Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: LoudTechieIt creates a problem for you, because your distribution doesn't have enough manpower to maintain all packages.

It does. It's Debian.

Quoting: LoudTechieEdit: On the different versions support: yeah probably, Debian, Red Hat and Canonical do that too. Backwards compatibility and usability sometimes require work. This time though each of these versions need only to be maintained once for all distros.

Except for some special cases with two major versions (which both are security fixed) - nope, this doesn't happen. Version 2.17 and version 2.18 of whatever uses the same places for the files, so they cannot coexist.

As a Debian user myself I just happen to directly be in a position to point you to a package that they don't maintain in their repo and I myself use happily with an already existing deb version and is fully dpkg compliant AppimageLauncher.

You've silently changed topic here. We were talking about every package being maintained security-wise, not every program in the world being packaged. See what we've referenced:

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Liam DaweI firmly disagree. That is chaos. Every distribution has a different set of packages and versions, with security problems having to go through each distro for each package.

How does this create a problem for me? My distribution cares for it.

And doesn't Flatpak support different versions of the same package as the same time? So, you can have one without the security flaw - and at the same time one with the security flaw?

It creates a problem for you, because your distribution doesn't have enough manpower to maintain all packages.

So, yes, quite obviously, no distribution can package everything you might want. But this no argument against deb, rpm or whatever. The question at hand was if using deb is creating security issues due to missing manpower.

Quoting: LoudTechieAlso on versions. For every library I encounter in my development work apt offers like 8 different versions. For example gtk library: 2.0, 3 and 4 and the mosquitto library in several different implementations.

First, and I already mentioned this, this is not a problem if several different major library versions are packaged as long as they are all security maintained.

Second, I can name you 20 libraries that do not have different versions in Debian that you can install next to each other for any that you give me that does. Try me.

Quoting: LoudTechieDebian also this year published a desperate request for help, because of a lasting 100% manpower shortage for the debian data protection team.

This has nothing to do with security, it is about looking for GDPR issues.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechieIt creates a problem for you, because your distribution doesn't have enough manpower to maintain all packages.

It does. It's Debian.

Quoting: LoudTechieEdit: On the different versions support: yeah probably, Debian, Red Hat and Canonical do that too. Backwards compatibility and usability sometimes require work. This time though each of these versions need only to be maintained once for all distros.

Except for some special cases with two major versions (which both are security fixed) - nope, this doesn't happen. Version 2.17 and version 2.18 of whatever uses the same places for the files, so they cannot coexist.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam DaweI firmly disagree. That is chaos. Every distribution has a different set of packages and versions, with security problems having to go through each distro for each package.

How does this create a problem for me? My distribution cares for it.

And doesn't Flatpak support different versions of the same package as the same time? So, you can have one without the security flaw - and at the same time one with the security flaw?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Tethys84Except nobody will be able to afford the Steam Machine. I would be surprised if Valve didn't indefinitely delay or even eventually cancel it because of the skyrocketing prices on RAM alone.

It depends. If they made a fixed price contract early enough, they might be able to offer their boxes cheap.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechieThis is, because the reason behind the whitelist is complicated and thus unsuited for marketing.
At the time of establishment this whitelist contained only CPU's without known side channel attacks.
They really, really wanted to get rid of old side channel attacks for some reason.

After what I gathered from the side channel attack history (which is not too much), I expect every current processor to have some side channel weakness too, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Brokatt

Quoting: scaine

Quoting: BrokattGreat! Looking forward to february.

Anyone knows if they removed the annoying window that popus up every time you start a controller, requiring you to give permission to the controller to actually control things?

The what now?? Is that a Plasma window, or a Steam one? Got a screenshot?

It may be something unique for Steam Controller? I will post a pic when I get home. It's similar to the one @mr-victory linked to.

I'm using a Steam Controller (from time to time) and KDE (always) and I've never seen this window.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Phlebiac2) macOS usage declined for years, but in recent times it has scaled at nearly the same rate as desktop Linux. I wonder what factors are involved with that; I don't think Valve has done anything major on that front, and to my knowledge Apple hasn't done anything to improve things for gaming (they are actively hostile to it in some ways).

MacOS profiting from Windows 11 as well? If you're not keeping your box and install Linux on it, maybe buy a new one with a new OS?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mattaraxia

Quoting: mr-victoryI feel that the GabeCube *ahem* Steam Machine will be DOA due to anti cheat, I hope to be proven wrong but Windows on ARM laptops being frequently returned item on Amazon doesn't give me confidence, those laptops' game compatibility issues are not that different from ours... the advantage Deck had was being a handheld so who cares if an fps doesn't work.

If the Deck wasn't DOA because of anti-cheat, why would the cube be?

That just makes no sense. Will it be a bit limited? Sure. Will there still be tons of people who don't care about games like Battlefield? Clearly the answer is yes.

It's not expected to sell 50 million units, even 5 is a . . . huge success.

I'm not sure they're right, but I do see their point: People expect different things and play different games on a handheld.

When I buy a handheld, I expect the handheld games to work (like on Switch). And I wouldn't want to play FPS on it. On a box on the other hand, on a "real PC", I'd expect "every game" to work.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I already wanted to write that I'm not affected by the bug for whatever reason...

... but I think I was (am) and just disabled the screen saver!

Looking forward to the bug fix when it arrives in Debian stable, probably in 2027. :D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: satorideponSomething tells me there wouldn't have been a backlash if they added the same feature, but without "AI" label on it.

How would they summarize reviews without AI?

View this comment - View article - View full comments