I don't feel safe doing so. Would a script be able to run escalated rights without asking me a password? Is it somewhere displayed that such a process is started (notification in example or at least in the terminal a message?). And even for applications I am directly starting, I want it be explicit to require a password, that I am always aware its escalated root rights the app has now.
I can understand your view of convenience and I am "guilty" of some convenience stuff too. But this goes a bit too far for my taste.
I assume edit changes take a while before they are updated on all other instances. I had similar "issues" in the past too. It's pretty annoying. When I replied it didn't show the edited version.
Cinnamon is on track to be *the first smaller DE with full wayland support. I understand that you don’t want to wait if you’re actually interested in some of wayland’s features, though.
I meant that there is a desktop environment with full Wayland support. And my question was if s/he considers COSMIC to be a smaller DE, that could qualify this statement.
I sometimes prefer Flatpak over AUR, because I do not trust everyone on the AUR to run scripts with root rights on my system. At least Flatpaks are a bit sandboxed (even if the sandbox is an illusion) and the programs don't install and run with root rights. Sometimes the Flatpak is from the original developer and the script in AUR is not. Or the AUR script is not updated well and often enough, unlike day one Flatpak updates. But Flatpaks do not integrate well in your system and applications can look out of place too. There is a lot to consider, besides what you already mentioned.
Why do you have both paru AND yay installed at the same time? As someone who likes Rust, I maybe should have switched to paru too. But I just can't justify the change, because yay comes preinstalled and works just fine, and paru seems to not offer anything worthwhile the change.
I use yay, as it comes by default with EndeavourOS. It's basically an AUR helper that uses pacman and works quite the same.
Flatpak is a different package manager and has nothing to do with your system packages. They are not exclusive, I use both. So what you basically asking isn't which package manager people use, but rather which package format.
I actually appreciate the openness. As long as it is openly communicated and optional (but yes... its opt-out instead opt-in), I do not mind that much.
I love Gruvbox. My favorite color scheme. If its not, its probably derived version of Gruvbox. My current one is different, simply because I wanted to have a different scheme after years of same.
Acktually there is still some Free and Open Source BSD variants. And for the lols we also have GNU Hurd. So even a world without Linux, does not mean we have to use Windows. (I don't even count MacOS.)
I agree with you. The only thing I could see "Linux being a trap" would be, for people who expect Windows replacement without the Microsoft bullshit. So in one way this "could" be interpreted as a trap for those. But that is if I try to stretch it to justify calling it a trap.
What people don't realize is, that every year is the Year of Linux Desktop. We just beat the previous year. It's like having a new world record every year.
I don't feel safe doing so. Would a script be able to run escalated rights without asking me a password? Is it somewhere displayed that such a process is started (notification in example or at least in the terminal a message?). And even for applications I am directly starting, I want it be explicit to require a password, that I am always aware its escalated root rights the app has now.
I can understand your view of convenience and I am "guilty" of some convenience stuff too. But this goes a bit too far for my taste.