It looks much better actually, with the fancy blur and transparency effects. Not to say it works better than Linux, and I'm sure it must be possible to customise KDE to look better.
Yeah there are plenty of kwin effect you can install that would make it as pretty as windows 11 if that's important to you. Just like there are plenty of themes you can install if you want a macOS experience instead
@tsonfeir But Linux does not have AutoHotkey. This is the biggest deal-breaker for me by far. AutoKey seems be the closest thing, but it's such a massive pain to even try to use by comparison.
Interesting, thanks. I think ultimately, seeing this port's adherence to AHK v1 syntax, I'd just have to bite the bullet and learn Python or something, though...
I doesn't have auto hotkey because for the most part, you can control Linux from the command-line without someone having to invent a new scripting language from scratch to control it.
I heavily recommend you familiarize yourself with bash and the system commands you'll need to send key presses, move windows, spawn and kill programs, etc.
Apparently, xdotool can! I guess the next thing would be generating GUIs. I think the final issue is that this would cause quite the fragmentation given how I use the same scripts on my Windows-only work laptop... but I'll think about this more...
An alternative is python, it can do GUIs easily, and it does have mouse-control facilités as well and it is cross plaform.
That being said generally on Linux you don't even need to automate mouse click, as almost all of it can be controllers with straight up commands.
Do you have any as-convenient alternative? It's way easier to use than Python or anything else, and it's sped up some of my work procedures by, like, 7x. I use it for dozens of text expansion strings, autocorrect, address typers, mouse-clickers, etc.
Never mind, I've since stumbled across xdotool! I suppose this may be doable after all...
Overall, it's not quite as elegant, as AutoHotKey, but it's ultimately a more powerful, since there's so much else I can also do from the same Python script.
Edit: Most notably, I don't recall AutoHotKey having any nice way to tell which apps are open, and Python can quickly call out to ps. It's been on my to-do list to leverage this to let me map keybindings according to what is open (i.e. a favorite game, or a move player.)
On first impression I think I might ideally have used a query parameter instead, leaving the URL path unmodified. I think that might work better for search engines, archivers, and link aggregators like Lemmy. But no one seems to do it that way, and front-end isn’t my bag, so what do I know.
All we want is 1990s Google, guys. That's really all we want. None of this AI BS that kind find a country in Africa that starts with a K, just Google without the evil enshitification layer on top.
I feel like you had to learn how to use it, operators and phrasing etc. They dumbed it down with search suggestions and even further by changing search terms to synonyms, and now outright ignoring terms. Height of Internet search was definitely pre 2008. More like 2005.
If you had the right query, yes. But getting there if you didn't know the exact words in the website used to take a number of attempts and google-fu. By early 2010s this was vastly improved.
I switched from Alta Vista at Google in the early 2000s because the Alta Vista index was stale and full of spam. Google search tools were comparatively primitive (av let you do things like word stem search) but the results were really good.
This is exactly what everyone thought it was: A stealth layoff to get the most costly employees to bail without having to fire them/give them severance.
Now they can be replaced with cheap H-1B workers, especially when the DOJ changes that rule to make it so that companies no longer have to prove they cannot find a US worker for the same job before they hire a foreign H-1B worker.
This was all to cut costs and fuck over the most senior (read: costly) workers.
There's more to take into account other than just resolution, like
color space coverage (100% sRGB is quite affordable nowadays, I wouldn't go less than this; on the other hand, >95% DCI-P3 or AdobeRGB still on the expensive side in comparison and not as widespread),
screen type,
brightness, and
refresh rate.
And resolution itself should be paired with monitor size for it to be meaningful. For example:
24 inch monitor at 1080p = 92 PPI
24 inch monitor at 2160p = 184 PPI
32 inch monitor at 2160p = 138 PPI
46 inch monitor at 2160p = 96 PPI
In Windows and Linux anything around 92 to 98 PPI gives you easily readable text at 100% scaling. This is a good baseline. There are PPI calculators online: https://dpi.lv/
The 24 inch screen at 2160p (which is 4K) has twice the pixel density of the 24 inch screen at 1080p. That means if you would set your display resolution scaling in the OS to 200% you'd get the same font size as <24 inch, 1080p, 100% scaling>. However, because the density is much higher, everything looks much clearer.
The benefits are larger when reading text, IMO. You still notice an improvement with movies, of course. Mobile phones and tablets, even the cheaper ones, usually have significantly higher pixel density than computer monitors which is one reason they look better.
Of the three examples above, the 24 inch monitor at 4K will look better than the other three monitors because it has higher PPI. (Assuming all else is equal like screen type, color coverage, brightness, etc.)
I feel like I would want a proportionally larger monitor to keep the same DPI
Let's say you want a new monitor. I suggest looking at the PPI and not just the resolution or monitor size in isolation. These two units should be paired.
For example, a 32 inch monitor at 4K has 138 PPI. The font will be tiny at 100% scaling but that's expected. In this case it so happens that 1.5 x 92 PPI = 138 PPI. So by going to the OS display settings and increasing scaling to 150% you get the same font size as <24 inch, 1080p, 100% scaling> but everything looks clearer.
The 46 inch monitor above is 4K but because the screen is so large this comes out at only 96 PPI. So in terms of quality it would be quite close to the 24 inch monitor at 1080p.
PPI is one of the most important characteristics but don't disregard the rest. Try at least full sRGB coverage. And for panel type IPS is a good choice if you can afford it. (I'm afraid of OLED because of burn-in issues and I can't afford to replace monitors like they're socks. And mini-led is very expensive.)
About the refresh rate, I don't game and for movies it's kind of useless. But I do notice a difference moving the mouse and scrolling pages on the browser. (My external monitors are 60 hz and my laptop is >100 hz.)
On a side note, Apple laptop screens tend to look nice because they have high PPI and good color coverage (among other things) whereas PC/Linux laptops for the most part have low spec screens. This doesn't have to be the case, of course. My work laptop (I'm using Linux) has >200 PPI with near 100% DCI-P3 and fonts look great on it.
Eeerp. Yep, I meant PPI not DPI. Thanks for the write-up about text scaling, though, I will note that when I end up upgrading. The PPI calc also looks interesting.
For what I understand, PPI is pixels per inch in a digital image, and DPI are dots per inch on a printed image. So we can use PPI or DPI for the same image depending on whether its on our computer screen (PPI) or printed on a sheet of paper (DPI).
I'm using a 32" 4k monitor without scaling, even if my eyesight is not the best. I have no trouble at all with it. It's the more common 27" 4k monitors that have tiny fonts and need scaling. But 32", 4k it's fine at 100%!
As for 1080p, it's enough for most things. You mentioned the dpi comparing it to a 24" 4k monitor, but why would you need 24" for a 1080p monitor? Anything above 20" is a waste for 1080p.
How much someone scales the display is of course subjective. I could use a 32 inch 4K monitor at 100% scale but it would be uncomfortable to read.
The Windows operating system used 96 DPI/PPI as a default (Mac was 72 DPI/PPI) and a 23 inch monitor at 1080p is exactly 96 PPI. So it's no accident I like PPI at the mid-90s.
The reason I used a 24 inch monitor, instead of a 23 inch monitor, as an example it's because I have a monitor that size.
hahahahaha accepted an internship from a fascist, i've got no sympathy when he turns around and is an asshole to you personally, after being an asshole to all of humanity. the leopard ate your face, you say? hahahahahahahaha
I'll go give you a hint: you made some crap CPU's and rather than binning them as lower spec'd units you sold them as is and then claimed they were performance units.
This meant that the spec overhead that previously MB manufacturers relied on to stretch the performance wasn't there anymore.
Shit, that's not great. As a consumer, is their any way to protect yourself if you're in the market for a modern i9? Does the entire 12th gen lineup have issues?
I'm still using a 1st gen i7, and the lack of AVX is starting to become problematic, so I think it's time...
I personally try to support the underdog, so AMD when it comes to x86.
Intel also refuses to provide Vulkan drivers for older CPU's iGPU's to drive consumers towards buying new systems, which I considered a dick move, and upgraded that laptop with an AMD based replacement.
We bought three 13900's for workstations at work, got burnt with two of them, bought 7950X3D's instead for the next three.
So, if you're set on Intel (which is your prerogative) ask someone else ;-)
I think my main reason when I looked into things a while back was that Intel had the better single core speeds, but I'm not married to the idea. I'll mostly be gaming and dabbling with local LLMs.
But yeah, I also haven't been a huge fan of Intel's anti-consumer business practices. Maybe it's time for an AMD system! Thanks!
They’re losing money on ARC so I suppose they felt they had enough headroom on their CPU division to make up for it. Might’ve got cocky and not properly tested the new CPUs before pushing them out.
Don't cram touchscreens and smart features into every fucking aspect of your car. Keep your costs low, keep prices low, and believe it or not, you'll tap into the "bottom" 60% of the market that has been forced to buy used for the last 10 years. I don't want a base trim 10 year old Honda Accord with 150k miles, but it's all I can find for under $20k.
I keep getting shit on for wanting an EV with manual roll-up windows where you have to use your hands, a super basic FM stereo kit, and a dash clock being the most advanced shit inside. I don't need rear-view cameras and sensors and other shit that complicates and increases repair and insurance costs. I don't get it. Give me dead simple, please and thank you.
Back up cameras are mandatory in the US, and apparently Automatic Emergency Braking will be mandatory starting in 2029, so you'll be stuck with some sensors whether you like it or not.
But otherwise I agree that buttons and dials are better for controlling AC and radio than a touchscreen ever will be.
Backup cameras are useless for many people. I can either wear glasses so that I can see where I’m driving, or I can take them off to see the fisheyed backup screen. Not both.
Good thing glasses are permanently superglued to your face and thus it’s impossible to swap between having them on and off when swapping between going backwards and forwards…
Except for those of us who, you know, like to see where we're going rather than relying on a limited FOV camera. Of course, if I could learn to remove and replace them while keeping both hands engaged in actually, you know, steering the damn car, that'd be great.
I better have both hands on the wheel for all those times I’m mid turn and shift while still moving into reverse……
It’s… for when you’re backing up. You’ve come to a complete stop. You’re going to stop before you start moving forward again. It’s not hard to tilt glasses onto the top of your head while you stop or flip them back down when you stop.
A MUCH bigger issue would be the rear view mirrors which are just cameras and screens.
Backup cameras are pretty good imo because they let you see the small things you wouldn't be able to see out of a mirror. Helps prevent needless accidents.
If you don't wanna use it, just don't look at it. Most cars should still have rear view mirrors
the backup camera is useful when the rear window is obstructed (such as from mud/dust) and for comically large vehicles where a short pole wouldn't be visible if it was less than 3ft behind it.
Touch screens in cars are a massive safety issue. I'm not saying they don't have some benefits but the fact that many newer cars have basically no physical buttons to perform basic functions is a problem. I can feel for the dial to adjust the volume or change the radio station. But a touch screen encourages the driver to take their focus off the road. That's a serious problem.
Technology
Hot