Not sure if it’s what you’re looking for, but lirc has a database. Instructions for contributing files can be found here, files should adhere to the checklist here.

grep -r string .

The flag should go before the pattern.

-r to search recursively, . refers to the current directory.

Why use . instead of *? Because on it’s own, * will (typically) not match hidden files. See the last paragraph of the ‘Origin’ section of: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glob_(programming). Technically your ls command (lacking the -a) flag would also skip hidden files, but since your comment mentions finding the string in ‘any files,’ I figured hidden files should also be covered (the find commands listed would also find the hidden files).

EDIT: Should have mentioned that -R is also recursive, but will follow symlinks, where -r will ignore them.

I would not recommend them. I bought a Galago Pro in 2020, and it’s been a huge disappointment. Pop!_OS was very buggy, and their support was not helpful. I ultimately installed Ubuntu, and it’s now significantly more stable, but I’m left asking the question “why did I pay a premium for a clevo, when I’m not getting anything out of the custom software or support?”

Even with Ubuntu, it’s not a good laptop. The speakers are worse than my phone, a fully charged battery will die completely in less than a day when the laptop is suspended, it runs unbelievably hot. As a developer who depends on this machine for daily work, it’s been intensely frustrating.

If you like note taking software: https://youtu.be/XRpHIa-2XCE

This is not true. The GPL does not force anyone to give up their code, unless they distribute it. From the “Definitions” section:

A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.

And

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.

And from the “Basic Permissions” section:

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.

Under the terms of the GPL, the owner can revoke your access for any violation of the license, and at their discretion, they can make that revocation permanent. The GPL does not guarantee equal treatment - an author can punish one person harshly, and another not at all. It still comes down to the author. Yes, there is a small barrier in that you have to find a violation, but if you look hard enough, you can probably find a violation - especially in large projects using libraries distributed under multiple different licenses.

the FUTO license can revoke the license just because Rossmann says so. It is a mechanism to keep Rossmann the owner of everything that spawns from the code of the app and being the only one who can make money from it. If Rossmann doesn’t like someone who wants to redistributes the app, he can immediately revoke their license.

Quoting from my comment here:

They’re just trying to prevent a company from making money off the free labor of the authors. It’s the same issue that has plagued other projects, such as Elastic Search, which ultimately led it to change licenses. And it’s why MariaDB created the BSL, which they and other companies have adopted (very similar terms here - source free to use for non-commercial purposes).

If the hangup is specifically that they can change the terms, or revoke rights altogether, the other licenses also allow for that - that’s how these projects are changing licenses at all, and it happens quite a bit. I have personally contributed to projects that were GPL, and then went Apache.

only one who can make money from it

This is not true. You can make and sell plugins, you could offer support, you could sell your services as a code auditor/security expert… anything other than selling the code you didn’t write. On top of that, in practice, this isn’t different from anything else - most contributors to open source projects don’t profit from them, unless they work for the organization that owns the project. When the non-owners do profit, it’s usually big companies and results in the license changes I’ve described above.

A user that doesn’t care about licensing is typically called a pirate.

The license literally does not govern the usage of the app. Here’s the first line:

This license grants you the rights, and only the rights, set out below in respect of the source code provided.

Read the entire license (it’s only 32 lines), and you won’t find anything related to using the product, only the code.

This license should only be scary to developers, who might build on the project, and then have it taken away. As a user, your concerns are different, and this license vs the GPL, or any other FOSS, or even source available license, are more-or-less the same. As a user, your primary concerns are probably going to be related to the security and privacy related aspects, and as long as you have access to the source, you can audit it and ensure it meets your standards. If they choose to revoke access to the code, as a user, you’re in the same boat you described - don’t take new versions because you can’t audit them, but you can stay on the old version. They can’t revoke that access with this license, because again, this license literally does not govern usage of the product.

repackaging is a fundamental software freedom

Re-packaging is fine. You just can’t sell it.

They’re just trying to prevent a company from making money off the free labor of the authors. It’s the same issue that has plagued other projects, such as Elastic Search, which ultimately led it to change licenses. And it’s why MariaDB created the BSL, which they and other companies have adopted (very similar terms here - source free to use for non-commercial purposes).

If the hangup is specifically that they can change the terms, or revoke rights altogether, the other licenses also allow for that - that’s how these projects are changing licenses at all, and it happens quite a bit. I have personally contributed to projects that were GPL, and then went Apache.

As a developer, I could certainly see not wanting to build on the project while the license is what it is, but as a user, I don’t think this license is bad. I also think this is likely temporary (hence the name - “FUTO Temporary License”), and the tight grip on the rights are probably just so they can re-license later (hopefully to something a little more permissive). I could definitely be wrong, but given Louis’s track record of fighting for things like right-to-repair, I’d give him the benefit of the doubt here. He could certainly prove me wrong though, if they do anything shady. Feel free to rub it in my face if he ever does.

Edit:

Just for proof, here’s the specific line that says you can re-package and redistribute, from section 2, line 2:

2. You may provide the code to anyone else and publish excerpts of it for the purposes of review, compilation and non-commercial distribution, provided that when you do so you make any recipient of the code aware of the terms of this license, they must agree to be bound by the terms of this license and you must attribute the code to the provider.

As a user, or a developer? As a user, I don’t think it matters. As a developer, I think other licenses have similar carve outs, e.g. the GPLv3 section 8 is a whole section on “termination” - the copyright holder can revoke your rights for any ticky-tack violation of the license, and at their discretion, the revocation can be permanent.

Additionally, even with other FOSS licenses, the copyright holder can re-license the project. If I had to guess, this ability to re-license is probably why it is written as it is - the license is called the “FUTO Temporary License.” I would assume it’s written as is so they can re-license later, and they just want to cover their bases now. It’s entirely possible that’s incorrect, and they’ll clamp down. I’m personally willing to give them the benefit of the doubt (though having said that, I have no intention of buying, using, or contributing to this project).

According to the license, it is better than source available. You can modify and redistribute, you just can’t sell it. Other than that caveat, as far as I can tell, your rights are basically the same as with other open source licenses. (Feel free to correct me if I’ve missed something.)

Is there a particular aspect of the FUTO license you are concerned with? The code is publicly available, and the license seems to allow you to do anything you want, except sell the code. Other than not allowing you to re-package and sell the code, it seems like your rights are very similar to anything distributed via the GPL.

Am I missing something?

I noted in another comment that SearXNG can’t do anything about the trackers that your browser can’t do, and solving this at the browser level is a much better solution, because it protects you everywhere, rather than just on the search engine.

Routing over Tor is similar. Yes, you can route the search from your SearXNG instance to Google (or whatever upstream engine) over Tor, and hide your identity from Google. But then you click a link, and your IP connects to the IP of whatever site the results link to, and your ISP sees that. Knowing where you land can tell your ISP a lot about what you searched for. And the site you connected to knows your IP, so they get even more information - they know every action you took on the site, and everything you viewed. If you want to protect all of that, you should just use Tor on your computer, and protect every connection.

This is the same argument for using Signal vs WhatsApp - yes, in WhatsApp the conversation may be E2E encrypted, but the metadata about who you’re chatting with, for how long, etc is all still very valuable to Meta.

To reiterate/clarify what I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not making the case that people shouldn’t use SearXNG at all, only that their privacy claims are overstated, and if your goal is privacy, all the levels of security you would apply to SearXNG should be applied at your device level: Use a browser/extension to block trackers, use Tor to protect all your traffic, etc.

It’s possible to hit issues, especially if different distros are using different major versions of desktop environments or applications, but in practice, I don’t think it’s something that really needs to be worried about.

If you were to upgrade/fresh install, and copy your home folder over, you’d have the same experience - it’s not much safer than sharing the home partition, except that you’re (hopefully) doing that less. You could still easily go from distro A using version 2 of something, to distro B using version 3, and then decide you don’t like it and try to roll back to distro A. If in the process your config was upgraded in place (as opposed to a new, versioned config being made*), you could have problems rolling back.

With configs, you can usually just delete them (or, less destructively, rename them, in case you decide you want them back), and let the application make a new default one for you. With other files (e.g. databases), you might be in more trouble. But a good application will tell you before doing an upgrade like that, and give you a chance to backup the original before upgrading in place. When asked, it’s probably a good idea to take a backup (and not just for this distro hoping case).

*For any developers reading this, this is the correct way to upgrade a config. Don’t be destructive. Don’t upgrade in place. Make a copy, upgrade the copy, and include a version in the file name. You can always tell the user, so they can remove the file if they want, but let them make the choice. If you can’t (e.g. the database scenario, which could be large), tell the user before doing anything, so they can choose whether or not to backup.

You mean with config files stored in your home directory? Or something else?

When you install, whatever you install, partition your drive so that /home is it’s own partition. Then if/when you reinstall, distrohop, whatever, you don’t have to worry about copying over your data. Just use the same /home partition, and format the others. You can actually use this to try multiple distros at the same time - you can install them in different partitions, but have every install use the same /home partition. This is a nice way to test new distros without blowing away your stable install.

Now, for my distro recommendation - Ubuntu gets a lot of hate, but honestly, after 15+ years of Linux, and having tried Mint, Fedora, Arch, Manjaro, and many others, I always end up back on Ubuntu. It’s easy, it’s stable, and it stays out of my way.

The defaults are good, but you can customize as much as you want, and they offer a minimal install (as of 23.10, it is the default) which comes with very few applications, so you can start clean and choose all the applications you want.

Unless you are excited to tinker, I’d really recommend starting simple. Personality, I just want the OS to facilitate my other activities, and I otherwise want to forget about it. Ubuntu is pretty good for that.

They are explicitly trying to move away from Google, and are looking for a new option because their current solution is forcing them to turn off ad-blocking. Sounds to me like they are looking for a private option. Plus, given the forum in which we are having the discussion (Lemmy), even if OP is not specifically concerned with privacy, it seems likely other users are.

As for cookies, searxng can’t do any more than your browser (possibly with extensions) can do, and relying on your browser here is a much better solution, because it protects you on all sites, rather than just on your chosen search engine.

“Trash mountain” results is a whole separate issue - you can certainly tune the results to your liking. But literally the second sentence of their GitHub headline is touting no tracking or profiling, so it seems worth bringing attention to the limitations, and that’s all I’m trying to do here.

You mean between their instance and the final search engines? Or between them and a public instance of searxng?

In either case, I’m not sure it buys you anything in terms of privacy you wouldn’t get by using the VPN and going directly to the search engines.

It looks like a few people are recommending this, so just a quick note in case people are unaware:

If you want to avoid being tracked, this is not a good solution. Searxng is a meta search engine, meaning it is effectively a proxy: you search on Searxng, it searches multiple sites and sends all the results back to you. If you use a public instance, you may be protected from the actual search engine*, because many people will use the same instance, and your queries will be mixed in with all of them. If you self host, however, all the searches will be your own - there is then no difference between using Searxng and just going to the site yourself.

*The caveat with using the public instances is while you may be protected from the upstream engine, you have to trust the admins - nothing stops them from tracking you themselves (or passing your data on).

Despite the claims in their docs, I would not consider this a privacy tool. If you are just looking for a good search engine, this may work, and it gives you flexibility and power to tune it yourself. But it’s probably not going to do anything good for your privacy, above and beyond what you can get from other meta search engines like Startpage and DuckDuckGo, or other “private” search engines like Brave.

You manage the sources yourself, so if you don’t want to search certain platforms, just don’t add them.

You can actually sign the F-Droid app yourself, if you use reproducible builds.

There’s reasonable odds the signatures still won’t match though, because Google requires App Bundles now, and then they build and sign the APK, rather than allowing the developer to build and sign their own APK.

Technically you can use the same key (see “Best Practices” of this page), but it’s kind of shady, and requires giving your private key to Google.

This isn’t necessarily true - a developer choosing to not include their app in a repo can always opt for a self-updating mechanism.

Don’t get me wrong - repos and tooling to manage all of your apps at once are preferred. But if a developer or user wants to avoid the Canonical controlled repo, I’m just pointing out there are technically ways to do that.

If you’d question why someone would use snap at all at that point… that would be a good question. The point is just that they can, if they want to.