I used nvidia with vrr on linux for a while before getting sick of the paper cut issues. I used gnome fedora which has pretty good support for nvidia wayland, and then whenever I wanted to game I logged out and into x11 with a single monitor config, as that would allow vrr to activate. it was janky but it worked and worked well. If you are stuck with Nvidia for the foreseeable future it is the only way if you are dedicated to the linux route.
I’m currently unable to use Windows as a gaming OS because it keeps hard rebooting probably due to overheating. Games like Cyberpunk 2077 are very unstable.
Nobara Linux meanwhile plays everything perfectly.
And you haven’t thought about remounting your cpu with new thermal paste or getting a cooler more fitting for your setup? This just sounds like windows being able to get more out of your hardware.
Not for fixing windows but if it really is overheating, fix it before its too late. Even the cheap thermal paste would do if its not a high end one and its pretty easy to change paste anyway.
I’d personally recommend Garuda, as that’s what I’ve mostly settled with. It’s everything I like about arch, but with lots of little changes and utilities that make it both easy to tweak and easy to just use. The built-in btrfs/snapper is particularly nice. I get the whole toy thing though, it doesn’t give off the most trustworthy vibes. But if you can look past that it’s a great distro. Take a look at the lite edition, it comes without theming and most of the bloat.
I can recommend Garuda KDE Lite. I had some problems with pacman keyring being outdated when installing and had to set it up but other than that it works great
Me too bro. It sucks ass, thats why I don’t use it. And Snap is not the default! No one who actually cares about his desktop uses snap. Its not even that compatible with Linux distros, it only supports systemd and probably gets more hardcoded into Ubuntu.
But other distros may be great. Linux Mint seems to be the only one to be paid to work as desktop with Cinnamon, literally, its their made Desktop. The other one would be System76 with Cosmic Desktop.
Yeah but it really looks for me like bad practice what they do there. They often hardcode packages.
I switched to Arch Linux because
Its Satisfying to understand a simple and dynamic system.
Its Important to understand how your system works.
At my work I am forced to use Ubuntu and develop a custom distro… its really weird how Ubuntu hardcodes solutions inside packages. I really don’t like it but my employer loves it for some reason. Especially because a lot is hardcoded I assume.
But its definetly more dynamic than some other Systems like MacOS or Windows 10/11
Feels like good practice to have /home mounted on a separate partition if you want to install a different distro or reinstall but I’ve never had to test the theory.
This. For home use having a separate / and /home (and maybe a swap) formated as ext4 is solid and allows you to distro hop with ease. As you get more comfortable with Linux, you’ll learn about the luxury of LVM volumes and more exotic filesystems with compression and other features. What is important is to always keep fresh backups. BorgBackup is your friend, you can find a few graphical front ends for it to simplify things.
Works well for distrohopping too, I usually would rename my home to oldhome or something and then just move my files to the new one to prevent dotfiles from potentially causing issues.
Also beware Debian installer with a luks encrypted drive. Where most things will unlock a previously-encrypted drive and use it, Debian installer will (or would, it’s been a while) reformat the encryption before it confirms any potential partition layout changes and you can end up with an empty drive before you know it.
Just add a new user when you install a new distro, then you can have a fresh start. If you want to try your old one, just useradd you old user and try it out.
iirc there are companies working on genome, and you could always fund a specific issue using rysolv (unlike in windows and mac os where you pay them money and can only hope they will fix a problem you have)
I’ve gone back and forth with Garuda and Endeavor. Currently I’m on Endeavor and everything is pretty good, I definitely had a better time gaming with Garuda though.
I know this isn’t what you asked but just have the documents sent to you electronically and cut out the middleman while saving some trees! You can also send them electronically if required. Paper is so 1980’s.
Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice, but i get why it would be annoying to have the delay.
That being said, I wouldn’t be concerned until almost a month. It’s a big update that’s going to need more debugging than usual. Makes sense to hold back for a bit.
Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice
I thought the same until I discovered that Flatpak gives me the power to restrict apps in their permissions, similar to flatseal, but less cumbersome. Since then I actually prefer Flatpak over traditional packages (I even switched to Fedora Silverblue), as I have a global override that, for example, revokes permission to access the root of my home directory or to use the X11 display server.
This allows me to keep a clean home directory, as applications are prevented from writing into my home directory (configuration files then automatically get stored in the Flatpak directory ~/.var instead) or, even worse, into executable files, such as ~/.bashrc. I can also be confident that applications use Wayland, if they support it, and not a less secure display server (X11). Applications that don’t support Wayland yet can either be made to run under Wayland (Chromium / Electron) or I have to grant those applications permission to actually use an X11 server (Bottles / WINE, Steam).
On the other hand you can also opt into punching as many holes as possible into the sandbox, for example by granting applications the permission to access a local shell. That might be necessary for development tools, such as VSCodium. The thing I like about Flatpak is that it offers this kind of flexibility and you can decide on a per-application basis which system resources the application can or can not access.
Sure, the permission model isn’t perfect (e. g. D-Bus access), but for my use-case it is a huge improvement and it gave me more flexibility with selecting my distribution, as I can get up-to-date applications anywhere via Flatpak.
Eh, I don’t at flatpak or snap unless I have no other choice
I thought the same until I discovered that Flatpak gives me the power to restrict apps in their permissions, similar to firejail, but less cumbersome. Since then I actually prefer Flatpak over traditional packages (I even switched to Fedora Silverblue), as I have a global override that, for example, revokes permission to access the root of my home directory or to use the X11 display server.
This allows me to keep a clean home directory, as applications are prevented from writing into my home directory (configuration files then automatically get stored in the Flatpak directory ~/.var instead) or, even worse, into executable files, such as ~/.bashrc. I can also be confident that applications use Wayland, if they support it, and not a less secure display server (X11). Applications that don’t support Wayland yet can either be made to run under Wayland (Chromium / Electron) or I have to grant those applications permission to actually use an X11 server (Bottles / WINE, Steam).
On the other hand you can also opt into punching as many holes as possible into the sandbox, for example by granting applications the permission to access a local shell. That might be necessary for development tools, such as VSCodium. The thing I like about Flatpak is that it offers this kind of flexibility and you can decide on a per-application basis which system resources the application can or can not access.
Sure, the permission model isn’t perfect (e. g. D-Bus access), but for my use-case it is a huge improvement and it gives me more flexibility with selecting my distribution, as I can get the very same up-to-date applications anywhere via Flatpak.
For what it’s worth, NFS in my experience is also faster. I had a very similar use case (but QNAP instead of Sinology) and switched everything over to NFS and saw performance gain. Little things like previewing IP Camera security footage would feel slow on SMB, but snappier on NFS. I’d gotten over the user thing, but the speed is why I switched.
I did eventually wipe QNAP’s software in favor of stock Debian – but the prevailing wisdom seems to say Sinology’s OS is pretty good.
I can also confirm this being my experience. I probably didn’t tune samba correctly or something, but when browsing my NAS via samba it regularly took ~1 second per folder navigation, whereas NFS was instant. I didn’t care enough to figure out why, so NFS is what I use.
It’s not based on anything mentioned above, but I’d highly recommend NixOS. You just have to copy-paste some things from the nixos.wiki (the unofficial one). You can also view my NixOS config to copy-paste some things.
Its funny how podcasters and commenters seem to have taken Redhat’s spin about “contributing value to the community” seriously, while to the rest of us the whole thing was obviously only about money (same as all the follow-ups from other parties… I would say “including Alma” but that would probably deserve its separate debate).
Red Hat saying that argument in-particular shows they’ve pivoted their philosophy significantly, it’s a seemingly subtle change but is huge - presumably due to the IBM acquisition, but maybe due to the pressures in the market right now.
It’s the classic argument against FOSS, which Red Hat themselves have argued against for decades and as an organisation proved that you can build a viable business on the back of FOSS whilst also contributing to it, and that there was indirect value in having others use your work. Only time will tell, but the stage is set for Red Hat to cultivate a different relationship with FOSS and move more into proprietary code.
— “we don’t like people ripping off our work without any added value”
— “Here, let me push this to your staging environment, totally breaking your quality process”
— “No”
— “Well, what the hell do you want broo?”
I don’t think they have ever hidden the fact this is about money. I don’t like the fact this is about money, but the fact that others were cloning and selling their efforts for a cheaper price is awful.
they are not breaking any law. This is totally allowed. You can use FOSS to create a commercial product.
they are major contributors to the Linux space. And they’ll keep contributing.
It’s their effort, they created a business around it, and it cycles back to push Linux forward.
this isn’t even going to affect average users. This is going to take money from companies that probably have the money to pay. For other companies, there are other distributions available.
Well, the re-builders would be breaking the law now that the source code isn’t available for non-paying customers. They weren’t breaking the law before.
So, do you expect every company to release the source code of their products just because they used a FOSS web framework or a FOSS programming language like Python? Or by the same logic, for companies to release the source code of their products if their developers use Linux in their development machines? Or if they use Linux to deploy their applications in the cloud? That’s such an unreasonable position.
OK, so is Redhat breaking any license? Do you really think a company like Redhat would open itself to thousands of lawsuits like that. The CEO already explained that this is totally legal and covered by GPL. They are in fact distributing the source to the people receiving the product. This is exactly what GPL says. They are not forced to open the source code to people who aren’t getting the distributed software.
What is your complaint then? They are not breaking any law and they are following the GPL license.
I was using the webframework/language as examples because you said this wasn’t a matter of law but a matter of principle. So why does the principle apply to Redhat but not the million other products that totally depend on FOSS on their core?
So many projects do in fact distribute the FOSS, but they use more permissive licenses like MIT, Apache or LGPL. BUT you’re saying the law is not relevant, what matters is the principle. So why don’t everyone release their code if they depend on FOSS on their core products? Because they aren’t breaking the Apache or MIT licenses? Well, that’s great! Redhar isn’t breaking the GPL license either. Why must Redhat follow whatever subjective principles you have?
— “hey there’s this company creating a commercial product around FOSS. They aren’t breaking any license.”
— “Nice, as long as the licenses aren’t compromised”
linux
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.