Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 07:43:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <voms6b$3c8p8$4@dont-email.me>
References: <vo75q5$3vki0$1@dont-email.me> <zCJpP.39$EyH6.1@fx45.iad>
 <vo7ttl$3nof$1@dont-email.me> <qhLpP.67094$za5e.59176@fx09.iad>
 <vo830p$4ntj$1@dont-email.me> <f_1qP.80552$YsRf.33634@fx18.iad>
 <vocbbn$1444h$1@dont-email.me> <1WoqP.4088$NgFa.1524@fx46.iad>
 <voeqct$1lgc9$1@dont-email.me> <6CIqP.4095$NgFa.688@fx46.iad>
 <voheq0$27eqp$1@dont-email.me> <ZT1rP.468602$YsRf.357723@fx18.iad>
 <vok46l$2pp5m$2@dont-email.me> <vFmrP.237006$dxRc.216642@fx13.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2025 08:43:08 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="eeeb7413171b4aa4fecf485af318aa2c";
	logging-data="3547944"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/uQSKWK7vISql+dDfcjBEp"
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:joOxPNlH/rDB4RAdOTkQb3rUGSk=
Bytes: 10181

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