It depends on your uptime requirements.
According to Backblaze stats on similarly modern drives, you can expect about a 9% probability that at least one of those drives has died after 6 years. Assuming 1 week recovery time if any one of them dies, that'd be a 99.997% uptime.
If that's too high of a probability for needing to run a (in case of AWS potentially very costly) restore, you should invest in RAID. Otherwise, that money is better spent on more backups.
Note that you do not need any sort of redundancy to detect corruption.
Redundancy only gains you the ability to have that corruption immediately and automatically repaired.
While this sounds nice in theory, you have no use for such auto repair if you have backups handy because you can simply restore that data manually using your backups in the 2 times in your lifetime that such corruption actually occurs.
(If you do not have backups handy, you should fix that before even thinking about RAID.)
It's incredibly costly to have such redundancy at a disk level and you're almost always better off using those resources on more backups instead if data security is your primary concern.
Downtime mitigation is another story but IMHO it's hardly relevant for most home users.
If you needed to spend any time "setting everything back as before", you didn't have a full backup.
RAID does not protect your data, it protects data uptime.
RAID does cannot ensure integrity (i.e bitrot protection). Its one and only purpose it to mitigate downtime.
Read perf would be the same or better if you didn't add redundancy as you'd obviously use RAID0.
RAID is never in any way something that can replace a backup. If the backup cannot be restored, you didn't have a backup in the first place. Test your backups.
If you don't trust 1 backup, you should make a second backup rather than using RAID.
The one and only thing RAID has going for it is minimising downtime. For most home use-cases though, the 3rd 9 which this would provide is hardly relevant IMHO.
Magnet seems to be a window management shortcut thingy like rectangle but probably worse, costs money and likely to enshittify.
It cannot influence how the macOS window manager works internally, it can only ask it to e.g. place a window in a certain location.
It does not feel quite right in kwin and the rather new "proper" support in Hyprland doesn't feel right either.
In hyprland you actually have to enable a special option and set a lower bound for VRR because it doesn't handle LFC with cursors, so a game running at 1fps will make your cursor jump around once per second which is totally unusable. With LFC that would typically result in at least e.g. 90Hz.
VRR in other apps works quite well though. I'm not sure how intended it is but it allows for some nice power savings on my Framework 16; when it's just a terminal refreshing a few times a second, the screen goes all the way down to 48Hz and when I actually scroll some content or move the cursor it's still buttery smooth 120Hz.
Sway feels very good w.r.t. VRR but it cannot handle cursors at all (visible or invisible): whenever you move the mouse, VRR is deactivated and you're at full refresh rate until you stop moving the cursor. It might also not be fine because I could only test a racing game due to the mouse issue and it's so light that it always ran at a constant rate, so that's not a great test as what differentiates good VRR from bad VRR is how varying refresh rate is handled of course.
Xorg VRR also never felt right; it felt super inconsistent. Xorg is also dead.
VRR is fundamental for a smooth gaming experience and power efficient laptops.
If you've ever used a modern macbook for a significant amount of time, you'll know that its touchpad is excellent. I'd actually prefer a macbook touchpad over a mouse for web browsing purposes.
On Linux however, it's a complete shitshow and the most significant difference is not hardware but software. You might think that, surely, it can't be that bad. Let me tell you: it is.
Every single application is required to implement touch pad scrolling on its own; with its own custom rules on how to interpret finger movement across the touch pad. I can't really convey how insane that is. There is no coordination whatsoever. Some applications scroll more per distance travelled, some less. Some support inertial scrolling, some don't. Some have more inertial acceleration, some less.
Configuring scrolling speed (if your compositor even allows that, isn't that right Mutter?) to work well in e.g. Firefox will result in speeds that are way too quick for the dozens of chromiums you have installed and cannot reasonably configure while making it right for chromiums will make it impossible to use forwards/backwards gestures in Firefox and applications that don't implement inertial scrolling at all (of which there are many) will scroll unusably slowly.
It's actually insane and completely fucked beyond repair. This entire system needs to be fundamentally re-done.
There needs to be exactly one place that controls touch pad (and mouse for that matter) scrolling speed and intertial acceleration, configurable by the user. Any given application should simply receive "scroll up by this much" signals by the compositor with no regard for how those signals come to be. My browser should never need to interpret the way my fingers move across the touch pad.
Command/super is just a better accel key than control. Super is almost entirely unused in Linux (and Windows for that matter). Using it for most shortcuts makes it trivially possible to make the distinction between e.g. copy and sending SIGTERM via ^C in a terminal emulator. No macOS user has ever been confused about which shortcut to use to copy stuff out of a terminal because CMD-c works like it does in any other program.
It also makes it possible to have e.g. system-wide emacs-style shortcuts (commonly prefixed with control) and regular-ass CUA shortcuts without any conflicts. C-f is one char forwards and CMD-f is search; easy.
Almost every graphical application has some sort of menu where there's a button for about, help, preferences or various other application-specific actions. In QT apps aswell as most fringe UI frameworks, it's placed in a bar below the top of each window as is usual on Windows. In GTK apps, it's wherever the fuck the developer decided to put it because who cares about consistency anyways.
For the uninitiated: On macOS there is one (1) standardised menu for applications to put and sort all of their general actions into. It is part of the system UI: almost the entire left side of the top bar is dedicated to this global menu; populated with the actions of the currently focussed application.
If you're used to each application having this sort of menu in the top of its window, having this menu inside a system UI element that is not connected to the application instead will be confusing for all of 5 seconds and then it just makes sense. It's always in that exact place and has all the general actions you can perform in this application available to you.
There is always a system-provided "Help" category that, along with showing macOS help and custom help items of the application, has a search function that allows you to search for an action in the application by name. No scouring 5 different categories with dozens of actions each to find the one you're looking for, you just simply search for the action's name and can directly execute it. It even shows you where it's located; teaching you where to find it quickly and allowing for easy discovery of related functions.
When you press a shortcut to execute some action in the app, the system UI highlights the category into which the executed action is organised; allowing you to find its name and (usually) related actions.
Speaking of shortcuts: When you expand a category, it shows the shortcut of every action right next to the name. This allows for trivial discovery of shortcuts; it says it right there next to the name of the action every time you go and use it.
This is how you design a UI that is functional, efficient, consistent and, perhaps even more importantly, accessible. Linux should take note.
I'm not sure what you mean? It's a basic feature of the macOS window manager. Pressing the fullscreen button on a window does all of this.
While that is true for the files that make up the programs themselves and their dependencies, it's not true for any state files or caches that programs creates at runtime. You need to clean those up manually.
full screen takes over a whole desktop
and creates it. It's a whole new workspace just for putting an app in fullscreen and none of the shortcuts to jump to workspace x work with it of course.
The rest of the WM can be made bearable but there's no way around that stupid design choice.
Have you checked for open ports?
There's a non-zero chance that there's a long out of date apache or something running on it.
We continue enhancing our search experience with bangs. Check the
shield menu to see if a website has a corresponding bang.
#3410
@frereit
We've upgraded the FastGPT, and Research Assistant (Fast+Expert) with the latest models to enhance performance:
These are also available in Chat mode which allows full access to a
range of models like Claude 3 Opus, GPT-4 and Mistral Large [Please
note, Kagi Assistant is currently in closed beta and is exclusively
accessible to subscribers of the Ultimate plan]
We now allow the community to see and translate the trigger phrases for widgets that utilize them, such as the weather and calculator widgets. Learn more about how to contribute translations in our help page. #2506 @cempack
staging rebuild cycles only happen every two weeks or so.
The reason is always that something changed and causes all dependent packages to change, requiring a rebuild of those too.