someone just plain lying about what OS they’re using in order to break fingerprinting.
The idea with avoiding fingerprinting is to look like whatever the biggest group of users looks like, because that’s who you share the fingerprint with. If you use an uncommon value for something, you make fingerprinting easier.
That’s one of the reasons why for example Vivaldi on Linux sets its user agent to match the latest version Chrome on Windows.
Salt from the seawater
Fair enough. I misunderstood, my bad.
Then what’s the meaning of this whole part?
On non-corpo linux syslog can be disabled if you want, though I’d prefer to just symlink/mount /var/log to a memory filesystem instead.
Is it just a random tidbit that could be replaced with a blueberry muffin recipe without any change of meaning of the whole comment? Because it sure won’t help OP at all with their Arch-specific question, so it’s either that, or it provides contrast to the “corpo Linux”, which is how I interpreted it.
And here’s the remaining part of your comment I left out, just to make sure people won’t lose the context between two three sentence long comments (for those without any attention span, it comes before the previous quoted part):
If you’re on arch you use redhat’s garbage.
On non-corpo linux syslog can be disabled
systemctl disable --now systemd-journald
I’d prefer to just symlink/mount /var/log to a memory filesystem instead
Set Storage=volatile in /etc/systemd/journald.conf
The data collection can just as easily be done by the game itself, the launcher doesn’t have any special privileges
How is it open source?
How is it not? Open source doesn’t mean you have to accept other people’s code. And it is perfectly valid to only dump code for every release, even some GNU projects (like GCC) used to work that way. Hell, there’s even a book about the two different approaches in open source.
So whatever benefit you were hoping to get from Nvidia’s kernel modules being open source probably is not there.
It allowed the actual in-tree nouveau kernel module to take the code for interacting with the GSP firmware to allow changing GPU clock speed - in other words no more being stuck on the lowest possible frequency like with the GTX 10 series cards. Seems like a pretty decent benefit to me.
They’re not doing a recall, but that doesn’t mean they won’t somehow compensate big OEMs for their warranty issues.
Probably a bit of a TL:DR of the other answer, but the short answer is: the execute bit has a different meaning for directories - it allows you to keep going down the filesystem tree (open a file or another directory in the directory). The read bit only allows you to see the names of the files in the directory (and maybe some other metadata), but you cannot open them without x bit.
Fun fact, it makes sense to have a directory with --x or -wx permissions - you can access the files inside if you already know their names.
Edit: not a short answer, apparently
You can now turn on the “autoscrolling” feature of the Libinput driver, which lets you scroll on any scrollable view by holding down the middle button of your mouse and moving the whole mouse
Am I crazy, or did this used to be a feature? And not just in Firefox
It’s a Windows feature that never really made it to Linux. I used to miss it but honestly, middle click paste feels way more useful to me now
Maybe Redis/Redict? The development on that seems pretty dead.
Yes, that’s exactly the problem - there’s nothing wrong with the encryption used, but it’s IMHO incorrect to call it time-based when it’s “work-based” and it just so happens that the specific computer doing the encryption works at a given speed.
I don’t call my laptop’s FDE time-based encryption just because I picked an encryption that takes it 10 seconds to decrypt the key.
def generate_proof_of_work_key(initial_key, time_seconds):
proof_key = initial_key
end_time = time.time() + time_seconds
iterations = 0
while time.time() < end_time:
proof_key = scrypt(proof_key, salt=b'', N=SCRYPT_N, r=SCRYPT_R, p=SCRYPT_P, key_len=SCRYPT_KEY_LEN)
iterations += 1
print(f"Proof-of-work iterations (save this): {iterations}")
return proof_key
def generate_proof_of_work_key_decrypt(initial_key, iterations):
proof_key = initial_key
for _ in range(iterations):
proof_key = scrypt(proof_key, salt=b'', N=SCRYPT_N, r=SCRYPT_R, p=SCRYPT_P, key_len=SCRYPT_KEY_LEN)
return proof_key
The first function is used during the encryption process, and the while loop clearly runs until the specified time duration has elapsed. So encryption would take 5 days no matter how fast your computer is, and to decrypt it, you’d have to do the same number of iterations your computer managed to do in that time. So if you do the decryption on the same computer, you should get a similar time, but if you use a different computer that is faster at doing these operations, it will decrypt it faster.
It’s a very short Python script and I’m confident I get the general idea - there’s absolutely nothing related to current time in the decryption process. What they refer to as a “time lock” is just encrypting the key in a loop (so the encrypted key from one loop becomes the plain text for the next one) for the specified duration and then telling you how many iterations were done. That number then becomes a second part of the password - to decrypt, you simply provide the password and the number of iterations, nothing else matters.
xrandr is Xorg only, it doesn’t work with Wayland. You should be able to make SDDM use your Plasma display configuration - https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/SDDM#Match_Plasma_display_configuration
No clue if that’s going to fix your issues, but at least it’s supposed to work with Wayland.
So I did look more into it, and apparently the open firmware is technically compatible with PCIe cards using this chip, but doesn’t provide any advantages over just wiping the firmware and letting the chip default to its built-in fallback firmware, and so the maintainer doesn’t see any value in explicitly supporting it.
Now the question is whether you consider the proprietary fallback firmware to be acceptable to run - this might sound weird, but for example FSF has explicitly made exceptions for devices with built-in firmware to be able to qualify for the Respects Your Freedom certification, so if your view aligns with theirs, you might consider this to be completely OK. If not, the free firmware appears to have a similar feature set, you’ll just have to jump through more hoops.
Also do note that both the fallback firmware and the free firmware are missing many features of the proprietary firmware, so make sure to check it’s not missing anything you need (wake on LAN, Jumbo frames and PXE boot seem like the most notable missing features to me).
It’s less about the computer and more about the card itself - Talos II and Blackbird both use the BCM5719 chip for their integrated NICs. Basically, you’re flashing part of the motherboard with this firmware. A PCIe card built around the same chip might connect the interfaces in a different way, and firmware doesn’t generally have a way of poking around to find out how everything’s set up from the hardware side of things - it needs to just know this, and that’s why there are separate firmware builds for different hardware.
If you flash one of these files to that card, it might just so happen to work perfectly, but it most likely won’t. You would need to figure out how it’s wired up and modify the firmware with that knowledge. And then you could use the modified open firmware with that specific card model on any computer that supports the proprietary firmware, because IIUC this is meant to be functionally identical.
So in short, no, you cannot currently use this open firmware on any computer other than Talos II and Blackbird, but for slightly different reason than you might think.
Also, the Arch repos are pretty much just an “AUR with binaries” - they contain the same PKGBUILD files used by AUR packages, because that’s how Arch packages are built. So you can just download an Arch package PKGBUILD, modify it however you wish, and then build and install it.
The comment you replied to is a direct reply to the comment you linked - I don’t think it was intentional, but if it was, then I’d like to say it’s not a very helpful reply as OP already read it.