Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #685861
| Subject | Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| References | (10 earlier) <voheq0$27eqp$1@dont-email.me> <ZT1rP.468602$YsRf.357723@fx18.iad> <vok46l$2pp5m$2@dont-email.me> <vFmrP.237006$dxRc.216642@fx13.iad> <voms6b$3c8p8$4@dont-email.me> |
| From | CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> |
| Message-ID | <E2IrP.186725$if26.14639@fx13.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | usenet-news.net |
| Date | 2025-02-14 09:03 -0500 |
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
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
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
csiph-web