Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Recall for Linux

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 228 posts

Re: Recall for Linux

#61

Post by IshKebab »

lpln3452 wrote: post #57
IshKebab wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame the program authors; blame the Linux community for completely failing to agree on a better alternative.

Admittedly, a distro agnostic equivalent to the PKGBUILD or Nix Flakes would have been great. But it's hard to excuse them when so many better alternatives are available. Even apps that could easily be built into a single binary use these odd installation methods. And while Flatpak gets a lot of criticism, I honestly think it's far better than these `script| bash` methods.

> Even apps that could easily be built into a single binary use these odd installation methods.

Yeah because the curl bash script can deal with automatically selecting the right binary (even on Mac) and adding it to your PATH.

> And while Flatpak gets a lot of criticism, I honestly think it's far better than these `script| bash` methods.

I agree but does Flatpak actually work for CLI tools (which is where I see most use of curl-bash). E.g. could I install Rust using Flatpak? My understanding was it's more suited for sandboxed GUI apps.

Re: Recall for Linux

#62

Post by syntaxing »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #26
user2722 wrote: post #20

I know this is satire, but there is actually one and one you actually control. May be useful to remember who said what and where. It can be useful. Just not the way a megacorp implements it. Here it is [unaffiliated, untested by me, unvetted]: https://github.com/openrecall/openrecall

For all that it is satire, it is a lot more functional than you might realize at first glance. https://github.com/rolflobker/recall-for-linux/blob/e16382f0...

Judging from the code, I’m pretty sure this is generated by AI

Re: Recall for Linux

#63

Post by simoncion »

lpln3452 wrote: post #57
IshKebab wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't blame the program authors; blame the Linux community for completely failing to agree on a better alternative.

Admittedly, a distro agnostic equivalent to the PKGBUILD or Nix Flakes would have been great. But it's hard to excuse them when so many better alternatives are available. Even apps that could easily be built into a single binary use these odd installation methods. And while Flatpak gets a lot of criticism, I honestly think it's far better than these `script| bash` methods.

Yeah, honestly, package your thing up as either a .DEB or an .RPM. 'alien' [0] will handle converting from one to the other, and that will take care of like 90->98% of the Linux users out there.

The "OMFG there's no standard way to package things on Linux!" complaint kinda sucks.

[0] https://wiki.debian.org/Alien>

Re: Recall for Linux

#64

Post by zenoprax »

user2722 wrote: post #20

I know this is satire, but there is actually one and one you actually control. May be useful to remember who said what and where. It can be useful. Just not the way a megacorp implements it. Here it is [unaffiliated, untested by me, unvetted]: https://github.com/openrecall/openrecall

Lacks Wayland support unfortunately.

For just screen recording you can use https://git.dec05eba.com/gpu-screen-recorder

It's 10+ GB per 8 hours based on some testing I did. Could be useful for short term uses like tracing some technical troubleshooting or pulling screenshots for documentation.

Re: Recall for Linux

#65

Post by 63stack »

meowface wrote: post #43
noir_lord wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I was in minority who thought it was super cool technology. The technology can be cool while still be a horrific idea because of the implementation and privacy implications.

As long as it's stored and processed locally, I don't really see the implications being that much worse than someone getting all your local IRC/IM/email logs. (Those or their equivalents are stored in the cloud nowadays but disregard that for now for the sake of argument.)

It has been over a decade that big tech has been playing this script:

* Introduce a feature that is abysmal for user privacy

* Promise it's okay because $reasons

* Make the feature opt-out

* Change the EULA so that $reasons are no longer applicable/valid

* Roll out an update that "accidentally" turns the feature back on for everyone

* Apologize, deny, divert, deflect

* Siphon off all that sweet sweet user data

Rinse and repeat. Get away with it every time. People still go "oh I don't see the problem, they said $reasons". This time "it's stored locally". Until it won't.

Re: Recall for Linux

#66

Post by vachina »

perryizgr8 wrote: post #41

I never understood the hate for Recall. The idea is definitely good. In fact I want this sort of feature to work across my devices. I guess people don't trust Microsoft to implement it in a secure way?

Very likely a performance hog. And then very likely an attack vector for data exfiltration.

Re: Recall for Linux

#67

Post by jFriedensreich »

Its kind of naive satire that looks silly on second thought. Recall was not bad because of the concept but implementation details, rollout communication and of course the microsoft part. Recall by an open entity with data ownership, security and transparency would have none of those issues and its just a new take on the universal desktop search that is enabled by ai being able to utilise pixels. I refuse to be shamed by e2e encryption freaks that i want to be able search anything I encountered and having universal data control and ownership vs locked in app silos.

Re: Recall for Linux

#68

Post by franciscop »

teekert wrote: post #46
noir_lord wrote: post #27

For the first time since the 1980's I'm not going to be running a PC with a Microsoft OS on anywhere (I dual boot my main desktop since I use it for work and gaming) but the Windows 11 install is getting binned. Tired of having to read release notes carefully and make sure I've done just the right things to stop it doing things I never asked it to do. Good job MS, you lost a customer who's never likely to come back.…

The value MS gains from milking to non technical people for all they’re worth outweighs the loss of the occasional tech savvy user. And sadly I think MS are still far from the tipping point and it will get worse and worse for some time to come. The only thing the non-techies have is the law to protect them.

I've directly moved at least 3 people out of Windows, and indirectly I'd guess at least a dozen. If all of us techies did the same, it'd be over pretty soon.

Re: Recall for Linux

#69

Post by tonfreed »

noir_lord wrote: post #27

For the first time since the 1980's I'm not going to be running a PC with a Microsoft OS on anywhere (I dual boot my main desktop since I use it for work and gaming) but the Windows 11 install is getting binned. Tired of having to read release notes carefully and make sure I've done just the right things to stop it doing things I never asked it to do. Good job MS, you lost a customer who's never likely to come back.…

I recently went back to full time Linux and the gaming aspect is fine with my RTX-3090. I don't really play anything like COD or Battlefield with all the invasive anticheat though, so your mileage may vary

Re: Recall for Linux

#70

Post by lpln3452 »

IshKebab wrote: post #61
lpln3452 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Admittedly, a distro agnostic equivalent to the PKGBUILD or Nix Flakes would have been great. But it's hard to excuse them when so many better alternatives are available. Even apps that could easily be built into a single binary use these odd installation methods. And while Flatpak gets a lot of criticism, I honestly think it's far better than these `script| bash` methods.

> Even apps that could easily be built into a single binary use these odd installation methods. Yeah because the curl bash script can deal with automatically selecting the right binary (even on Mac) and adding it to your PATH. > And while Flatpak gets a lot of criticism, I honestly think it's far better than these `script| bash` methods. I agree but does Flatpak actually work for CLI tools (which is where I see most…

No. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that one must read some unknown script just for the simple task of adding a binary to the directory on PATH. Unless, of course, you're the type of person who just runs any script without verification.

Furthermore, for files installed 'automatically' like that, it's nearly impossible to remember what was done and where. This means that to remove it, you have to find and read 'that specific version' of the script you ran, and then delete the files. It's not like the script is always in a place with a persistent history, like a git repository. Good luck with that.

Post reply on HN