I know there’s abit of a war going on about the technical merits of flatpaks which I don’t know enough about the Unix world to fully understand.
As a newer user flatpaks have been pretty great, I like having the Android like permissions system through flatseal especially for my proprietary apps like Discord.
I dunno if I’d go all in on using only flatpaks but for what it is, consider me a fan.
yes, the last 2 mentioned commands throw the error below and won’t continue the operation:
<span style="color:#323232;">Error:
</span><span style="color:#323232;"> Problem: The operation would result in removing the following protected packages: systemd, systemd-udev
</span><span style="color:#323232;">
</span>
I was running dnf update when the system was shut down, and I rebooted when the power was back. The system apparently booted normally, and I tried to complete the upgrade process, to avoid issued. Now, the “dnf update” command shows the error message I posted.
In the original post, the error was in portuguese. Now I changed system language to english and posted the entire output of dnf update in the original post, to make it more readable for the community.
But well, you might also be running into a bug or something that could potentially be exploited, or maybe just into a lack of documentation (which is also a bug). Either way, some devs might be interested in knowing about this.
Well if there’s an application that the developer only releases a flatpak for, do I have a choice in being one of those million if there’s no easy way to compile it myself? What if I’m a newbie linuxer and cannot get all the dev tools installed?
what’s your point? if flatpak makes it easier for developers to package their software and easier for users to install it, there’s nothing wrong with it being famous
What do you currently do if a developer doesn’t package their software for other distros? Maybe they only provide an AUR package or a .deb, so someone else has to package it.
With flatpak the only difference is that a distro independent package exists, that anyone can install. It being possible to do cross-distro apps with a single package doesn’t make it any harder for distros to also package it.
Thanks, I think I understand now what you mean. I still disagree on the notion that people are forced to use flatpak and that the number is meaningless because of that. People choose to use flatpak because it solves their problem.
I’d say it’s similar to many people who use Ubuntu because of its big user base and software support. It’s still an achievement to be recognized.
Anyway, I do agree that the number itself isn’t really relevant. I’m pretty tired and maybe I’m a bit pedantic, so good night (or have a nice day, depending on your timezone).
do I have a choice in being one of those million if there’s no easy way to compile it myself?
You always have a choice. Just yesterday, I had an app’s documentation say “install brew so you can download our application and themes”. I noped right out of there and found a different application altogether.
I don’t think there’s any business entity artificially forcing the users to use it (like Firefox on Ubuntu 😉) if that’s you’re asking.
Otherwise, the only case where the user is “forced” to use flatpak would be when the software they’re looking for is not available under their distro’s repo, which happens a lot especially in point release distros.
Love that they’re making these accessibility improvements as an open platform that other DEs can also leverage. Linux and Linux programs are going to become a lot more accessible to people because of this foundational work.
Compliments to the gnome devs and to the STF, accessibility is something very important that understandably doesn’t usually receive much development.
This question reads a bit to me like someone asking, “Why do trapeze artists perform above nets? If they were good at what they did they shouldn’t fall off and need to be caught.”
Do you really need a firewall? Well, are you intimately familiar with every smidgeon of software on your machine, not just userland ones but also system ones, and you understand perfectly under which and only which circumstances any of them open any ports, and have declared that only the specific ports you want open actually are at every moment in time? Yes? You’re that much of a sysadmin god? Then no, I guess you don’t need a firewall.
If instead you happen to be mortal like the rest of us who don’t read and internalize the behaviors of every piddly program that runs or will ever possibly run on our systems, you can always do what we do for every other problem that is too intensive to do manually: script that shit. Tell the computer explicitly which ports it can and cannot open.
Luckily, you don’t even have to start from scratch with a solution like that. There are prefab programs that are ready to do this for you. They’re called firewalls.
Tell the computer explicitly which ports it can and cannot open.
Isn’t this all rather moot if there is even one open port, though? Say, for example, that you want to mitigate outgoing connections from potential malware that gets installed onto your device. You set a policy to drop all outgoing packets in your firewall; however, you want to still use your device for browsing the web, so you then allow outgoing connections to DNS (UDP, and TCP port 53), HTTP (TCP port 80), and HTTPS (TCP port 443). What if the malware on your device simply pipes its connections through one of those open ports? Is there anything stopping it from siphoning data from your PC to a remote server over HTTP?
The point of the firewall is not to make your computer an impenetrable fortress. It’s to block any implicit port openings you didn’t explicitly ask for.
Say you install a piece of software that, without your knowledge, decides to spin up an SSH server and start listening on port 22. Now you have that port open as a vector for malware to get in, and you are implicitly relying on that software to fend it off. If you instead have a firewall, and port 22 is not one of your allowed ports, the rogue software will hopefully take the hint and not spin up that server.
Generally you only want to open ports for specific processes that you want to transmit or listen on them. Once a port is bound to a process, it’s taken. Malware can’t just latch on without hijacking the program that already has it bound. And if that’s your fear, then you probably have a lot of way scarier theoretical attack vectors to sweat over in addition to this.
Yes, if you just leave a port wide open with nothing bound to it, either via actually having the port reserved or by linking the process to the port with a firewall rule, and you happened to get a piece of actual malware that scanned every port looking for an opening to sneak through, sure, it could. To my understanding, that’s not typically what you’re trying to stop with a firewall.
In some regards a firewall is like a padlock. It keeps out honest criminals. A determined criminal who really wants in will probably circumvent it. But many opportunistic criminals just looking for stuff not nailed down will probably leave it alone. Is the fact that people who know how to pick locks exist an excuse to stop locking things because “it’s all pointless anyway”?
I write C# for a living and I’m the same - Windows at work, Linux at home.
I use VSCode on both OSes. On Linux, I only use VSCode for C# and I have the MS-free version for any other languages I want to use.
I also use VSCode 95% on my work laptop which is a Windows machine. The extension Ms are really good and the dotnet CLI is pretty robust. There are also extensions that can help you deploy stuff to Azure too.
I use an 6900 XT and run llama.cpp and ComfyUI inside of Docker containers. I don’t think the RX590 is officially supported by ROCm, there’s an environment variable you can set to enable support for unsupported GPUs but I’m not sure how well it works.
AMD provides the handy rocm/dev-ubuntu-22.04:5.7-complete image which is absolutely massive in size but comes with everything needed to run ROCm without dependency hell on the host. I just build a llama.cpp and ComfyUI container on top of that and run it.
I used to think that I wanted to distro hop. Turns out that what I wanted was a bare bones OS that gave me the freedom to rice in strange and unnatural ways.
After 25(!) years of battling X11, dependency hells, and the early days of desktop compositing, I finally realized that what I wanted was Arch, and a few window managers to play with. SwayWM, and now Hyprland.
Unless you have some niche needs (real-time audio encoding) or want to play with more esoteric experiments (Nix, OSTree, etc), distro hopping is overkill.
But most distros have homogenized to the point to where all you need is knowledge about systemd to go from one to the other.
Just pick your favorite, non-snap distro and hack on it.
linux
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.