If a fix hasn’t made it to Stable yet, then switching to Experimental is the appropriate action to get the game functioning. Just keep in mind that if a ProtonDB review is old but mentions Experimental, then most likely the fix is in Stable by now and switching to Experimental might not be needed anymore. In those cases I’d try the latest Stable first, and then try Experimental if that doesn’t work for some reason.

Keeping note of specific Proton versions is more important if someone says that an older Proton version works better than new ones for reasons. Or if they’re using a forked version of Proton, like GE-Proton, it’s important because that fork explicitly includes things not in normal Proton, like exotic video format support that Valve can’t normally include for legal reasons.

Not SteamDeck, but there is evidence that Valve is working on x86-ARM emulation for a stand-alone VR Headset.

FYI, if you switch to Desktop mode on SteamOS, all those applications you listed are available via the included app store that taps into Flathub. SteamOS also ships with Firefox out of the box. I have them all installed on my SteamDeck already.

Experimental is its name for a reason. It’s for testing fixes which may or may not fix an issue that they’re investigating. If the fix doesn’t cause any immediate issues they’ll then push it to stable.

So you should really only use Experimental if you have a game or game update that just came out and isn’t running correctly in Stable.

To simplify these are the TLDR ranking:

• Stable

• Next (ie: Release Candidate, last bug fix check before pushing to stable)

• Experimental (ie: Beta, latest fixes that are being tested)

• Bleeding Edge (ie: Alpha, automated merges for the latest submitted code from devs, things can easily break)

• Hotfix (For quick bandaid fixes for specific popular games that just released or just updated with some breaking incompatibility.)

Mostly. None of the browser extensions work on Windows, which is really annoying.

Ah, I missed that since it’s an unofficial flatpak so it wasn’t listed on their site or forums.

Haven’t tried it on Linux recently, but MakeMKV still supports Linux apparently. You have to build it yourself though.

https://forum.makemkv.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=224&sid=1674d5df36b036b50d6fabdfb380e72c

Also it’s better for Devs than buying grey market keys bought using stolen credit cards.

Have you done Citra too?

https://github.com/keiyoushi/extensions/blob/repo/README.md

Lawyers went after Tachi Devs, Devs abandon Tachi, new Devs forked Tachi and made Mihon.

You can probably just disable auto updates for Android Auto and the apps you use with it, but inevitably things will start breaking, like Play Services APIs that Android Auto relies on, or the APIs those older third-party apps you use rely on.

It sucks, but it was kinda inevitable for a system that has so many moving parts.

Without arguing the benefits/drawbacks of software patents, isn’t slide to unlock only a fundamental concept because Apple invented and popularized it? To me, it only seems trivial because it’s ubiquitous, whereas that might not have been the case before the iPhone.

Software patents that boil down to “real life action, but we did it on a computer” are just obnoxious. Sliding a bolt to unlock something is something we’ve been doing for centuries, but suddenly Apple put it on a screen and gets to prevent anybody else from doing it? That makes no sense.

I don’t see why this is unique to software. As long as the proof is convoluted enough, how would it differ from making a physical D-pad? Both are made from already discovered axioms/materials, and both are transformed via known ways in a unique order into new tools to accomplish a particular task. If a D-pad patent should be allowed, why not a compression algorithm?

Hardware patents make sense, as it’s actually possible to come up with multiple solutions to the same problem. You can create a D-pad multiple different ways, as proven by the many different D-pad patents, as the goal is just to create an interface between electronic inputs and a logical physical shape. How you do it doesn’t matter as long as the result is reliable and satisfying for the end-user. The 4-directional shape of the d-pad wasn’t the patent, it was how the d-pad worked. Sure some people have preferences to one design or another, but that’s where they made the innovation.

But there isn’t multiple ways to create Pi. Pi is Pi. Just because you discovered a math equation to define it first doesn’t mean you get to claim dibs on it. You could claim that you wrote code that calculates Pi more quickly on a specific computer chip or something, but that’s copyright, not a patent. Patents shouldn’t be used for things that can be copyrighted, and vice versa.

There’s a reason why we have separate systems for copyrights, trademarks, and patents. Copyrights protect creative authorship, ways to express things. Trademarks protect identification, how people recognize you and your creations. Patents protect invention, novel processes to accomplish an action.

Patents are for protecting the processes you develop, not the resulting actions. You can’t patent boiling water to create steam, but you can patent the steps you took that led to water boiling and becoming steam.

To bring it back, what process did Apple develop for slide to unlock? Slide to unlock itself is an action, not a unique method of solving a problem. Like patenting the mere action of putting a key into a hole, instead of how the mechanics of the key itself actually opens the lock. They wrote code that interpreted “Box moving from position A to Position B allows access”, but that’s a copyright. Nobody would argue that they should be able to copy what Apple wrote to make that happen. But why does Apple get to claim that the action of moving a box is something they invented? Because the user can use a human finger on a screen now? Apple didn’t invent the capacitive touchscreen, somebody else did, and Apple paid them or a licensor of the tech for using their patent, they didn’t invent anything there. So all you’re left with is the action, moving a box with a finger, which shouldn’t be patentable. And the code that interprets the action, which should be a copyright not a patent.

You can copyright software code, just like any other written work, to protect you from people literally copy and pasting your work, but the idea that you could patent things like “slide left to unlock” is just stupid, as it’s a fundamental concept and software is full of fundamental concepts.

Compression algorithms being patentable is even more stupid, as it would be like somebody claiming they own Pi, just because they figured it out first. Imagine not being able to compute the circumference of a circle without paying somebody for the privilege.

I’ve given up on any direct download methods. It’s a game of wack-a-mole and the players often don’t share their tricks anymore, or charge a pretty penny.

Try OBS screen recording if you want a free option.

For anything that doesn’t work with, I’ve just gone the extra mile and now have a Streaming Stick plugged into an HDMI Splitter and then piped into an HDMI capture card, which then pipes into OBS. My setup can only do 1080p SDR, but that’s enough for me.

Firefox opening the gates for addons on mobile is some really good timing.

Also, statistically, a lot of Linux users are more technically minded and capable of identifying and reporting issues. This will naturally lead to higher reporting numbers, skewing stats.

Dude, I’m at work. Put a NSFW on that thing.

I’m 65535 years old, and you can’t prove otherwise!

There are IRC/XDCC search engines. I don’t know their exact method of scraping IRC servers, but they kinda work.

Also, if you know the right servers and channels, most have some kind of search index or bot.