In my experience the whole DVB driver situation on Linux is really messed up. Seems to be partly because of difficult communication with the linux kernel maintainers and partly because of lazyness of hardware manufacturers (they don’t care). Another problem is that DVB really runs out of favor. It is not “cool anymore” as everyone uses streaming services nowadays and so less and less “spare time developers” still care about “TV”. This even seems to be visible in less and less DVB hardware still developed.
I would just give up on the idea to still run a tuner directly on a PC. Get yourself a “SAT>IP” tuner, add it to your network and stream your TV programs over your home network.
Edit: It is even possible to set up your own Sat>IP server with “minisatip”. So you could get a mini PC, plug the tuner(s) you already have, only care about getting them working there and bury this dedicated TV streaming server somewhere in the house.
In my experience the whole DVB driver situation on Another problem is that DVB really runs out of favor. It is not “cool anymore” as everyone uses streaming services nowadays and so less and less “spare time developers” still care about “TV”. This even seems to be visible in less and less DVB hardware still developed.
I’ve noticed this recently. Some of my family still likes to watch broadcast TV bit our DVB-S receiver is starting to get old and cranky. I started to look at computer based solutions for this, as media PCs were the hot thing for a while and I figured solutions would be fairly mature at this point. We are already suing Jellyfin for media playback so I figured it made sense to to look look for computer based TV as well.
Unfortunately it seems to have passed through maturity and is heading into obscurity. Tuners seem hard to find, drivers are poorly maintained and playback software is looking long in the tooth also.
Do you have any particular recommendations for DVB-S IP devices? I’d been looking at conventional tuners up until now.
I would not suggest getting the PCI express tuners as the driver situation is just as bad as with the other manufacturers, but if you get their IP tuner you should have something that lasts a long time.
Running DVB-S2 for many years and SAT>IP (think of it as Satellite decoding to rstp) seems to be the way. I’ve not thought about a smaller PC to host my current card and welcome your suggestion. I’d github’d minisatip a few weeks ago and the penny didn’t drop!
I had planned to go for an Enigma2 based device and go from there.
I mostly write rust now, but this workflow was finetuned over years. Use 2 terminals each on a diferent monitor, one runs neovim and the other is for building/running. If the project is a bit more complex, I will run it in a docker container( maybe mount the /etc/shadow and frieds so all artefacts are created using the same user as in the outside) . Developed a bunch of tools over the years to optimise this:
a ‘package manager’ in bash so I have a folder for each project/context. One for work, one common, one for the server stuff like this. All are in PATH.
parterm - remote control for the terminal so i can start a build from neovim in a different terminal.
‘ndock’ - at work I use a bunch of branches, this script will set up a few envs and then start a docker in a folder coresponding to that branch.
At my old job had to work on a remote vm so I setup sshfs for a while, but was slow and just moved all my tools there.
I have a pattern where i put all my projects in ~/dev/<project><branch> and all info related to a task in ~/dev/<project>/bugs/<issue_nr>. This is usefull because I can have scripts the work similar for different projects with small changes. For example to run my binary with the config for a issue i just do
This will start docker or connect to an existing one for that branch if available, compile the code, run my binary with the config present in the bug folder. In the last few month started running it with rr to be sure i can debug any random issue.
Ubuntu with newest version of KDE stuffed into it. In short it’s more for developers to test latest KDE versions in a relatively stable and easily maintained environment but gained popularity since it’s newer than Kubuntu and doesn’t enforce snaps.
By “stable base” they mean Ubuntu. The package systems (apt and snap), the kernel choice and configuration, the background services are what make the “back end” of a distro and Ubuntu is an example where this backend is given LTS (long term support) maintenance and thorough testing, even if that also means using older versions of the backend software in question. KDE Neon uses this because if something goes wrong with the distro it’s likely their fault and not some backend stuff unrelated to KDE. Ubuntu is also good for building spinoff distros as most of the work is done for you - You just make your tweaks to a “minimal” ubuntu ISO and share it!
GnomeOS is probably the main example of a distro designed for testing rather than daily use. It’s maintained by GNOME for testing their changes and can also be used for daily stuff if you want. Not sure what else “quasi distro” could mean, but there are a bunch of Ubuntu-based distros (And spinoffs to other big distros) that exist on a spectrum of “almost identical” to “completely redesigned”.
I used it for a few months. It’s pretty good! You get brand new KDE features on top of a familiar ubuntu system. It gives you the feeling of a bleeding edge UI experience but you don’t risk the software driving that new UI being super buggy or breaking things. That being said, some users (like myself) prefer different software managers or don’t like Ubuntu for other reasons. KDE-Neon as a distro in itself is a pretty solid choice, though.
Thank you for such a thorough and informative answer! And for sharing your user experience too. I had not heard about GnomeOS. As soon as I have some days to experiment, I’ll give Neon a try.
Guy that made the Pantone port after that whole fiasco also made the pinkest pink and blackest black paints money can buy. His company is currently developing an alternative to Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, aaaand… I think Premiere?
Haha! I checked the Kickstarter and I absolutely love the whole thing! Doesn’t look like it’ll be for Linux, though (It says “PC and Mac” on the kickstarter), but I’ll definitely follow the progress of this.
Do you believe that law-related aspects related to this could or should just be ignored? Or that doing so would lead to positive outcomes down the road?
You can’t trademark anything too generic, like you might struggle to trademark a drink called “drink” or something (although you might be able to trademark, eg, shoes called “drink”!), but there’s nothing stopping you trademarking words.
It mostly depends on what features of Photoshop you use. If you use most of them, there’s no real alternative imo. If you only use a subset of its features, then GIMP, Krita, Photopea or Pinta may become viable alternatives for your use case.
Bugs. People that are into linux have enough compium and often the expertise to fix broken stuff that otherwise would work on windows. Your average user will quit after too many things don’t work out of the box.
This is sadly true for so much software, not just Linux but also many Linux application packages and self-hosting packages.
I tried to install Nextcloud yesterday, and failed at three completely different attempts/guides/packages. Same thing happened a year ago. Maybe I’ll try again in a year.
@Maticzpl Tbf my Windows OS makes me perform a bizarre ritual to just get my headphones to connect each time. Windows has as many bugs as Ubuntu at least.
I also have known people that were non technical that had way worse a time getting drivers to work on Windows than on Linux.
Real issue is software support. A lot of the big closed source stuff only wants to run on Windows whereas most open source stuff is fine working on everything.
GIMP has its share of issues, just like any other software. but it’s biggest issue is that somewhere down the line general users got this idea in their head that it was supposed to be a Photoshop clone.
So they go into it with certain expectations and then get frustrated when it doesn’t work that way. People like me, who actually learned GIMP before PS, obviously didn’t go in with the same bias and therefore have a much better grasp on it.
Gimp is not a Photoshop clone. it’s its own piece of kit with it’s own design and feature decisions that some may like and others may not. That’s life. The developers have no obligation to follow any other software design scheme any more than Sony is obligated to follow LGs TV UI. They’re not clones, they’re alternatives.
if you think Gimps only function is to copy Photoshop, you’re in for a bad time. If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I’m not excusing Gimps failings. far from it. but I AM saying that half the issue is the Photoshop users thinking that gimp only exists to copy everything from their precious Adobe daddy. And that’s simply not true.
Honestly I feel like this attitude is the reason GIMP’s UX suffers. They’re so determined to be “not like photoshop” that they’re unwilling to fix some of their more boneheaded UI decisions out of fear that they’d be seen as copying photoshop.
That's not exactly my impression from following the design conversations through the years. They're more approaching decisions from the angle of what they think is best, their philosophy is to plainly ignore what others do and follow their own direction. Of course taking inspiration from Photoshop might sometimes be a good thing, if it doesn't conflict with the GIMP way of doing things.
I've noticed in recent years some newcomer devs have had discussions on how to design their contributions, mentioning Photoshop and other alternative ways and there were just conversations about the merits of the different approaches that could be taken and what would fit the GIMP best, without bias.
Anyway, I wasn't aware that GIMP UX suffers, I've never used anything else and am happy with it. It seem logical to me, obviously with fewer features than Photoshop but how much can a couple of guys do and they've had to refactor most of the GIMP for 3.0, but that'll open up for a lot of functionality being added moving forward..
Anyway, I wasn’t aware that GIMP UX suffers, I’ve never used anything else and am happy with it.
My argument here is that by never having used anything else, you wouldn’t necessarily realize how much better other UX choices could have been.
That said, I do have to give the devs some credit, as they have fixed two major issues, by adding single-window-mode and unifying the transform tools. Having each transform be its own separate tool was just awful UX IMO.
The biggest remaining UX problem, in my opinion, is the way GIMP forces layers to have fixed boundaries. Literally no other layer-based image editor has fixed layer boundaries, because it makes very little sense as a concept. Layers should solely be defined by their content, not by arbitrary layer properties set in a dialog box.
In terms of UI sometimes you think something is better merely because you learnt this way. The best example would be windows style desktop versus macos style desktop. I can’t use another desktop than a windows style one, which is why I always used kde and I always hated gnome.
Now I don’t know whether gimp is good enough or not, but it must be said IMO.
If you want to use gimp as an ALTERNATIVE and go in without the bias, you’ll likely learn your way around a LOT faster.
I think this is the key phrase – do you want an alternative (where you might have to learn new ways of doing things), or do you want a clone? GIMP is not a clone, but an alternative.
I also think this gets to something I was told loooooooooong ago, when I was a young lad asking what was the best computer to buy. Someone told me, “Find all the software you want/need to run, and get the computer that will run it all.”
In other words, if you need to use Photoshop, then maybe you don’t use Linux – maybe stick with Mac or (shudder) Windows.
I always love it when Linux users recommend going back to Windows as a option. It takes real maturity to admit that everything is a viable option, and sometimes especially in a professional workplace that Windows and MacOS should both be considered if Linux is limiting your workflow.
@displaced_city_mouse@Adderbox76 yeah I'm fairly OS agnostic, I hate them all...just hate Windows more which I think you might agree with considering the shuddering induced by mentioning Windows 😏 I use ChromeOS, Mac, & iOS daily bc for my uses they are least problematic. Use Win 10 for gaming but looking to switch to Linux not W11 for that and have been dabbling/learning Android & Linux. Honestly it's a good time to be a nerd IMHO.
I’ve migrated to a lot of different programs since switching to Linux: Premiere to Resolve, 3DS Max to Blender, to name a few. And I never expected the switch from Photoshop, which I so dearly love, to whatever good alternative that exists - to be easy. I’m willing to put in the time to learn GIMP, if only it hadn’t such glaring and prominent issues that make it really difficult to use.
I’m not expecting a clone. I’m not expecting the UI to be the same. And, I’m willing to learn this program from the ground up. But I want a consistent experience - an app that works. For me, GIMP gets in the way a lot; making things unnecessarily difficult just for the sake of being “different”.
I don’t mean to hate on GIMP. It works very well for people who like it. But we all have different preferences when it comes to software, and in the end - It’s just, not a good alternative for what I prefer. I’m willing to learn something new, but from my experience, GIMP will have (and has) a lot of icks that I just need to “put up with” to be usable. Especially efficiency. GIMP does not feel efficient, like at all. Might be because I haven’t learned it, but even Resolve felt efficient the first time I used it.
I don’t have the same experience with Krita whatsoever. And sure, maybe Krita is a little closer to Photoshop than GIMP is, but I much prefer Krita’s overall experience much more than GIMP - even if it’s missing some more advanced features.
I will stick to Krita, most likely, as that’s what I find myself most comfortable with. But it’s been interesting to hear what everyone else’s experiences are.
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.