Well, since doas has a Linux implementation, stealing that name would cause lots of issues to users who already use it or want to use doas instead of run0. This will be a default part of systemd; not a new package. The reason it’s called run0 is because it’s just a symbolic link to systemd-run, and instead of executing as an SUID binary, like sudo or doas, it runs using the current user’s UID.
SUID stands for Set User ID. An SUID binary is a file that is always run with the UID of the owner user (almost always root). Note that this does not require that the user running them has root permissions, the UID is always changed. For instance, the ping command needs to set up network sockets, which requires root permissions, but is also often used by non-root users to check their network connections. Instead of having to sudo ping, any normal user is able to just run ping, as it uses SUID to run as the root user. sudo and doas also require functions that necessitate them running as root, and so if you can find out how to exploit these commands to run some arbitrary code without having to authenticate (since authentication happens after the binary has started running), there is a potential for vulnerabilities. Specifically, there is the privilege escalation, which is one of the most severe types of vulnerabilities.
run0 starts using systemd-run, which does not use SUID. Instead, it runs with the permissions of the current user, and then authenticates to the root user after the binary has already started to run. systemd-run contacts polkit for authentication, and if it succeeds, it creates a root PTY (pseudo-terminal/virtual terminal), and sends information between your session and the root PTY. So this means that in order to achieve privilege escalation with run0 as root, you have to actually authenticate first, removing the “before authentication” attack surface of sudo and doas.
TL;DR SUID binaries will always run as the owner (usually root), even before any form of authentication. run0 will start with the permissions of the current user, and then authenticate before running anything with root permissions.
sudo is not a fairly simple program. Last I checked, it had ~177k lines of code. It provides functionality far beyond what is needed of an average user. doas is a simpler alternative (also using SUID) at ~3k lines of code. It comes from OpenBSD. There is absolutely a problem when it comes to SUID binaries. If you can find a way to exploit the permissions given at the start of the SUID binary before user authentication occurs (since the UID is set before the binary runs), you have yourself a full privilege escalation vulnerability. systemd is very well integrated with the distros that use it, being the first process to run after the kernel is initialized. There will never be a point at which systemd is not functioning, but the rest of your system is perfectly fine. It is an absolutely necessary part of the system (assuming your distro uses it), and if it goes down, you have to restart your system. As such, I don’t see any validity to the statement “you want to always work, even (especially!) when other things get borked”. What exactly do you see as being an issue with run0? What specific part of its implementation do you seem to have a problem with? It’s just a symlink to systemd-run, which is already very well tested and has been around for a long time. It’s also far simpler than sudo, and removes the attack surface of running an SUID binary of its size. What “points of failure” do you see here, exactly?
First one has a dot next to it, which means it’s the active version. Copy the value after “BaseCommit:” (in my case it is 2f8263a33190c4e1320233aebbdc8f337b0a6abcba371d4870ae43fba33aea62)
Run rpm-ostree db list <paste commit hash here> | grep amd. Example output (my command was rpm-ostree db list 2f8263a33190c4e1320233aebbdc8f337b0a6abcba371d4870ae43fba33aea62 | grep amd):
In my case, running the most recent update on Fedora Atomic KDE, it looks like I’m running version 20240410-1 of amd-gpu-firmware. Yours may vary depending on what update you’re on.
I bought a laptop yesterday, it came pre-installed with Windows 11. I hate win 11 so I switched it down to Windows 10, but then started considering using Linux for total control over the laptop, but here’s the thing: I keep seeing memes about how complicated or fucky wucky Linux is to install and run. I love the idea of open...
Strange that the download limit was so slow, I’ve never had that happen. You can download ISOs from a browser to use in the utility, however, and Fedora has done a good job of simplifying it down to a fairly identical user experience as Etcher
I generally have 2 recommendations for beginners who don’t want something specific, one of which is a community favorite, the other is my own favorite.
The community generally recommends Linux Mint for new users. It’s based an Ubuntu, so it had a lot of great support, but it has the enshittification of Ubuntu (snaps, tracking, pro subscription ads, etc.) removed. It’s a great, simple distro for beginners that generally works all around without tweaking. It’s basically the #1 recommendation for new users, and I gladly support that recommendation.
My personal favorite recommendation is Fedora, through I understand why there may be frustrations for those with Nvidia graphics cards who need to install their drivers. The process to do it on Fedora isn’t very complex, and can be looked up easily, but new users tend to feel intimidated by the command line, and I must admit that the installation of Nvidia drivers and media codec are more difficult than something like Linux Mint (for Fedora, this is a copyright issue, since their main sponsor is Red Hat, a private company). In every other area, I’d say Fedora is great for beginners, and provides a great way for users to get new features quickly without having to worry about any of the instabilities or quirks of something like Arch.
You couldn’t go wrong with either, but you’re certainly going to see more recommendations for Linux Mint in general (especially on Nvidia hardware).
Disclaimer: I know there’s a lot of questions and posts like this but generally they’re aimed at noobs. I consider myself an intermediate user, and I know generally distros don’t matter much and you can have anything another distro has on any distro but I’m looking for something a little “specific” that better suits...
Excluding Fedora because it’s “too close to RH” doesn’t make any sense at all. Fedora is not controlled by Red Hat, and Red Hat has no interest in a consumer desktop platform that they can’t sell. Fedora’s development is managed by FESCo, a community elected board that represents the interests of the community. They are kept intentionally separate from Red Hat’s development, and don’t tailor their development to Red Hat’s wants or needs (in fact they often do the opposite, as Fedora pushes for change in the way things are done, not stability, as can be seen by the exclusion of X11 from Fedora 40, for example). That stands in direct contradiction with RHEL’s goals. The features that are pushed by Red Hat developers would not be approved if they stood against the wants of the community, so anything Red Hat does contribute benefits the community as well. Red Hat’s entire business is in enterprise solutions, as their business model relies on them selling support for their software. There is exactly $0 in potential revenue from Red Hat trying to take over Fedora, it just doesn’t make sense. They can’t sell anything, and since Red Hat doesn’t employ all of the thousands of active contributors, such a takeover would simply result in a new fork. In fact, it would be against their interests, as Red Hat actively benefits from the developments of the community. Taking over control of the project would lose them all of the constant volunteer work put in by the community, which costs far less for them to sponsor than it would to employ a team a fraction of the size on salary. I’ve discussed this topic at length many times before, so I’ll just link to a few comments that explain the situation in more detail (including how the project is funded, managed, and separated from Red Hat).
The best fit for your criteria is Fedora. If you want uBlue spins, you’re still getting Fedora, just a more opinionated version. All of the major development of uBlue’s images comes from Fedora though, as they don’t maintain their own distro, they just repackage Fedora.
There’s a question that I feel I don’t adequately answer in my previous comments, but I feel as if I should address.
Does Red Hat implement their own features in Fedora, and what does that mean for the community?
The short answer is yes, there are Red Hat developers who do work on Fedora. Just as Canonical developers contribute to Debian, Red Hat contributes to Fedora. There is a very important distinction between the development of Fedora and RHEL though, and it’s the same reason no one is up in arms about Canonical contributing to Debian. The changes that Red Hat makes to Fedora still have to be approved by FESCo, so they still have to represent the interests of the community. Red Hat can feel free to pay as much as they like into the development of features, but if those features would contradict the values of the Fedora Project or go against the wishes of the community, they wouldn’t be approved in the first place. Red Hat sees Fedora as a very valuable resource that they can use to test features before they arrive in RHEL. Unlike Canonical, however, they don’t push proprietary solutions, tracking, or pro subscriptions into a consumer desktop platform. Those changes would not be representative of the wants of the community, and would not be approved by FESCo (hence the benefit of a community elected board).
There’s a related follow-up, as well:
Are there Red Hat developers in FESCo? What does that mean for Fedora?
Yes, there are a few Red Hat developers in FESCo, you can view their bios on the Fedora Project website. They were not placed there by Red Hat, however. These are still people that were elected by the community, who would not be there unless users (and other developers) trusted them to make decisions in the interest of the community. You can nominate and vote in the elections as part of the community if you wish.
The biggest factor that I often see glossed over (and perhaps the most important reason Fedora has independence) is that Red Hat doesn’t have any reason to even attempt to corrupt it. Fedora users are not an audience they stand to make money from, and if Red Hat believed there was money to be had in the consumer desktop platform, they would already be selling a product. There is mutual benefit between Red Hat and the Fedora Project, and that gets passed onto the community. Red Hat benefits from the contributions of the community, while simultaneously being able to test new features in an audience that they aren’t interested in selling to, and the Fedora Project gets money and active development back from Red Hat as a result.
Now I’d also like to clarify, because I could understand confusion as to what I meant when I said Red Hat doesn’t control the Fedora Project. Red Hat is allowed to make contributions to Fedora, so long as they meet the same approval criteria as any other merge request from any other person/entity. Red Hat, however, is not able to control how money is spent, or where the priorities of community developers are focused (the direction of the project). So they are free to make contributions to Fedora that benefit everyone (so long as their changes are approved), but not free to test RHEL specific features that don’t have a place in Fedora, for example. In fact, since Red Hat wants to keep their source code away from anyone that doesn’t pay them a subscription, they actually have a vested interest in keeping those RHEL specific features separate from Fedora, as to not make them easily accessible to potential competitors. This is how they’re addressing the competition posed by Rocky/Alma/Oracle Linux.
The only reason that the Fedora Project exists is for community development. There is simply nothing Red Hat could ever stand to gain from changing that model, as they’d lose the entirety of what they are paying for by sponsoring the project. In order to do anything, they’d first need to dissolve FESCo, which would make HUGE waves across the internet. You and anyone else in the community would see news and posts about it immediately. Once that happens, the project dies. Community members are not going to contribute to a project that betrays their trust, after all. So in trying to change anything, the only thing Red Hat would be doing is moving a project that they are paying a relatively small amount of money for (relative to the number of contributors) from community developed to Red Hat developed. That means that they have to personally invest money into maintaining and employing contributors themselves, completely defeating the point of Fedora existing in the first place. If they wanted to privately fund development, why wouldn’t they instead do it in RHEL, or CentOS Stream?
Let’s analyze Red Hat’s current gains from Fedora one by one:
Fedora is a place for Red Hat to test new features before they move to RHEL.
This requires an active userbase, and by privatizing or taking over the project, that userbase would rapidly diminish. Red Hat cannot increase this benefit by any means, other than by leaving the project be as is.
Fedora is community developed, so Red Hat can benefit from commits made by the community (people they don’t pay).
Privatizing or taking over the Fedora Project would immediately end that community development. There’s nothing in this respect that Red Hat could possibly intend to gain from such an action.
Red Hat’s image appears better by sponsoring a community developed project.
It should go without saying that their image would only be damaged if they tried to modify their current relationship.
These are the things that Red Hat is paying for by sponsoring the Fedora Project. A hostile takeover would have exactly zero potential gain and very high potential losses in each of these categories; thus it doesn’t make sense in the slightest.
Now let’s analyze some new potential gains that Red Hat could get by a hostile takeover:
Monetizing Fedora.
This is Linux we’re talking about, attempting to sell a consumer Linux distro for money will not fly, and no one will buy it. After all, even when enterprises by RHEL licenses, they aren’t paying for the software itself. What they’re really paying for is the support package and direct hotline to Red Hat for any technical difficulties. Red Hat makes its money by offering support services, something that does not have any realistic market for the general populace, especially considering the userbase we’re talking about are Linux users.
That’s really it.
There’s just nothing else Red Hat would even stand to gain from any hostile takeover. The only potential motive is money, and Fedora is not a product that will ever generate them revenue. Consumers don’t want to purchase licenses, and enterprises don’t want consumer desktop distros with 6 month release cycles.
Red Hat funds Fedora because it is of great benefit to them to keep it alive, and continue its development by the community. Changing their relationship with the Fedora Project would not only lose the exact benefits they are receiving, but also cost them money, as they will no longer have thousands of community members volunteering their work, and they would have to hire contributors to fill that gap. Additionally, why even bother speculating? It isn’t difficult to move distros nowadays, so if anything ever were to change, you can jump ship on any day of the week to another distro. We seem to live in a world where logic is challenged by a thousand “but what if?” statements that have no basis in reality. It’s quite a pointless endeavor, honestly. What if the distro you choose gets bought out by Google, or Microsoft? What if the distro you choose is secretly funding antisemitism with donation money? What if the distro you choose suddenly dies? These are all absurd questions to speculate on, all to no real end. They each have the very simple solution of “just install a different distro if that happens”. But what if a company tries to exploit a distro for money? There’s no point in even speculating that because there isn’t even any money to be made from consumer desktop distros. The money to be made from Linux is not in the consumer desktop platform, it is in the realm of businesses (enterprise software, embedded systems). There are far too many free options out there owned by nonprofits to ever consider marketing a consumer Linux distro like that. Even with stuff like Ubuntu Pro, you aren’t paying for a license to the distro; you’re paying for extra support.
Why are we treating Red Hat like the most evil company in the world, anyway? As far as tech companies go, they’re pretty damn ethically sound. They’re not nearly as bad as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, IBM, or any number of other tech companies that release proprietary software with no access to source code, massively violate their users privacy, exploit consumers in harmful ad campaigns, etc. Google, one of the most unethical companies in the world owns Android, but we still have AOSP, which is the foundation for custom ROMs like GrapheneOS and LineageOS. If they believed that trying to shut down AOSP would make them money, they would have tried it years ago. Of course, doing so wouldn’t even be legal, as it would be violating GPL.
I’m just not seeing what exactly you’re imagining Red Hat could take away from Fedora for their own gain. Nothing they could do that would have a negative effect on users would result in a gain for Red Hat, as they’d be losing everything they gain from the Fedora Project. In order to make any changes to the development of Fedora, they either have to pay developers to make those changes, or convince community members to do it for them (which is not going to happen if these changes are negative), and that’s assuming that they manage to dissolve FESCo to get these malicious changes approved.
You don’t want to rely on a project that’s funded by corporations? Where do you think the funding for the Linux Foundation comes from? Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and IBM fund the Linux Foundation, so any OS that uses the Linux kernel will be financially dependent on corporations. That’s something you’re never going to be able to avoid.
I don’t understand why this has been blown so far out of proportion. What’s the point in excluding a very good distro that suits your needs perfectly over a fear that some day, somehow, in the indeterminate future, that there would be some new financial incentive created out of thin air that would cause Red Hat to try to take over Fedora? What guarantees that same situation or one similar wouldn’t happen to any other distro you could choose? And to that end, why would Red Hat take over Fedora instead of creating a new fork that they could sell so they can still get all those benefits of community development? I don’t see how any financial incentive created by Fedora wouldn’t be possible to gain downstream.
This makes the false assumption that a CEO would make every decision in the company, but I’ll humor this anyway. If this were to happen, Fedora would lose Red Hat’s sponsorship. There have been a number of community discussions detailing the friction that contributors have already had with Red Hat, some even left after they privatized the RHEL source code. Some are looking for any reason to stop because they dislike Red Hat. This simply would not fly, and you’d see contributors leaving en masse. Similar discussions have been echoed by contributors before, and I don’t expect volunteers to stay around and work for a project that they couldn’t trust to uphold the interest of the community anymore. Both Fedora and Red Hat would be immensely damaged, and Red Hat would have to spend far beyond the amount that they spend sponsoring Fedora to hire new contributors so that RHEL can be maintained, as Red Hat does not have the resources to maintain RHEL without the Fedora community. This would be career suicide for the CEO, and given how much Red Hat relies on Fedora, the threat would be empty in any case. It does not benefit Red Hat to destroy the project fueling their enterprise distro. RHEL already modifies Fedora substantially, as it does not share the same design principles, and Fedora does not actually reflect the direction of RHEL. Even if this were to happen, the answer to all of the “but what if?” questions is the same: you can switch distros. Things like this make waves in this community; it wouldn’t go unnoticed, especially given how popular Fedora is. It’s the same situation with any distro. “But what if they run out of money and development suddenly slows to an unreasonable pace?” Switch distros. Speculating about situations like this is not constructive. You can speculate unlikely situations for any distro you choose, and be caught in an endless loop of irrational “but what if?” questions. The answer, as with all things Linux, is the same: fork it, or find an alternative. Money isn’t going to appear out of nowhere, so the reality is that the Fedora Project (or the fork of it following this) would have to rely solely on community donations, or perhaps try to secure a sponsorship from another company (like Amazon, which uses Fedora as a base for their distro iirc). Worst case scenario: Fedora dies and you install a different distro. I don’t really see the point in asking these kinds of questions.
The issue at hand: My /var/tmp folder is stacking up on literary hundreds of folders called “container_images_storage_xxxxxxxxxx”, where the x’s present a random number. Each folder contains the following files called 1, 2 and 3 as seen in thumbnail. Each folder seems to increase in size too, as the lowest I can see is the...
From what I understand, zram only works on a small portion of the ram, and it used as essentially a buffer between ram and swap, as swap is very slow. It actually benefits systems with more ram, if anything. The transparent compression takes far less time than swapping data to disk
Yes, basically. uBlue doesn’t maintain distros, really, it just repackages Fedora Atomic with some minor changes (including non-free drivers, for instance). That way if you need the software they repackaged into the image (like Nvidia drivers), you don’t have to use overlays, and instead can use uBlue images. In fact, you can actually rebase Fedora Atomic to uBlue and vice versa with a single command. All it does is change where the base images are fetched from, and it’s a potentially easy way to switch between images without having to perform a reinstall (do note that different packages in the base may modify config files that will persist between rebases, though). I haven’t personally tried it, so I don’t know if there’s a likelihood to run into issues, but it’s an interesting option nonetheless.
I’ve had this happen before, and it was due to conflicts between installed packages and the new repos. If you try to run the upgrade through command line, it will let you know if it comes across any issues while trying to upgrade. In my case (I think this happened to me on Fedora 37, maybe it was 38 though), I believe I had some Python package installed that wasn’t in the new repo, so it stopped my upgrade, and I had to use the --allowerasing flag on the command line upgrade to fix it.
The other user linked to the appropriate docs for using the DNF System Upgrade plugin, but I would like to point out that the docs specifiy that upgrades are tested from the 2 previous releases (meaning that you should be able to skip from Fedora 38 to Fedora 40 without installing Fedora 39). So you should be good to upgrade straight to Fedora 40 with a single dnf system-upgrade. Read the output carefully, and if it suggests to use the --allowerasing option, review the incompatible packages (I recommend writing them down if they are important), and then rerun the command with --allowerasing. I strongly discourage running a dnf system-upgrade with --allowerasing before you know what packages it may erase.
I tried different font settings in the font settings and it didn’t improve much (font hinting, anti aliasing, custom DPI settings, different font size)...
I explain a lot about release schedules for context, but you could skip to the last paragraph for the more direct answer to your question if you don’t care.
Fedora is on a semi-rolling release schedule, which only really means that its release schedule is in between that of Debian (fixed release schedule) and Arch (rolling release). A fixed release schedule freezes packages at the time of release and keeps major packages at the same version (plus bug/security updates) for the lifetime of the operating system (usually 2-4 years, LTS support can last longer for some distros). Major versions will have next fixed package versions, hence the need to perform a full system upgrade when going to a new version. Rolling release distros don’t fix packages at specific versions, and you’ll hear them referred to as “bleeding edge”, because they always get the newest updates quickly. Since they don’t fix package versions, there are no “major versions”, they just updates constantly (Arch is just Arch; there’s no Arch 10 or Arch 11). Semi-rolling release (Fedora) fixes some packages at a specific major version; usually large packages that could be troublesome to update to a new major version of because of dependencies (i.e. the DE, core system components, it depends on the distro). So when you perform an upgrade to a new major version of a semi-rolling release distro, you’re changing fewer packages, and there is (usually) less of a gap between versions than fixed releases among the packages that are fixed.
Fedora releases a new major version every 6 months, which they support for 1 year. Since I assume you’re coming from Windows, the new Fedora major versions are kind of like Windows feature upgrades. For the most part, much of the system is exactly the same, but there are some new features included and packages are updated to newer versions. Fedora doesn’t have the real fixed “major” releases like you see from Windows 10 to Windows 11, or any other version. Every major update is just a minor bump, all things considered. In fact, you can even skip a version when upgrading (say from Fedora 37 to Fedora 39 without updating to 38). The differences between major Fedora versions are generally minor enough that you can just press the button and let it do its thing. This is even easier for their atomic distros, but you’re likely just using Workstation. There are some cases where new major versions of packages will necessitate config updates (like upgrading to KDE Plasma 6 did with Fedora KDE users), but that’s generally rare. So yes, you can just hit the button and upgrade.
Fedora 40 removes X by default (you’d have to install it yourself), so this is going to be using Wayland. Seems like they’re using Ryzen integrated graphics, so at least it shouldn’t be related to any of the problems with Nvidia on Wayland.
It’s fairly common for apps to save login information in Kwallet on your keyring, so anytime those credentials on your keyring need to be accessed (like automatically logging into Discord when it starts), you will need to unlock your keyring. It’s generally easier to just log into your profile with a password, as Kwallet won’t need to get you to unlock it separately.
I don’t mean for this to become a KDE vs GNOME post. I’m looking at switching to Fedora (because Arch is a pain), and it seems that GNOME is more supported. I use KDE on Arch. What features would I be losing if I were to switch? (ex: toolbar management, KRunner, etc.)
I’m also going to echo the sea of comments praising KDE support on Fedora. I just switched to Kinoite/Fedora Atomic KDE (for the Fedora 40 release) after using Fedora Workstation for about 5 years, and I’ve loved the experience. My only gripes have been from adjusting to an atomic distro, and have had nothing to do with KDE implementation. It seems that Fedora works very well with KDE, though I suppose I don’t have a whole lot of experience with other distros using KDE.
If you want to use KDE with a standard desktop experience, just use the KDE spin (the standard mutable version). If you’re interested in atomic distros (not trying to convert you, it’s very much a personal preference), then they have the atomic KDE spin as well. I don’t think you’ll be missing anything by using KDE on Fedora, and unless you wanted to experiment with GNOME, there’s no reason to really switch. Workstation and the KDE spin are both maintained at about the same level.
It is certainly helpful in preventing issues caused by packages updating, as the whole base image should remain consistent (and you could always just roll back to the previous update from grub if necessary and revert a commit that broke your system). Since you were using Arch, I made a baseless assumption that you would want the ability to modify the root filesystem for configuration, but it was a baseless assumption, so if that is not the case, then atomic distros are great for users that don’t want to tweak tiny things in root directories like /usr. Granted, you can still overlay stuff if you wanted, so it’s not as if you couldn’t tweak stuff in immutable directories, it just requires a bit more work to do on atomic distros.
If what you’re looking for is a standard desktop KDE experience with a distro that is more resistant to breakage, I’d highly recommend Kinoite. It requires a bit of learning, but not a whole lot. For instance, the typical order of priority for installing packages is flatpak (mostly GUI stuff) > toolbox (terminal-based packages like neovim that aren’t already installed) > overlay with rpm-ostree (basically the equivalent of installing through your package manager). The fewer overlays you have, the better your protection from spontaneous breakage is. Of course, there are packages you will have to overlay depending on the situation (like the proprietary Nvidia drivers), but almost everything I need was available as either a flatpak or was practical to install in toolbox (basically a containerized mutable root that lets you install stuff with dnf instead of rpm-ostree). You can add aliases to your .bashrc so you don’t have to type “toolbox run <cmd>” every time, as well. Just be aware that packages installed in toolbox live in a container, and they aren’t intended to be able to break out of the container (so if you open a terminal in neovim, which is installed in a toolbox container, it will open a shell inside the container, not on your host). Containers can access your home directory and a variety of different directories in your system, so this often isn’t an issue, it’s just something to keep in mind (for instance, you can’t enable systemd services on your host from inside a terminal).
From your recommendation, I found a related project pandoras_pot that I am able to run in a Docker container, and seems to run more efficiently on my Pi home server. I now use it in my Caddyfile to redirect a number of fake subdomains and paths that are likely to be found by a malicious bot (of course all are excluded in my robots.txt for bots that actually respect it). Thanks for the recommendation!
By the same (virtually nonexistent) logic, neither are games in general, or operating systems, or computers, or anything that is not strictly “necessary” for one to survive. Yet all of these things clearly have a strong intrinsic value to society, else we wouldn’t be working so hard on all of it. If you don’t enjoy VR, don’t use it; it doesn’t get much simpler than that. I can guarantee you that no one on the SteamVR dev team is going to care about your opinion or where you think their resources are better spent. Want to change that? Apply for a job at Valve. Pointless comments aren’t going to do anything.
Seems as if there are quite a variety of options, simply by typing a query into a search engine. In fact, KDE Plasma has Google account syncing in the “Online Accounts” section of settings, and it seems Dolphin (the default file manager) has native support for Google Drive in its context menus. I’ve never personally tried to use it, as I don’t associate with Google products, but it seems that it’s there natively. As far as GNOME goes, it seems at least Ubuntu (probably a GNOME thing in general) has support for connecting a Google account, but I have no idea what the experience is like as far as data syncing goes.
You don’t need a native Google made app to sync with Google Drive. Google has no interest in supporting Linux outside of its investment in ChromeOS (which is based on Linux and has Drive syncing built-in, showcasing that this is a non-issue as its main selling point). There are plenty of apps available that allow you to sync on Linux, and it seems (based on what I see in the settings pages) that there are even native options in certain desktop environments.
Maybe because there’s so many Linux implementations?
You mean distros? Linux is a kernel, and it is shared across all distros (with each distro choosing the modules and versions they support). It has nothing to do with Linux being difficult to support, or there being many different versions of it, and everything to do with the fact that Google’s only interest in supporting it is to sell a version of it with their brand on it. Supporting any distro outside of ChromeOS would be supporting open source software, which stands directly against Google’s vested interest in selling their own proprietary solutions and your user data. After all, you actually have control over your own data when you use Linux, and that’s a threat to Google’s business model.
It’s available as a verified flatpak on flathub. No compilation necessary.
Do be aware that users have reported issues running the flatpak on Mint; unsure if it would be the same for Debian. There is a workaround, and it fixes the issue completely (yes that issue is on the Audacity GitHub, but the same applies to Tenacity according to their release notes)
Systemd Looks to Replace sudo with run0 (news.itsfoss.com)
BG3 Vulkan problem? Please help (lemmy.world)
Run through Bottles (flatpak) on Fedora Silverblue, AMD GPU, lutris-GE-Proton8-26...
Finally made the move (lemmy.world)
Just don’t ask how long it took to get my dGPU working properly :D But thankfully, there were a bunch of helpful folks with tips!
I don't know anything about Linux and the idea of installing it frightens me. Where do I start?
I bought a laptop yesterday, it came pre-installed with Windows 11. I hate win 11 so I switched it down to Windows 10, but then started considering using Linux for total control over the laptop, but here’s the thing: I keep seeing memes about how complicated or fucky wucky Linux is to install and run. I love the idea of open...
Windows is hell, i need to do something
Yo linux team, i would love some advice....
Help me choose a distro/stay on NixOS
Disclaimer: I know there’s a lot of questions and posts like this but generally they’re aimed at noobs. I consider myself an intermediate user, and I know generally distros don’t matter much and you can have anything another distro has on any distro but I’m looking for something a little “specific” that better suits...
My /var/tmp folder is endlessly stacking up on "container_images_storage_xxxxxxxxxx" folders? (slrpnk.net)
The issue at hand: My /var/tmp folder is stacking up on literary hundreds of folders called “container_images_storage_xxxxxxxxxx”, where the x’s present a random number. Each folder contains the following files called 1, 2 and 3 as seen in thumbnail. Each folder seems to increase in size too, as the lowest I can see is the...
Can someone explain Universal Blue (and images based on it) to me?
I think I get the idea of Fedora Atomic (Silverblue, Kionite, etc.), but I do not get what uBlue is about....
Help updating to Fedora 40
Hello, I’ve installed Fedora 38 (KDE spin), about the time it came out and need a little help updating it....
text clarity on windows is so good, can I get the same on linux?
I tried different font settings in the font settings and it didn’t improve much (font hinting, anti aliasing, custom DPI settings, different font size)...
So, Fedora 40 is out, any guess as to when we can expect Nobara 40?
Pretty much the title. I’m not a regular on Discord and the website doesn’t have any info about a release plan.
Dual monitor suspend, one monitor does not turn on when waking up. (lemmy.ml)
Finally got my wife away from Windows and on Fedora 40 (Gnome 46)....
Any way to autologin with LUKS encrypted boot drive?
Hello everyone!...
What features would I be losing if I switched to GNOME?
I don’t mean for this to become a KDE vs GNOME post. I’m looking at switching to Fedora (because Arch is a pain), and it seems that GNOME is more supported. I use KDE on Arch. What features would I be losing if I were to switch? (ex: toolbar management, KRunner, etc.)
Blocking AI crawlers with Caddy
I was reading the reddit thread on Claude AI crawlers effectively DDOSing Linux Mint forums libreddit.lunar.icu/…/claude_ai_name_and_shame/...
SteamVR Beta gets Linux fixes, plus Beta updates for Desktop and Steam Deck (www.gamingonlinux.com)
GNOME 46.1 Desktop Environment Released with Explicit Sync Support (9to5linux.com)
Audacity 3.5 brings cloud-saving, tempo detection, non-destructive pitch change, and more (alternativeto.net)
Audacity, the well-known audio recording and editing software, has unveiled its 3.5 version, incorporating several new features and improvements.