay.game.blog/

---

Read more

Posts

115

Comments

1,914

Joined

2 yr. ago

TL;DR: My desktop PC uses EndeavourOS and the only immutable experience I have is SteamOS 3. I can't say one approach is better than the other, but I like having the newest software and packages in my system. And that's best provided with a rolling release. I also think that sandbox systems like Flatpak and the several alternative installation methods besides the system package manager is an added complexity for a new user in Linux.

I don't mind using an immutable system (BTW another term that describes this kind of system is Atomic, which comes from Fedora), as long as it is designed around it and works well. The only immutable system I use is on my Steam Deck with the pre-installed SteamOS 3. My generic desktop personal computer is using an Archlinux derivative EndeavourOS with a rolling-release, where I have much greater control over the system.

Both systems have their strengths. I don't think that my mutable and always up to date system is breaking more often than the other system. The best part of it is, its always up to date and I get the newest applications. I try to not use much Flatpaks or AppImages (but do for certain apps, where I have no other choice for ease of use). And an immutable system naturally basically asks me to use Flatpaks and other user space package formats that is not handled by the distribution itself.

Even though I have some thoughts on it, I am not excluding one approach. Many say that immutable distributions are good for new users to Linux. I think this adds some complexity and problems, because they need to use sandbox systems like Flatpak. And that's if they know that they are using Flatpak, because sometimes the app distribution gives options like AppImage and custom installer scripts as well. This is all confusing for someone who just starts with Linux. On top of it, the sandbox of Flatpak requires some additional setup and configuration for some apps, to access certain hardware or filesystems in example.

All in all, I tend to like the traditional "mutable" distribution system as a rolling release model the most. But I'm an not excluding any other and would use a good "immutable" one; I just didn't try any other than the one in my Steam Deck.

I use FreeTube too and none Invidious instance work for me. So Local API only right now.

Serious question: I see the topic about Discord screen sharing a lot. Why is this such a big deal?

Deactivating Wordpress contributor accounts does not prevent any forks. I don't get what the benefit is to ban them. Is it just to demonstrate his power?

In many countries in the world it makes a huge difference to not having a license. If its not properly licensed or licensed at all, then it means in many countries in the world the most restrictive one, the entire opposite of the goal: Do not use without permission. By not putting the license text and clearing things up for the user, means it is not properly licensed. Therefore in countries like Germany this project would be a violation to use without permission. It becomes a liability, as the person could potentially sue anyone (in those countries).

I don't think its enough to link. You just need to copy or create a single txt file named "LICENSE" and put it in the root of your repository. I am not a lawyer. The license text will tell anyone who cares to know what they can do and cannot with the project. If you do not do that, you only make it harder for anyone looking for the license (as explained with the websearch example previously).

I think you need to put the actual license text in the repository, to have a license. Just stating a license name in the readme is not correctly licensed. In example people need to a websearch for this accronym in order to find their rights and who knows if they find the correct license. Maybe they find a different written one by another person. In example there are two "official" versions of this license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

Wish I had.

I was using Vim only and didn't want switch to Neovim. Then someday, after having performance problems in Vim, I gave Neovim a shot and switch to it. Shortly after the world was in shock when we knew Bram died. It was the day when I switched to Neovim. I feel like responsible for this.

Someone else suggested SSH instead too. I will have this in mind for the next time when I struggle with gpg. I also learned that I can reuse my existing gpg setup, so maybe I do not need SSH.

I never take over entire home, only selected configurations. Usually my old drive is available as a backup, in case I forgot something important (but my last drive broke). If done correctly, this approach is much cleaner and not the actual problem, doing it since 2008. Just didn't know I could reuse my existing .gnupg directory. I'll add this dir to my regular backup routine, after everything is working as it should.

I can only test this years from now. Thank you for this advice, it will save me lot of trouble and nerves.

I don't reinstall very often, usually use it for many years (its a rolling release). But even if I do, that should not be the problem here. As for the process to take over the old signed keys and reuse them, I didn't know. I always thought the signing is for a specific set of hardware and current os installation. I have the directory .gnupg and the files .git-credentials and .gitconfig. Is there something else I have to copy?

@barf Hmm, I will try SSH next time then.

My goal is to use git only. The problem for me is, this application "git-credential-oauth" is not in the official repository of my distribution. Which is a huge no-no for security related stuff in my opinion.

I don't use githubs program, but the regular git. Process is explained here: https://docs.github.com/en/authentication/managing-commit-signature-verification

To program an operating system, you need deep knowledge how internals work. The language you are using needs low level access. And I don't think a garbage collected language is a good fit for an operating system either. Especially an interpreted language like Python requires an interpreter to run under. And Python is not the fastest language either, which is fatal for a low level os functionality.

What do you expect from turning C code into Python code? Python does not have low level access, it requires C (even Rust requires some C functionality). I don't think it is even possible to write an OS purely in Python.

Linux is ready for newbies, just as Windows is. You just have to relearn stuff and not treat it like Windows.

Why is it a lie if people don't want to switch, because their games are not there yet? Maybe someone plays a lot League of Legends, or Fortnite, or Valorant, or Destiny 2 or whatever [insert your game here]. They don't know what awaits them in Linux and think its a similar operating system without the bullshit of Microsoft. Lot of people would happily switch, if they have the courage to install it themselves (with burning iso or boot disks). If the games are the most important thing, then its hard to argue to switch, if their games are not working in Linux. Because doing so would mean leaving friends behind too.

Its not a lie. My brother is in a similar situation. He purchased a Steam Deck in a situation where he was thinking about getting a laptop. First it was nice, but then more and more he could not play the games he wanted to, besides a few software compatibility issues like Discord. Now the next PC he purchased (I build it for him) has Windows. Windows bugs him, but its a necessary evil. He will switch, if his games are working in Linux and if he can be confident that future games he want to play will work on Linux as well.

Did they solve the problems they created with the last OS update?

Which problem exactly?

Modern problems require modern solution.