Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: RonB Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 14:18:56 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 153 Message-ID: References: <1WoqP.4088$NgFa.1524@fx46.iad> <6CIqP.4095$NgFa.688@fx46.iad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:18:57 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e73fa4dab645e54803577a01f7b8cd53"; logging-data="76801"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+NK3joA4yF1qkvoNbGEDEk" User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HEa+oEMISomvgvrGDOCRaLmC48M= On 2025-02-14, CrudeSausage wrote: > On 2025-02-14 2:43 a.m., RonB wrote: >> On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage wrote: >>> On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>> On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage 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