This “new law” was passed more than a year ago… But, it’s still a step in the right direction.

Good luck :)

It says “UNSUPPORTED: VSYNC is not available on the Linux platform.” and runs at a stuttery 133 fps. This test shows 144 Hz: https://fpstest.org/refresh-rate-test/ The Nvidia settings app shows 144 Hz + VRR are active and I can see that the cursor is rendered at >70 fps.

I’m pretty sure that my desktop is drawn at 144 Hz (on the primary display) and xrandr also tells me that that’s the active mode. 🤷‍♂️

Edit: This is with Nvidia (proprietary drivers) and VRR monitors.

Is that generally an issue on Linux Mint / Cinnamon X11? I have a 144 Hz and a 70 Hz monitor and they seem to work fine…

One way to do it is have a small Python (or any other scripting language really) script that performs text replacements in the Latex source file. This is much easier in Latex because it’s plain text. I don’t know of a solution that doesn’t involve writing your own code (apart from LO/Word serial letters).

Is using Latex an option? I’ve done that and it works quite nicely. You can easily populate a template e.g. using Python.

I’m not sure I follow… Did the Fedora Council actually take a decision?

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)?

Of course it was patched in all affected Debian versions: https://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/CVE-2014-0160

The article says they are aiming for 1W in the next couple of years, which can probably do it.

They won’t magically improve the power density by three orders of magnitude. They’re just trying to defraud their investors.

Do you have a source for that? According to WikiChip Fuse, Intel 4 is comparable to TSMC N3 in density and offers better performance: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/6720/a-look-at-intel-4-process-technology/4/

On paper, those PPA characteristics positions the company’s new Intel 4 process at performance levels better than TSMC N3 and Samsung 3GAE. On the density front, Intel 4 appears highly competitive against N3 high-performance libraries.

The GPL (and AGPL) do place some restrictions on how you can integrate it into another application but this doesn’t have anything to do with commercial use.

Basically, if you create a derivative work and publish/sell it, you also need to license it under the AGPL. In case of the AGPL it also applied if you use it to offer a service. But if you only use the unmodified version (same source code) and the intended application interfaces, this does not apply.

Running the application on Windows is clearly allowed. The second case also sounds ok (allowing this is kinda the point of FOSS). However, if you create an improved version of PDFCreater, then you’ll need to publish it under the same AGPL license.

I’m not a legal expert, but the AGPL seems to be quite clear on this point:

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. […]

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. […]

However, depending on the exact thing that they said, they may be in violation of the AGPL. Once they have given you (conveyed) a copy of the program, they cannot impose a license fee for the use of the software.

10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. […]

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation […]

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…).

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.

I bought one of those chargers to charge my notebook and smartphone but I kind of regret not just getting an additional $30 charger for my notebook. It offers the same functionality apart from charging three devices at once, which I basically never use.

If you get one of these I would at least recommend getting a nice, long C-to-C cable. I only have a bunch of 1m cables, which makes charging my notebook quite annoying.

Weird, they certainly claim so on their US website:

Available countries and regions: United States, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Singapore, […]

I think that the Minisforum UM690/UM790 are looking quite attractive for their price points, if you’re looking for something high-end. $520 for an 8-core Zen 4 barebone. I haven’t bought one though, I’m just using an old notebook.