Not only companies: https://lists.archlinux.org/hyperkitty/list/arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org/thread/OY2DLNWTZOBPAHFE5FSV4Q6AIWGZO6KV/?noscript

pacman would allow me to install weak dependencies with a simple command-line option rather than black magic wizardry that rivals ffmpeg filtergraphs.

Anything that isn't Arch.

• Ubuntu's package managers won't stop fighting with each other so I can't complete an upgrade easily. Also, I hate apt. Trusting prebuilt binaries from PPAs seems a little dangerous to me compared to trusting build scripts in the AUR, so I don't feel comfortable with that. I do like it otherwise, though.
• Linux Mint is fine, I guess, but no Wayland yet and I don't like Cinnamon. Same PPA issues. Has some more outdated packages than Ubuntu.
• openSUSE is great, but the package managers won't stop fighting with each other and it's lacking a few packages. I like the Open Build System a lot less than the AUR.
• Fedora is fine, while missing some packages, but it broke on me after a week and I had no idea how to fix it so I stopped using it.
• Pop_OS makes everything about GNOME worse.
• Debian's packages are too old.
• Manjaro is more work than Arch and the packages are out of sync with the AUR.
• The packages I want aren't in Solus. Is this distro even still around?

And for distros I won't consider trying:

• Gentoo is too much work.
• Qubes is too much work and I can't play games on it.
• I don't like any of the ZorinOS modifications and the packages are old.

pushed useless crap like the activity view to people

This is easily the best part of GNOME. I wish macOS implemented mission control as well as GNOME has implemented Activity Overview, because using macOS feels like typing with one hand tied behind my back.

slow animations that can’t be completely turned off.

Go to GNOME Control Centre > Accessibility > Seeing > Reduce Animation. It also sets it globally so websites can choose to respect this setting. What animations remain?

They try to reinvent the desktop experience every 2 or 3 years and end up making things worse (like when they decided to remove the desktop icons).

They removed it because nobody wanted to maintain the code, which was generally agreed to be subpar, and it was blocking development elsewhere in Nautilus. They acknowledge it was a dumb idea to implement this functionality inside of Nautilus in the first place when they should have done it in the shell. They realized they were leaving users in the lurch here, so offered a few solutions like installing Nemo Desktop. They even developed a GNOME shell extension prototype before removing it that users could move straight to.

Wait, this is not GNOME, this is Nautilus as a file manager app. There are more providers of desktop icons, namely nemo-desktop is one of the best and you can use that together with Nautilus and the rest of GNOME. Why would you use a worse provider of that functionality?

It wasn't part of some grand design decision that precluded desktop icons. They just made a bad technical decision 20 years ago that ended up accumulating a lot of technical debt.

Now, if you wanted to complain about something, shell extensions are certainly a horse worth beating. Or only letting you set shortcuts for the first four workspaces and forcing you to use Dconf for more. This is really dumb design.

Did your opinion of the teacher change at all after that?

Zion isn't going to see my comment because I'm from an instance that lemmy.world blocks. If somebody thinks my comment might be useful to Zion, please pass it on in my stead by reposting it.

The only thing I’m trying to prevent is someone taking the entire project, changing some strings and icons and releasing a paid Android version based on my work.

If you released your program under an open source license, they wouldn't even need to change anything. They could simply republish your program unmodified for a price. Open source is fundamentally incompatible with restricting commercial use because it means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation.

One way you could restrict this is by trademarking the name you publish your program under. This way, no one will be able to publish a version of your program with the same name, as they would be violating your trademark. The good thing about this is that trademarks have nothing to do with copyright and so are fully compatible with open source licenses. The bad news is that someone could always republish your program under a different name. If you're primarily concerned about users confusing another program with yours, though, trademarks are a great option. You should register a trademark for the name anyway...before someone else does.

I don't have a particular license to recommend that prevents commercial redistribution, but you appear to be looking for a "source-available" license. You might need something custom...every program I've heard of that is source-available has their own custom license (Futo Temporary License, the TrueCrypt license, Microsoft Shared Source Initiative, etc.) The closest thing I could find was the Commons Clause. I know very little about it, though.

Profile switching is a big one for me.

You can change profiles by going to about:profiles. I find the way it's implemented in Firefox preferable to other browsers but I can see why others wouldn't.

You can also start up the profile switcher when you launch Firefox when launching it from the command-line with firefox -p.

Is this what you were talking about, or were you referring to something different?

but I would like to at least have the option for H.265 support.

Google Chrome only recently implemented this via hardware decoding. I imagine it's possible for Firefox to do the same thing without infringing on patents, as the browser doesn't implement a decoder this way; rather, they use the decoder implemented by NVIDIA et al.

I can only laugh when I consider Google announced they were dropping H.264 support 12 years ago: https://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html

H.264 support only exists in Firefox by the grace of Cisco. Out of curiosity, why are you interested in H.265 support?

The gaming performance issues you were facing might be related to Vulkan support for the card, if it works better on Windows, as apparently Kepler cards don't have great support for Vulkan: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=273935

I see Vulkan 1.2 is actually the latest version of Vulkan that supported Kepler architecture GPUs like the GT 730, which stopped receiving non-security updates after October 2021: https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/5202/~/support-plan-for-kepler-series-geforce-gpus-for-desktop

On Windows, games probably used OpenGL. If you were playing games with Proton, it prefers DXVK because it offers better compatibility and performance than wined3d's OpenGL translation layer. DXVK 2.0 and onwards have used Vulkan 1.3, which requires a GPU newer than yours. I don't know whether Steam (and Proton 8+) falls back to using DXVK 1.10 or falls back to OpenGL/wined3d.

Either way, that means you haven't been getting the latest performance improvement updates in DXVK since late 2022. So force-enabling wined3d's OpenGL translation layer with PROTON_USE_WINED3D might help, if it's not doing that already? I don't know if OpenGL would actually perform better, so this is kind of a long shot...

If you were playing Native GNU/Linux games, it might be different.

I second the openSUSE recommendation. My brief experience with it was really nice.

Edit: Ah, I see you've quit gaming, lol. Well, either way, if you use Wine with DXVK, maybe the above will help.

You won’t get anything as useful as RDP or plain old Teamviewer

Is there something I'm missing? Teamviewer is available for Linux and I've done remote support with it: https://www.teamviewer.com/en/download/linux/

I...assume it also works as the machine being remoted into?

The previous generation BMW car my friend owned worked fine. This is a new regression, and if you look further up the thread, you'll see I've posted a photo of page 86 of the BMW handbook where BMW acknowledges their own bad design and pushes the responsibility onto the owner to not lock people inside the car. While also having an auto-lock feature which is on by default.

It would be good to find out if this design was intentional or somehow just not tested until they had produced these models. The wording makes it seem that way.

330i

Well, so much for me having the right side of history 🙂

Thanks for the correction! I had a proper look at the CUPS page on Wikipedia and it's as you say:

Michael Sweet, who owned Easy Software Products, started developing CUPS in 1997 and the first public betas appeared in 1999.[5][6] The original design of CUPS used the Line Printer Daemon protocol (LPD), but due to limitations in LPD and vendor incompatibilities, the Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) was chosen instead. CUPS was initially called "The Common UNIX Printing System". This name was shortened to just "CUPS" beginning with CUPS 1.4 due to legal concerns with the UNIX trademark.[7] CUPS was quickly adopted as the default printing system for most Linux distributions. In March 2002, Apple Inc. adopted CUPS as the printing system for Mac OS X 10.2.[8] In February 2007, Apple Inc. hired chief developer Michael Sweet and purchased the CUPS source code.[9] On December 20, 2019, Michael Sweet announced on his blog that he had left Apple.[10][11] In 2020, the OpenPrinting organization forked the project, with Michael Sweet continuing work on it.[12][13]

This is kind of counter to the point I was making, so thanks for bringing it up. Apple still released some of their software under a free license back then, but without CUPS, it's nowhere near as significant. I guess it's worth mentioning that Apple forked KHTML from KDE as Webkit and continues to develop and maintain that browser engine today. However, Safari is not free software. Webkit is free software because KHTML was released under the LGPL, which prevents derivative software from developing it under a proprietary license.

Although, Apple's own contributions and "any further contributions" are available under the BSD 2-Clause license: https://webkit.org/licensing-webkit/

Which kind of contradicts what I've read on the Wikipedia page where it says certain parts of the browser are licensed under LGPL and others are licensed under the BSD license...

I have no idea how it ended up that way, but there's this announcement: https://docs.webkit.org/Other/Licensing.html