If we're talking about the RTX 900/1000 series, they're still supported on the 580 driver branch. They're just not getting new features anymore. Most distros package these legacy drivers too.

It really should be shut down for Arch’s sake.

I think it should really be split into two parts:

1. The more widely used packages should be moved to an official repository with review procedures. Perhaps the (quality) requirements can be lower, but these must be reviewed by trusted people.
2. The remaining packages should be moved to user namespaces, like the other user-package repos do. That will at least prevent (most) takeover attacks.

Do you think benchmark results like these are meaningful when comparing Linux distributions?

They don't really provide any explanation for why it should be faster than CachyOS. So I'd take their claims with a bucket or two of salt.

the CPU is never taxed, albeit undervolted with minus 30 on all cores in PBO

In case of an unstable system, the first thing I would do is disable all overclocks (including PBO, EXPO, undervolt, ...)

Players can only access the lowest rank of competitive gameplay for free, and access to any higher levels costs a subscription fee of $2.50 a month. That's right, you'll need a subscription to play GeoGuessr on Steam, for some reason.

Not only is this price point bizarre for a game that you can literally just hop into similar browser versions and play for free, but [...]

GeoGuessr has required a subscription to actually play for a while now. I think they had a very limited Free tier until 2024, but it was not a great experience. The developers claim that they need to charge a subscription fee because they need to pay Google for the Streetview API access. To me, that seems plausible and would justify a subscription model (as opposed to a one-time purchase).

On the other hand, OpenGuessr seems to be a free alternative that offers a very similar game. That certainly seems like a better alternative if it's sustainable.

That's really missing the point. They were trying to sell the water block to rich people with more money than sense that, importantly, wanted the best of the best. By not reviewing it correctly, LTT screwed a small company over pretty hard. Linus then went on to say that he made this decision to save $100 to $500. He was unwilling to spend that kind of money to preserve the journalistic integrity of the channel.

The fact that he tried to make it look like LMG was going to compensate them for the block (replying only after the GN video was released) only makes it worse.

The video is clearly about the water block. They describe their experience while building a computer with it and then give purchasing advice. Sure seems close enough to a review that they should be fair to the manufacturer. And their ethics should not go out of the window just because the didn't put "review" in the title (when was the last time they did that anyway...).

Please don't run scripts that a random person uploaded to Github if you don't know what you're doing. I didn't see anything malicious here, but most of the stuff is useless and some of it is even detrimental (e.g. the LLM "thought" the outdated Ubuntu Nvidia ppa was a good idea).

If you want to game on Debian, you can do that just fine. Installing Steam and Nvidia drivers (if applicable) should be sufficient for most people. IMO, the main issue with gaming on Debian are the very old GPU drivers (Nvidia 550, Mesa 25.0). This can be fine on older hardware, but is the reason why I wouldn't recommend Debian for gaming in general. The script you linked doesn't help with this at all.

If you really want these "gaming optimizations", for the limited benefits they provide, I would recommend that you just use one of the distros that ships them. CachyOS, Bazzite, Nobara, Pop OS, or PikaOS all seem like a better choice than these scripts. At the very least the maintainers of those distros will integrate everything and perform some level of QA for you.

And to be more clear: OnlyOffice also did not grant permission to use said logo. They used this to try to deny people the ability to create forks, which goes against the core principles of the AGPL and open source.

Join the Debian Trixie upgrade fun today :) https://micronews.debian.org/

Eh, that post title is quite sensationalistic.

1. Nothing regarding the license has changed in the last 2 years.
2. It seems like they consider the non-enterprise code to be licensed under the AGPL:

Thank you for the community discussion around this topic. I do recognize that our licensing strategy doesn't offer the clarity the community would like to see, but at this time we are not entertaining any changes as such.

UPDATE Feb 2, 2026: To be specific, our license is using standard open source licenses, a reciprocal AGPL license and a permissive Apache v2 license for other areas. Both are widely used open source licenses and have multiple interpretations of how they apply, as showcased in this thread.

When we say we don’t “offer the clarity the community would like to see”, that refers specifically to the many statements in this thread where different contributors are confused by other people’s comments and statements.

For LICENCE.txt itself, anyone can read the history file and see we haven’t materially changed it since the start of the project.

If you’re modifying the core source code under the reciprocal license you share those changes back to the open source community. If you’d like to modify the open source code base without sharing back to the community, you can request a commercial license for the code under commercial terms.

Maybe we can hold the pitchforks a while longer, unless they actually make a negative change.

I understood Matthew's position as "this should be discussed in the Workstation WG first", not as a "no":

in favor of the process outlined above (tl;dr: talk to the Workstation WG, and if that does not come to a satisfying outcome, file a Council ticket for next possibilities).

Post

It also seemed more likely that they would promote KDE without demoting Gnome.

But was there a follow-up on that (e.g. in the Workstation WG)?

AFAIK, this corresponds to the snap package of Steam.

It sounds like this will be your fist time running Linux. In that case I would recommend against using CachyOS or Arch. Those distros are meant for experienced users that are willing to solve problems on their. In the words of the Arch wiki:

Whereas many GNU/Linux distributions attempt to be more user-friendly, Arch Linux has always been, and shall always remain user-centric. The distribution is intended to fill the needs of those contributing to it, rather than trying to appeal to as many users as possible. It is targeted at the proficient GNU/Linux user, or anyone with a do-it-yourself attitude who is willing to read the documentation, and solve their own problems.

In general, you can have a good gaming experience on almost any distro. The main limitation is probably running brand-new hardware, which can be a bit difficult on some of the slower distros (Debian, Ubuntu LTS, Mint, ...). There are only very minor performance differences between distros.

If you're a new user that wants to use a fast-moving distro with many options for customization, I'd recommend Fedora (e.g. Fedora KDE).

I don't see the problem. Drop the tax and if the companies can't handle it, they continue to pay it. And once it costs them money they will fix it in 1 week instead of a year.

I have 3080 and I've seen significant performance issues too (e.g. in Cyberpunk 2077, KCD2). I think it depends a lot on the games you play. Apparently DX12 (via vkd3d) doesn't perform well on Nvidia cards.

My next GPU will probably not be an Nvidia card.

The G-Drive couldn’t have a backup system due to its large capacity

Peak competence there.

Raindrop energy harvesting is a rubbish idea. The raindrops simply don't have a meaningful amount of energy to begin with: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36907674

Both KDE Discover and Gnome Software offer similar functionality. You should also be able to use them without their respective shells.

The main downside of double-decker train cars is the time it takes passengers to to board them. And, since this is one of the main factors limiting metro frequencies and thus capacity, they're not that suitable for subways. To maximize metro capacity, you want long trains with many doors and very high frequency.

Double-decker cars are much more suitable for lower-frequency service (S-Bahn, regional, long-distance,...) where they're also commonly used.

Of course, you could still use double-decker cars in a metro (and maybe some places do), it's just suboptimal.