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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #685331 > unrolled thread

Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 08:49 +0000
    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 08:01 -0500
    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-08 09:11 -0500
      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 15:40 +0000
        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-08 11:05 -0500
          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-08 17:07 +0000
            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-09 08:22 -0500
              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-09 20:03 +0000
              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-10 07:54 +0000
                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-10 10:27 -0500
                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-11 06:23 +0000
                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-11 08:51 -0500
                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-11 20:49 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-11 19:47 -0500
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-12 03:09 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-12 09:02 -0500
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-12 19:12 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-12 19:03 -0500
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-13 06:44 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-13 07:27 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-13 08:43 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-14 07:44 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-14 09:04 -0500
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-14 00:52 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-14 09:00 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-14 22:21 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-14 18:53 -0500
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-15 06:53 +0000
                                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-15 05:41 -0500
                                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-16 00:10 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 06:27 +0000
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-12 06:47 +0000
                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-12 00:33 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-11 19:43 -0500
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-11 19:50 -0500
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-12 02:54 +0000
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 06:38 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-11 20:39 -0500
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-12 04:33 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-15 11:27 +0000
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-15 21:08 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-15 22:03 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 00:46 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 04:07 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 09:01 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 03:53 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 09:04 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-15 19:32 -0500
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 04:10 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 09:06 +0000
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-15 21:26 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-15 22:36 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-16 00:09 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 08:49 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 00:36 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-16 01:36 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 03:46 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-16 02:09 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 21:13 -0500
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 04:01 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 23:39 -0500
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:40 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 05:29 +0000
                                        (more on) Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-17 11:34 +0000
                                          Re: (more on) Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 19:03 +0000
                                            Re: (more on) Pan snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-17 19:33 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 07:13 -0500
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 21:47 +0000
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 04:18 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 23:48 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 05:32 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 00:39 -0500
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 08:14 +0000
                                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 04:10 -0500
                                              Agent isn't open source. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 12:39 +0000
                                                Re: Agent isn't open source. % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 05:47 -0700
                                                  Re: Agent isn't open source. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 13:11 +0000
                                                    Re: Agent isn't open source. % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:18 -0700
                                                      Re: Agent isn't open source. Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 06:17 +0000
                                                    Re: Agent isn't open source. Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 13:20 +0000
                                                  Linux and Pan are open source (was: Re: Agent isn't open source.) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 14:56 +0000
                                                Re: Agent isn't open source. Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 07:48 -0500
                                                Re: Agent isn't open source. Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-02-16 07:56 -0500
                                                Re: Agent isn't open source. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-16 13:13 +0000
                                                  Re: Agent isn't open source. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 13:22 +0000
                                                    Re: Agent isn't open source. % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:33 -0700
                                                    [OT] Ice cream (was: Re: Agent isn't open source.) snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-16 13:37 +0000
                                                      Re: [OT] Ice cream % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:38 -0700
                                                      Re: [OT] Ice cream (was: Re: Agent isn't open source.) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 14:14 +0000
                                                        Re: [OT] Ice cream snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-02-16 14:37 +0000
                                                        Re: [OT] Ice cream (was: Re: Agent isn't open source.) chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-16 20:32 -0600
                                                          Re: [OT] Ice cream (was: Re: Agent isn't open source.) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 05:20 +0000
                                                            Re: [OT] Ice cream Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 11:47 -0600
                                                Re: Agent isn't open source. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-16 07:53 -0600
                                                  Re: Agent isn't open source. Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 15:14 -0600
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-02-16 07:50 -0500
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 13:17 +0000
                                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:20 -0700
                                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2025-02-16 13:27 +0000
                                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again % <pursent100@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:32 -0700
                                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2025-02-16 13:42 +0000
                                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-02-16 13:28 +0000
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 19:52 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:44 -0500
                                Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 03:56 +0000
                                  Re: Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-02-16 04:39 +0000
                                  Re: Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 04:59 +0000
                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-12 06:24 +0000
                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-12 09:04 -0500
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-12 19:16 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-12 19:07 -0500
                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-13 06:41 +0000
                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-13 08:42 -0500
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-13 21:23 +0000
                              Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-14 07:43 +0000
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-14 09:03 -0500
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-14 21:09 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-14 18:51 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-15 00:38 +0000
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-15 14:18 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-15 12:39 -0500
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-15 21:18 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-15 19:36 -0500
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 04:12 +0000
                                            Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 08:51 +0000
                                        Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 08:50 +0000
                                          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:46 -0500
                                Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-14 20:45 +0000
                                  Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-14 21:43 +0000
                                    Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-15 00:28 +0000
                                      Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-02-16 04:19 +0000
          Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-02-10 18:30 +0000

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

#685798

On 2025-02-13 1:44 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-12 2:12 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:02:38 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> I never bothered to look into it but I'm wondering if AppImages have a
>>>> database like flathub.org and snapcraft.io.
>>>
>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/
>>>
>>> The only one I have is the Arduino v2.
>>>
>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/p/2123683
>>>
>>> On Fedora v2 is a Flatpak but on Ubuntu the snap is v1. I don't know why
>>> the difference. v1 is usable but v2 has matured and can do anything v1 did
>>> and more. The more I work with Ubuntu the less I like it.
>>
>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives freeze
>> randomly with no explanation as to why that might be. It's part of why I
>> was so willing to try Fedora and others in my latest adventure into
>> Linux use.
> 
> I'm guessing that's a nVidia issue as I've never had trouble with random
> freezing on Linux Mint.

The random freezing affects Pop!_OS too, unfortunately, since it is 
based on Ubuntu 22.04. There's basically no escaping it. I know that my 
GPU is not faulty, so it's especially insulting when Ubuntu and its 
derivatives treat it like it is.

-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685841

On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-13 1:44 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-12 2:12 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:02:38 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I never bothered to look into it but I'm wondering if AppImages have a
>>>>> database like flathub.org and snapcraft.io.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/
>>>>
>>>> The only one I have is the Arduino v2.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/p/2123683
>>>>
>>>> On Fedora v2 is a Flatpak but on Ubuntu the snap is v1. I don't know why
>>>> the difference. v1 is usable but v2 has matured and can do anything v1 did
>>>> and more. The more I work with Ubuntu the less I like it.
>>>
>>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives freeze
>>> randomly with no explanation as to why that might be. It's part of why I
>>> was so willing to try Fedora and others in my latest adventure into
>>> Linux use.
>> 
>> I'm guessing that's a nVidia issue as I've never had trouble with random
>> freezing on Linux Mint.
>
> The random freezing affects Pop!_OS too, unfortunately, since it is 
> based on Ubuntu 22.04. There's basically no escaping it. I know that my 
> GPU is not faulty, so it's especially insulting when Ubuntu and its 
> derivatives treat it like it is.

But you're GPU is a nVidia one, right? 

-- 
“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]

#685862

On 2025-02-14 2:44 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-13 1:44 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-12 2:12 p.m., rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:02:38 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never bothered to look into it but I'm wondering if AppImages have a
>>>>>> database like flathub.org and snapcraft.io.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> The only one I have is the Arduino v2.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.appimagehub.com/p/2123683
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fedora v2 is a Flatpak but on Ubuntu the snap is v1. I don't know why
>>>>> the difference. v1 is usable but v2 has matured and can do anything v1 did
>>>>> and more. The more I work with Ubuntu the less I like it.
>>>>
>>>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives freeze
>>>> randomly with no explanation as to why that might be. It's part of why I
>>>> was so willing to try Fedora and others in my latest adventure into
>>>> Linux use.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that's a nVidia issue as I've never had trouble with random
>>> freezing on Linux Mint.
>>
>> The random freezing affects Pop!_OS too, unfortunately, since it is
>> based on Ubuntu 22.04. There's basically no escaping it. I know that my
>> GPU is not faulty, so it's especially insulting when Ubuntu and its
>> derivatives treat it like it is.
> 
> But you're GPU is a nVidia one, right?

Yep. The last time I had an AMD GPU was on a Dell laptop I bought 
refurbished around 2006. With Linux, that thing ran perfectly whether I 
used the proprietary drivers or the libre ones. Since 2010, I've only 
had laptops with NVIDIA chips.



-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685823

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:03:46 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives freeze
> randomly with no explanation as to why that might be.

Does it freeze up the entire GUI? Are you able to switch to a text console 
and check things there? Or SSH from another machine during the freezeups?

There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the 
source of the problem.

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

#685860

On 2025-02-13 7:52 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:03:46 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives freeze
>> randomly with no explanation as to why that might be.
> 
> Does it freeze up the entire GUI? Are you able to switch to a text console
> and check things there? Or SSH from another machine during the freezeups?

Sometimes you can CTRL-ALT-F3 back to normalcy, sometimes you can't. It 
happens so often that I wouldn't use it even if I could fix it through 
another session every time.

> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
> source of the problem.

But that would be the only thing I ever do in Linux: find out why A, B, 
C or D don't work as expected. I'd rather use a distribution which gets 
the basics right and has the odd misbehaving application, not a 
distribution which constantly misbehaves but looks pretty.

-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685892

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:00:47 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-13 7:52 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:03:46 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives
>>> freeze randomly with no explanation as to why that might be.
>> 
>> Does it freeze up the entire GUI? Are you able to switch to a text
>> console and check things there? Or SSH from another machine during the
>> freezeups?
> 
> Sometimes you can CTRL-ALT-F3 back to normalcy ...

SSH?

>> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
>> source of the problem.
> 
> But that would be the only thing I ever do in Linux: find out why A, B,
> C or D don't work as expected.

There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the 
source of the problem.

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

#685894

On 2025-02-14 5:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:00:47 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-13 7:52 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 19:03:46 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> I gave up on Ubuntu upon discovering that it and its derivatives
>>>> freeze randomly with no explanation as to why that might be.
>>>
>>> Does it freeze up the entire GUI? Are you able to switch to a text
>>> console and check things there? Or SSH from another machine during the
>>> freezeups?
>>
>> Sometimes you can CTRL-ALT-F3 back to normalcy ...
> 
> SSH?

Haven't tried.

>>> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
>>> source of the problem.
>>
>> But that would be the only thing I ever do in Linux: find out why A, B,
>> C or D don't work as expected.
> 
> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
> source of the problem.

That's like buying a Ford which theoretically runs great if you don't 
mind constantly fixing it whereas you can just buy an Infiniti and have 
everything run properly from the very beginning.

-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685904

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:53:11 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-14 5:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
>> source of the problem.
> 
> That's like buying a Ford which theoretically runs great if you don't
> mind constantly fixing it whereas you can just buy an Infiniti and have
> everything run properly from the very beginning.

You were the one using the Ford and complaining about the freezes, I was 
merely pointing out ways to get clues as to what is causing them. Wouldn’t 
you rather they were fixed?

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

#685912

On 2025-02-15 1:53 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:53:11 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> On 2025-02-14 5:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about the
>>> source of the problem.
>>
>> That's like buying a Ford which theoretically runs great if you don't
>> mind constantly fixing it whereas you can just buy an Infiniti and have
>> everything run properly from the very beginning.
> 
> You were the one using the Ford and complaining about the freezes, I was
> merely pointing out ways to get clues as to what is causing them. Wouldn’t
> you rather they were fixed?

I would rather such problems not be there in the first place, from the 
very beginning, on a clean install. I can imagine there being freezes 
after a while, after you've downloaded a crapload of software, but this 
is just ridiculous.

-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685971

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 05:41:52 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2025-02-15 1:53 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:53:11 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2025-02-14 5:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are lots of things you can do to try to get more clues about
>>>> the source of the problem.
>>>
>>> That's like buying a Ford which theoretically runs great if you don't
>>> mind constantly fixing it whereas you can just buy an Infiniti and
>>> have everything run properly from the very beginning.
>> 
>> You were the one using the Ford and complaining about the freezes, I
>> was merely pointing out ways to get clues as to what is causing them.
>> Wouldn’t you rather they were fixed?
> 
> I would rather such problems not be there in the first place, from the
> very beginning, on a clean install.

Well, getting to the bottom of what is causing them would help in getting 
rid of them. Why not do that? Contribute instead of complaining.

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

#685713

On 2025-02-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere. I mean, how can you beat something which
>> requires nothing more than for you to make it executable?
>
> https://github.com/probonopd/go-appimage/blob/master/src/appimaged/
> README.md
>
> appimaged is handy as it will search for AppImages, extract the icons, and 
> have them show up on menus and taskbars. 

They even integrate in Chromebooks (with Linux installed) so long as you 
have zenity installed. (I don't know what "zenity" is, I just know you need 
it in Chromebooks if you want to integrate AppImages into the desktop. 
Otherwise you have to run them ./sample.AppImage from the terminal. (Maybe 
this is only with poorly made AppImages, not sure.)

-- 
“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]

#685717

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 06:27:26 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> They even integrate in Chromebooks (with Linux installed) so long as you
> have zenity installed. (I don't know what "zenity" is, I just know you
> need it in Chromebooks if you want to integrate AppImages into the
> desktop. Otherwise you have to run them ./sample.AppImage from the
> terminal. (Maybe this is only with poorly made AppImages, not sure.)

At least on Ubuntu appimaged installs itself as a systemd service. Maybe 
something like that.

Ob Wincrap. Being Patch Tuesday I updated the laptop. It hung at 4% long 
enough that I thought I'd have to do the 'hung install foxtrot' but it 
eventually did it's thing and it still works. So far.

I alo updated the Pi. Very strange but VS Code went non-responsive. I had 
it set for the Visual Studio light mode instead of the default dark mode. 
When I blew away its config directory it came up dark and worked. Oh well, 
I've learned to live with worse.

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

#685693

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
> work pretty much everywhere.

I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to 
retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed) 
onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary 
software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source 
code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.

The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around 
all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies 
through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly 
proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies 
up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that), 
just seems laughable.

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

#685694

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere.
>
>I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to 
>retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed) 
>onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary 
>software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source 
>code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.
>
>The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around 
>all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies 
>through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly 
>proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies 
>up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that), 
>just seems laughable.


I'm a total whore, in this regard, I do any and every thing to obtain
software, your principles are fine for a pure GNU/Linux system,
genuinely being FOSS throughout, but some of us want to replace
Winblows with something equally badass, and there's no way to do it
without meeting the software where it is.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

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

#685697

On 2025-02-11 7:33 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere.
> 
> I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to
> retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed)
> onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary
> software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source
> code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.
> 
> The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around
> all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies
> through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly
> proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies
> up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that),
> just seems laughable.

On the one hand, the fact that they carry all their dependencies ensures 
that the application always works as intended. On the other hand, those 
programs end up being much larger than you would want neutralizing one 
of Linux's greatest benefits.

-- 
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison

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

#685704

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 19:50:04 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On the one hand, the fact that they carry all their dependencies ensures
> that the application always works as intended.

The term “broken as designed” comes to mind.

Another characteristic of proprietary developers is they think they 
control your machine.

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

#685715

On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-11 7:33 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>> 
>>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>>> work pretty much everywhere.
>> 
>> I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to
>> retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed)
>> onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary
>> software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source
>> code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.
>> 
>> The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around
>> all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies
>> through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly
>> proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies
>> up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that),
>> just seems laughable.
>
> On the one hand, the fact that they carry all their dependencies ensures 
> that the application always works as intended. On the other hand, those 
> programs end up being much larger than you would want neutralizing one 
> of Linux's greatest benefits.

AppImages are really useful for something like the Scrivener Linux Beta. 
Development was dropped years ago, and Scrivener Beta required older 
dependencies that don't exist any more. So, since there is an AppImage, 
which includes the dependencies, Scrivener can still be run on Linux where 
it would have otherwise been long ago dead.

https://www.pling.com/p/1673680/

I just get the one with all the language packs (about 94 MBs). Although I 
don't use Scrivener, there are a lot of people do. This will also work under 
Linux in Chromebooks.

-- 
“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]

#685698

On 2/11/2025 7:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere.
> 
> I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to
> retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed)
> onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary
> software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source
> code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.
> 
> The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around
> all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies
> through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly
> proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies
> up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that),
> just seems laughable.


You just thought up your own idea, then quickly concluded it's laughable.

Congrats on the self-nuke, Larry Duh!

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

#685711

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 00:33:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vogq82$20qbu$1@dont-email.me>:

> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere.
> 
> I don’t understand the point of any of them. They seem like attempts to 
> retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed) 
> onto the Linux ecosystem. Why? Clearly it is to woo the proprietary 
> software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source 
> code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.
> 
> The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around 
> all its dependencies with it, instead of being able to share dependencies 
> through the package system. The idea that developers, particularly 
> proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies 
> up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that), 
> just seems laughable.

Flatpak and such is okay, but snaps are evil.

There is no way to host your own "snap repository".  It's all controlled
by Canonical.  Rubs me the wrong way.  Same with the Mint maintainers:
by default, snaps are disabled on Linux Mint.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.14.0-rc2 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G
   "Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots."

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

#685913

Le 12-02-2025, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 08:51:59 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
>> work pretty much everywhere.
>
> I don’t understand the point of any of them. 

You should have made all your possible to avoid any explanation. Or you
are so stupid you never understood the given explanations. I don't know
which one.

There are a lot of reasons. From the distros, like Ubuntu, who needs at
the same time to release a stable version every two years and to provide
Firefox which has no real version number and must be updated frequently.

From the developer who doesn't want to spend more time to provide a way
to install his program than to program it.

From the sysadmin who want the installed softwares not to mess with the
system. And if python has good points, it's version management is the
worse I ever saw. So it doesn't mean nothing.

I'm not saying snap is a good answer, but the reasons behind it are
real. And being unable to see that tells more about you than about the
tools you refuse to understand.

> They seem like attempts to 
> retrofit something that looks like MSI (only slightly better designed) 
> onto the Linux ecosystem.

Maybe things changed since I looked at that the last time. But, the last
time I checked the msi provided only a way to install easily a new
software on Windows. And sometimes with something to remove them. There
was nothing about the updates.

> Why? 

I gave you only three reasons. There are others, but if you refuse to
understand, you won't find them.

> Clearly it is to woo the proprietary 
> software developers -- the ones who don’t want to release their source 
> code to let the distro maintainers worry about packaging.

In which world are you living? Are you stuck in an older past than
LP/DG/NV/whatever? You want punch cards too? Nobody want to install
something from source anymore. There is no reason to force people to
install from source anymore.

If a developer offers his software for everyone he has to provide a way
to install a working binary with it. And your dream world doesn't apply
in this case because the distros won't package it if it's not already
well spread. And guess what, to be well spread it needs a simple way to
be installed by everyone. So either the developer provides a package for
every distro or he is using something that can be install in any distro.

So, back to the beginning, the purpose is just to answer the issues you
refuse to see. 

> The downside is that each SnapImage/FlatApp/whatever has to carry around 
> all its dependencies with it,

On a modern system, it's not an issue anymore. In the mid 90's, where you
look stuck, the system took most of the place of the hard drive. So yes,
back then it was a real concern. But now, almost nobody needs more than 20Go 
for a full Linux distro, which is invisible on a modern hard drive.

> instead of being able to share dependencies through the package system.

Yes, speak about that with the python community. Even the first class
moron FR/LP/DG/whatever who refuses to do anything with python had five
different versions of it installed on his system.

Now, on some systems, like ubuntu, python is managed by the system, so it
refuses to execute a "pip install". And if the library isn't provided by
ubuntu, you have to run "pip install" in a virtual environment to be
able to use a library designed not to be shared with the libraries of
the system.

And python is only one programming language, with rust, it's far from
better. And then, a lot of things can be considered, like is it xorg or
wayland? Is it systemd? Is it gnome/kde/else? Sometimes, you don't care
about the init system or the graphical interface, other times, it's
mandatory to take care of them.

A modern program using modern libraries who would follow your advice
to provide only the source code will never been installed. It would be
too difficult for the really interested user. And once the program is
installed, it wouldn't be sure to run anymore once the system is
upgraded. And to update the software would be as cumbersome as to
install it. No, really, no end user wants the developers to follow your
advice to provide only the source code.

It's not the 90's anymore, the systems are more complex and varied.

> The idea that developers, particularly 
> proprietary developers, can do a better job of keeping these dependencies 
> up to date than the distro maintainers (whose job it is to do just that), 
> just seems laughable.

The fact that you don't know what a modern distro looks like is telling.

I strongly believe you never programmed or you did it a very long time
ago. Because with this sentence you show you know nothing about complex
development. It's a fact that the programmer knows better than the
distro maintainers about the versions of the libraries required by his
program to be able to run. Doubting it is just refusing the reality. And
the distro maintainers are well aware of it: that's why a lot of things
are done in this way. Look at nixos and guix: the all distros are based on
the concept that makes you laugh because they know better than listening
to you old and impracticable advice.

But I understand why you laugh: it's easier to despise what you don't
understand than to try to improve your knowledge.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

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

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web