KubeRoot

While I agree with the rest, does Lutris have backup options? I never actually checked, but don’t remember seeing any of that

It’s not being made “as painful as possible”, it’s just manual. Arch isn’t a distro that’ll preconfigure things for you so everything’s plug’n’play, it’s a distro that’ll give you access to everything and the power to use it however you like, but with that comes the expectation and responsibility to manage those things.

Installing arch manually is simply a good lesson in how your system is set up, what parts it’s made up of, in part because you’re free to remove and switch out those parts.

And sure, there’s no magic bullet to make sure a new user understands everything they did, but I think in the end, if you’re not willing to read, learn and troubleshoot, you might just want a different distro.

I don’t think either has ntsync support enabled by default, but it’s supposed to have better accuracy or performance, thanks to putting the needed APIs directly in the kernel, right?

Not the same person and cba to get a timestamp right now, but it’s the 80% rule - the electrical stuff isn’t designed to deliver the rated amperage continuously for hours on end, so for car charging, you’re apparently supposed to limit it to 80%. Now, 80% of 50 isn’t 42 but 40, so not sure if it’s a case of 80% not being a precise number or a mistake here, but it roughly checks out.

This feels like surreal memes before they turned into almost entirely misspellings and other repeat jokes.

I had the impression cloud was about the opposite - detaching your server software from physical machines you manage, instead paying a company to provide more abstracted services, with the ideal being high scalability by having images that can be deployed en masse independent of the specifics of where they’re hosted and on what hardware. Pay for “storage”, instead of renting a machine with specific hardware and software, for example.

Yes, apple should allow that, and Sony should allow that. Your “gotcha” seems pretty stupid, because “allow” doesn’t mean “facilitate” - it’s not Apple’s responsibility to make those things work on their devices, but Apple is going out of their way to prevent individuals from making those things happen on their own.

If you license your project under GPL, and somebody submits some code (like through a pull request) that ends up in the library you use, you are now also bound by the GPL license, meaning you also have to publish the source of any derivatives.

The way to avoid it is to use something like a CLA, requiring every contributor to sign an agreement giving you special rights to their code, so you can ignore the GPL license in relation to the code they wrote. This works, but is obviously exploitative, taking rights to contributions while giving out less.

It also means if somebody forks the project, you can’t pull in their changes (if you can’t meet GPL terms, of course), unlike with MIT, where by default everybody can make their own versions, public or private, for any purpose.

Though it’s worth noting, if you license your code under MIT, a fork can still add the GPL license on top, which means if you wanted to pull in their changes you’d be bound to both licenses and thus GPL terms. I believe this is also by design in the GPL license, to give open-source an edge, though that can be a bit of a dick move when done to a good project, since it lets the GPL fork pull in changes from MIT versions without giving back to them.

I think the trick might be that nothing is stopping you from using more than one 32-bit integer to represent addresses and the kernel maps memory for processes in the first place, so as long as each process individually can work within the 32-bit address space, it’s possible for the kernel to allocate that extra memory to processes.

I do suppose on some level the architecture, as in the CPU and/or motherboard need to support retrieving memory using more than 32 bits of address space, which would also be what somebody else replied, and seems to be available since 1999 on both AMD and Intel.

Thinking about it… Since I’m not planning on switching to windows, and (non-VAC?) bans on steam are game specific, would I even care if I got banned from a game for using it on Linux?

Though I probably also won’t be playing this game, since I have no prior interest, so I’m biased.

I got the impression that the PolyMC situation was quite different, with that developer masking it and doing a minority of the work, but after one change made by the rest of the developers they snapped, used their control over the repository to remove the rest of the maintainers and take sole control over the repository.

I was aware of some shenanigans and hostility from PolyMC and never used it, but I got the impression there were no major outward signs before that happened?

Git exposes a lot of internals through odd commands, so I suspect you could manage synchronization by sending changes over email or something.

Bonus fun fact: there’s a git bundle command that “dumps” the repository into a single file, that can be interacted with as a remote. So if you’re ever working with a local repository and want to put it on a server over ssh or something like that, you can just create a bundle, scp it over, and clone from that on the server.

Fundamentally, the repository you have on GitHub is the same thing as the repository you have on your computer when you clone it. Pulling and pushing are shorthands for synchronizing commits between the two repositories, but you could also synchronize them directly with somebody else who cloned the repository. As somebody mentioned, you can also just host the same repository on two servers, and push to both of them.

The issue is that git doesn’t include convenient features like issues, pull requests, CI, wikis, etc., and by extensions, those aren’t included in your local repository, so if GitHub takes them down, you don’t have a copy.

An extra fun fact is that git can be considered a blockchain. It’s a distributed ledger of immutable commits, each one representing a change in state relative to the previous one. Everybody who clones a repository gets a copy of its entire history and fast forwards through the changes to calculate the current state.

Eh, I’ve previously fucked up my bootloader, all you need to do to fix it is boot up a live image, mount your root partition, arch-chroot into it, then follow normal steps to set the bootloader back up - it’s not scary if you know what you’re doing, just time-consuming

I’m tempted, though I use rEFInd not grub, but fixing any damage should be easy with a live image handy…

I might be wrong, but I think that actually wouldn’t do anything, because grub is installed by the tooling from the package, not the package itself?

I do want to clarify: it’s not Linux itself, but specific distributions (or rather their package managers). As far as I know, Arch’s pacman would do nothing to stop me 🥰

I’m not sure if this is what you mean, but I do want to clarify - the drivers in the repository are still proprietary drivers from Nvidia, just tested and packaged by the distribution maintainers, dkms is just some magic that lets them work with arbitrary kernels with minimal compilation. Unless you’re using nouveau, which I don’t think is ready for most uses.

I’d definitely recommend against using drivers downloaded from a website, on general principles.

custom kernels don’t work with the drivers from apt

Check if there’s a dkms version - I know that’s the way it’s set up on Arch, if using a non-standard kernel you install the kernel headers, and dkms lets you build just the module for your kernel.

At some point, I think people will pray for nuclear war, because life will be so miserable.

Reminds me of Roll out the Fallout by The Chalkeaters