Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #685331 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-02-08 08:49 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-02-10 18:30 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 132 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnvr3qps.aq7.Adison@localhost.localdomain> |
| In reply to | #686056 |
On 2025-02-16, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote: > Adison Vohn Caterson wrote: >> On 2025-02-16, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote: >>> vallor wrote: >>>> On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:50:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> >>>> wrote in <vosmtq$jcde$1@dont-email.me>: >>>> >>>>> vallor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:48:30 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>>> <47r2rjl9jlr629og8qceqp8fgfhtmh5sv8@4ax.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This would be why I use Forte Agent under Wine, why settle for hobbyware >>>>>>>>> BS like Pan? Unix-like has terrific NNTP clients running in terminal, >>>>>>>>> but I have yet to see a GUI one worth anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Pan works for me. If I want to run Windows stuff, I'll fire up the Windows >>>>>>>> laptop. It's been a while but iirc I have usenet set up in Thunderbird on >>>>>>>> Windows. It got weird on Linux and I switched to Pan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I used to like KNode but that's history now. Usenet gets no respect in >>>>>>>> KDE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My philosophy is to use the best, the latest, up-to-date, user- >>>>>>> friendly software for a given purpose. It's pretty simple, other than >>>>>>> Usenapp for macOS, Forte Agent stands as a flagship GUI NNTP client, >>>>>>> native to Windows API but usable under Wine. There's just no good >>>>>>> reason to put up with something less than. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've seen editor wars, and OS wars, but this is the first time >>>>>> I've seen some Usenet rando try to start a newsreader war. >>>>> >>>>> I use slrn. All other newsreaders suck ass. >>>>> I use mutt. All other email clients suck ass. >>>>> >>>>> I should add this: >>>>> >>>>> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! >>>> >>>> Oh yeah? Well: >>>> >>>> I fly spaceships in Elite Dangerous Odyssey. All other games suck! >>>> >>> doom was a game , heretic was a game , then there were no games any more >> >> Goat Simulator 3. >> > i'm afraid you are off topic Goat Simulator 3 is nontopical and hypoallergenic. -- End Transmission
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <67b1e7eb$0$28076$426a74cc@news.free.fr> |
| In reply to | #686049 |
Le 16-02-2025, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit : > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:50:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> > wrote in <vosmtq$jcde$1@dont-email.me>: >> vallor wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>> >>> I've seen editor wars, and OS wars, but this is the first time >>> I've seen some Usenet rando try to start a newsreader war. >> >> I use slrn. All other newsreaders suck ass. >> I use mutt. All other email clients suck ass. Well, I agree, so this flameware was very short. >> I should add this: >> >> ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! No, you shouldn't. It's LP/NV/FR/DG/whatever's signature. > Oh yeah? Well: > > I fly spaceships in Elite Dangerous Odyssey. All other games suck! That's a little bit better for a war. I disagree: Diablo II is the only one. But as I don't care about others choices, I won't fight and you will have to handle the war with others. -- Si vous avez du temps à perdre : https://scarpet42.gitlab.io
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 19:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1eu06F68apU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686045 |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:50:02 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > I use slrn. All other newsreaders suck ass. I use mutt. All other email > clients suck ass. Well, I do have slrn configured on the Fedora box... It's not my primary client but it does get the job done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 08:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_YlsP.130965$EG%6.4709@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #686019 |
On 2025-02-16 12:32 a.m., vallor wrote: > On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:48:30 -0500, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote in > <47r2rjl9jlr629og8qceqp8fgfhtmh5sv8@4ax.com>: > >> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> >>>> This would be why I use Forte Agent under Wine, why settle for hobbyware >>>> BS like Pan? Unix-like has terrific NNTP clients running in terminal, >>>> but I have yet to see a GUI one worth anything. >>> >>> Pan works for me. If I want to run Windows stuff, I'll fire up the Windows >>> laptop. It's been a while but iirc I have usenet set up in Thunderbird on >>> Windows. It got weird on Linux and I switched to Pan. >>> >>> I used to like KNode but that's history now. Usenet gets no respect in >>> KDE. >> >> >> My philosophy is to use the best, the latest, up-to-date, user- >> friendly software for a given purpose. It's pretty simple, other than >> Usenapp for macOS, Forte Agent stands as a flagship GUI NNTP client, >> native to Windows API but usable under Wine. There's just no good >> reason to put up with something less than. > > I've seen editor wars, and OS wars, but this is the first time > I've seen some Usenet rando try to start a newsreader war. Betterbird is greater than every other newsreader. -- God be with you, CrudeSausage/ Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 03:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) |
| Message-ID | <m1d5v5Fqf8iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685994 |
On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:09:38 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in <vorhd2$9ned$2@dont-email.me>: > On 2025-02-16, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:26:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vor0pa$6uru$1@dont-email.me>: >> >>> On 15 Feb 2025 11:27:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>> >>>> Nobody want to install something from source anymore. >>> >>> That’s why most distros offer prebuilt binaries. >> >> Pssst...time for a git pull on your pan repo. ;) >> > I still cannot get pan working under MX Linux. > It installs from the repo fine, brings down messages fine > but if I try to reply to a message it tosses an error something > like message not found. > > I'm probably messing up the specifics as it's been a while but still > it does not work. TBH I haven't run Mint's packaged pan in a long time. I build from the git repo. What version are you using? Also double-check you're using a recent gmime, there was a fix for the Newsgroups: line a few months ago. You can run pan in debug mode: $ pan --debug or even $ pan --debug --debug --verbose You might want to run script(1) first, so you can capture all the output. -- -v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti OS: Linux 6.14.0-rc2 Release: Mint 22.1 Mem: 258G "If at first you don't succeed, call it v1.0!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 04:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) |
| Message-ID | <vorq6j$es16$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #686006 |
.0154On 2025-02-16, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:09:38 -0000 (UTC), pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> > wrote in <vorhd2$9ned$2@dont-email.me>: > >> On 2025-02-16, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: >>> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 21:26:02 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vor0pa$6uru$1@dont-email.me>: >>> What version are you using? Also double-check you're using a recent gmime, there was a fix for the Newsgroups: line a few months ago. >>>> On 15 Feb 2025 11:27:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nobody want to install something from source anymore. >>>> >>>> That’s why most distros offer prebuilt binaries. >>> >>> Pssst...time for a git pull on your pan repo. ;) >>> >> I still cannot get pan working under MX Linux. >> It installs from the repo fine, brings down messages fine >> but if I try to reply to a message it tosses an error something >> like message not found. >> >> I'm probably messing up the specifics as it's been a while but still >> it does not work. > > TBH I haven't run Mint's packaged pan in a long time. I build from the > git repo. > > What version are you using? Also double-check you're using a recent > gmime, there was a fix for the Newsgroups: line a few months ago. > > You can run pan in debug mode: > > $ pan --debug > > or even > > $ pan --debug --debug --verbose > > You might want to run script(1) first, so you can capture all the output. > Running .0154. I'll try your suggestions. Thanks. -- pothead Why did Joe Biden pardon his family? Read below to learn the reason. The Biden Crime Family Timeline here: https://oversight.house.gov/the-bidens-influence-peddling-timeline/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-16 04:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Pan (was: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again) |
| Message-ID | <m1d9l2FsnkkU5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #686006 |
On 16 Feb 2025 03:56:21 GMT, vallor wrote: > What version are you using? Also double-check you're using a recent > gmime, there was a fix for the Newsgroups: line a few months ago. Ubuntu's package is .160 from 2024-08-10. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/pan/-/blob/master/NEWS I don't see anything in the .161 and .162 change logs that looks worrisome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-12 06:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <voheq0$27eqp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685655 |
On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>
>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>
>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>
>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>
> 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?
Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
--
“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]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-12 09:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZT1rP.468602$YsRf.357723@fx18.iad> |
| In reply to | #685712 |
On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>
>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>
>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>
>> 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?
>
> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
system.
--
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-12 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m14ac5Fee9pU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685724 |
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:04:40 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and > Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier > to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the > system. NIH? I don't know how valid/important the sandboxing argument is. I'm the sole user of any of my machines so it's a PITA if anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-12 19:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7JarP.729177$iNI.634138@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #685736 |
On 2025-02-12 2:16 p.m., rbowman wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 09:04:40 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and >> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier >> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the >> system. > > NIH? I don't know how valid/important the sandboxing argument is. I'm the > sole user of any of my machines so it's a PITA if anything. The argument here is that if one application is malevolent or gets infected, at least it won't affect the rest of the system. I like that approach and would prefer sandboxed applications given the choice. However, even with a 2TB NVMe, I don't want to waste storage needlessly by installing sandboxed applications when the regular version is not only faster but does a better job integrating with the rest of the system. Speed-wise, I didn't notice much different between a Flatpak and a .deb or an .rpm, but it's still there to an extent. -- CrudeSausage/ Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-13 06:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vok46l$2pp5m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685724 |
On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
>> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
>
> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
> system.
I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.
--
“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]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-13 08:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vFmrP.237006$dxRc.216642@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #685780 |
On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
>>> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
>>
>> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
>> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
>> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
>> system.
>
> I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
> realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
> flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
> why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.
Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.
I don't mind that Canonical was trying an Apple-style approach since
Shuttleworth made a significant investment in Linux and wants to get
that money back, but I do think that Flatpak is a smart alternative to
ensure that Canonical doesn't control the operating system as much as it
does Ubuntu itself. What Canonical does with Ubuntu is their own
business and people are free to use it or ignore it.
--
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-13 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1765sFtdfrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685797 |
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:42:51 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is > that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution. I haven't searched around to see how the flatpak selection compared to snaps. My only reference is the Arduino IDE v2 that is a flatpak but isn't a snap leading to messing around with AppImage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-14 07:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <voms6b$3c8p8$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685797 |
On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>>>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>>>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>>>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
>>>> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
>>>
>>> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
>>> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
>>> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
>>> system.
>>
>> I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
>> realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
>> flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
>> why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.
>
> Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
> that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.
> I don't mind that Canonical was trying an Apple-style approach since
> Shuttleworth made a significant investment in Linux and wants to get
> that money back, but I do think that Flatpak is a smart alternative to
> ensure that Canonical doesn't control the operating system as much as it
> does Ubuntu itself. What Canonical does with Ubuntu is their own
> business and people are free to use it or ignore it.
In my opinion Snaps are not superior to Flatpaks. Snaps are invasive,
Flatpaks are easily removed. As I mentioned in another post, Trelby
(screenwriting software) includes an HTML manual. It's normal location is
/usr/trelby/trelby (up until a recent release, it's now under
usr/lib/python3.xx/dist-pkgs... — something like that). But the Snap version
of Firefox can't read anything in the /usr subdirectoryy (actually I don't
think it can read *any* file in the root directory). So Snap forces you to
try to work around it's non-standard BS, making a .deb installation package
fail that works with any other Firefox installation. (This is just one
example.)
I won't Snaps, even if there's an application that only is available as a
Snap. That's how much I don't like them.
--
“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]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-14 09:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <E2IrP.186725$if26.14639@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #685840 |
On 2025-02-14 2:43 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>>>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>>>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>>>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>>>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>>>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>>>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>>>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>>>>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>>>>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>>>>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
>>>>> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
>>>>
>>>> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
>>>> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
>>>> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
>>>> system.
>>>
>>> I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
>>> realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
>>> flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
>>> why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.
>>
>> Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
>> that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.
>> I don't mind that Canonical was trying an Apple-style approach since
>> Shuttleworth made a significant investment in Linux and wants to get
>> that money back, but I do think that Flatpak is a smart alternative to
>> ensure that Canonical doesn't control the operating system as much as it
>> does Ubuntu itself. What Canonical does with Ubuntu is their own
>> business and people are free to use it or ignore it.
>
> In my opinion Snaps are not superior to Flatpaks. Snaps are invasive,
> Flatpaks are easily removed. As I mentioned in another post, Trelby
> (screenwriting software) includes an HTML manual. It's normal location is
> /usr/trelby/trelby (up until a recent release, it's now under
> usr/lib/python3.xx/dist-pkgs... — something like that). But the Snap version
> of Firefox can't read anything in the /usr subdirectoryy (actually I don't
> think it can read *any* file in the root directory). So Snap forces you to
> try to work around it's non-standard BS, making a .deb installation package
> fail that works with any other Firefox installation. (This is just one
> example.)
>
> I won't Snaps, even if there's an application that only is available as a
> Snap. That's how much I don't like them.
I honestly feel that most people think the way that you do as it relates
to Snaps. That might be why Ubuntu's popularity is steadily decreasing
with time.
--
CrudeSausage/
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Telegram: @CrudeSausage
Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-14 21:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m19pp0Fbps3U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685861 |
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:03:16 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > I honestly feel that most people think the way that you do as it relates > to Snaps. That might be why Ubuntu's popularity is steadily decreasing > with time. The snaps don't bother me and while I'm not fond of GNOME I can live with it. However I've had to manually fix stuff after upgrading to LTS versions and now to 24.10. That's disappointing in a distro that's supposed to be newbie friendly. I never upgraded OpenSUSE past 13.2 because the consensus at the time was going to Leap best was done with a fresh install but Ubuntu should be smoother. I'm not going to reinstall this box short of a disaster but in the future I'll stick with KDE capable distros.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-14 18:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pGQrP.76051$0Zfc.19747@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #685884 |
On 2025-02-14 4:09 p.m., rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:03:16 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > >> I honestly feel that most people think the way that you do as it relates >> to Snaps. That might be why Ubuntu's popularity is steadily decreasing >> with time. > > The snaps don't bother me and while I'm not fond of GNOME I can live with > it. However I've had to manually fix stuff after upgrading to LTS versions > and now to 24.10. That's disappointing in a distro that's supposed to be > newbie friendly. That's part of the appeal of rolling distributions, I guess. They're supposed to break more often because of the constant updates, but they actually seem to break less because the updates are many but small rather than few and large. > I never upgraded OpenSUSE past 13.2 because the consensus at the time was > going to Leap best was done with a fresh install but Ubuntu should be > smoother. > > I'm not going to reinstall this box short of a disaster but in the future > I'll stick with KDE capable distros. As far as I can tell, a lot of people are still running out-of-date versions of certain Linux distributions because everything runs the way it should and they can't be bothered to do a clean install. I don't think it's that common for people to still be running Ubuntu 20.04 or something like Fedora 36. -- CrudeSausage/ Gab: @CrudeSausage Telegram: @CrudeSausage Pfizer knowingly injected us with poison
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-15 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m1a60hFdifrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685893 |
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 18:51:48 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote: > That's part of the appeal of rolling distributions, I guess. They're > supposed to break more often because of the constant updates, but they > actually seem to break less because the updates are many but small > rather than few and large. Technically Fedora 41 isn't a rolling distribution but there are very frequent updates. 40 introduced new stuff both for KDE and Wayland but I don't think the typical version upgrade is as radical. Otoh, Ubuntu has a lot of old stuff. The reason I went to 24.10 was I saw pipewire on Fedora was more recent but 24.10 wasn't much of an improvement and it's still using the 6.11.0 kernel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-02-15 14:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <voq7og$2b01$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685861 |
On 2025-02-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2025-02-14 2:43 a.m., RonB wrote:
>> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>> On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Windows.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like Windows and Mac OS).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> theoretically superior.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
>>>>>>>>>>>> but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
>>>>>>>>>>>> in my top 20 list.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
>>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
>>>>>>>>>>> running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
>>>>>>>>>>> the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
>>>>>>>>>>> if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
>>>>>>>>>>> much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
>>>>>>>>>>> popularity to do so.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
>>>>>>>>>> idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
>>>>>>>>>> maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
>>>>>>>>>> applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
>>>>>>>>>> This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
>>>>>>>>>> to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
>>>>>>>>>> but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
>>>>>>>>>> the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
>>>>>>>>>> know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
>>>>>>>>> result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
>>>>>>>>> that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
>>>>>>>>> all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
>>>>>>>>> been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
>>>>>>>>> and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
>>>>>>>>> to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
>>>>>>>>> Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
>>>>>>>> Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
>>>>>>>> discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
>>>>>>>> my drive space. I didn't like that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
>>>>>> dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."
>>>>>
>>>>> Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
>>>>> Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
>>>>> to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
>>>>> system.
>>>>
>>>> I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
>>>> realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
>>>> flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
>>>> why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.
>>>
>>> Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
>>> that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.
>>> I don't mind that Canonical was trying an Apple-style approach since
>>> Shuttleworth made a significant investment in Linux and wants to get
>>> that money back, but I do think that Flatpak is a smart alternative to
>>> ensure that Canonical doesn't control the operating system as much as it
>>> does Ubuntu itself. What Canonical does with Ubuntu is their own
>>> business and people are free to use it or ignore it.
>>
>> In my opinion Snaps are not superior to Flatpaks. Snaps are invasive,
>> Flatpaks are easily removed. As I mentioned in another post, Trelby
>> (screenwriting software) includes an HTML manual. It's normal location is
>> /usr/trelby/trelby (up until a recent release, it's now under
>> usr/lib/python3.xx/dist-pkgs... — something like that). But the Snap version
>> of Firefox can't read anything in the /usr subdirectoryy (actually I don't
>> think it can read *any* file in the root directory). So Snap forces you to
>> try to work around it's non-standard BS, making a .deb installation package
>> fail that works with any other Firefox installation. (This is just one
>> example.)
>>
>> I won't Snaps, even if there's an application that only is available as a
>> Snap. That's how much I don't like them.
>
> I honestly feel that most people think the way that you do as it relates
> to Snaps. That might be why Ubuntu's popularity is steadily decreasing
> with time.
Ubuntu wants to control how their users interact with their OS. Kind of like
Microsoft and Apple. Maybe there is some reason for this, but I know that,
over the years, I've moved from being enthusiastic about Ubuntu to not
wanting to use it at all (at least not on the Desktop). I've currently got a
Ubuntu server running as a test bed for my wife and her teaching software
(Moodle).
--
“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]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web