Linux is Linux. What sets distros apart are basically the config and pre-install defaults and the package manager…

The latter is Portage, developed for Gentoo and used (among others) by ChromeOS.

@[email protected]

The problem is that the people lacking those technical skills are struggling with Windows, too, but got brain-washed into believing that this is how it’s supposed to be. And they are somehow also the ones defending Windows bullshit the loudest because else they would need to acknowledge being wrong.

File permissions…

allowed to execute=1, allowed to write=2, allowed to read=4

grouped by owner/group/everyone.

So one of your own files you have full access to while users in your usergroup are only allowed to read it and nobody else has any permissions would have: 740 (read+write+execute / read / none).

As much as I despise Windows while also using archlinux/i3-wm as my daily driver…

Tiling is no rocket science. Basically every stacking window manager including Windows can do it well enough to be usable with just a few properly configured defaults and short-keys.

For the majority there is sadly a very simple answer…

Reason #1 to be at risked of being impacted by that malware? You don’t care and won’t read a technical article either.

by factor of 3 obviously…

And adhering to the law would kill my thriving “pay me a dollar and I allow you to club a billionaire to death”-business. So what?

Requirements: hardware (optional)

In simplified terms:

You are allowed to modify stuff but it is not actually changing the install as is.

This is achieved by different techniques like file system overlays, containerisation, btrfs snapshots and so on.

The idea is to replicate the classical behavior you know from embedded devices that have their core functionality in ROM with even firmware updates only overlayed or modern smartphones: You can modify your system but in the end there’s always the possibilty to “reset to factory settings” as in: the last known working configuration.

And now to the interesting question:

Does China plan to pump up that oil to sell it to the morons flooded with anti-renewable propaganda while changing to electrification via green energy themselves just like many other big oil producers?

I’m afraid I already know the answer.

Section 129 of the Criminal Code is colloquially coined as the anti-Mafia paragraph…

Guess against whom it is never actually used. Hint the answer starts with criminal and ends with organisations.

You are obviously not doing enough work with a full screen terminal being open… 😜

Compatibilty of Windows games in Linux have gone a long way, partly but also independently from Steam’s work on it.

In fact Linux nowadays supports more Windows games than Windows, as especially older games still work there but not on modern Windows anymore.

I will not pretend that there aren’t games with issues, but in the vast majority of cases that’s new games and for the simple reason that some publishers actively go out their way to prevent them from working on Linux (highlights being anti-cheat tech that Linux worked hard to make it compatible, yet with certain publishers intentionally not setting a simple flag needed to run, often with totally made-up “reasons” about Linux’ insecurity…).

Wouldn’t it be great if just one company per 10 articles about European companies “looking for alternatives” was actually ditching US services for European alternatives?

There are basically two viable options:

Renewables plus short-term storage (for ~6 hours, which is enough to shift production peak to demand peak) plus long term storage would be one.

The other is renewables plus nuclear and long term storage. Here you can get by -compared to a fully renewable model- with less renewables (although that part is financially speaking neraly irrelevant) and slightly less long-term storage. Nuclear base-load mostly eliminates the need for short-term storage and makes power-to-gas as long-term storage more efficient (electrolysers work much better economically when you can have them run most of the time, instead of needing a lot to use up peak overproduction while not running the rest of the day).

If you want to look at numbers (and different models) there’s a big study of France’ grid provider (from end of 2021 I think) about nuclear power models by 2050. And they assume roughly (they modelled more or less nuclear) 35% nuclear / 65% renewables.

Also we can assume a demand increase for electricity by a factor of ~2,5 when industry, heating (where it didn’t already happen) and transport is electrified to get CO₂-neutral. So if you are going the nuclear route you would need (on top of a lot of renewables) nuclear capacities of more than 80% of today’s demand (80% / 2,5 = 32%…).

Also if you don’t already have high nuclear capacities available already you need to start building en masse preferably yesterday. Because to meet already agreed upon climate goals starting slowly now and burning a lot of fossil fuels for another 20 years until newly build reactors are ready will not work out.

And now compare this with reality: Basically every country talking about nuclear plans is still in some early planning phase, none of them are planning sufficient capacities and a lot of them are also still stuck in some imaginary and nonsensical nuclear vs. renewable discussion.

So to answer your question… He ist right because you either plan a sufficient amount of reactors right now or you don’t plan any at all. And if you can’t realistically pay the upfronted cost of a massive nuclear build-up right now, then that’s a reason not to do it. But building just a reactor (or 3) to pretend that it will reduce CO₂ quickly until you have a better solution or can afford to build more reactors is just stupid bullshit. That’s what a renewable upbuild is for, that actually helps reduce emissions within years, not in a decade or more when a nuclear power plant is build.

And he is right. But as nuclear is a scam not meant to solve anything and is just used as a distraction to spend years “planning” totally insufficient capacities at high costs so some lobbyist friends can burn fossil fuels longer, it won’t happen. Just like in bascially every other European country telling the fairy tale of some nuclear solution.

He only thinks it was a “mistake” because he (at least publically) believes that Trump is working in the interest of NATO, Ukraine or the Western world and isn’t working for Russia.

I actually like what Steam did for Linux gaming in general, but in the end it is slowly becoming a crutch. Why should I spin up the Steam client (that is neither fast nor easy on resources, too) every time I want to play a non-steam game?

Again… it’s nice what Valve is doing in general and that most of the stuff is open source and thus can be back ported to Wine.

I however find it concerning that the number of people doing so seems to be constantly decreasing. And I don’t actually understand why the majority of gamers -people that are insanely obsessed with very small FPS or other perfomance increases sometimes- seems to be content with using Steam as the one-size-fits-all solution for games. Just simple Wine Staging can often match the performance for older games, for all games once you start backporting some patches and fixes developed for Proton. And yet the contributors seem to get less by the day and a lot of projects pre-compiling patched Wine versions are vanishing for a lack of interest.

In short: I don’t get that voluntary lock-in to Steam for very little convenience of having a fancy interface for starting your games.

draw attention and focus away from the real problems

…and the additional ones intentionally created just so a few morons can get even more power.

But at that point pihole is just a fancy web interface with some nice looking but for most purposes useless graphs. I just let Unbound filter stuff with the same filter lists pihole would use.