trevor (he/they)

I’d be happy if they did and adopted Heroic as an official launcher. However, if that happens, I’d still want proper controller support to be added so that browsing the GOG store in Heroic doesn’t require mouse and keyboard bindings on something like a Steam Deck.

Because I use a Steam Deck and having a launcher for third-party stores is the easiest way to install games.

Additionally, the reasons mentioned in the other comments.

Anything but properly supporting the Linux community 🤡

How have they still not learned that the largest intersection of the people that care about their core value proposition (game preservation, DRM-free, etc.) are Linux users?? It’s not like they have to create the compatibility layers from scratch; Valve did it for them.

If they provided a launcher for Linux users, I’d actually buy shit from them. Yes, Heroic Launcher exists, but I’m not paying GOG for the work that the Heroic dev did. I want first-party support.

You can just write bash scripts in your actions if you want them to be easily replicatable on your local machine, so you don’t really lose anything with that system.

Can someone explain why, and what to use them for?

I’m a (mediocre) Rust dev, and I use GPL licenses for my projects. There’s nothing preventing you from doing so. I think the answer to your question is that it’s largely cultural.

Unfortunately, from trying this myself, I don’t think you can forward port 53 to the Android host, so that won’t work (easily). It seems that privileged ports aren’t allowed to be forwarded.

If this is anything like crostini on ChromeOS, Google’s solution is also virtualized.

I can say with great certainty that the only package format that we don’t need is Snap. AppImages and Flatpaks both have their place, but Snap is just a great way to find yourself wasting time because their shitty fucking sandbox system doesn’t work properly (and also doesn’t sandbox at all if you’re not running AppArmor 🤡).

3 absolutely did. But that said, not all of the original tracks made it into the 1+2 remake, so I wouldn’t base whether or not you buy it on that.

Bye 👋

Yes! The three-finger drag + this getting merged into COSMIC recently almost completely covers all of the things I like about macOS.

This is probably the most underutilized, but extremely helpful features from macOS and I never expected to see it ported to Linux because i thought no one else knew about it.

Super happy to see it going into libinput!

I just cant wrap my head around why they’re willing to go so far to gain good will from people by having such a generous free tier, but somehow licensing the code under a FOSS license is out of the question??

Why not just go all the way and make sure everyone who cares about reading the souce could also give you free contributions?

Well, hopefully the get on that. They have to realize that a large portion of their target demographic (people fed up with garbage search) also rightly don’t want their search histories tied to their real identities.

Yes, because private property is theft. But unequal enforcement of copyright law is worse. Right now, LLMs are just lying machines trained on pirated data and the companies that run them are acting with impunity for doing something a normal person would get put in jail for.

Copyright is immoral, but as long as it exists, the laws should be extra strict on companies that steal others’ works.

What does this actually do? Is it possible to use Kagi without providing them personal information to create your account yet?

The relevant parts of the comment thread was about the claim that the model is open source. Below, you will find the subject of the comments bolded, for your better understanding of the conversation at hand:

Deepseek is a Chinese AI company that released Deepseek R1, a direct competitor to ChatGPT.

You forgot to mention that it’s open source.

Is it actually open source, or are we using the fake definition of “open source AI” that the OSI has massaged into being so corpo-friendly that the training data itself can be kept a secret?

many more inane comments…

And your most recent inane comment…

That’s something they included, just like open source games include content. I would not say that the model itself (DeepSeek-V3) is open source, but the tech is. It is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.

Well, cool. No one ever claimed that “the tech” was not included or that parts of their process were open sourced. You answered a question that no one asked. The question was asking if the model itself is actually open source. No one has been able to substantiate the claim that the model is open source, which has made talking to you a giant waste of time.

They did not release the final model without the data

They literally did exactly that. Show me the training data. If it has been provided under an open source license, then I’ll revise my statement.

You literally cannot create a useful LLM without the training data. That is a part of the framework used to create the model, and they kept that proprietary. It is a part of the source. This is such an obvious point that I should not have to state it.