This is where a man page comes in but alas, but some (perhaps even most) of them are fucking horrible. The core incantation is either too dumbed-down or (more often) too long-winded.

Some good ones I can praise are netcat, ghostscript and 7z. Special praise goes to the Library Funtions Manual entries like signal and exit.

Bad ones ones in my book are vim (too short), ffmpeg (a simple reordering of sections would make it quite a bit better, like moving the less common flags lower down the page) and git starts of strong but ends up being way too detailed and unstructured.

I could go listing examples for days, so I might as well stop now.

To be honest, even this seems like a step in the right direction, as they’re direct and transparent about exactly what they use. Sure, it should be normal, and those toggle popups with a “Reject All” that does not cover everything (usually strategically leaving “legitimate interest” be) should rot in bankrupcy after a fine. Without large and sure fines, it’s the cost of doing (profitable) business.

Hopefully, eYou will see the good aspects of not using invasive tracking tech, especially america-based black boxes.

Discover itself doesn’t care about security - it’s the underlying package manager(s) that do.

Flatpak is perfectly safe IMO, as are the built-in repositories.

Both Flatpak reviewers and Debian maintaniers do their due diligence when auditing the software they distribute.

When using distros/repos which are less FOSS purist (such as Ubuntu), you could run primarily into privacy issues. When using smaller ones, the risk of a backdoor or voulnerability is a bit larger, as less eyes are on the code.

That being said, the only way to be immune to untargeted cyberattacks is to be offline, which isn’t reasonable in this day and age. As long as you stick to your distro’s repo and Flatpak you should be perfectly fine, save for the “normal” voulnerability or two that unfortunately slip through every now and then. You could think of this as a kind of digital “herd immunity”.

As long as you don’t add repos willy-nilly but think about who you trust, you should be fine.

So yeah - you can assume Flatpaks and the Debian repos are safe. They have good security policies about adding stuff in and do do their due dilligence. Though, this might change in the future, alrhough it doesn’t seem likely. But for now - you’ll be fine.

The only real risk is if a backdoor like the recent one in xz-utils does slip through the cracks, but then you’ll be one of millions of affected machines which, while not mitigating the vulnerabilities per se will at least mean the problem will get fixed sooner once it does get found.

What will likely happen is that if you try to log into your Facebook account you will get a message that says “Your Operating System is not currently supported. Your user experience will be limited to Groups labeled “Everyone”.”

That’s basically it. Your personal user experience will be limited to “kid friendly” areas of the Internet. (Same with apps and games.)

Well, that makes no sense because that means that using an unvetted machine is more beneficial for groomers and predators than a vetted one. Meaning they’ll be incentivized to use that, instead of some perfect system where they’d be easily trackable and held accountable.

All the “App Store” apps like Discover are merely frontends for your system’s underlying package manager (apt for Debian and derivatives, dnf for Fedora and its derivatives).

The underlying package manager does the updating of packages: if you’ve installed it through the package manager (which is usually most stuff on an install) - it’ll get updated.

Discover just gives you a nice, user-friendly way of interfacing with the package manager(s) on your system so you don’t need to bother with the CLI if you don’t want to (that’s what “frontend” means - a nice, friendly UI for underlying services).

And yes, you can have multiple - for example apt and Flatpak. Discover and friends should update all.

Well, it is good at something. Spending money on advertising.

Since when is UX the cause of a need for third-party plugins?

LaTeX is an incredibly mature piece of software, since it exists for some 50 years and is (and was) incredibly popular. Of course newer players won’t have as much ready-made plugins, let alone first-party packages for most stuff.

Latex surely had the exact same issue when it wasn’t as mature as it is today, but in time people wrote plugins and in more time they were included as defaults.

Comparing them quality-wise on equal footing and proclaiming Latex better than the younger, less popular alternative with less developed community code is disingenuous at best.

And UI/UX has absolutely nothing to do with styling: both are features, and one product happens to have one while the other happens to have the other. They’re not mutually exclusive in theory.

However, I will give in that usually resource limits mean only one gets included. But that’s corellation and not causation: good UX does not cause bad feature parity. The core cause is both requiring resources and one is usually made the top priority.

FSFE should report them to the GDPR authority, but also financial ones.

The article says Nexi reached out after ‘cancelling’ the contract - meaning FSFE was financially offline for those few days. If it were a ‘normal’ business this was done to, they would sue for damages to hell and back.

And so should FSFE.

My recommendations are Firefox, Okular, Inkscape and Draw, depending on usecase.

Firefox is perfect for text-based markup (so higlighting, defacing with text, etc.)

Okular is a bit worse on the text front (doesn’t support editing the markup - for most stuff your only option is to undo so you have to be strategic abput catching mistakes early), but it does more stuff (boxes, arrows, lines, transparency, custom colors).

Draw is better if you actually want to make changes to many pages at once and don’t care if it messes up formatting a bit.

Inkscape is ideal if you want to rearrange stuff on a few pages and change things like colors or stamp on some text. It doesn’t have a nice way for highlighting text, but highlighting stuff like drawings, etc. is easier (just draw a recrangle with 30% opacity). Unlike Okular, changes aren’t baked in and unlike Draw, it’s easier to play around with colors and opacity.

2nd this. It is by no means a “PDF Editor”, but it works surprisingly better than most.

Inkscape also could be a good option in OP’s case because it gives options about janking up text. It can either try to find the fonts from those on your system, or it can change every glyph into a path.

That being said, I’ve treid both Inkscape and LO Draw, and I’ve had more luck with Inkscape in regards to keeping fonts similar. In 90% of cases (and I do have to fix up PDFs every now and then) the “Keep text” option doesn’t jank up text.

Since when is Graphene’s logo a football and Motorola’s the Super Mario M?

That’s still on the human that opened the PR without doing the slightest effort of testing the AI changes though.

That makes sense when talking about people’s accounts.

A “Claude” account serves PR (as in public relations) purposes, and having to do a stringent human review before submitting a pull request is bad for PR.

Which by no means is me saying submissions from the Claude account need to be banned, but that the “Claude” account’s goals are probably to have Claude do all of this “himself” - which is a recipe for disaster.

Removed by mod