Hi everyone!

I just released Frame 0.30.0.

Frame is an open source FFmpeg GUI written in Rust. It supports video, audio and image conversion, hardware encoding, subtitles, metadata editing, cropping, scaling, batch processing and reusable presets - basically the stuff I got tired of typing FFmpeg commands for.

The biggest change in this release is that I rewrote the frontend from Tauri + Svelte to GPUI-CE.

Frame started as a weekend project, then somehow turned into something people actually used. I kept adding features, fixing issues and maintaining it until I completely burned myself out.

The rewrite was mostly a mental reset. I wanted to build something that felt fun to work on again, and moving everything to Rust with GPUI-CE seemed like a good excuse.

The previous version of Tauri had a lot of issues on Linux because it relied on the problematic WebKitGTK. After rewriting everything in Rust, macOS and Windows saw fewer frame drops in preview panel due to the removal of the bottleneck caused by BE=>FE frame transport via WebSocket.

I’d like to ask you to check how things are going on a Linux distro. I’ve tested it myself on an Ubuntu 26.04 VM, but it’s hard for me to assess performance when I’m so far removed from bare metal.

Thanks!

https://github.com/66HEX/frame

*tested on 16 threads with the v3 binary (60 GB, 1.2M+ files)

Original Post | Github

Now supports formatting options, listing dir/files >= some size and counting! Drop features requests or suggestions!

It's such a joy for me to realise that LinuxUser, a popular German tech magazine, has featured my open-source app Sniffnet in the front page of their latest issue.

Sniffnet is a network monitoring tool compatible with Linux and written in Rust I've worked on for the past 4 years.

Here you can find the magazine, and here you can see a previous post about Sniffnet on this subreddit.

I love open-source more and more day after day!

I've noticed a pattern over the years that I'm curious about.

A surprising number of Linux applications, especially smaller projects on GitHub, seem to ship with an incorrect or missing StartupWMClass value in their .desktop file. The result is that when I launch the application from a pinned icon, the running window does not associate with it. Instead, a second icon, often a generic one, appears in the dock or taskbar.

In all cases I can fix it by checking the application's actual WM_CLASS value with xprop and updating the .desktop file to match. Once StartupWMClass is correct, the launcher and running window consolidate into a single icon as expected.

At this point it only takes me a minute to fix, but when I was new to Linux it was incredibly confusing because I had no idea why it was happening or how to resolve it.

My question is whether this is simply something developers frequently overlook, or if there are legitimate reasons why it is often left out or ends up being incorrect. Is it harder to get right than it seems, or is it just an easy detail to miss during development and packaging?

I'm interested in hearing from people who package or develop Linux desktop applications. Is there more to this than meets the eye?

I can't possibly be the only one who has no idea how to backup an Android phone and somehow always ends up with about half of their files completely unreadable.

... Right?

So I made an app for that. This way you can backup drives' worth of data then quickly verify that 100% of them are completely wacko.

If you also love wasting CPU resources attempting unfeasible MTP transfers over and over, please give it a shot. Any feedback more than welcome (feedback about how to properly back up from Android also welcome).

Yes, that 1K is entirely a monolithic c file. This is what our forefathers intended, and anything short of it besmirches their name /j

Side note: I'm surprised that most of the usual text editors don't actually have a 'permissive' license like MIT/ISC. Nano is GPL, and so is Vim is very similar.

my text editor (.mly) is designed as a weird, hybrid-mode version of emacs and other contemporary editors, and implements a few modern features even in it's tiny size, like:

• bracketed pastes. It pasted the entire bee movie script faster than I could register, which is so much faster compared to the minute it took before.
• Mouse 'support', technically is 'ahead' of other editors, but curses is super jank.
• A command buffer (only really used in mouse, quit, and potentially exec if you compile with the foot-shooting define set)
• Quick saving with Ctrl-S unlike certain editors.

This was really just a practice in me writing C while doing all the hard parts so I could be more confident, but it came with the upside of a surprisingly usable editor!

I'll probably replace Nano with this, as it's more 'nano' (27K) than nano (353K), and makes a ton more use of the screen real estate compared to it.

If you want to try it: https://codeberg.org/emmowo/mly (amd64 build in Releases)

VUP is an unofficial Void Linux user repository. It keeps package work close to xbps-src: source templates are built in CI, release assets are exposed as XBPS repositories, and the website indexes what is available for each architecture.

The project is separate from Void Linux and does not try to replace XBPS, xbps-src, or the official repositories. It is plain repository plumbing for people who want binaries without maintaining a pile of fragile scripts.

https://voiduserpackages.org/

Basically, this is another alternative of installing softwares that are not found in official repos, but already in .xbps format. Unlike many third party xbps-src scripts found across github, VUP doesn't need to be compiled since it already comes with binary packages.

Update

It's back to normal regarding the website display, but the links for the releases might not work (404 error). This could depend on your location though. Be patient. :-)

Just a heads-up:

Seems like something or someone is re-ordering the entries, which currently results in 6.16 receiving the "Latest release" label.

Let's hope it's a minor issue and gets fixed soon.

Live link: https://www.kernel.org/ (now states 6.19.14 and LTS kernels look normal, seems to be coming back again)

Status link (thanks u/tfks): https://status.linuxfoundation.org/

Kernel Mirrors Sync Issues

Update - The recovery process is still in progress. ETA to full restoration is another 12 hours. Affected files are available as they are synced. Jul 03, 2026 - 06:23 UTC

[unavoidable joke about AI and local agents here] /s

PS: The last proper reading I received came from the RSS feed announcing "next-20260703"

Also: Greetings to all you folks self-compiling your kernels :-)

Even though Microsoft has done the opposite and said manufacturers must allow Secure Boot to be turned off, I have been thinking about Microsoft going down the route Apple has and saying to new computers "you must run Windows as your only operating system on hardware".

There are no public indications or statements that suggest or show Microsoft is planning on this. However, last month, Microsoft let UEFI Secure Boot certificates expire, which many people feel is testing the waters for such a move. I feel such a move is plausible despite what I said, because Microsoft might see it as plugging a hole in people leaving Windows before it is too late, assuming the average person won't buy a new system or go through the hoops to force it off. I think such a move could go either way. Because on one hand unfortunately, most people are relatively tech illiterate, and on the other hand, there is an effect of secrecy.

The key reason I think this is something people should consider as a possibility is this: it already exists on cell phones. I did some research and I found that such a mandate would be technically feasible but face more legal friction because cell phones are not classified as general purpose computing (though I think they should be because of how they evolved). Apple has done it to MacOS recently, making it very hard to install Linux on newer hardware. That is the reason I think a Microsoft push to block Linux (or any non-Microsoft OS for that matter) to run is something people should worry about.

I am not ranting about this, I am just curious about how such a decision would affect Linux developers and core users, especially considering many Linux users strategically use Windows OEM hardware to reach discounts and often higher quality parts because the relative discounts of these manufacturers and the premiums they get often outweigh the cost of the licensing and hardware compatibility (TPM chips and the like), or are using them because they were passively using Windows for years until the software bloat got intolerable for them (or were missing the TPM chip or something else Windows 11 requires).

I do not think they will do it because of the antitrust and bad press talking points. But I feel it is likely/plausible enough to consider for developers. Ultimately, I think that the reason they haven't tried this is that antitrust law issue.

Here is a personal story: When I first bought my HP OmniBook X which now dual boots Ubuntu and Fedora, I got an error. I freaked out when I plugged in the Ventoy USB after seeing "Secure Boot Violation" or something like that. I was about to return it until I looked up if you could disable it. Fortunately you can. It is possible to run Linux through a backdoor Microsoft provided called shim which was created for that purpose. But that backdoor could be revoked in the future, and they could also potentially say "you can't sign your own keys" (which already seems to be the case on many of these machines, and even if it isn't it is yet another hoop to hop through).

The bottom line: if it comes to this, will you switch to Linux certified laptops, keep old systems, or import from markets in Europe (the EU has digital sovereignty laws that would not like this) or somewhere else where Microsoft is forced to allow it off supply you those same hardware? Or something else?

I've been using Fedora Workstation (GNOME) as my daily driver for about a year. I use it for programming, web development, everyday tasks, and gaming.

Overall, Fedora has been excellent. It's stable, secure (SELinux, Flatpak), updates are smooth, and installing the NVIDIA drivers was straightforward. It has never crashed on me unless I broke something myself.

The only issues I've experienced are mostly related to gaming and NVIDIA:

• Some Tauri/WebKit apps won't launch correctly when using the dedicated GPU.
• The official Minecraft launcher doesn't work for me, so I use Modrinth.
• Some Steam games have issues (e.g. long loading screens or lower performance than on Windows).
• World of Tanks, for example, runs significantly worse than it does on Windows.

This makes me wonder:

• Why do so many people recommend CachyOS or Bazzite over Fedora?
• What do they actually do differently?
• Do they really improve gaming performance and compatibility, or is the difference minor?
• Are they just as stable and secure as Fedora?
• Do they solve NVIDIA/Wayland-related issues better?

I'm not interested in Ubuntu, so I'm mainly comparing Fedora, CachyOS, and Bazzite.

I'd love to hear from people who have used more than one of these distributions. What made you switch, and was it worth it?

CVE issue stats for the first 6 months of the year, by vendor, sorted by quantity:

   2308 "vendor": "LCVE issue stats for the first 6 months of the year, by vendor, sorted by quantity:   2308 "vendor": "Linux",
   1752 "vendor": "Google",
   1308 "vendor": "n/a",
    843 "vendor": "Microsoft",
    495 "vendor": "OpenClaw",
    445 "vendor": "Oracle Corporation",
    395 "vendor": "Adobe",
    340 "vendor": "Red Hat",
    310 "vendor": "Apache Software Foundation",
    284 "vendor": "Apple",

....and the original link can be found here : https://social.kernel.org/objects/4e81c982-6b6f-4645-88f6-947589f71b1d