I see your Arch and raise you a Gentoo.

At least they can be forked if someone needs them enough.

using windows*

Or a snake bot, obviously.

Penguin lovers, strip.

These are all Debian based. Debian is notorious for using old kernels and spotty hardware support. I had similar issues trying to install Ubuntu on a new-ish PC recently. Fedora worked like a charm though.

I was tempted to try Nobara since it was a gaming pc but I was discouraged by opinions from the community telling me it was not exactly the best idea.

Next time I might go for Bluefin though. It’s based on Fedora Silverblue (immutable OS) and I’ve heard great things about it. Apparently also has GPU drivers for NVIDIA baked-in, which I need.

Maybe try another distro?

Also I’m curious. What distro were you testing with?

I’d just like to interject for a moment…

Use Heroic for GOG/EGS. It also runs steam games if you want a unified experience.

Edit: https://heroicgameslauncher.com/

Not sure how to link a reply on lemmy so I’ll just copy from another comment I wrote here:

I’m not talking about this specific instance, just that block of misinformation/generalisation. Saying that legacy systems are well-secured because they’re “battle tested” is sheer ignorance.

Take side-channel attacks for example. A timing attack is something programmers from the 60’s and 70’s would not have taken into account when writing their hashing algorithms. And speaking of hashing, what hashing algorithms were available back then? CRC32 or something similar? What about salting? You get the idea.

Not to mention that legacy operating systems don’t get security updates. Let’s assume that DOS is secure (which it definitely isn’t), but if that statement were correct, would it apply to Windows XP as well?

All I’m saying is that the article is dead wrong. As software developers in this century, we’ve come a long way. We’ve developed security best practices, written libraries and frameworks, and come up with mitigations for a lot of these security vulnerabilities. These solutions are something that closed-source legacy systems (and anything without active maintenance) would never benefit from.

The “ironing” is lost on you in this case.

I’m not talking about this specific instance, just that block of misinformation/generalisation. Saying that legacy systems are well-secured because they’re “battle tested” is sheer ignorance.

Take side-channel attacks for example. A timing attack is something programmers from the 60’s and 70’s would not have taken into account when writing their hashing algorithms. And speaking of hashing, what hashing algorithms were available back then? CRC32 or something similar? What about salting? You get the idea.

Not to mention that legacy operating systems don’t get security updates. Let’s assume that DOS is secure (which it definitely isn’t), but if that statement were correct, would it apply to Windows XP as well?

All I’m saying is that the article is dead wrong. As software developers in this century, we’ve come a long way. We’ve developed security best practices, written libraries and frameworks, and come up with mitigations for a lot of these security vulnerabilities. These solutions are something that closed-source legacy systems (and anything without active maintenance) would never benefit from.

And said trick ends when an attacker manages to socially-engineer their way in. (But maybe they’ll drop floppies instead of flash drives around the block this time)

Legacy hardware and operating systems are battle tested, having been extensively probed and patched during their heyday. The same can be said for software written for these platforms – they have been refined to the point that they can execute their intended tasks without incident. If it is ain’t broke, don’t fix it. One could also argue that dated platforms are less likely to be targeted by modern cybercriminals. Learning the ins and outs of a legacy system does not make sense when there are so few targets still using them. A hacker would be far better off to master something newer that millions of systems still use.

Tell me you know nothing about cybersecurity without telling me you know nothing about cybersecurity. Wtf is this drivel?

How about enshitussy?

Edit: this is more cursed than I intended

My favourite: https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number

An illegal prime is an illegal number which is also prime. One of the earliest illegal prime numbers was generated in March 2001 by Phil Carmody. Its binary representation corresponds to a compressed version of the C source code of a computer program implementing the DeCSS decryption algorithm, which can be used by a computer to circumvent a DVD’s copy protection.[14]

Oh, so given your opinion, can African Americans or Chinese Americans return to their respective continents, occupy an entire country by displacing its current population, and claim it as their ancestral land? How delusional.

And since when is “the period of Judah” an accurate historical reference point?

Or you install rEFInd and bypass this issue completely.

Wait, so pigs can learn to fly?

Linux has so many options it’s ridiculous. It doesn’t force you to use them or to upload sensitive data to Microsoft’s servers—and therefore the NSA’s—though.

Done. Good riddance.