Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.os.linux.mint > #43941 > unrolled thread

Upgrade rant

Back to article view | Back to alt.os.linux.mint

Contents

  Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-25 20:01 +0100
    Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-25 14:43 -0500
    Re: Upgrade rant azigni <azigni@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-26 03:01 +0000
    Re: Upgrade rant RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-01-26 07:36 +0000
      Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-26 09:14 -0500
        Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-26 15:19 +0100
      Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-26 15:16 +0100
        Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-26 09:36 -0500
          Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-26 15:54 +0100
            Re: Upgrade rant Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2025-01-27 14:27 +0000
              Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-27 18:12 +0100
                Re: Upgrade rant Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-27 18:18 +0000
                  Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-27 19:59 +0100
                    Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-27 14:45 -0500
                    Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-27 17:03 -0500
                      Re: Upgrade rant Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> - 2025-01-28 06:58 +0100
                        Re: Upgrade rant "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-01-28 08:28 -0500
          Re: Upgrade rant Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2025-01-26 20:04 +0000
    Re: Upgrade rant Gerald H <geenspam@yahoo.co.uk> - 2025-01-26 20:24 +0000
    Re: Upgrade rant azigni <azigni@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-27 21:02 +0000

#43941 — Upgrade rant

Since I didn't experience any problems in a live session of Mint 22.1, I 
dediced to upgrade too. It turned out I was still on 21.1 (thought it 
was 21.3), so I had to upgrade in several steps in order to arrive at 
22.1 Xia, allowing me to see how my usual programs and stuff would 
behave in a non-live session.

First thing that struck me was the "more modern slimmer version of the 
Ubuntu font family", which – apart from being too thin for my liking – 
completely messed up the newsreader in Seamonkey by no longer 
differentiating between regular and bold for read and unread messages. 
Tried a couple of settings but found no way to fix this. There's clearly 
something wrong with those "thinner Ubuntu fonts", seeing as everything 
worked fine before.

I know going back to the old fonts is possible, but after fiddling with 
the settings for too long I lost my appetite and decided to timeshift 
back to 21.3.

Of course that brought about some other issues, like Thunderbird that 
suddenly refused to open because "a newer version had changed my 
profiles". Okay, so I all I had to do was update Thunderbird. Nope, 
couldn't do it because "Thunderbird is already the latest version". 
!@?#!! At this point I got really frustrated...

Spent the rest of afternoon fixing this and other stuff and finally 
everything works fine again. I'm back on 21.3 now and I'm sticking with 
it until its EOL date. I'm sure that by then a "more modern thicker 
version of the Ubuntu font family" will be the new thing.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#43942

On 1/25/25 02:01 PM, Monsieur wrote:
> Since I didn't experience any problems in a live session of Mint 22.1, I dediced to 
> upgrade too. It turned out I was still on 21.1 (thought it was 21.3), so I had to upgrade 
> in several steps in order to arrive at 22.1 Xia, allowing me to see how my usual programs 
> and stuff would behave in a non-live session.
> 
> First thing that struck me was the "more modern slimmer version of the Ubuntu font 
> family", which – apart from being too thin for my liking – completely messed up the 
> newsreader in Seamonkey by no longer differentiating between regular and bold for read and 
> unread messages. Tried a couple of settings but found no way to fix this. There's clearly 
> something wrong with those "thinner Ubuntu fonts", seeing as everything worked fine before.
> 
> I know going back to the old fonts is possible, but after fiddling with the settings for 
> too long I lost my appetite and decided to timeshift back to 21.3.
> 
> Of course that brought about some other issues, like Thunderbird that suddenly refused to 
> open because "a newer version had changed my profiles". Okay, so I all I had to do was 
> update Thunderbird. Nope, couldn't do it because "Thunderbird is already the latest 
> version". !@?#!! At this point I got really frustrated...
> 
> Spent the rest of afternoon fixing this and other stuff and finally everything works fine 
> again. I'm back on 21.3 now and I'm sticking with it until its EOL date. I'm sure that by 
> then a "more modern thicker version of the Ubuntu font family" will be the new thing.
Sounds like you should have done a complete backup of your system.  Image or dd or something.

I did a virgin load of 22 (because I wanted to clean house) and was on that for 7 weeks 
and they came out with 22.1.   So the update was minimal.   But mine went bonkers on me 
and I had to drop the image back in and start over.   3 times.   Finally found the issue 
and I'm up and running.   Was bugs in my custom themes.   I fixed the one that hit me that 
day but forgot what I fixed.   The bug hit me again when I tested one of my other popular 
themes yesterday and it went bonkers too.  But I knew now why, just had to find the few 
lines of code.

But that image cured a world of hurt for me.
-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43946

I thought this was a normal upgrade.... I like to play around with 
other .iso's and I find sometimes what I carry over works fine, and 
sometimes it may as well come from an old DOS program.

I use impa for email, and my other stuff is now pretty fast as I have had 
lots of practice. Of course, my needs may be simpler than yours, fwiw.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43947

On 2025-01-25, Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> wrote:
> Since I didn't experience any problems in a live session of Mint 22.1, I 
> dediced to upgrade too. It turned out I was still on 21.1 (thought it 
> was 21.3), so I had to upgrade in several steps in order to arrive at 
> 22.1 Xia, allowing me to see how my usual programs and stuff would 
> behave in a non-live session.
>
> First thing that struck me was the "more modern slimmer version of the 
> Ubuntu font family", which – apart from being too thin for my liking – 
> completely messed up the newsreader in Seamonkey by no longer 
> differentiating between regular and bold for read and unread messages. 
> Tried a couple of settings but found no way to fix this. There's clearly 
> something wrong with those "thinner Ubuntu fonts", seeing as everything 
> worked fine before.
>
> I know going back to the old fonts is possible, but after fiddling with 
> the settings for too long I lost my appetite and decided to timeshift 
> back to 21.3.
>
> Of course that brought about some other issues, like Thunderbird that 
> suddenly refused to open because "a newer version had changed my 
> profiles". Okay, so I all I had to do was update Thunderbird. Nope, 
> couldn't do it because "Thunderbird is already the latest version". 
> !@?#!! At this point I got really frustrated...
>
> Spent the rest of afternoon fixing this and other stuff and finally 
> everything works fine again. I'm back on 21.3 now and I'm sticking with 
> it until its EOL date. I'm sure that by then a "more modern thicker 
> version of the Ubuntu font family" will be the new thing.

I'm not particularly thrilled with 22.1 either. It seems like it's taken a 
few steps back. (At least the Live USB version.) No Synaptic by default 
(already mentioned) and Software Sources no longer allow you to unclick the 
CD repository (which gets in the way when updating) — you have to do it 
manually. Also the right-click desktop menu half the time only shows some of 
the Menu. I think I had noticed the font change as well, but I hadn't really 
that (at least not on my Desktop computer — on the laptop it might be a 
different story). There's a couple other things (like repository not 
allowing the update because Security concerns can't be met, but I think that 
probably an issue with syncing servers. I can't remember everything now. 
This is the USB Version (without updates) so it's probably not a fair test.

22.0 seems pretty solid. I think I'll stick with it (and 21.3) for now (or 
maybe until EOL).

-- 
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy 
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43948

On 1/26/25 02:36 AM, RonB wrote:
> On 2025-01-25, Monsieur <Monsieur@notreal.invalid> wrote:
>> Since I didn't experience any problems in a live session of Mint 22.1, I
>> dediced to upgrade too. It turned out I was still on 21.1 (thought it
>> was 21.3), so I had to upgrade in several steps in order to arrive at
>> 22.1 Xia, allowing me to see how my usual programs and stuff would
>> behave in a non-live session.
>>
>> First thing that struck me was the "more modern slimmer version of the
>> Ubuntu font family", which – apart from being too thin for my liking –
>> completely messed up the newsreader in Seamonkey by no longer
>> differentiating between regular and bold for read and unread messages.
>> Tried a couple of settings but found no way to fix this. There's clearly
>> something wrong with those "thinner Ubuntu fonts", seeing as everything
>> worked fine before.
>>
>> I know going back to the old fonts is possible, but after fiddling with
>> the settings for too long I lost my appetite and decided to timeshift
>> back to 21.3.
>>
>> Of course that brought about some other issues, like Thunderbird that
>> suddenly refused to open because "a newer version had changed my
>> profiles". Okay, so I all I had to do was update Thunderbird. Nope,
>> couldn't do it because "Thunderbird is already the latest version".
>> !@?#!! At this point I got really frustrated...
>>
>> Spent the rest of afternoon fixing this and other stuff and finally
>> everything works fine again. I'm back on 21.3 now and I'm sticking with
>> it until its EOL date. I'm sure that by then a "more modern thicker
>> version of the Ubuntu font family" will be the new thing.
> 
> I'm not particularly thrilled with 22.1 either. It seems like it's taken a
> few steps back. (At least the Live USB version.) No Synaptic by default
> (already mentioned) and Software Sources no longer allow you to unclick the
> CD repository (which gets in the way when updating) — you have to do it
> manually. Also the right-click desktop menu half the time only shows some of
> the Menu. I think I had noticed the font change as well, but I hadn't really
> that (at least not on my Desktop computer — on the laptop it might be a
> different story). There's a couple other things (like repository not
> allowing the update because Security concerns can't be met, but I think that
> probably an issue with syncing servers. I can't remember everything now.
> This is the USB Version (without updates) so it's probably not a fair test.
> 
> 22.0 seems pretty solid. I think I'll stick with it (and 21.3) for now (or
> maybe until EOL).
> 
I wonder if the font issue could be adjusted in the 'font selection'.  I don't use a lot 
of Ubuntu fonts in mine, Verdana, Tahoma, DejaVu Sans.  Window font is the only Ubuntu.

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43950

Alan K. wrote:

>>
> I wonder if the font issue could be adjusted in the 'font selection'.  I 
> don't use a lot of Ubuntu fonts in mine, Verdana, Tahoma, DejaVu Sans.  
> Window font is the only Ubuntu.
> 

It's in the Release Notes:

---
Thinner Ubuntu fonts

A more modern slimmer version of the Ubuntu font family is now shipped 
as standard.

Going back to the old fonts is possible by downloading the old fonts 
package and refusing updates for it. For more information read 
https://askubuntu.com/questions/1465216/install-the-old-version-of-the-ubuntu-font. 

---

Don't forget to refuse the new fonts and its future updates, otherwise 
they'll keep popping up the Update Manager.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43949

RonB wrote:

> I'm not particularly thrilled with 22.1 either. It seems like it's taken a
> few steps back. (At least the Live USB version.) No Synaptic by default
> (already mentioned) and Software Sources no longer allow you to unclick the
> CD repository (which gets in the way when updating) — you have to do it
> manually. Also the right-click desktop menu half the time only shows some of
> the Menu. I think I had noticed the font change as well, but I hadn't really
> that (at least not on my Desktop computer — on the laptop it might be a
> different story). There's a couple other things (like repository not
> allowing the update because Security concerns can't be met, but I think that
> probably an issue with syncing servers. I can't remember everything now.
> This is the USB Version (without updates) so it's probably not a fair test.
> 
> 22.0 seems pretty solid. I think I'll stick with it (and 21.3) for now (or
> maybe until EOL).
> 

I've timeshifted back to 21.3 now, but unfortunately it has "inherited" 
some of the annoyances of 22.1, like a missing "paste" option in the 
right-click menu when copying a file, and Thunderbird that's still not 
fully functional (no more notifications when a mail arrives). Timeshift 
really does not restore everything to its previous state it seems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43951

On 1/26/25 09:16 AM, Monsieur wrote:
> RonB wrote:
> 
>> I'm not particularly thrilled with 22.1 either. It seems like it's taken a
>> few steps back. (At least the Live USB version.) No Synaptic by default
>> (already mentioned) and Software Sources no longer allow you to unclick the
>> CD repository (which gets in the way when updating) — you have to do it
>> manually. Also the right-click desktop menu half the time only shows some of
>> the Menu. I think I had noticed the font change as well, but I hadn't really
>> that (at least not on my Desktop computer — on the laptop it might be a
>> different story). There's a couple other things (like repository not
>> allowing the update because Security concerns can't be met, but I think that
>> probably an issue with syncing servers. I can't remember everything now.
>> This is the USB Version (without updates) so it's probably not a fair test.
>>
>> 22.0 seems pretty solid. I think I'll stick with it (and 21.3) for now (or
>> maybe until EOL).
>>
> 
> I've timeshifted back to 21.3 now, but unfortunately it has "inherited" some of the 
> annoyances of 22.1, like a missing "paste" option in the right-click menu when copying a 
> file, and Thunderbird that's still not fully functional (no more notifications when a mail 
> arrives). Timeshift really does not restore everything to its previous state it seems.
> 
> 
> 
Isn't timeshift just system files, not home files?

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43952

Alan K. wrote:
> On 1/26/25 09:16 AM, Monsieur wrote:

>> I've timeshifted back to 21.3 now, but unfortunately it has 
>> "inherited" some of the annoyances of 22.1, like a missing "paste" 
>> option in the right-click menu when copying a file, and Thunderbird 
>> that's still not fully functional (no more notifications when a mail 
>> arrives). Timeshift really does not restore everything to its previous 
>> state it seems.
>>
>>
>>
> Isn't timeshift just system files, not home files?

Yes, but apparently some of the system files have changed enough for 
Thunderbird to start acting up. Everything worked fine before my upgrade 
experiment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43960

On 2025-01-26, Monsieur wrote:
> Alan K. wrote:
>> On 1/26/25 09:16 AM, Monsieur wrote:
>
>>> I've timeshifted back to 21.3 now, but unfortunately it has 
>>> "inherited" some of the annoyances of 22.1, like a missing "paste" 
>>> option in the right-click menu when copying a file, and Thunderbird 
>>> that's still not fully functional (no more notifications when a mail 
>>> arrives). Timeshift really does not restore everything to its previous 
>>> state it seems.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Isn't timeshift just system files, not home files?
>
> Yes, but apparently some of the system files have changed enough for 
> Thunderbird to start acting up. Everything worked fine before my upgrade 
> experiment.


If you opened tbird in 22.1, your tbird profile (~/.thunderbird , as I
recall) has now been tagged with needing whatever version of tbird is in
22.1. 

You might be able to "fix" it by renaming the profile directory and
letting Mint 21.x tbird recreate it from scratch.  After that, it may be
possible to copy the relevant database(s) from the 22 tbird back into
the new profile so that your saved email services, etc. show up again.
You'll probably be forced into re-syncing all the mail though.

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43962

Dan Purgert wrote:

> You might be able to "fix" it by renaming the profile directory and
> letting Mint 21.x tbird recreate it from scratch.  After that, it may be
> possible to copy the relevant database(s) from the 22 tbird back into
> the new profile so that your saved email services, etc. show up again.
> You'll probably be forced into re-syncing all the mail though.

No, that was not necessary. There is never a risk of losing any mails, 
because Thunderbird does not touch the profile folders in your home 
directory, even when you remove or reinstall the program.

Meanwhile it works again, but I did remove the extension "Minimize on 
Close". Not that it was necessary, but because of all the permissions it 
needed:

- Have full, unrestricted access to Thunderbird, and your computer

Extensions requesting this permission might:

- Change every aspect of Thunderbird’s user interface
- Read and modify all your data (messages, contacts, calendars, web 
content and passwords)
- Read, modify and execute any file on your computer

That's like installing a backdoor on your computer and giving the key to 
a total stranger. If I had known this before, I would have removed it a 
long time ago. It is useful and I liked it, but this is really going too 
far in my opinion.

How is this even permitted? Why on earth would a simple extension  need 
all those permissions? I find this totally unacceptable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43963

On 27/01/2025 17:12, Monsieur wrote:
> Dan Purgert wrote:
> 
>> You might be able to "fix" it by renaming the profile directory and
>> letting Mint 21.x tbird recreate it from scratch.  After that, it may be
>> possible to copy the relevant database(s) from the 22 tbird back into
>> the new profile so that your saved email services, etc. show up again.
>> You'll probably be forced into re-syncing all the mail though.
> 
> No, that was not necessary. There is never a risk of losing any mails,
> because Thunderbird does not touch the profile folders in your home
> directory, even when you remove or reinstall the program.
> 
> Meanwhile it works again, but I did remove the extension "Minimize on
> Close". Not that it was necessary, but because of all the permissions it
> needed:
> 
> - Have full, unrestricted access to Thunderbird, and your computer
> 
> Extensions requesting this permission might:
> 
> - Change every aspect of Thunderbird’s user interface
> - Read and modify all your data (messages, contacts, calendars, web
> content and passwords)
> - Read, modify and execute any file on your computer
> 
> That's like installing a backdoor on your computer and giving the key to
> a total stranger. If I had known this before, I would have removed it a
> long time ago. It is useful and I liked it, but this is really going too
> far in my opinion.
> 
> How is this even permitted? Why on earth would a simple extension  need
> all those permissions? I find this totally unacceptable.

It seems pretty strange, but the explanation is here:
<https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-thunderbird-extensions#w_have-full-unrestricted-access-to-thunderbird-and-your-computer>

FWIW, I have only four extensions and they all state "Have full, 
unrestricted access to Thunderbird, and your computer".

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43964

Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 27/01/2025 17:12, Monsieur wrote:

>> Extensions requesting this permission might:
>>
>> - Change every aspect of Thunderbird’s user interface
>> - Read and modify all your data (messages, contacts, calendars, web
>> content and passwords)
>> - Read, modify and execute any file on your computer
>>
>> That's like installing a backdoor on your computer and giving the key to
>> a total stranger. If I had known this before, I would have removed it a
>> long time ago. It is useful and I liked it, but this is really going too
>> far in my opinion.
>>
>> How is this even permitted? Why on earth would a simple extension  need
>> all those permissions? I find this totally unacceptable.
> 
> It seems pretty strange, but the explanation is here:
> <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-thunderbird-extensions#w_have-full-unrestricted-access-to-thunderbird-and-your-computer> 

That's where I copied the text from. Still it doesn't explain anything. 
Why does an extension need all those rights when its job is to just keep 
Thunderbird running? That's just not okay, they are backdoors.


> FWIW, I have only four extensions and they all state "Have full, 
> unrestricted access to Thunderbird, and your computer".

I moved to Linux to get rid of all the sneaky spying from Microsoft, I 
don't want to repeat that on Linux. Read and modify all my data and 
execute any file on my computer, without me knowing who's behind it? No 
thank you, I will find another way of adding this function to TB - or 
find another e-mail program altogether.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43965

On 1/27/25 01:59 PM, Monsieur wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 27/01/2025 17:12, Monsieur wrote:
> 
>>> Extensions requesting this permission might:
>>>
>>> - Change every aspect of Thunderbird’s user interface
>>> - Read and modify all your data (messages, contacts, calendars, web
>>> content and passwords)
>>> - Read, modify and execute any file on your computer
>>>
>>> That's like installing a backdoor on your computer and giving the key to
>>> a total stranger. If I had known this before, I would have removed it a
>>> long time ago. It is useful and I liked it, but this is really going too
>>> far in my opinion.
>>>
>>> How is this even permitted? Why on earth would a simple extension  need
>>> all those permissions? I find this totally unacceptable.
>>
>> It seems pretty strange, but the explanation is here:
>> <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-thunderbird- 
>> extensions#w_have-full-unrestricted-access-to-thunderbird-and-your-computer> 
> 
> That's where I copied the text from. Still it doesn't explain anything. Why does an 
> extension need all those rights when its job is to just keep Thunderbird running? That's 
> just not okay, they are backdoors.
> 
> 
>> FWIW, I have only four extensions and they all state "Have full, unrestricted access to 
>> Thunderbird, and your computer".
> 
> I moved to Linux to get rid of all the sneaky spying from Microsoft, I don't want to 
> repeat that on Linux. Read and modify all my data and execute any file on my computer, 
> without me knowing who's behind it? No thank you, I will find another way of adding this 
> function to TB - or find another e-mail program altogether.
> 
> 
> 
I just looked at the code in the xpi file.  Other than icons, there is only one java 
script.  And it's just a few lines to monitor the status of the window.

browser.runtime.onStartup.addListener(async () => {
     var winInfo = await browser.windows.getCurrent();
     if(winInfo.type != "normal")
         return;
     await browser.windows.update(winInfo.id, { state: "minimized" });
});

Doesn't look like it doing much to me.

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43967

On 1/27/25 01:59 PM, Monsieur wrote:
> Jeff Layman wrote:
>> On 27/01/2025 17:12, Monsieur wrote:
> 
>>> Extensions requesting this permission might:
>>>
>>> - Change every aspect of Thunderbird’s user interface
>>> - Read and modify all your data (messages, contacts, calendars, web
>>> content and passwords)
>>> - Read, modify and execute any file on your computer
>>>
>>> That's like installing a backdoor on your computer and giving the key to
>>> a total stranger. If I had known this before, I would have removed it a
>>> long time ago. It is useful and I liked it, but this is really going too
>>> far in my opinion.
>>>
>>> How is this even permitted? Why on earth would a simple extension  need
>>> all those permissions? I find this totally unacceptable.
>>
>> It seems pretty strange, but the explanation is here:
>> <https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/permission-request-messages-thunderbird- 
>> extensions#w_have-full-unrestricted-access-to-thunderbird-and-your-computer> 
> 
> That's where I copied the text from. Still it doesn't explain anything. Why does an 
> extension need all those rights when its job is to just keep Thunderbird running? That's 
> just not okay, they are backdoors.
> 
> 
>> FWIW, I have only four extensions and they all state "Have full, unrestricted access to 
>> Thunderbird, and your computer".
> 
> I moved to Linux to get rid of all the sneaky spying from Microsoft, I don't want to 
> repeat that on Linux. Read and modify all my data and execute any file on my computer, 
> without me knowing who's behind it? No thank you, I will find another way of adding this 
> function to TB - or find another e-mail program altogether.
> 
> 
> I'll take that back.  I just re-installed this "minimize on start" add-on and the add-on 
says "This extension doesn’t require any permissions".
https://github.com/aAndrzej-dev/Minimize-on-startup
-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-51-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43970

Alan K. wrote:

>>> FWIW, I have only four extensions and they all state "Have full, 
>>> unrestricted access to Thunderbird, and your computer".
>>
>> I moved to Linux to get rid of all the sneaky spying from Microsoft, I 
>> don't want to repeat that on Linux. Read and modify all my data and 
>> execute any file on my computer, without me knowing who's behind it? 
>> No thank you, I will find another way of adding this function to TB - 
>> or find another e-mail program altogether.
>>
>>
>> I'll take that back.  I just re-installed this "minimize on start" 
>> add-on and the add-on 
> says "This extension doesn’t require any permissions".
> https://github.com/aAndrzej-dev/Minimize-on-startup

It's "Minimize on Close", not "Minimize on startup" :-)

https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/minimize-on-close/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43975

On 1/28/25 12:58 AM, Monsieur wrote:
>> I'll take that back.  I just re-installed this "minimize on start" add-on and the add-on 
>> says "This extension doesn’t require any permissions".
>> https://github.com/aAndrzej-dev/Minimize-on-startup
> 
> It's "Minimize on Close", not "Minimize on startup" 🙂
> 
> https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-US/thunderbird/addon/minimize-on-close/
I don't use any of them, now.

Never noticed it but there are 3 versions (one only works up to v128.*)
minimize_on_close-2.0.1.4-tb
mas@aandrzej.com  minimize on start
minimize_on_start_and_close-1.3.2-fx+tb+sb

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.6,  Kernel 6.8.0-52-generic
Thunderbird 128.6.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 134.0.2
Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43954

On 2025-01-26, Alan K. <alan@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/25 09:16 AM, Monsieur wrote:
>> RonB wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not particularly thrilled with 22.1 either. It seems like it's taken a
>>> few steps back. (At least the Live USB version.) No Synaptic by default
>>> (already mentioned) and Software Sources no longer allow you to unclick the
>>> CD repository (which gets in the way when updating) — you have to do it
>>> manually. Also the right-click desktop menu half the time only shows some of
>>> the Menu. I think I had noticed the font change as well, but I hadn't really
>>> that (at least not on my Desktop computer — on the laptop it might be a
>>> different story). There's a couple other things (like repository not
>>> allowing the update because Security concerns can't be met, but I think that
>>> probably an issue with syncing servers. I can't remember everything now.
>>> This is the USB Version (without updates) so it's probably not a fair test.
>>>
>>> 22.0 seems pretty solid. I think I'll stick with it (and 21.3) for now (or
>>> maybe until EOL).
>>>
>> 
>> I've timeshifted back to 21.3 now, but unfortunately it has "inherited" some of the 
>> annoyances of 22.1, like a missing "paste" option in the right-click menu when copying a 
>> file, and Thunderbird that's still not fully functional (no more notifications when a mail 
>> arrives). Timeshift really does not restore everything to its previous state it seems.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> Isn't timeshift just system files, not home files?
>
This is the case for the default option in Mint, but there is an option to
include the home directory. Still the data files should be backed up
elsewhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43956

On 25/01/25 19:01, Monsieur wrote:
> Since I didn't experience any problems in a live session of Mint 22.1, I 
> dediced to upgrade too. It turned out I was still on 21.1 (thought it 
> was 21.3), so I had to upgrade in several steps in order to arrive at 
> 22.1 Xia, allowing me to see how my usual programs and stuff would 
> behave in a non-live session.
> 
> First thing that struck me was the "more modern slimmer version of the 
> Ubuntu font family", which – apart from being too thin for my liking – 
> completely messed up the newsreader in Seamonkey by no longer 
> differentiating between regular and bold for read and unread messages. 
> Tried a couple of settings but found no way to fix this. There's clearly 
> something wrong with those "thinner Ubuntu fonts", seeing as everything 
> worked fine before.
> 
> I know going back to the old fonts is possible, but after fiddling with 
> the settings for too long I lost my appetite and decided to timeshift 
> back to 21.3.
> 
> Of course that brought about some other issues, like Thunderbird that 
> suddenly refused to open because "a newer version had changed my 
> profiles". Okay, so I all I had to do was update Thunderbird. Nope, 
> couldn't do it because "Thunderbird is already the latest version". 
> !@?#!! At this point I got really frustrated...
> 
> Spent the rest of afternoon fixing this and other stuff and finally 
> everything works fine again. I'm back on 21.3 now and I'm sticking with 
> it until its EOL date. I'm sure that by then a "more modern thicker 
> version of the Ubuntu font family" will be the new thing.


I've had a look at Mint XFCE 22.1 and there seems to be more Header Bars
and Symbolic Icons than in Mint XFCE 22, which of course has more of
that stuff than in Mint XFCE 21.X. If I wanted that I'd using a Gnome
desktop.

My custom theme and replacing a lot of the default applications has got
rid of most of it, but I'm not going to spend ages hacking Mint 21.1
onwards to get things how I like it, so I'm sticking with my customised
Mint XFCE 22 until the end of support now.

Hopefully fashion will then have gone full circle and I can have colour
icons again on my colour screen.  I got rid of my black and white
monitor a long time ago when I could afford a colour one! :-) .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#43966

It seems T-bird is your biggest issue. Are you using pop3? If you change 
to imap you can retrieve your email, then change back. Just a guess. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | alt.os.linux.mint

csiph-web