On-screen keyboard was already mentioned, but there are some other small things that might be useful for some:

Reboot/shutdown without having to login (Your husband/wife/partner can shutdown your computer without first having to login and be greeted by the porn folder on your desktop…nah seriously, this can be useful at times when your turn on the computer, get called away and someone else can easily shut down the computer after you didn’t return for some hours)

Keyboard language selection before password entry. Very useful in multi-language households/companies.

The WM selection also allows kiosk-like behaviour in special cases…like you don’t start a WM but start in kodi media player for a movie evening or you create your own WM session file for a single game that runs as soon as you login.

It not being worth using is good, I want this malware practice to die.

Which is a noble goal in my view, I completely agree. But you will not be able to use anything like wine to achieve this…anti-cheat software is specifically designed to prevent all the things that wine does (For the reason that there is no technical difference between a “cheat program” and what wine does)

i’m sure there are already workarounds on windows, it’s not like cheating has been eliminated there

Actually I read about an interesting way a few months ago…on games that enabled linux support in their anti-cheat systems windows “cheats” started spoofing the OS signature to make the anti-cheat system think it runs on wine and turning of the kernel-level anticheat…

But as I said, the effectiveness of anit-cheat is a different discussion independent of the question if wine will support them. Even if anti-cheat systems are ineffective it doesn’t change that they are mainly aimed at stopping exactly the kind of “trickery” wine does. Wine would have to play the same cat and mouse game with anti-cheat as cheats do…if it finds a away to work around them the anti-cheat systems need to find a way to prevent that workaround.

If it could the anti-cheat system wouldn’t be worth using. Being able to “trick” the anti-cheat system into thinking something else is going on than actually happens is the same an actual “cheat” would do. That’s why kernel level anti-cheat system go though a lot of trouble to detect any kind of virtualization or similar tricks…the moment you could trick them into accepting a fake kernel is also the moment that fake kernel can pretend the fake input it generates actually comes from a real mouse or the checksum of that openGL/vulkan library is exactly the one expected and not the one of some altered libraries that “accidentally” forget to not render stuff behind walls…

It’s also something that needs to be kept in mind when talking about “Companies can just enable the linux support in their anti-cheat systems but they don’t.” While this is true of course it also means the kernel-level anti-cheat systems are bared from kernel-access and degraded to user-space only. And as people have access to the source-code of the linux kernel nothing is stopping anyone from just modifying the kernel to…give more “favorable results” while playing the game. Of course the linux playerbase it too tiny to really offer a market for such cheats…but it’s not completely unreasonable to not want to erode the capabilities of your anti-cheat system (That is of course if you believe they work in the first place…but that’s a different discussion).

Just to make this clear (Sorry if it’s unnecessary, but maybe still useful info for others)…Path= lines in .desktop files are not related at all to the $PATH environment variables. They do something completely different (And yes, picking Path as key was a terrible choice in my view). Path= lines in .desktop files change the current working directory…they do about the same as a cd <directory> in a shell.

They do not change where a .desktop file looks for executables…only indirectly if a executable runs another file relative to the current directory or looks for images/icons/audio/other data relative to the current working directory.

And I have no clue why it doesn’t work with TryExec…the desktop file spec doesn’t mention anything about that :( ( https://specifications.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/latest/recognized-keys.html )

Try adding a PATH=/home/werecat/Grayjay line to your .desktop file. Without it the application will run with your home directory as your working-directory…and there the data files are missing (Why you need to copy them to your home). The path entry makes the program work in /home/werecat/Grayjay where the data directories actually are.

Edit: That is assuming when you started it manually you did a cd Grayjay and a ./Grayjay or similar. So you changed your working directory there first before starting it. If that is not the case ignore my post ;)

“Timber!”

I remember playing this some years ago…it was a lot of fun. Back then the “Atlantis” (I think…not sure, its been some years) campaign wasn’t completely finished so maybe time to give it another shot :).

Obscure as in “only for a very specific purpose and nothing else”?..

Well, there is the Mircrosoft linux distro for their azure cloud

I guess DD-WRT as distro for router is also kind of obscure. Or the more general openWRT for embedded systems.

I imagine the “update from another system” path runs in troubles with more complex gentoo installs than just the base system. For a full update from the live disk it will have to include lots and lots of (often exotic) tools that might be used in the building process (document generators like doxgen, lexer, testing frameworks, several build systems and make-likes. programming languages…) in addition to being able to build against the already installed updates for packages while not accidental building against packages that are not updated yet.

Or you go the simpler way and only do a base update from the live-system…only update the base build system and package management of the gentoo system and afterwards boot in a “broken” system in which only the basics works and rebuild it from there.

For be both those options sound less desirable than what is suggested in the blog.

Just to add…because xattr it’s also “easy” (for some definition of easy ;)) to add/modify tags from the shell making mass-tagging feasible (as requested by OP). Second answer here should give a decent starting point…

Cautionary

I settled with German because finding English took way longer than I care to admit ;)

http://divajutta.com/doctormo/ubunchu/c.html

here you go ;) (well, not really a translation of what OP linked but the first chapters of the manga in…lots of different languages)

As much as I dislike snaps…it’s not true that everything snaps do can also be done with flatpaks. snaps can be used for system updates (system libs, kernel, drivers…)…something flatpaks can’t do (and are not meant to do). (Sorry, best link I can find in a short search…but it doesn’t get in very many details :()

Isn’t that what’s the articel about? An alpine contributor calling out projects that “supposedly” target linux according to themselves but instead only target gnu/linux.

As gentoo user I can’t argue with that… ;)

But I think there are reasons why someone would want to build suckless tools manually…namely that their configuration is mostly done in the source-code (Damn, it’s so hard to not write anything too opinionated about suckless but I really try my best). But even then I agree with your other post that it’s far better to use the distro facilities for building the the distro source packages just with your own patches applied.

Lets set aside my personal belief that suckless is a satire that too many people started to take seriously…

Always using the latest git version as done in the article doesn’t strike me as the most sane thing to do if you “just” want to use the software especially as suckless offers version tarballs.

But suggesting sudo make clean install to build is really not okay…(and also not how the suckless tools I checked suggest it). You cloned (or better extracted the tarballs) as user…there is not a single reason to build the software as root. If you have to install then do it in two steps, build as user and only “make install” as root.

https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Programmer-Strong-Birthday-Relaxation/dp/B09P1CNRRM

“Distro recommendation” questions aren’t usually very useful…all you get is everyone recommending the distro they use. It’s unlikely you can get anything useful out of the answers.

I wanted something with support and with people that care for the code

Applies to pretty much every major linux distro that isn’t a derivative and also some of the derivatives that do more than just add some cosmetics (unless you specifiy a bit more in details what you mean with “care for the code”).

Also all distros can be configured, there is no real reason to switch from something like ubuntu because you don’t like how the “Files” manager works to another distro…you could get pretty much the same on ubuntu as other distros offer and in most cases easier than by doing a reinstall. Really, you are better off trying to fix an issue you have on one distro that distro hop at every little problem you run into…

Yes, in a way that’s pretty much how having multiple local terminals work as well. For ssh there is no difference there, you can have multiple logins with the same credentials even from different remote locations.

I guess a mixture of POSIX compatibility, backward compatibility and non-interactive shell use-cases.

Being somewhat POSIX compatible offers a way to write scripts that work on many systems independent of the actual shell implementation (bash, dash, zsh…). But this means major overhauls of the shell “language” are out of question…

Backward compatibility gets important for things that ignored the first point and used features only available in bash. Given that bash is the default for 30 years for linux now there are probably plenty of examples.

And while bash is not the smallest shell it is also not the largest one…and rather configurable at compile-time when it comes to supported features. This makes it a viable option as “shell-script” interpreter for systems that hardly have any interactive shell usage. It’s not a completely bare-bone shell so you get a bit of “comfort” for scripts but you can remove unnecessary things like interactive command line editing with lib readline…I can imagine some embedded systems find uses for such a shell.

And it’s not that there aren’t alternatives…Microsoft’s Powershell is probably the most successful one “recently”. But changing all existing “workflows” from a text-based one to an object based one is not a trivial task…and in addition you run in new problems with any new shell design (For example I really dislike the overly verbose interactive use age of powershell but that’s rather subjective)