OP claims that “actually nothing will actually run” because the stable Wayland protocols lack so much important functionality. In reality, many people use Wayland every day
Are the Wayland compositors people are using every day exclusively using “stable” Wayland interfaces? Honest question, because I have absolutely no idea.
You can verify the signature of the manual download as well. Either way, you are trusting the files you download over HTTPS from mullvad.net. There’s no real difference, except that when you use the repo, you are trusting it indefinitely, whereas if you download the deb directly, you are only trusting it once.
Using the repo is less secure, because it opens you to future attacks against the repo itself.
There’s nothing wrong with installing a .deb manually.
Personally, I’d hesitate to add any third-party repos unless there is a very good reason. In this case, the only real difference is that you won’t get the updates automatically with sudo apt update; sudo apt upgrade without the repo. Either way, the desktop app will notify you when updates are available. There’s very little advantage to using the repo.
Adding a repo is very rarely required. It has deeper consequences than simply installing an app, and requires a higher level of trust. If you don’t understand the security implications of adding a repo (and its associated key), then my advice is: just don’t.
MacOS also supports exfat out of the box. So do most Android phones, TVs, consoles, etc.
It’s only viable choice for cross-platform use, AFAIK. Not the best fs out there by any means but I still use it on my all my USBs because I need them to work everywhere.
The link you posted seems to have the full url embedded so it doesn’t work in my client. I think this will work, pasted as plain text: !veronicaexplains
Haven’t tried it yet, but I can see myself using it in the future. It could be great for automating Mac/iOS development and administrative workflows. I don’t think you can compile, sign, notarize, or inspect Mac/iOS apps without Xcode tools (which are, of course, Mac-only). It’s a pain in the ass to operate Mac VMs for such purposes, and it’s only getting more difficult as time goes on. IIRC Apple only allows 2 guest VMs per host now.
Not sure if there are any non-Mac tools to work with dmg files (Mac disk images).
If GUI support is sufficiently developed in the future, there are plenty of Mac apps I would like to run. iPhone app support on Linux would be an absolute game-changer.
I’m also interested in hearing Proton users’ experience. On paper it looks like an okay deal, but you could get a similar suite of services from Posteo + iDrive + Mullvad + BitWarden for cheaper and not end up locked into an “ecosystem”.
However, there is legitimate value in combining email and drive space. Posteo only gives you 2GB for email, and their upgrades are rather expensive.
Also, Mullvad might not be equivalent since they axed the port forwarding feature a while back, making BitTorrent only kind-of usable (incoming connections will not work).
I disagree with the characterization of Homebrew as a “virtual environment”. It installs binaries and libraries in its own directory and by default adds those directories to your PATH. This makes them first-class entities on macOS. Unlike with WSL, there is no secondary kernel and no hypervisor. Everything runs natively within the macOS environment. There’s no bridge, no virtualizer, not even sandboxing with Homebrew or MacPorts. Homebrew and MacPorts do not install “Linux” software; they install Mac software.
As a real-world example, I can install newer versions of standard tools like openssl and kerberos5 via MacPorts or Homebrew, and native Mac apps that rely on those pick them up seamlessly. I don’t think that is realistic with WSL, if even possible.
I haven’t re-evaluated a lot of development stuff since the release of WSL2, so perhaps things are smoother now, but in WSL1 I found there to be a big disconnect between e.g. a Windows-native installation of Spyder and a WSL-based Python environment. If there is a way to set that up, rather than installing Spyder within WSL and wrestling with X11 to run it as a second-class GUI, I’d love to hear it.
Having used both, I don’t find WSL comparable to macOS’s native unix shell. Aside from the bloat of it, integration with the rest of the OS is troublesome on Windows, and WSL apps are second-class citizens. On macOS, there is no “rest of the OS” because the unix shell is fundamental. It’s not running in a virtual environment like WSL; it is the native environment.
the WSL 2 architecture uses virtualized networking components, which means that WSL 2 will behave similarly to a virtual machine – WSL 2 distributions will have a different IP address than the host machine (Windows OS).
As of right now WSL 2 does not include serial support, or USB device support
If you have no open file handles to Windows processes, the WSL VM will automatically be shut down. This means if you are using it as a web server, SSH into it to run your server and then exit, the VM could shut down because it is detecting that users are finished using it and will clean up its resources.
WSL is a great addition to Windows, but it’s still kind of a band-aid.
In what way is macOS more closed than Windows? The kernel is open source, the app store and cloud stuff is entirely optional, and it runs most Unix-y stuff natively.