It does nothing but lower your teammate's morale. Stop spamming this, focus on the game, and don't stop us from focusing on the game.
Stop sabotaging the team.
When you check for updates for the Fedora KDE edition after three weeks of not updating, what is the average size (in GB) of the update and installation?
I just saw an update with a 1.8 GB download size and a 5.8 GB installation size. I only have the Nvidia driver and the Firefox browser installed. I didn't see an Nvidia driver included in the updates.
Are these sizes normal? I plan to update every three weeks. Will I consistently receive updates of this size every three weeks?
Why is the bookmark/delete button on the left? Why can't I move it to the right?
I've been trying to use Brave for years, but each time I complain about its slow and inadequate translation feature. Despite writing to the Brave community about this, I've received no response, and the situation has remained the same for years.
Despite trying several times with openSUSE TW and Slowroll, I've encountered slow installations every time.
I tried each one repeatedly with a fresh installation every few months.
Even when installing things with Zypper, pip, npm, cargo etc. I feel the installation is slow.
There are no issues with internet speed or download speed. The problem lies with the speeds during the setup process.
For example, on average:
Arch in 1 minute
Fedora in 2 minutes
openSUSE in 3-4 minutes
The same package takes different amounts of time to install.
I suspect this is due to the package manager as well as additional security layers, hash validation, etc., but I'm not sure.
Additionally, it could be due to Snapper snapshots, but for example, CachyOS (Arch) distributions perform installations very quickly despite taking snapshots.
Do you think openSUSE and Zypper package manager are fast enough in most cases?
Daha içinde "Müteahhit" geçen bir dükkan veya bir yer göremedim. Bunların mekanları falan yok mu? Dünyada müteahhitlerin en çok bulunduğu ülke Türkiye fakat hayalet gibiler sanki bir şeylerden saklanıyorlar gibi.
Mesela Google Haritalar'da veya başka yerlerde bunlara yapılan yorumlar puanlar yok mu? Neden yok yani eğer olsaydı ("") müteahhitler bu sefer işini hakkıyla yapardı.
Elbette işini hakkıyla yapan müteahhitler var onlar canımız ciğerimiz ama işini hakkıyla yapmayan ("") müteahhitler daha çok gibi.
Bence bu konuda CİMER'e yazmalıyız. Müteahhitlerin geçmişini, yaptığı binaları, müşterilerin memnuniyetini görebileceğimiz bir platform kurulmalı.
Even with Defender completely disabled, and even after completely uninstalling Defender because the problem persisted, most torrent downloads on Windows freeze the download partition, causing the system to freeze as well. Changing the torrent software didn't help.
This doesn't happen on Linux distributions; I can download all torrent files without any problems on Linux distributions. Is the problem Windows-related?
Anlatmaya gerek yok, görüyorsunuz.
Bloatware yok, gizlilik endişeleri yok, donmalar yok, takılmalar yok, en önemlisi Microslop yok.
I'm looking for a KDE Plasma theme that changes the actual visual design of the UI, not the desktop layout.
What I like about GNOME/Adwaita is the rounded UI elements, softer appearance, and lack of unnecessary visual separators. Breeze feels too sharp and has prominent separators in many places.
I'm looking for something that gives Plasma a similar clean, rounded appearance across menus, buttons, widgets, dialogs, window decorations, etc.
I'm using Wayland and KDE Plasma 6.7+, so please recommend themes that are compatible with current Plasma 6 rather than older Plasma 5 themes.
Any suggestions?
I performed the installation manually. So far, no problems have been encountered. Although it's still in beta, I got pretty good results for the first installation.
To download: https://os.tuxedocomputers.com/preview/
If you find any bugs, please report them on the GitLab page. Thanks. https://gitlab.com/tuxedocomputers/development/tuxedo_os/tuxedo-os-debian-open-beta
I'm obsessed with system resource usage.
I conducted several comprehensive tests based on my own use cases and generally obtained the following result.
I conducted a fair test on all four browsers.
The test was repeated 8 times for each browser.
All tests were performed on static, unchanging pages, on frequently used pages, and for the exact same durations, based on the number of tabs I frequently opened.
The same settings and extensions/plugins were used in all browsers. Synchronization was enabled in all.
I tried to run most of the tests in the same way I use the browser on a daily basis.
Values considered:
Since I used the Chrome browser for a long time, the comparisons were made using Chrome.
The results may vary for everyone due to factors such as the extensions, settings, pages visited, etc. However, I'll give you some more information. The results were similar even without extensions, with synchronization turned off, and with the default settings from the initial installation.
I've been waiting for driver support for the Nvidia RTX 5050 for about a year now. This means the driver needs to be at least Nvidia 580 or higher.
No Debian version, including Debian Unstable, has an up-to-date Nvidia driver. The highest version is usually Nvidia 550.
I can't understand why such a large community still hasn't updated the Nvidia drivers.
Luckily, TuxedoOS is coming soon and will save me from this problem. Also, TuxedoOS will receive security updates immediately, unlike Debian Testing which is delayed.
Number of Linux distributions actively under development: 474
Number of Linux distributions whose development has been discontinued: 657
Number of Dormant Linux distributions: 39
Source: distrowatch.com
What I'm wondering is, are there any users who, instead of using the latest Fedora version to improve stability, are using an older version?
Does this significantly improve stability?
If you use Fedora 43 until Fedora 45 comes out, and then switch to Fedora 44 when Fedora 45 is released, will the same stability continue?
Also, does using a previous version really significantly reduce the update frequency? I installed Fedora 44 a few days ago, and the first update was over 5GB in size. That far exceeded even the ISO file size.
Nvidia ve Epic Games'ten gelen sevindirici haberler,
Önümüzdeki zamanlarda daha çok sevindirici haberler alacağımızın ihtimalinin artması,
Microsoft'un korsan Windows kurulumlara karşı daha sıkı denetimlere başlaması, fiyatlarının artması,
Son zamanlardaki Windows stabilliğinin güncellemelerle azalması, saçma sapan alakasız sürücü güncellemeleri, kullanıcının kararına saygı duyulmaması, ayarların görmezden gelinmesi,
ve daha birçok nedenlerde birçok kullanıcının Linux'a doğru kaydığını görüyoruz. Hatta en sıradışı olan ne de biliyor musunuz? Oyuncuların büyük çoğunluğu artık Windows yerine Linux kullanmayı tercih etmeye başladı. bunun sebeplerini tartışmaya hiç gerek yok. Sonuçlar ortada.
Eğer bilgisayar konusunda tecrübeli vs. diye tanınıyorsanız Linux dağıtımlarını kesinlikle tecrübe etmenizi öneriyorum. Yarın öbür gün kardeşiniz dayınız amcanız teyzeniz "Bana Linux kur!" diyince "Ben bilmiyorum" diye rezil olmayın.
People want to use a distribution that is both stable and up to date. For example, they want to use recent packages, but they do not want to install packages that have not been sufficiently tested yet. Instead, it is better for them to use up-to-date packages that have already been tested and have had as many issues as possible resolved. I think Fedora does this very well.
Fedora Rawhide is a continuously developed version that serves as the development and testing ground for the next Fedora release. Problematic packages and changes can be detected early in Rawhide, and the issues that arise can be fixed during development. This helps the next stable Fedora release become more reliable.
As far as I know, there are not many distributions that offer a similar update model, or at least there are very few.
For example, Debian Unstable receives newer packages first. Packages that meet certain criteria are eventually migrated to Debian Testing. This process allows packages to spend time in Unstable and undergo testing before becoming part of Testing. However, Debian repositories do not always provide packages that are as up to date as those available in Fedora. This can be more noticeable with things such as NVIDIA drivers. If you can find a distribution based on Debian Testing that also provides newer drivers and packages in its own repositories, I think that would be an excellent option.
Ubuntu has a different release model. Ubuntu releases a new LTS version every two years, while non-LTS versions are normally released every six months. However, when a new LTS version is released, Ubuntu skips the non-LTS release that would normally follow it. For example, Ubuntu 26.04 is an LTS release, so there will be no Ubuntu 26.04 non-LTS. This can be frustrating for users who prefer to use the latest non-LTS releases, as the regular six-month release cycle is interrupted whenever a new LTS version is released.
I consider Fedora's approach to be a significant advantage: it releases a new stable version every six months while providing packages that are relatively up to date and have gone through testing and quality assurance before the final release. In my experience, Fedora's stable releases also seem more stable and less problematic than Ubuntu's regular interim releases. I have personally encountered both simple and complex problems several times, even with Ubuntu LTS releases.
That is why I particularly like Fedora in this regard. I hope more distributions adopt a model similar to Fedora: releasing a new stable version every six months, using up-to-date packages, while also testing those packages during development and quality assurance processes to reduce the number of problems in the final release.
The FL Studio download size is too large. That's why I can't download it. I'm using Windows 11.
I need the FL Studio ASIO installation file.
I couldn't find anywhere online where I can download just the FL Studio ASIO file. Please don't suggest ASIO4ALL. Thanks.
Windows already has Defender (I know it's not great, but it's not bad either).
Also, almost all antivirus companies have completely free versions available.
For additional features like firewalls, there are already free software or methods available.
I also don't think it's right for antivirus software to CONSTANTLY scan every file. Therefore, I turn off many settings related to this.
Even if I frequently visit malicious websites, I know what I'm doing, so even with protection off, viruses don't infect my computer.
The methods I use are:
I set up a firewall to ask me before allowing any program to connect to the internet. I disable programs that are completely unnecessary to connect to the internet (for example, most programs only connect to the internet to send your data or check for updates, and I block that too).
I use a single program that checks for updates across all programs. Also, except for browsers, I don't install updates as soon as they're released because supply chain attacks are possible for almost any program. I only focus on browser and Windows security updates.
I disable many features like file sharing and network sharing.
I find the CONSTANT program scanning function of antivirus software completely unnecessary because it slows down the system excessively and has never been useful for me. Even if you are very inexperienced and know nothing, the likelihood of it protecting you is lower than the likelihood of it slowing down the system.
Getting back to the main point. With so many free versions available, are you still paying for antivirus software? And why?
After using many search engines for a long time, only two search engines have proven to be particularly useful in ranking sites according to your search results, especially those that almost never present harmful sites or sites with new domain names: DuckDuckGo and Bing. StartPage is the best search engine besides usability. If privacy is also a priority, only DuckDuckGo and StartPage and maybe Brave remain.
Those who claim otherwise can continue using search engines like Google and Yandex, which are all copies of each other.
UPDATE: Vivaldi use Chromium ESC (Extended Stable Channel) as their browsers, so users of these browsers don't need to worry.
Currently, only Chrome, Brave, and Edge browsers use the latest Chromium 150 architecture.
Vivaldi, Opera, Opera GX, Samsung, SRWare Iron, Yandex, and many other Chromium-based browsers do not yet use the Chromium 150 architecture. Many browsers don't even use the Chromium 149 base; they generally use 148 (2 months old) or older versions.
Some even still use the Chromium 143 base, which is concerning.
This means that the discovered vulnerabilities have not yet been patched.
Why aren't they updating despite such serious vulnerabilities? Is user security the primary goal of these companies?
Note: My apologies for the mistake. Apparently, I previously set the privacy.resistFingerprinting setting to True in Firefox and thought it was True by default.
FireDragon ship with `privacy.resistFingerprinting=true` by default, while both Floorp and Zen Browser use `privacy.resistFingerprinting=false`.
Although disabling RFP can improve website compatibility, it also weakens protection against browser fingerprinting by exposing more identifying information (such as window size, time zone, canvas behavior, and certain APIs).
I also don't think disabling RFP is necessary for higher frame rates. In most cases, setting `layout.frame_rate` to `0` already removes the frame rate limit, allowing high refresh rates while keeping RFP enabled.
Seeing such an important privacy setting disabled by default also raises questions about whether other privacy-related settings have been relaxed as well, which may reduce users' confidence in the browsers' privacy defaults.