If you are looking for Steam Deck compatibility, PrismLauncher has a page for bootstrapping it to look nice on Deck. PrismLauncher does also support controller navigation, though this breaks for me on my Steam Controller when using SteamInput rather Xinput. Perhaps this is different for the deck's controls?
Obviously for desktop, there isn't much point to doing this unless you really make use of big picture mode.
What repos do you have enabled for your system? The recommended way to install the NVidia proprietary drivers (akmod-nvidia for classic proprietary drivers or akmod-nvidia-open for nvidia-open drivers (closed source driver, open source kernel module for attachment)) assumes you have the RPMFusion repos (free, nonfree) enabled in your system. There is also xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-cuda for CUDA support.
I am curious what repo you are pulling the package nvidia-driver from as it doesn't appear in either Fedora repos nor RPMFusion. dnf info nvidia-driver will find this quickly if you don't know what repo the package is coming from. More than likely, installing from sources other than RPMFusion will lead to a poor experience in terms of NVidia drivers. Additionally, ensure you don't have secure boot enabled with NVidia, at least initially. If you really desire or need secure boot, you can follow this guide to register your own MOK.
Additionally (based on recent testing on RTX 4000-series hardware), NVidia may have problems with being stable on Wayland environments other than GNOME. Your mileage may vary, but I had observed severe issues in KDE under Wayland in the past few months.
Ah yes, did mess up looking at the specs table for bitrate modes. Correcting root comment for anyone else who views this thread.
You will need either an Intel discrete GPU or NVidia GPU if you want to use HDMI 2.1 to render at 8k@60. The Intel discrete GPUs have physical hardware that convert to HDMI and Nvidia uses proprietary drivers. If you can use displayport, any GPU (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) supporting displayport 1.4 is suitable for up to 8k@31 (limited to 8bpc). A displayport 2.0-capable card with a cable suitable for UHBR 13.5 should be able to handle 60 hz (8bpc) or a UHBR 20-rated cable capable of 60 hz at 10bpc.
It depends a bit on perspective and use-case, really. A flatpak'd application can be a fully-featured (all dependencies bundled) package in order to be portable. However, most flatpaks you might commonly encounter don't quite do this. A good portion of the libraries may be distributed in common runtime packages. This will be the case if you use flatpaks from Flathub or Fedora. There still can be bundled libraries with vulnerabilities, but in many cases, there are basic dependencies from external, common library sets.
As far as varying dependency versions, a developer may be on a host with either newer or older dependencies than expected by the user, but as long as the developer's application (and any unique libraries) are compiled against a common runtime as previously mentioned, it does make distribution to a wide variety of distros (LTS, 6-month, and rolling alike) relatively easy.
In comparison to OCI images (the kind of images that make up Docker, Podman, and a good portion of Kubernetes container images), flatpaks are a bit less extreme. Flatpaks contain much the same kind of files and structure that a standard distro package would, but simply get sandboxed into their own environment (via bubblewrap). Additionally, flatpaks don't necessarily need system-level access for installation and usage (full userland confinement). It heavily depends on host environment and configuration, but typically OCI containers are a full, minimal, immutable filesystem structure run in a virtual environment. Not quite a virtual machine, as (in Linux anyway) they are run on the host (almost always in a sandbox) without extensive virtualization capabilities being needed. The general difference in security capabilities depends on the differences in sandboxing between a flatpak behind bubblewrap and an OCI container's runtime sandboxing. There is also the notion with OCI containers being able to run as virtualized users, including root. With OCI containers that can obtain root access and a flaw in the sandboxing of say Docker in its standard rootful mode could allow for root level processes in the sandbox to act upon the host.
From what I can think of in comparison, there is the big problem with Flatpak in that it really isn't suitable for packaging command-line applications: only GUI applications and libraries. OCI container images are often tailored for running web apps and other persistent CLI applications
As far as KDE vs. GNOME is concerned: KDE contains a lot of customizable features as an expectation and thus has great support for a wide array of customization. Both KDE and GNOME are extensible, with third-party extensions to extend or change functionality available. What makes GNOME less customizable, albeit supporting stylesheets and extensions, both are not expected to be used in any form (outside of defaults provided via Adwaita), and neither do many independent apps written in GTK3, GTK4. GNOME offers fairly minimal customization options without resorting to GNOME Tweaks, third-party extensions, and unsupported customized themes: all things that can break GNOME as while the customization does exist, the developers don't embrace it and have no expectation to not break it with any update.
KDE has had ICC support implemented for a while now in Wayland. The necessary protocol for ICC support/color management in Wayland recently got merged, so the next release of many popular compositors (plasma 6.3 for KDE) will be protocol-compliant.
A general checklist for flags that software will enshittify:
On their own, not all of these flags are excellent indicators. Some are better than others in a vacuum. If you see a product start to check several of these flags, it might be time to jump ship early (to a fork or other competing project).
Without getting into more outright malicious possibilities as I don't use Windows and cannot inspect how the application behaves on the platform, you could have things as simple like:
It's funny how EA is attributing their statistic to something can be strongly disproven. When looking at the given statistic they provided, they don't specify the raw count of cheaters banned, but simply the rate. Even giving the generous assumption that EA's statistics aren't significantly flawed, they show an alleged large drop in cheaters bottoming out in the week of Nov. 4, 2024, before starting to rise up again. Does something else coincide with the rate of cheaters dropping in the week of Nov. 4? There is in fact something that does. Season 23 was released the fifth with a large spike of players being brought into the game. Without a more comprehensive statistic graph over several months, it looks like EA is trying to just capitalize on the fact that a large influx of players joining the game will drop the rates of cheaters momentarily, and then passing it off as evidence that Linux cheating was rampant. Quite disingenuous.
I'm not really sure I can support using DNT headers currently. Some good points were made about alongside GPC, DNT being legally recognized for GDPR requests in some countries. I live in the US outside of California, and don't closely follow along to the nuances of either CCPA or GDPR, so correct me if I get something wrong. Given the list of websites in a comment that respect DNT, the notion that DNT is voluntary to handle, and how many websites use to harm users instead (further fingerprinting data points), I don't see why Mozilla should be keeping around DNT for the time being.
Yes, the fingerprinting metric for DNT may not be that unique of a data point if a given user isn't using content blocking extensions and other browser-hardening techniques. It still is however a data point often masked to follow the herd in order to minimize fingerprinting in territories where user privacy isn't enforced by law. If law actually demanded respect to user privacy, I think DNT could work. As it stands though, it really doesn't seem like DNT is well-ingrained in law.
Given the list of sites you listed, I only recognize two websites on the list that claim to support DNT. Perhaps a majority of these sites are from smaller organizations and/or based in the EU? On top, this is only what the sites' privacy policies claim, no? How many of these sites are actively proven to respect DNT beyond claiming that they do?
It really seems like DNT is still considered way too optional for websites to handle and respect. The best way for this to change is for the GDPR to recognize proper DNT handling as mandatory for sites to be compliant in the EU. Furthermore (unlikely to happen anytime soon but would be helpful) is for the US to gain similar privacy laws at the country-level that also defines enforcement.
There is just about zero reason I think nicely asking website admins to monitor and add support for DNT. Given that a majority of the problem with violations isn't with the smallest of independent websites, but those run by larger businesses, I doubt simple activism will work. If just activism for respecting the privacy of users actually did something, I feel like in ~15 years Do Not Track headers would have shown meaningful progress. The only way going forward is deliberate user-enforced destruction of available tracking points granted to websites or law that dictates when and how websites may track users: be it GPC, DNT, or something else. Only when a consensus is being reached should Mozilla and browsers prepare to support the enforced feature.
EDIT: re-reading the list of websites claiming support for DNT, I found a second website I recognize.
Authentik has blueprints, which while not as simple as Authelia's config, do provide a functional way to have version-controlled configuration.