GNOME tries to set a high standard of polishedness, look-and-feel, and simplicity of design. This is not wrong and makes GNOME good looking and easy to use for a less savvy user. But this has some drawbacks.

For a more savvy user that knows what he wants to do, the simplistic interface gets in the way and wastes time. In contrast KDE Will hold your hand less, and get less in your way. Though, when you drop these requirements GNOME becomes very pleasant to use, especially on laptops, which is why I use it on my laptop.

Another drawback is that GNOME developers will not ship something that doesn’t fig their standards of usability. This adds to the polishing, but it means you will miss out on features, for reasons like “the options in the settings would be confusing for the users” until they are satisfied. E.G.: fractional scaling and vrr. On the other hand, KDE Will ship things that are less polished, but at least you have it.

Also some applications will work suboptimally on GNOME with Wayland, because of client side decorations.

Hi, I’m hijacking this thread to answer your other questions. Xpadneo is the correct answer, it will work with any desktop environment (xorg or Wayland) and all reasonable distros. It’s also the driver used by the steam deck, so go with that. But I suggest you read the troubleshooting section for two things: fixing input latency (if you experience it) and secure boot (more on that later).

I use both KDE and GNOME (on different computers, for different reasons), but in general I suggest you use KDE.

Now I will explain secure boot:

You can use third party drivers with secure boot on any distro that supports secure boot. Here’s how it works. Secure boot means that the bios checks that the kernel and requires that the kernel checks that all kernel drivers are signed with a key that it recognizes.

Now, either using a second bootloader (like redhat’s shim) signed by Microsoft, or either directly getting Microsoft’s signature, you get secure boot support on distros like Fedora or Ubuntu. So your kernel and all your included drivers are signed by Fedora with a key they got from Microsoft.

Other drivers (like Nvidia’s and this) aren’t signed, so secure boot will not accept those. But, secure but supports MOKs (machine owner keys), which are keys for signing drivers that you manage yourself and you installed on your bios, and secure boot will accept drivers signed with those.

Now, external drivers can be installed using two systems: akmod (used mostly by Fedora and redhat derivatives) and dkms (used by anyone else). These two are not in conflict and will work on the same system at the same time, it’s just preference. The Nvidia drivers you installed used akmod, xpadneo uses dkms.

Both these systems support setting up a key for signing, you should then register that key on your bios. When you installed your Nvidia drivers a little interface made by Fedora for those drivers helped you to set up your key for akmods, and now you can use any akmod driver with secure boot. You could always do it manually and you can do it on any distro, Fedora just adds the graphical interface.

To use xpadneo you need to do basically the same thing but for dkms, and you need to do it manually, it’s very easy, the troubleshooting section should direct you here for instructions, you will recognize some of the steps of registering the key.

If you feel a little adventurous, you can find which key akmod uses, and set dkms to use the same, so you don’t need to register another one.

Also, I strongly discourage this, but you can technically remove Microsoft’s key and sign everything with your own key if you really hate Microsoft. Please please please don’t do it, you will screw up and break your system badly, and it’s also a lot of work. Places like datacenters and such do this. Because they want total control on what goes on those machines. Also they don’t sign stuff on the machine themselves, but they sign on a more secure one and then deploy the signed stuff.

The code for the peeler is stale, it stopped working three carrot seasons ago, but no one wants to rewrite the PeelerBladeRdge class.

A quantum computer doesn’t just calculate every possibility simultaneously, it’s much more limited. It “calculates more things at once” in some cases.

Generally speaking, some things that are hard for a regular computer are easy quantum computers. So if an encryption algorithm is based on the difficulty of those things (e.g. RSA is based on the difficulty of factoring a semiprime number), and the thing is easy for a quantum computer (e.g. factoring a semiprime), then you could defeat the algorithm with a quantum computer.

How do you protect yourself? You base the algorithm on something that is difficult for both a regular and quantum computer, that’s what post-quantum algorithms do.

But quantum computers have one last ace up their sleeve. There is a sure-fire algorithm (Grover’s algorithm) to speed up any situation where you need to find an unknown value of a known length (in this case the secret key). To keep it simple, if to find the key a traditional computer would need N steps (because there are N possible keys), a quantum computer would need just √N, which is much less. Now, this sounds massive, and it is, but if you consider that with M bits there are 2^M keys, then if you just need to check √(2^M) keys, it’s like using keys of M/2 bits, so to defend against this you just need to make the key twice as long.

Lastly, as a footnote: quantum computers can be faster than regular computers, but strictly speaking, regular computers are more powerful, that is to say they can do more things. We say that traditional computers are turing-complete, which means that they can compute anything that is computable, that is not the case for quantum computers, which means that some things (even easy things) that a computer can do, cannot be done on a quantum computer. For example, there is no way to implement regular expressions in quantum computers, it’s impossible. I know regex look difficult, but in computation theory they are among the easiest things a computer can do.

Edit: one quick addition to the paragraph about Grover’s algorithm. If a quantum computer really just tried all the solutions at once it would be much faster than that. It would be (may my professor forgive me for saying this) “like if it guessed the bits of the key one at a time and were right on the first try”, so if you had your M bits key, you would need just M steps instead of the 2^(M/2) steps of Grover’s algorithm (this is like the difference speed difference between “checking if a word is palindrome” and “calculating who will win a game of chess when using a perfect strategy”). A computer that works like that… doesn’t (and probably will never) exist. But in literature they are called non-deterministic Turing machines. They would be powerful like a regular computer (not more) but unreasonably faster.

Depends. Generally English, unless they are “directed” to one specific person like the professor who’s gonna grade it. But even then I might go with English anyway.

Oh I also use my language when I’m leaving an important warning to myself in a config file, like “this is needed because X! don’t touch it! If you touch it do Y!”

I would say:

• Fedora if you like a point release, which means that every 6 months you do a big update of core stuff like the desktop environment, and on Fedora everything else is always generally up to date.
• OpenSUSE Thumbleweed if you like a rolling release, which means that you don’t do big updates, everything is kept to the last version that the software repository has, this is how arch works except in Thumbleweed the repositories are updated slower than in arch and less likely to break.

But you could also go for any more up to date debian-based distro, like Pop_OS or even Ubuntu, they might be easier for a newbie user. Fedora and OpenSUSE will be more up to date though.

If you do use Ubuntu, don’t stick to just LTS versions, use the last version available (which right now happens to be an LTS version). The “extra support” it offers is not something desktop users care about, it’s outweighted by the benefits of more updated software.

Topperware

Tech Bros make a panopticon and call it a novel approach

I’m about to do this to this kernel driver. Certainly broken before, possibly broken after, what’s the worst that could happen

The bond’s Name. James Name

short for “subscribable”

Use YouTube revanced. It’s an app that patches the official YouTube apk. Basically you provide the version of the apk it requires (the patcher will tell you), select which patches you want (you can put all of them and disable what you don’t need in the settings later) and if will create a new apk without ads that you can install

deleted by creator

What the hell is up with that computer? You got the fastest core 2 duo paired with the slowest DDR3 ram?

Just use some HP calculator emulator. That way you don’t have just an RPN calculator, but a full fat graphing calculator.

Download Firefox/ Look inside/ Still Firefox.

Download thunderbird/ Look inside/ Older Firefox.

TL;DR depends on your gpu.

Some monitors below HDMI 2.1 support the early version of freesync made by AMD, while others support a fragment of what became 2.1’s VRR. The former is supported only by AMD, while the latter by both AMD and Nvidia (Pascal and upper with latest drivers). If you have the former, the monitor is probably not compatible with DP’s official adaptive sync, so Nvidia won’t work even on DP.

But… Even if you have AMD, due to a bug in the driver, if you have a Polaris GPU it might not detect the vrr capability over HDMI (but will over DP). I know for sure that RDNA 2.5 cards support it, in theory it should work even for all Vega and Navi GPUs, but I haven’t tested it.

The bottom layer is half berries

Yes, they do. In that case, no fingers on the E string to make an E

What about those 4 and 0 over the Es? Do they make sense for trombone?

Because for violin they look like fingering hints. You can make that E with either the 4th finger on the A string or with no fingers on the E strings. You can see the same 4s on my picture. I think my book wanted to use this piece to teach when to use the 4th finger and when the empty string.