Can you elaborate why you think this?

Personally I've been running Arch on my work machine for a few years now with very few issues. I'm not even very consistent with updates, and probably run them about once every 3 weeks on average. I have only had to manually intervene on a handful of occasions.

I like it a lot because everything is always up-to-date. I don't face any issues with unsupported versions for tools like I have with Debian in the past. The rolling release model also saves me the pain of doing a "hard" OS upgrade, which often come with issues.

I'm hesitant to comment further seeing I've attracted the ire of some people with my comment, but anyway. I too used Arch out of curiosity about like ten years ago, during the first "Arch, BTW" memes, and found it too unstable, but that's expected from a rolling release: update too soon or too late, and something could break. I didn't mind, as it was a hobby.

Eventually, I got more busy and had less time to tinker, so I migrated to Ubuntu LTS, which has some small warts, but has needed practically null babysitting compared to Arch. I was surprised when the Arch memes resurfaced this year, but that's the only growth I've seen. None of my Linux-savvy peers use Arch, BTW.

FWIW, the only breakage I've seen over the past 5 years is amdgpu bugging out on latest kernel releases, which is easily solved by running linux-lts.

I've had way more problems with Ubuntu trying to be convenient and bringing in lots of Windows-style automation that breaks more often than it works (and when that happens, you're really on your own since you have no idea how it's put together — just like in Windows).

Or even just bugs that were solved upstream ages ago (and have been available in every rolling-release distribution, including Debian testing/sid).

The current Arch installer suggests btrfs with snapper, so you get automatic snapshots pretty much out of the box (need to check one flag in installer), and can easily rollback if something breaks. Not something I needed, but it's there.

This looks interesting. At one point I wanted to use a third party library using luarocks, but I gave up because it wasn't immediately working/straight-forward. It may have been a skill issue though...

In my experience, most people don't use luarocks anyway.

luarocks is easy to use, once you understand the importance of —-local all-the-things.

Anyway, luarocks is easy to use, and is perfectly easy to integrate into most modern build and distribution tools.

However, Lua is everywhere, so of course: ymmv. Disclaimer: I’ve been using Lua for decades now, its Just Great™ in my opinion.

luarocks has too many packages which require building C libs from scratch. It's basically unusable on Windows

And to make things worse, many of them do not compile successfully.

That said, luarocks is still easy to use, the problem is unmaintained packages.

as long as I'm in a vs developer prompt on mine I haven't had a problem. I did build my own Lua though.

They should, it is a breeze.

I thought I'd never see the day! At long last, I'll be able to use non-destructive editing.

Hopefully they'll adopt a more sane release strategy going forward.

I actually prefer the "when it's done" model rather than the "train leaving the station" model, for software like this. I feel it better allows for broad-scope changes, which may touch large swaths of a codebase, to more fully gel/mature before being released. For something that I might only update once every few years anyway (ie: not very security-critical), it seems worthwhile to reduce the overhead of release process/logistics for the developers, letting them spend that time on features/fixes instead.

Or maybe there was another model you were suggesting? What do you find non-sane about the current one?

They basically stopped doing the previously-usual updates for a 7 years to focus on porting to GTK+ 3; GIMP was very tied to GTK+ 2. There were a bunch of much-anticipated features (esp. non-destructive editing) that were finished but couldn't be released because it was half-way through the big GTK transition.

Hopefully the now-impending port to GTK 4 will be a lot smoother and won't be such a disruption to their ability to ship the features they've been working on.

Just to expound on this point:

> GIMP was very tied to GTK+ 2

People seem to forget that GTK was originally created for GIMP, Gnome came around and co-opted it since it was more free (libre) than QT.

GTK3 was a full rewrite divorced from the GIMP development cycle so broke a huge chunk of things GIMP put in place specifically for their code styling. Thus the long development cycle.

Then Gtk4 broke a bunch more stuff, and Gtk5 will probably break even more.

When Qt licensing was a mess there was also the GNU Harmony project to try and create a replacement for Qt.

The problem, like most things with GNU itself, is that large dreams are thought of but never actualized. So, just like using the Linux Kernel vs Hurd, the GNOME project had to plugin what was available; and that was GTK.

If those fixes take years to get released, that's not really a good thing. One year with bug fixes is typically okay unless you're dealing with hardware.

From the release notes: "we also intend for minor releases to be much more frequent. Rather than having another 6+ years development schedule for GIMP 3.2, we plan to release it within a year of 3.0".

As a user of a Firefox-based browser, YouTube's performance really is hit or miss. Sometimes it's ok, other times it's barely useable.

These days I simply queue up videos in mpv. It is much lighter on the resources, and also provides a nice cache that makes seeking through videos a breeze. I can open a link straight in mpv using a very nice system[1]. Once I have an mpv instance open I simply drag links on top of it to enqueue them. (shift+drag if you haven't set the following option in your config: drag-and-drop=append)

It works so well I find myself doing it for other online sources of videos too (e.g. Twitter/X, local TV websites, ...)

[1]: https://github.com/Baldomo/open-in-mpv

I use h264ify plugin and didn't see performance issues for playback. The UI depends on test group you go into, but only the first load is really terrible.

I never have yt issues in FF. Do you have addons that are yt related?

There was a thing couple months back where Google was AB testing stuff that broke FF. So not everyone experienced it

Went away about a week later

I would only donate for firefox specifically, when given the promise that it would be spent on development. Never to Mozilla with all the weird stuff they fund and work on.

Thanks for checking! Stealing this and adding it to my global userscript, just in case ublock doesn't catch the download.

Unless I’m misreading the code, it looks like it’s running GA, but giving it an opt-out signal to harvest.

It's not, It's adding a global variable called _gaUserPrefs to every site. If the actual GA script is loaded it would look for this as the opt-out signal.

Of course any other tracking (or GA tracking) could use this as a part of fingerprinting.

Ah. So there is a "trust us" aspect to this.

Yes, if you use googles products to block googles products you have to trust google.

My main point is that the extension itself does not load GA, which the parent seemed to say. It can also be used for other fingerprinting since it is a variable accessible by other scripts.

Please don't conflate Europe (the continent) and the European Union.

Continent is a mass of land, it can't have values. E.g. countries on the European continent include Turkey and Russia. European Union on the other hand explicitly declares shared values.

Looks really nice. I do have my doubts about the ergonomics of it though. Once you've had a taste of concavity and column-staggering nothing else feels the same.

That's how I feel about keyboard tilts away from a full pronation/flat and towards a neutral position. Once I switched to having a rotated split keyboard, my forearms and wrists felt incredible, and I hadn't even considered them uncomfortable before.

I wonder if they could fit a simple flip-out stand for some tilt without too many compromises

I really hope the Ladybird browser project succeeds in the next few years, because it seems that Mozilla is digging Firefox' grave deeper with every step they take.

I think the main issue in this case is that the maintainers provide an official flathub entry themselves. People using the fedora flatpak are not aware that they are using an unofficial (and incomplete) package, and then go to upstream with their issues.