At least the sixth time even. Four cases are documented here and another one was just three months ago. This last link points to reddit, but there a manjaro maintainer also explains why it keeps happening:

Politics within the project are the issue.

The fix for these issues have been build for about a year already. But those who have access to stuff like DNS and hosting are currently incapable of making any agreement on any topic preventing trivial fixes such as this from being implemented.

They have a bugtracker: https://trac.ffmpeg.org/

This works, but it’s the same as disabling browser.tabs.inTitlebar. The result is a separate titlebar above the tab bar.

Damn, but I’m not sure if I agree with gregp’s resolution of the bug. The way I understand the changes in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1964046, it should still use the system theme, but rendered by firefox itself. However, the current state is that it doesn’t follow the system theme anymore :/

EDIT: I just saw this comment: https://lemmy.world/comment/17957836 And yep, that’s correct. I’m also using the Papirus icon theme, when I change the theme to breeze or something else, the buttons in firefox titlebar also reflect this change after a restart. So Firefox is now using the window-{maximize,minimize,close,....}-symbolic icons from the icon theme and not from the window decorations setting.

I have the same issue since one or two months, I’m on Firefox Nightly 142.0a1 currently.

For me it looks like this:

Firefox on the left, Dolphin (which uses the system titlebar control buttons) on the right.

A few months ago, firefox also used the system titlebar control buttons. When I noticed the change at first, I also searched for solution online and in about:config, but didn’t find anything. All other solutions posted here sadly don’t work:

• browser.tabs.inTitlebar only adds a standalone titlebar, like you noted.
• When searching for non-native in about:config, I don’t see any titlebar buttons option that I can turn off.
• Vertical Tabs are already disabled for me in the settings.

If anyone finds a solution to this, I would be happy to be notified. Thanks in advance!

They’re asking about the password prompt for the disk encryption, which is shown before the rootfs can be accessed. Thus, installing a display manager to the rootfs will not help. Furthermore, a display manager serves the purpose of logging in users, not unlocking an encrypted partition.

Thanks for your reply! Linus didn’t only call out people posting flame replies, but also folks interested in a serious discussion on that topic, who also contributed to the kernel before (see PeterCxy’s blog: https://typeblog.net/55833/getting-called-paid-actor-by-linus-torvalds). Most people simply wanted to know specifically which compliance requirement lead to the removal of russian maintainers. Linus never responded to these questions and called out people asking for that as russian trolls. AFAIK we still don’t know the exact reasons for the removal, which is just intransparent.

IMO By not answering these reasonable questions and calling people out as russian trolls, Linus did exactly what russian trolls want: cause disarray in the kernel community.

Get your head examined. And get the fuck out of here with this shit.

Yes, language like this is clearly unacceptable in a productive discussion.

Offtopic, but this reminded me that the Linux kernel has a CoC. Aren’t the recent comments by Linus on the removal of russian maintainers, where he called several kernel developers paid actors, a CoC violation as well? Or have these comments w.r.t. to the CoC already been discussed?

We’re not in disagreement about whether rustdesk is malware or not, but I think the developers being incompetent is also a perfectly valid reason to avoid it. Sure, they have fixed most if not all major issues that were reported to them eventually, but who knows when they’ll mess something up again.

Also, some issues weren’t really resolved timely, take for example the issue where rustdesk autostarted on each boot. That one has been actively ignored for over a year, which is the opposite of building trust.

What about the certificate installation on windows? Besides, I never claimed it’s malware, but it’s certainly software I wouldn’t trust.

When running older Rustdesk versions on wayland it would display a notification saying “Rustdesk doesn’t support Wayland yet”, containing a button labeled “Fix it”, which is the button you’re referring to. There’s no way for the user to know that clicking this button will edit their GDM config and disable Wayland.

This thread has a lot of reasons against rustdesk and also discusses some alternatives: https://discuss.tchncs.de/post/21632052

This. I also use udiskie on sway, works perfectly.

Yep, I’m not a Rust expert either, but this is pretty cursed. The comments on this post have some more examples of bad rustdesk code: https://lobste.rs/s/njfvjb/rustdesk_with_tailscale_on_arch_linux

Rustdesk looks good on the outside, but if you look inside, it has a really bad codebase and has done some sketchy stuff in the past.

Last year, it installed custom root certificates as trusted on windows, which is a huge security risk: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/discussions/6444

On linux systems, it forced its own autostart with no option to disable this behavior: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/issues/4863

In the past, when it didn’t have Wayland support yet, it edited your GDM config and just disabled wayland: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/blob/1.1.9/src/platform/linux.rs#L411-L422

Furthermore, the code quality is really bad. 90% of the linux platform-dependant code is just executing shell commands and parsing their output, while the same could be achieved in a safe way with proper rust builtins: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/blob/master/src/platform/linux.rs

While I agree that Rustdesk works pretty flawlessly, the codebase and the behavior of the developers made me distrust the software and I don’t recommend using it.

Apparently it’s a rotovap (rotary evaporator). Had to look up the tweet for that: https://twitter.com/SigmaAldrich/status/1600505413602091009

Try running ssh with -vv to get a better idea of the problem when no ssh agent is running.

Why would you want to do that? pacman attempts to connect via IPv6 first anyway.

I need this pillow!

Hungry

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/File_recovery#Ext4Magic