Actually a good example:
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When it comes to KDE this feels out of date.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!
It’s how hyped it was and expectations set by Skyrim. Starfield was seen as the next step on from Skyrim in terms of game scale, and Bethesda hyped it up as their biggest and best game ever. It’s neither of those things.
Also frankly in terms of RPGs, it feels dated. Witcher 3 set a new bar for what an RPG should be, but Starfield doesn’t seem to have learnt those lessons. Baldurs Gate 3 has also set a high bar for RPGs this year, and Cyberpunk 2077 (for all its own flaws) also set a high bar for RPGs.
Starfield is an ok game but when it’s hyped as it going to be the greatest game ever from Bethesda and going to be biggest game of the year, I’m not surprised it’s being shat on when it turns out it’s not.
But hopefully Starfield will be an important bump on the road for Bethesda. Bigger is not necessarily better and hopefully that lesson will carry in to Elder Scrolls VI.
Yeah reptuational is part of the issue but there is also a big financial issue too. Delaying a game is financially difficult as it affects financial projects for each year with shareholders (who only care about share price growth). If you release a game in a poor state you get to hit some of the financial targets which benefits the publisher particularly, but for the developer it means longer terms sales are much lower as reviews and feedback come in that the game is crap. You then have to patch and repair the game.
Patching has allowed publishers and developers to get away with this releasing of games in bad states, but it doesn’t change that fundamental issue which disproportionately affects the developer. Dev studios often only have 1 game being worked on at a time. An unready early release which is poorly recieved can be an existential crisis. For publishers, a poorly recieved game is a disappointment but generally have other many other games also on release so they can move on and not care as much.
No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk are high profile exceptions. The gaming world is littered with abandoned flops, often due to not being ready for release.
The sequel Yoot Tower is worth a look too. Sim Tower was a rebadge of a Japanese game called The Tower.
I suspect the real problem is that Unity’s revenues and profitability don’t match whatever targets have been set by it’s investors. Unity Technologies lost $921m last year on revenues of $1.39bn. That’s not a great position to be in for a 19 year old company, and with supposedly 2bn people a month supposedly using a Unity powered game every month.
They’re either earning too little, spending too much or both. They’ve tried to increase income, controversially, and now they’re trying to cut costs. Question really is, can this company actually be profitable or is their business model just fundamentally flawed.
As a doctor, we would work and hour more or less depending on the shift changed. Im paid a supplement to work out of hours rather than by the hour, so we’d just suck it up of working an extra hour and be happy if we worked less.
If you’re paid hourly then you’d be paid for the time you worked.
But shift starts and finishes were unchanged, it was just the length that got altered.
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.
So big mistake here: NAC is not harmless. It does have side effects and it also has toxicity at high doses.
It has not been studied in long term use orally or IV, it’s main use bomg short term use for paracetamol overdose treatment. Inhalation is more studied but it is not absorbed into the body in the same way.
We think it is safe but we haven’t actually done human trials to be sure. What we have found in mice is that high doses can cause lung and heart damage and also when it comes to alcohol it is protective if taken before alcohol consumption BUT it amplifies the toxicity to the liver if about 4 hours taken after alcohol. All of this is summarised on the Wikipedia page which looks to be good quality.
Overall it may be a useful drug but don’t take it off label or self medicating. Medicine is littered with unexpected effects of drugs that only came out once it was too late. Thalidomide is a good example - a “wonder drug” for nausea used in pregnancy that was not tested and caused horrific birth defects which only became evident when it was too late.
Your body is not a lab, be careful experimenting with supposedly “safe” drugs.
So the way evolution works, the design we have works well enough that it doesn’t cause problems. It might be the best possible design or it might not, all that mattered is that whenever it arose in evolutionary history it was either an advantage over what camebefore in terms of survival so propagated or it was not detrimental and paired with something else genetically that propagated.
We can’t definitively answer your question but we can speculate on why it’s a good idea to separate urine and faecal matter. Urine is a reasonable medium for growing bacteria. That wouldn’t matter in the colon but would matter if bacteria from the colon could ascend into the kidneys and diarupt it’s function. Valves could help or a bladder that drains into the colon, but complete separation may just be better.
It may also be that the acidic nature of urine would disrupt the helpful bacteria we rely on to colonise our guts to help digest foods.
Another possibility is the constant flow of urine would mean our faecal matter would never dry out. It’d be like having diarrhoea all the time and we’d need to poop constantly. The colon retrieves enough water - but not all water - that’s why poop isn’t hard as rock. If it was flooded with fluid it may not need to retrieve fluid.
The fluid might even be stuck in a cycle between the colon and the kidneys and make it harder for the body to keep homeostasis - as the kidneys excrete more fluid to try and regulate fluid volume the the colon could just resorb it. Basically the colon could end up working against the kidneys and cause even more work for thenl body. It may just be less efficient than discarding water as needed.
Drier faecal matter in the colon and a reservoir of fluid in the bladder does also give us freedom to release when it is safe to do so, which may protect us from predators (having to stop to poop even a few times a day is dangerous compared to only going when you know it’s safe to as there are more opportunities to be attacked by a predator). It would also be very easy to track an animal that leaves a constant trail of poop and urine uncontrollably behind it.
All or none of these may be reasons why we have separate urinary and alimentary tracts; it’s impossible to know and would always be speculation. But regardless these do seem like reasonable reasons why we may have separate tracts.
What was your dream about windows?
Yeah we had this in the UK for a time when minimum wage was introduced. Up until about 2008-2009 when it was finally changed so that employees had to have minimum wage regardless of tips the hospitality industry didn’t collapse despite the noise made in the right wing press.
However we now have issues with employers stealing tips from employees via various dodgy practices. The law is likely to change again here to protect tips too.
Chicago are making a step in the right direction but employees will still lose out of tips aren’t protected too
So the other 55% of the time it’s a Lemmy user? I.e. the majority of the time!? There is so much irony in your post.
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 real “problem” is how you make it work without a monopoly system like Google’s or Apple’s or Steam or Microsoft. They have to varying extents made monopolies where app makers want to list in their store, and accept they take 30% of the revenue because they are the sole gatekeeper to a large number of users. That model doesn’t work in Linux because you can’t create a monopoly to force someone to use your store.
Microsoft keeps trying in Windows via sheer scale but UWA’s are not a monopoly so people currently largely bypass it. Microsoft even now lets App makers keep every penny of money generated “in-app” (except for games) as it’s desperate to try and grow. Canonical has tried it with Linux and has also failed because ultimately it isn’t a monopoly and it’s method of Debs as the article said didn’t really work. Steam works cross platform because of sheer size and it’s managed to make a convenient cross platform library which gradually locks users in to an extent, and also forces publishers to list it’s game there. It’s very difficult to get to that kind of scale to be compelling.
For an “App store” to work in Linux under the currently “accepted” business model, you’d need to find some way of making it a monopoly or compelling somehow so that users will buy in and the 30% price tag to App makers becomes impossible to ignore due to the scale. I can’t see that happening. Google did it with Android by forking Linux and making it an entirely walled garden it controlled; the free route into that garden is there but is very marginal and you have to bypass security measures to get to it.
The only way I can see it working in a limited fashion in Linux is if someone makes an “at cost” model where the share of revenue taken by the app store is purely to maintain the store (including the payment system, any “drm” that might be needed etc). That sounds like the Flathub route. But I can’t see it growing rapidly or being compelling for App makers to take a risk on - it’ll probably take a long time to gradually grow and prove itself as a reliable way of monetising apps.
Whether or not we need monetised Apps in linux is a whole other question. For me personally, aside from Games, all the software I use on Windows and Linux is free OR a subscription service (such as Office paid for by work, or my Email, Password manager and Backup software which I pay for). On my phone, the only software I’ve ever bought has been low level - like a music player or a theme app; and that has been an engineered demand because Google has a monopoly, which largely keeps out the opensource community allowing app makers to step in. I bypass that now with F-droid. I accept I’m part of the exception in Android, but most users have that expectation in Linux and Windows.
I don’t see a substantial “app store” type eco-system growing in those environments. If someone is willing to give it away for free as FOSS, then it leaves little room for App makers for low level software. The only route to make money is then the “premium” or value added models, and a lot of that is going subscription model - software as a service. App stores are largely the result of closed eco-systems; in an open eco-system like Linux and even Windows it just doesn’t make much sense.
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.