I like Mate-Terminal; it’s nicely customizable for my tastes and does the basics well. I also quite like LXTerminal for similar reasons.
But generally I use Konsole as I’m using KDE a lot now, and it’s the default terminal.
I like Mate-Terminal; it’s nicely customizable for my tastes and does the basics well. I also quite like LXTerminal for similar reasons.
But generally I use Konsole as I’m using KDE a lot now, and it’s the default terminal.
Yeah not sure I agree with all of this.
When it comes to KDE this feels out of date. The GTK issues are not what they once were; KDE Plasma has good GTK themes that match the KDE ones. Nowadays I find the main issues are with Flatpak software not matching DE themes because they’re in a sandbox. I’ve had that issue on both KDE and gnome 2 derived environments (I’ve never really gotten into Gnome 3). KDE also used to have a reputation for being slow and a resource hog; that’s inverted now - KDE has a good reputation including for scaling down to lower powered machines, while Gnome 3 seems to have a reputation as a resource hog?
I have a KDE desktop environment and it’s very attractive, and I haven’t had any glitches beyond issues with Flatpak (VLC being a recent one that I managed to fix). I would say the mainstream themes for DE work in the same way as a windows theme works. The problems are when you go to super niche attempts to pretty up the desktop - but you’d get similar issues if you tried that in windows.
I agree regarding the professional apps. If you are tied into specific proprietary Windows software then Linux is difficult. The exception is Office 365 which is now both Windows and Web App based, and the web apps are close to feature parity with the desktop clients. The open source alternatives to windows proprietary software can be very good, but there are often compromises (particularly collaboration as that is generally within specific softwares walled gardens). Like Libre Office; it’s very good and handles Office documents near seamlessly, but if your work uses Office then it you lose the integration with One Drive and Teams.
In terms of Linux not supporting old software, I would caveat that that is supporting old linux software. It is very good at supporting other systems software through the various open source emulators etc. Also Flatpak has changed things somewhat; software can come with it’s own set of libraries although it does mean bloat in terms of space taken (and security issues & bugs albeit it limited to the app’s sandbox). And while Wine can be painful for some desktop apps it is also very robust with a lot of software; it can either be a doddle or a nightmare. Meanwhile Proton has rapidly become very powerful when it comes to gaming.
I disagree that it takes a lot of time to make basic things work. Generally Linux supports modern hardware well and I’ve had no issues myself with fresh installs across multiple different pieces of hardware (my custom desktop, raspberry Pi, and a living room PC). Printing/Scanning remains probably the biggest issue but I’ve not had to deal with that in a long time. But problem solving bigger issues can be hard.
To answer your questions:
When it comes to other distros; I currently use Linux Mint with KDE Plasma desktop. The debian/ubuntu ecosystem is pretty easy to use and there are lots of guides out there for fixing/tinkering with Linux Mint (or Ubuntu which largely also works) because of their popularity. Lots of software is available as “.deb” packages which can be installed easily on Linux Mint and other Debian based systems including Ubuntu.
I’ve also been trying Nobara on a living room PC; that is Fedora based. I like that too, although it has a very different package manager set up.
Whatever distro you choose, Flatpak is an increasingly popular way of installing software outside the traditional package managers. A flatpak should just work on any distro. I would not personally recommend Snap which is a similar method from Cannonical (the people behind Ubuntu) but not as good in my opinion.
In terms of desktop environments, I like Linux Mint’s Cinnamon desktop, but have moved over to KDE having decided I prefer it after getting used to it with the Steam Deck. KDE has a windows feel to it (although it’s very customisable and can be made to look like any interface). I’ve also used some of the lightweight environments like LXDE, XFCE etc - they’re nice and also customisable but not as slick. You can get a nice look on a desktop with a good graphics card with KDE. The only desktop environment I personally don’t like is Gnome 3 (and the Unity shell from Ubuntu); that may just be personal preference but if you’re coming from Windows I wouldn’t start with that desktop environment - it’s too much of a paradigm shift in my opinion. However it is a popular desktop environment.
I’ve been dual booting between Linux and Windows for maybe 10 years or so (and tinkered with linux growing up before that). I think maybe similar to you, I’m technically apt when it comes to computers but not a programmer; I’m good at problem solving issues with my computer and am not afraid to “break” it.
A few key things:
If you know you want to use Pop_OS, then follow their guide on how to install. It’s generally very similar for all linux OSs (there are other methods but this is the simplest and most common):
Linux has come a very long when it comes to installing and setting up; installers are generally easy to use, work well and generally hardware is recognised and set up for you. The exception will be the Nvidia graphics card - you will need to set up the Nvidia drivers. Pop_OS’s install guide shows how to do it.
Hope that helps! Run out of characters!
You can use PowerPoint in a web browser with office 365. Really don’t need windows to run it anymore.
This is an interesting concept but doesn’t seem like it has long term legs.
It depends on what you mean by open source and also even eBook reader (I’m assuming eInk), but if people want open source e-readers I would say flashing existing reader hardware with open source operating systems would be the way to go. However I’m not sure if there is much motivation to do that.
There are Android based eink ereaders available with more freedom than Kindle devices (Boox is an example) and you can side load free or open source reader software onto Kobo (maybe not Android Kindles though?), and you can load free books onto e-readers via software like Calibre. So you can read books in privacy outside the vendors ecosystem - it kinda reduces the imputus to build an open source ereader (hardware or OS).
I’d love to see a truly open source Eink device - particularly software wise. But I doubt the demand is enough. And this Open Source hardware solution seems a bit too cut back to fit the bill.
Is Anbox no longer a thing? It runs Android apps in a container.
Or is it more the issue with the apps not running “natively”?
Not strictly correct. Spotify pays out from its net revenues (revenues when billing costs and tax are removed) and it pays to the various industry rights holders who then distribute the money. There are lots of complex deals in place and big rights holders are likely to have better deals than ad hoc users, plus it’s different in different countries.
The 70% figure is a PR thing Spotify pushes about as part of its constant battles with rights holders on exactly how much it will pay them. It’s trying to claim most of the money goes to artists but it’s opaque how much goes where.
This may also be about trying to take control of OpenAI. Despite owning 49% of OpenAI, the company is seemingly set up so the 5 board members have control and they’re seemingly not under the control of investors.
Could this actually be about Altman and his allies trying to take the company fully for-profit so they could benefit? It also seems Altman is very close to Microsoft, so rather than product roadmap this might actually about trying to take control of the company.
Microsoft hiring the staff and forming an AI unit is a boon to them if it happens, but OpenAI still own and controls everything they’ve worked on up to date, and it seems the Investors don’t control that judging by the boards independance.
Meanwhile Altman is tweeting very concillatory OpenAI but pro Microsoft position. This may be a battle for the whole company, not just a personality thing.
Yeah I was wondering this too - is 8 the floor, 8 cores or below the value is always the same, but above 8 cores you then get your log progression? I don’t know enough about this though.
This feels misleading? They’re claiming Linux has been hard coded to 8 cores but from what they describe in the article it is specifically the scaling of the scheduler?
If I understood correctly the more cores you have, the more you could scale up the time each individual task gets on a CPU core without experiencing latency for the end user?
I can see that would have a benefit in terms of user perception Vs efficient use of processing time but it doesn’t mean all the cores aren’t being used? It just means the kernel is still switching between tasks at say 5ms when it could be doing it at 20ms if you have lots of cores and the user wouldn’t notice. I can imagine that would be more efficient but it’s definitely not the same as being capped to 8 cores; all the cores and CPUs are being scheduled just not in a way that might be the most optimal for some users.
Is that right? I feel like the title massively overplays the issue if so. It should be fixed but it doesn’t affect how many cores are used or even how fasr they work, merely how big the chunks of time each task get to run and how you can “hide” that from desktop users so the experience feels slick?
I use Noto Sans, or the Liberation Sans / Liberation Serif fonts. Tend to have a mix but Noto Sans for most desktop/GUI fonts.
I also quite like Libre Caslon and EB Garamond as serif fonts for reading, so tend to use those with e-reader software or on my ereader device.
I do install the old Microsoft Fonts just in case/out of habit but they seem to be disappearing from the internet fast now.
While it’s a factor it probably isn’t the root of the problem. The problem is car manufacturers are building the cars faster than the market is growing and at high price points than consumers want in a time of economic difficulty and inflation.
We’re still seeing build out of electric infrastructure, expensive cars vs petrol cars, and a relatively small second hand market (which also drives infrastructure expansion). It also doesn’t help that countries are pushing back promises to ban non-EV car sales. Dealership monopolies certainly exacerbate all those problems.
This story headline is nonsense though. EVs are working and are growing. The story is actually that car companies have made expensive attempts at grabbing market share which haven’t worked and are now counting the costs. They’re delaying the rate of growth in production, not reducing production - significant difference.
No it depends on how you interpret it. Apple may have legitimate reasons for technical differences between the different versions of Safari. The issue would be if Apple is claiming they are more different than they really are to say they don’t count as one when calculating market share.to.determine whether regulation applies.
Mozilla Forefpx has different versions for Android, and Desktop. So does Chrome. But in terms of marketshare generally people class them as one browser.
Out of interest what part of the UI don’t you like? You can drag and drop pretty much any button and component where ever you want and you can use the Firefox colours website to apply any colour scheme you want. This is all core browser features so no performance affects.
What is it that a theme is then adding?
It’s good users are now aware that Brave includes redundant features that you have to pay extra for to activate. Users browser will update everytime the browser or the VPN software needs an update.
For example Firefox VPN from Mozilla is separate software. They don’t force millions of users to download it even if they don’t want it.
This is yet another example why people should not be using Brave and should be skeptical of its intentions.
What was your dream about windows?
That doesn’t make sense? How would you have the “add from search bar” feature in the settings screen?
It’s a context specific method of adding a search engine - you add it when you’re at the site. Meanwhile the setting screen is global for the browser.
I am confused by this post, there are 4 ways to add search engines to Firefox:
From the settings page via “add search engine” button, to pick on from the Firefox add-ons site. This is the “main” route for most users as it ensures you’re adding links from a trusted source (so you won’t add a fake version of a popular search engine by accident that scrapes your data).
Via the address bar. Any website that supports OpenSearch can be added by right clicking the address bar and selecting “add search engine name”.
Via the Mycroft project website, where almost any search engine in the directory can be added to Firefox.
Via bookmarks and keywords. This is slightly more involved but almost any engine can be added this way.
Android Firefox offers slightly different routes but again any search engine can be added. It is a bit more involved though.
Firefox includes certain search engines by default as it gets revenue from the search engine providers for doing so, and Mozilla is transparent about this. Although Mozilla is independent, the Google search engine deal remains one of its biggest sources of income. That’s how it survives.
The default add-ons site meanwhile is a compromise between security and convenience for the majority of users, but people are not locked in to it and other search providers are not locked out of it.
The Mullvad browser is modified Firefox btw, as is the Tor Browser it is itself based off. I don’t know how much either contribute to the Mozilla foundation. Tor is an open source project but Mullvad is a commercial enterprise.
The BBC article that this article is a bizarre summary of is far better (the Gizmodo article even links directly to the BBC article). It give a far better overview of the issues; the main crux is they cost most than anticipated through both theft and cost of the machines themselves. The consumer’s disliking it is a less point and more naunced essentially “customer’s want the technology to work but it isn’t” which is also what you’ve said.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20240111-it-hasnt-delivered-the-spectacular-failure-of-self-checkout-technology
Personally I preferred the self checkouts because I don’t want to interact with someone, but th they fail so much (because of the weighing which is to stop me being a supposed thieving scumbag, not to benefit me) and you end up standing around waving at a random stranger to come and fix the machine awkwardly while a massive queue waits impatiently for a machine. I’ve recently switched back to the manned checkouts for bigger shopping trips.