If I cared one wit about either of them, I'd put money on VLC. If only because Star Citizen won't make it before the heat death of the universe.

What I want to do is install all of these Optional Dependencies that are part of the wine-staging package without specifying every one of them:

Optional Deps   : giflib
                  lib32-giflib
                  gnutls
                  lib32-gnutls
                  v4l-utils
                  lib32-v4l-utils
                  libpulse
                  lib32-libpulse
                  alsa-plugins
                  lib32-alsa-plugins
                  alsa-lib
                  lib32-alsa-lib
                  libxcomposite
                  lib32-libxcomposite
                  libxinerama
                  lib32-libxinerama
                  opencl-icd-loader
                  lib32-opencl-icd-loader
                  libva
                  lib32-libva
                  gtk3
                  lib32-gtk3
                  gst-plugins-base-libs
                  lib32-gst-plugins-base-libs
                  vulkan-icd-loader
                  lib32-vulkan-icd-loader
                  sdl2
                  lib32-sdl2
                  sane
                  libgphoto2
                  ffmpeg
                  cups
                  samba
                  dosbox

--asdeps doesn't seem to do that. apt has --install-recommended, I think, or something similar. And for all the bad things I could say about apt, that's a nice feature.

One main reason I went back to Arch BTW is that there aren’t, contrary to the old self a declaration by Suse, that many software available for my use case, so I ended up with tons of ppa’s, sorry, Suse Vendors who relied on each others for libraries, and it eventually broke down my system when some stuff wasn’t available but was required, while some may be available from 4 different, private, repos.

This is the reason I abandoned both Fedora and openSUSE when I tried them. I like plenty about both of them but things are just simpler on Arch. Despite Arch having less software than most distributions, it tends to be the software I actually want or need to use. The few programs not present can be installed from the AUR. Writing new PKGBUILDs is simple and there is no bureaucracy.

Arch is a pain upfront but I've found it tends to save you time later on. It's not without its downsides, though; the primary one being that I'm the one responsible for managing everything and there are plenty of things I don't know.

That's also my preference, but very few games are free software. And most of the games I want to play are encumbered with DRM or cost ten times as much to get DRM-free. Of course, I buy them DRM-free because the DRM doesn't work with Wine, but if it worked with Cedega...well, I might re-evaluate.

The purpose of the GPL isn’t to force companies to pay up to get out of copy left.

That's why it was created, but in practice, many companies make money by selling exceptions. See Cal.com and CKEditor5, for instance. I didn't mention this at all in my comment, though, so I'm not quite sure which part you're responding to. By "level playing field", I meant that everyone can improve Sourcehut and sell a service with more features, but they need to release those new features under the same license, meaning they will make it back to Sourcehut proper. Selling exceptions isn't the only way to make money from free software.

I’m always worried about over explaining or sounding pendantic.

That makes two of us :)

Fair enough, thanks!

It's not so much committing early, but pushing early. You don't want to push early, then rebase your commits, and then force-push to a repository other developers are using too.

But as I've learned from all of the responses in this thread, there are many ways of avoiding this 🙂

I use mpv on macOS and haven't had any trouble to speak of. But you might have installed VLC from the App Store, which is a common mistake—unless you're installing Apple's own software, you probably shouldn't use the App Store. It usually only carries inferior versions of the software to comply with Apple's terms, haha.

I very rarely use Microsoft Office nowadays, but once it's installed, it's (mostly) fine? I've heard from a coworker that there are some significant missing features in some software in that suite. I just remember struggling to find the page to download the Setup.exe file. I went to the exact same page in Microsoft Edge and a download button that wasn't there in any other browser suddenly appeared! Maddening! This was a 5 or 10-license verison, I think.

Judging by the big © Microsoft 2022 logo in the bottom right, I'd say you're right.

I guess this is one of those things I'm not going to appreciate until I need it, but none of that sounds more appealing to me over Docker Compose. I'm not sure how debuggers, etc,. would even apply to the server or why you would need to use a cloud server rather than running the services locally for a development environment. My guess is this would be a lot more useful for Windows users who don't have as easy access to the right dependencies?

Huh, fair enough. I guess I'm still not using git to its full potential. What I do now is SSH into my desktop from my laptop and work on it there. It's easy because I use Neovim.

This is quite interesting. Is the devcontainer spec tightly coupled to VS Code, or is it something that other IDEs do/can support?

Well, to be honest, I have a Docker Compose setup I use with Neovim anyway so I don't know what the benefits are of devcontainer compared to that.

Another good point. I forgot Adobe is targeting the mobile market as well. However, I doubt Adobe wants to ship a webapp as an official product for mobile devices. Steve Jobs might have wanted to only support webapps on iOS in the beginning, but we're at a point where most users won't accept anything but an app as a first-class experience. It could make sense as a beta product though.

And it's not necessarily that Safari is the only browser available on iOS/iPadOS, but that Webkit is the only browser engine supported, so Google Chrome/Firefox/Brave and others are using Webkit while changing the appearance and some features of the browser. Minor nitpick.

Personally, I'm all for Adobe going to the web with their products. It means I don't need to keep a Windows or macOS computer around to get some of my work done. I do wish Photoshop Web wasn't a completely buggy mess which is impossible to do any real work with. I don't mind if they don't support Firefox, although I would prefer they did.