Idk, ~five years doesn’t seem like a long time with regards to CPUs. I had my Ryzen 2200G from summer 2018 to this January, and I would consider my purchase of a cheap Ryzen 3600 to be a bit premature (and it was definitely an impulse purchase). And it also means that the CPU sticker became outdated pretty soon.
It was removed in Android 12
The author acknowledges that, the blog post seems to be aimed at demystifying the concept of namespaces by showing that a “container runtime” that only does limited filesystem namespaces (using chroot) is enough to get some widely used containers running (of course without all the nice features and possibilities of the other types of namespaces)
saying that my legitimate copy of Windows 11 was at end of service
The screenshot says the version you use reached EoS and you need to update. There’s absolutely nothing about invalid licenses in the screenshot.
Good job for getting upvotes on a “haha winblows bad” troll post, I guess.
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.
There are cameras and physical buttons that you might want to use on the phone, and the fold might make it nicer to hold in one orientation. Also, the limitation exists because splitting the apps across the shorter side can make very awkward layouts, at least on small phone screens - no such problem with a square. I see no reason not to have the option of both layouts no matter its physical orientation.
I’ve never used a foldable though, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
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.
Yeah, even the TLDR makes it sound more like Qualcomm is yielding to the pressure from OEMs who want to be able to offer longer updates
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.
Right, now get a borderline computer-illiterate person to connect to your network, ensure their firewall isn’t misconfigured to block all incoming traffic (with TeamViewer, this configuration would still work because the device just connects to the TV server) and open and set up a completely separate screen sharing program.
I know none of these steps are difficult if you have any idea what you’re doing, but I’ve met plenty of people who would most likely need assistance going through the motions. Funnily enough, the best way to do it remotely would probably be to get them to install TeamViewer to then set this up for them remotely.
By the way, as far as networking goes, Tailscale does the same thing TeamViewer does, just for a VPN instead of a screen sharing application - it will try to do all the NAT punchthrough techniques and IPv6 connection and fall back on tunneling through relay servers if all else fails. It’s not any more of a direct connection than TV.
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).
Convenience (after you install it, all you have to do is enter the code and you’re connected, no other setup required), familiarity (it’s the default name people will think of or find if they want remote access - that alone means they can get away with pushing their users slightly more) and - IMHO most importantly - connectivity: if two computers can connect to the TeamViewer servers, they will be able to connect to each other.
That’s huge in the world of broken Internet where peer to peer networking feels like rocket science - pretty much every consumer device will be sitting behind a NAT, which means “just connecting” is not possible. You can set up port forwarding (either manually or automatically using UPnP, which is its own bag of problems), or you can use IPv6 (which appears to be currently available to roughly 40% users globally; to use it, both sides need to have functional IPv6), or you can try various NAT traversal techniques (which only work with certain kinds of NAT and always require a coordinating server to pull off - this is one of the functions provided by TeamViewer servers). Oh, and if you’re behind CGNAT (a kind of NAT used by internet providers; apparently it’s moderately common), then neither port forwarding or NAT traversal are possible. So if both sides are behind CGNAT and at least one doesn’t have IPv6, establishing a direct link is impossible.
With a relay server (like TeamViewer provides), you don’t have to worry about being unable to connect - it will try to get you a direct link, but if that fails, it will just act as a tunnel and pass the data between both devices.
Sure, you can self host all this, but that takes time and effort to do right. And if your ISP happens to use CGNAT, that means renting a VPS because you can’t host it at home. With TeamViewer, you’re paying for someone else to worry about all that (and pay for the servers that coordinate NAT traversal and relay data, and their internet bandwidth, neither of which is free).
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.
If it doesn’t come at the expense of battery wear, then sure, lower charge time is just better. But that would make phone batteries the only batteries that don’t get excessively stressed when fast charging. Yeah, phone manufacturers generally claim that fast charging is perfectly fine for the battery, but I’m not sure I believe them too much when battery degradation is one of the main reasons people buy new phones.
I have no clue how other manufacturers do it (so for all I know they could all be doing it right and actually use slow charging), but Google has a terrible implementation of battery conservation - Pixels just fast charge to 80%, then wait until some specific time before the alarm, then fast charge the rest. Compare that to a crappy Lenovo IdeaPad laptop I have that has a battery conservation feature that sets a charge limit AND a power limit (60% with 25W charging), because it wouldn’t make sense to limit the charge and still use full 65W for charging.
I have no clue what’s meant by “without download”, but this app just uses web assembly to inspect the archive in the browser. The sandbox they talk about most likely refers to the browser sandboxing.
So it pretty much boils down to “risking running malicious code is fine, because this app as a whole is treated as malicious by the browser”.