GNOME Shell 45 moved to ESM (ECMAScript modules). That means you MUST use the standard import declaration instead of relying on the previous imports.* approach.
<span style="color:#323232;">import Clutter from 'gi://Clutter';
</span><span style="color:#323232;">import Gio from 'gi://Gio';
</span><span style="color:#323232;">import * as Main from 'resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/main.js'
</span><span style="color:#323232;">import * as Volume from 'resource:///org/gnome/shell/ui/status/volume.js';
</span>
well that’s what I tried, but how would I know where Volume is located in the path 'gi:// … '. Is there any way of browsing / exploring the jave files to that I can actually know what the path is?
I edited my comment with an example for your code and my best advice for figuring out the path of gnome shell imports is by browsing /usr/share/gnome-shell/js/, the docs are not very helpful.
It is very likely the wrong path, I just extrapolated the path from the gnome-shell git repo. I don’t use Gnome myself, I’m on the enemy team using LXDE on Devuan ;)
Just to clarify. The gi:// resources are GObject Introspection modules which are used for multilanguage bindings to native libraries. On my system, GI modules are found in /usr/share/gir-1.0/ . They’re just imported by name and sometimes version using gi:// (there are examples in the link in my first comment).
As I don’t have Gnome installed I can’t be sure of the path to gnome shell modules imported using resource://, but it’s probably the path I wrote, but without js/.
The operating system in use shouldn’t be a factor. Consider opening your laptop to perform a thorough cleaning, and also consider replacing the thermal paste as well. If you’re not comfortable doing this yourself, taking it to a repair shop is a viable option. Investing in a cooling stand for the laptop would also be beneficial…
Replacing the thermal paste is essential. It dries out over time and stops conducting heat effectively. Cleaning the fans and radiator fins is important too. Takes an hour or so if you don’t know what you’re doing so shouldn’t take long. I’ve kept my laptop going for years by doing that every 2 years or so.
I'm very excited about how the Linux community generally seems to be moving towards various approaches to immutable systems - all of them having in common that system updates are going to be a lot less likely to break. The future is looking good!
is pretty vague. Do you mean locked down, with features like SafetyNet which locks people in to Google Services? Or do you mean locked down in the sense that installing packages doesn’t just directly change the files in / ?
Systems like rpm-ostree still allow modifications to the OS, it just requires other steps. OpenSUSE MicroOS even allows for arbitrary modifications to the root fs through transactional-update (it even allows for dropping in to a transactional-update shell, so it’s not necessary to prefix each command with transactional-update).
Especially OpenSUSE MicroOS feels more like OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, compared to Fedora rpm-ostree’s limitations compared to Fedora dnf.
Using Fedora Silverblue has gone a long way to dispel that concern for me. It goes out of its way to be much more user-centric than that. I can’t speak for the others yet.
Well you can’t really use something not useful to you. Yes Linux is very nice but at the end of the day you gotta use the thing that gets the job done.
Take this from someone who has spent entirely too long fighting to make certain software and games work on Linux…seriously way too much time.
Just dual boot. It’s the best of both worlds. You can spend your time in Linux but when you want to play that game or need to use your special software you can just switch into it.
It also gives you the flexibility to try alternative software but you always know you have the real deal on your windows partition if you get stuck.
It always depends on the game and the software. Sometimes even games and software that should run well on Linux have issues. At some point you’ll realize you’re spending more time troubleshooting thab enjoying the game or using the software.
I’ve had that realization with Apex. It works fine 80% flawlessly on PopOS. But over the last year there has been a bug or something that throws an error. It’s always after updates. A file fails to update all the way so I have to manually revalidate game files and download the ones that are inevitably broken.
I was spending 5-10-15minutes fighting this issue each time I wanted to play and I have a finite amount of time these days. So as soon as the error happens, I restart into windows and play.
It’s unfortunate since it’s been flawless until recently, but at the end of the day I want to play apex not troubleshoot proton,respawn,steam, and PopOS.
Since many years i do not play because have no time for that, including the fixing the issues. Used to play and like to fix issues because that is a good learning technique.
Manjaro is one of the few distros I’ll actively campaign against. They’ve made countless mistakes and questionable decisions in the past, and their repo/packaging lifecycle is known to cause a lot of issues: One, Two, Three, Four. Go for EndeavourOS or Garuda Linux if you want the idea of Manjaro but managed by competent people.
“Countless” mistakes meaning two which were easily fixed.
There’s nothing wrong with Manjaro, in fact it’s probably the most user-friendly Arch distro. I’ve been using it for years and I chose it after trying several various distros and this was the one where everything worked out of the box: graphics, audio, peripherals (including controllers and exotic mice), and of course Steam and gaming.
They package drivers and stable kernels out of the box. They provide an easy to use tool for switching and installing drivers and kernels. They attempt to add extra stability to the distro (not all of us like or need to stay on the very bleeding edge all the time). Delaying the packages has zero relevance for AUR and anybody who believes otherwise should probably stop using AUR because it’s obvious they don’t understand how it works.
People who keep on linking those outdated hate lists about it are actively doing themselves and everybody else a disservice. Promoting hate against an Arch derivative for no good reason will not help Arch’s cause, on the contrary, it makes newcomers to shy away from the whole can of worms and drives them to Ubuntu.
The receipts that I just linked show far more than 2 mistakes. I don’t care whether they have fixed them or not, I care that they have made so many. Trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. Distro forks are nothing special, so why use the one with a history of bad management? Use Arch proper or any of the countless Arch forks that use the real Arch repos, which will inherently sidestep a lot of issues that Manjaro created for itself.
You say that delaying packages makes things more stable but there is a clear history of that not being the case, which has already been described in the links I posted. This is most importantly true in terms of delayed security updates. You also don’t understand how the AUR works in conjunction with outdated Manjaro packages, which will cause dependency problems and lead to breakage. This is a very simple cause and effect so I’m not sure how you think you can try to assert “everyone else must misunderstand how dependencies work”.
As for the last bit, no Arch is obviously not being hurt when Manjaro is called out. If anything I’ll bet Arch wishes Manjaro would stop tripping over itself and giving Arch a bad name. They are already sick of Manjaro users using the AUR and complaining every time it breaks their packages, and you can read what Arch’s security team thinks about Manjaro here on r/archlinux (image mirror here if you don’t want to visit that site).
Nobody’s perfect, all Linux distros out there have had a rough start. The ones that endure and stick around are the ones that eventually improve. If you were around when Arch came out you may recall very similar attitudes from fans of other entrenched distros disparaging their efforts. Arch wasn’t born perfect either, they made plenty of mistakes in their early days.
But if you’d demand perfection all the time you’d never use the vast majority of distributions that are trying something new. We need to rise above partisan and petty differences because Linux is a hotbed of innovation and freedom and we as a community need to encourage and nurture trying new things, not dump on it.
This is most importantly true in terms of delayed security updates.
Security updates aren’t delayed in Manjaro, they’re pushed through out of band.
You also don’t understand how the AUR works in conjunction with outdated Manjaro packages, which will cause dependency problems and lead to breakage.
Once you’ve compiled an AUR package it will remain compatible with the system you compiled it on until you update and introduce an incompatibility.
This is true for any Arch or Arch-based distribution. It has nothing to do with when the distro updates packages. It’s purely a coincidental factor of whether a particular AUR package breaks binary compatibility with any particular distro update. Users who don’t regularly update their AUR packages to keep them in sync with the system will seemingly randomly experience breaks, depending on what AUR packages they use. It can and does happen on Arch just as well as any derivate distro. You need to either automate AUR updates or update them by hand to avoid it.
you can read what Arch’s security team thinks about Manjaro here
That’s not the “Arch’s security team”, it’s one person on a 3rd party forum, with a history of issuing personal statements reeking of personal grudge. Yeah I know that comment unfortunately. It’s a singular, isolated piece of flamebait and it makes me sad to see it’s still being bookmarked and passed around 5 years later.
Arch has made a lot of mistakes, and their most recent one where they bricked everyone’s GRUB loader is the one that caused me to stop using it as a general recommendation. This sort of thing would never happen in Debian, and pretending that “every distro makes massive mistakes!” is disrespectful to distros that actually put a ton of effort into making sure these things don’t happen. Sweeping those mistakes under the rug is harmful to new users who don’t know what they’re signing up for when they download the distro that you are sugarcoating, and that is the primary reason to make sure that anyone considering Manjaro is aware of its past so they can make their own decisions.
Security updates aren’t delayed in Manjaro, they’re pushed through out of band.
Manually. Also read as: delayed. The comment from Arch’s security team that you are minimizing is part of the reason why this is a bad idea: “They just forward our security advisories without reading them. Leaving critical security issues to rot in their “stable” repositories while only pushing forward issues that are publicized or users telling them about”. Once again, why would I trust the Manjaro team to be on top of security when they can’t figure out how to keep an SSL cert alive? Their security mailing list hasn’t even been updated in a year.
Once you’ve compiled an AUR package it will remain compatible with the system you compiled it on until you update and introduce an incompatibility.
You are dodging the real dependency problem by focusing on this half. The real dependency problem is that when an AUR package updates and Manjaro’s packages are not new enough for the update, it will cause breakage. AUR packages are built with Arch Linux’s repos in mind and no care whatsoever for the versions of packages that Manjaro holds. Updating your AUR packages frequently will all but guarantee that you will eventually run an AUR update that requires a dependency with a newer version than Manjaro provides, and that app will break (or worse, the AUR package is a dependency for other apps which will cause further breakage). Even Manjaro knows this: “Using AUR also implies Arch stable branch - which is only achievable by using Manjaro unstable or testing branch.”. Also take it from their team: “The AUR is neither officially supported by Arch nor Manjaro. If you do use the AUR on Manjaro, use our unstable branch. Problem solved.”
That’s not the “Arch’s security team”, it’s one person on a 3rd party forum, with a history of issuing personal statements reeking of personal grudge. Yeah I know that comment unfortunately. It’s a singular, isolated piece of flamebait and it makes me sad to see it’s still being bookmarked and passed around 5 years later.
Yes very sad that a member of Arch’s security team made a warning about Manjaro’s security 5 years ago and still we have people pretending that it’s “flamebait” because that’s a convenient excuse to dismiss it.
The real dependency problem is that when an AUR package updates and Manjaro’s packages are not new enough for the update, it will cause breakage.
How many AUR packages do you use? I have about 70 installed right now. Never had a source-level incompatibility happen. You’d have to let system updates lapse for years to lose source compatibility with a current AUR package.
I no longer use Arch, but this wouldn’t have happened to me because I used vanilla Arch. On Manjaro it can happen at any moment that an AUR package silently depends on a new part of a dependency not implemented in the older versions. The AUR does not care to figure out which exact version dependencies are needed for a program, because you are expected to always have an up-to-date Arch system before installing. If the AUR cared about Manjaro compatibility they would need to mark every dependency with a minimum version number, but that’s a lot of effort and the AUR understandably doesn’t care about supporting Manjaro’s repos. If Manjaro stood up its own AUR this would no longer be a problem.
(Personally, I don’t think AUR packages are a good idea for system stability/security even on vanilla Arch, but it is understandable that people like them for their convenience.)
I disagree with this post being downvoted. Manjaro has had a number of issues, including forgetting to renew a cert a few times, accidentlly Ddosing Arch, holding back repo updates but not AUR updates breaking systems, and some allegations of missused funds.
If you’re searching for something, I would also personally reccomend against Manjaro, simpy for the reason that you are less likely to wind up with something broken on most other distros. I do know some people who swear by Manjaro though, and if you’re using it or set on it then that’s fine too (the best OS is the one that brings you the most value).
–
To acutally answer the question above, though, the best distro is the one that you prefer. Platforms like Steam manages it’s own updates and software so the stable/rolling debate doesn’t really apply here. Same with anything installed with distro agnostic package managers (Flatpak, Snap, Appimages). As far as most gaming setups drivers are the only real difference between distros (and you can always change that yourself manually).
#55856 cygwin hangs during installation at libzstd1-1.5.5-1
This bug report must mean that someone, somewhere, for some reason was running cygwin under wine and cared enough about that that they would create a bug report when it failed…
I agree with NixOS as a good choice for this. The most important bit for me is it cleans up really well when you switch. Every other distro I’ve tried tends to leave a lot of mess behind and a lot of duplicate function apps.
Just be ready to clean out your home, maybe add a new user to test them. I set up KDE then went back to gnome and it broke my cursors somehow… nbd but it’s a bit annoying
Can’t say I’ve seen that yet, but it is a good point. Your home directory might still get a little messy. I think the thought of using the config to me a user per-desktop environment you test is problem a good idea.
This is fantastic! Gnome is such a great project! Well done!
This will sound silly, but I didn’t realize that governments support open source like this. But it’s such a good idea! It’s similar to governments funding a park or a road any other public resource. Open source projects fit very nicely there!
Brave is worse than Chrome. Affiliate link auto injection, unauthorised selling is copyrighted data, their own unblockable ad network, etc. Use Firefox.
Their business-practices sure do leave a lot to desire, which actually does hurt their trustworthiness; arguably their most valuable asset as a privacy-first browser. Hmm…, good food for thought, thank you!
Use Firefox.
I mostly do already 😅, from OP: “at times I have to rely on a Chromium-based browser if a website decides to misbehave on a Firefox-based browser”.
Thank you for mentioning that! I had dismissed it due to alleged shortcomings of its security features. While the allegations are (still) there, I’ve never heard any rebuttal or anything else of that matter. Would you happen to know anything in this regard?
Linux Mint and Pop!_OS are the most recommended beginner friendly distros that “just work” in my experience. That being said, before you install, you can try out the look and feel here: distrosea.com
Fedora kde spin, kubuntu (ubuntu but with kde), kde neon (kde’s distro). I’ve never used neon or kubuntu as a daily driver (just when I was looking for a distro) although they are supposed to be quite good, but I use fedora gnome as a daily driver and fedora kde should be fairly similar. You can also use distrochooser to find a distro that suits.
FWIW link works fine for me (looking at other responses here).
Plasma’s global Edit Mode toolbar now has an “Add Panel” button that lets you add panels. With this located there, the desktop context menu has now lost its “Add Widgets” and “Add Panels” menu items since the functionality is fully available in the global Edit Mode. This makes the menu smaller and less overwhelming by default. Of course, if you want those menu items back, you can just re-add them. 🙂
I know it’s not a competition, but that right there encapsulates what I see as the philosophy difference between KDE and other teams. I love Plasma as a user, but this sort of thing is why I arrived here from there in the first place. Am I going to put those menu items back? Nope. But I like that the possibility I might want to matters to the team.
People need to understand Gnome’s goal is to bring simple Linux machines to the masses. I’m not even talking about your grandma or neighbour Joe, they spend a lot of time going after the 1.2B people in Africa and 400M people in South America. There’s a reason they only have one calculator named “Calculator” and not 2-3 like KDE has with “Kalk” or “Kcalc”. There’s a reason they created stopthemingmy.app.
Lots of power-users still love Gnome, some because it they came from MacOS (which Gnome is still vastly more customizable than), and some because the terminal gives all the power they need on Linux. For people who don’t like Gnome, you can still appreciate the sheer amount of resources they spend upstreaming work and keeping a fully FOSS GUI toolkit, something KDE never had the resources to do.
So yea, it’s frustrating see people hate on Gnome when they don’t even realize they’re not the target audience. (I know you’re not hating on Gnome, but wanted to vent that out a bit)
I have to admit I am a little bit of a Gnome hater, because I was a very happy Gnome 2.6(?) user when they moved my cheese (and then moved it again, and again, and again) - Gnome was for me until they decided I wasn’t the kind of user they wanted anymore.
Having said that, I appreciate the point you are making, and I only (tangentially) referenced Gnome in my first comment because the contrast is huge. KDE likes you to use the system how you want. (and it’s one of the things I love about KDE) Gnome likes you to use the system how they want. That’s all there is to it, regardless of how reasonable the logic behind that distinction may be.
It was pretty much the same story for me (although much earlier, in the 1.2 days I think).
Gnome was great but you couldn’t rely on anything. They loved removing stuff to make it more “lean” or changing it to match their “vision”. They didn’t care about their users, only their circlejerk.
I’m not sure it has changed a lot in since then. I’m glad I dropped that dumpster fire. I still have no idea why it’s the default on so many systems.
At least there are many great options for those who want something else.
I think Gnome is great. The workflow is amazing imo, better than a clunky Windows-inspired UX, and it’s nice to have a distro I can depend on being bug free without it being a project that moves too slowly.
And those trackpad gestures. Man. They make even Apple’s trackpad gestures feel like you’re using a £300 Acer laptop.
It’s also nice to have a desktop that actually gives a shit about UX, distraction-free computing, and consistency. It’s nice to have a desktop that encourages great third party apps that integrate well with the system and follow excellent design guidelines. It’s nice to have a DE team that are ballsy enough to go against the Win95 UX paradigm and does its own thing, despite knowing they’ll get extreme amounts of hate for it.
Just because it’s not your cup of tea doesn’t mean it’s a dumpster fire or they hate their users and are doing a circlejerk.
We don’t struggle with the idea of “Arch is too bleeding edge for me, so I won’t use it, but cool project nonetheless” or “Debian is too outdated for me, so I won’t use it, but cool project nonetheless”, so what is it about DEs - or tbh more accurately, Gnome specifically - that has people being like “this isn’t what I want, therefore it’s a piece of SHIT. Why do they hate their users? Why do the users use it? Don’t they realise the devs hate them??”
This elitist, tribal mentality is one of the worst parts about the Linux community, and is, ironically, a circlejerk of its own.
[ … ] what is it about DEs - or tbh more accurately, Gnome specifically - that has people being like “this isn’t what I want, therefore it’s a piece of SHIT. Why do they hate their users? Why do the users use it? Don’t they realise the devs hate them??”
You’re comparing Gnome and distributions which isn’t a very good comparison. Firstly because distributions are pretty much interchangeable, despite what people say, as they all pretty much do the same thing and install the same software, and secondly because Gnome has some history behind it.
In the early days, there wasn’t really much of a choice as far as desktop environments were concerned. You had a few fairly nice (for the time window managers), but if you wanted something integrated, there was Gnome or KDE. And KDE relied on the non free (at the time Qt). However Gnome kept changing and breaking stuff. The users kept asking the devs not to do it, and the devs quite literally told them to fuck off. A good number of people grew resentful towards the whole project around that time (and notably towards de Caza, who managed the whole thing). Soon enough Qt was freed, and many moved to KDE where the devs listened to users, where the concept was to empower and not to coerce. The difference was simply amazing.
I just suspect that you came in late to the show. I’ve had Linux on my desktop for close to 30 years now. So maybe Gnome got better, but it’s too late. They burned their bridges. As far as I’m concerned, it’s their turn to fuck off.
Now you know why there’s bad feelings towards them.
linux
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.