Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-experience>
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-experience>
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-experience>
I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me away from using links for homes
On 06/09/2023 11:53, bad sector wrote:
On 8/18/23 12:00, Jack wrote:Neither am I - yet let people start with Ubuntu. They will soon move off
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors- experience>
I'm no fan of 'buntus, I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me away
from using links for homes, but the bottom line is this: would I rather
see microcancer rule the planet?
and up with Fedora or PcBSD. I certainly had a "Ubuntu Phase" and am now miles away. Ohm no soft microbes in this house since 2009 (except from
forced on work laptops).
On 8/18/23 12:00, Jack wrote:
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-experience>
I'm no fan of 'buntus, I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me away
from using links for homes, but the bottom line is this: would I rather
see microcancer rule the planet?
Switching from a tightly-controlled Arch Linux installation to a "bloated" Ubuntu Unity one feels weird but for some reason I don't dislike it. I may really be losing sanity.
Fox McCloud45 wrote:
Switching from a tightly-controlled Arch Linux installation to a
"bloated"
Ubuntu Unity one feels weird but for some reason I don't dislike it. I
may really be losing sanity.
That's an example of a DE 'winning you over'.
As far as I know, Ub is the 'best' way to use Unity, just like LM or
LMDE are the best ways to use Cinnamon DE, as those dev/s are the most 'committed' to that DE.
I will say that there are some other nice Cinnamons too :-) Not so many Unity/s.
I've seen nice Cinnamon screenshots here and there but I don't know if
they can accomplish a complete skeuomorphic "3D" interface. My guess is
that it can probably do at least as much as Unity, if not better...
I guess I'll take a closer look.
Fox McCloud45 wrote:
I've seen nice Cinnamon screenshots here and there but I don't know if
they can accomplish a complete skeuomorphic "3D" interface. My guess is
that it can probably do at least as much as Unity, if not better...
I guess I'll take a closer look.
Oh; I wasn't trying to recommend Cinn over Unity.
Unity is Unity. Cinn is Cinn. Like a lot of other things. If you like Unity best so far, I don't know which way I would point you different
:-)
Le Wed, 6 Sep 2023 10:51:16 -0700, Mike Easter a écrit :
Fox McCloud45 wrote:
I've seen nice Cinnamon screenshots here and there but I don't know if
they can accomplish a complete skeuomorphic "3D" interface. My guess is
that it can probably do at least as much as Unity, if not better...
I guess I'll take a closer look.
Oh; I wasn't trying to recommend Cinn over Unity.
Unity is Unity. Cinn is Cinn. Like a lot of other things. If you like
Unity best so far, I don't know which way I would point you different
:-)
Sure, it's just that I was taking a look at some Cinnamon screenshots as
well while writing the reply.
However, I must say I quite like the "top bar menu" à la macOS.
Speaking of macOS, I also took a look at helloSystem which is a FreeBSD- based OS that stems from users disliking modern Apple but it cannot be dual-booted without wiping a full disk sadly.
Once my Apple Airbook is gone far beyond support, I shall try it.
Le Wed, 6 Sep 2023 18:20:46 +0100, Goetz Schultz a écrit :
On 06/09/2023 11:53, bad sector wrote:experience>
On 8/18/23 12:00, Jack wrote:
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and >>>> for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-
Neither am I - yet let people start with Ubuntu. They will soon move off
I'm no fan of 'buntus, I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me away
from using links for homes, but the bottom line is this: would I rather
see microcancer rule the planet?
and up with Fedora or PcBSD. I certainly had a "Ubuntu Phase" and am now
miles away. Ohm no soft microbes in this house since 2009 (except from
forced on work laptops).
Maybe I'm insane or something but I recently went from Arch Linux back to Ubuntu Unity after using Arch for six years on my desktop. I wanted to try Manjaro Unity but it's broken right now.
Switching from a tightly-controlled Arch Linux installation to a "bloated" Ubuntu Unity one feels weird but for some reason I don't dislike it. I may really be losing sanity.
Fox McCloud45 wrote:
I am using the standard Ubuntu GNOME on 22.04 and 23.04. It's gotten a
Maybe I'm insane or something but I recently went from Arch Linux back
to Ubuntu Unity after using Arch for six years on my desktop. I wanted
to try Manjaro Unity but it's broken right now.
Switching from a tightly-controlled Arch Linux installation to a
"bloated"
Ubuntu Unity one feels weird but for some reason I don't dislike it. I
may really be losing sanity.
bit better with 23.04, but I really miss Unity. I found it really
efficient workflow for multitasking, especially on small screens of
laptops. I always liked where it was going and was disappointed when
they dropped it. (Want them to really fix and expand lens). Now that
they gave that kid break and add Ubuntu back in as an official flavor
maybe it will become what its should have...
On 06/09/2023 11:53, bad sector wrote:
On 8/18/23 12:00, Jack wrote:
Ubuntu has started indoctrinating people to use Ubuntu every where and
for every tasks. They have started with kindergarten children!!
According to this blog:
<https://ubuntu.com//blog/ubuntu-in-education-a-k-12-it-directors-experience>
I'm no fan of 'buntus, I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me
away from using links for homes, but the bottom line is this: would I
rather see microcancer rule the planet?
Neither am I - yet let people start with Ubuntu. They will soon move off
and up with Fedora or PcBSD. I certainly had a "Ubuntu Phase" and am now miles away. Ohm no soft microbes in this house since 2009 (except from
forced on work laptops).
bad sector wrote:
I puke when Ubuntu-Studio tries to force me away from using links for homes
What do you mean by this? I don't use Studio, but have systems where different user homes '/home/<whatever>' mount to different partitions
and physical drives with no issue. Fairly standard stuff. Don't use
symbolic links for whole profiles, but do use them within user homes for special directories such as 'Documents' that is a symbolic link to nfs mounted share '/mnt/remote_nfs_share' so different users have access to
a common set of files with no issues. You have a right to not like
Ubuntu. That is the right of any Linux user. I want Canonical to kill
snaps. With respect to 'using links for homes', I do not know what would
be the 'Ubuntu' specific issue...
Goetz Schultz wrote:
Once my Apple Airbook is gone far beyond support, I shall try it.
There are rumors that Apple is going to try to release a more economical 'Macbook-ish' model next year to try to compete w/ Chromebook price vs performance.
Of course, what Apple considers 'more economical' might not be very :-)
Fox McCloud45 wrote:
Switching from a tightly-controlled Arch Linux installation to a
"bloated" Ubuntu Unity one feels weird but for some reason I
don't dislike it. I may really be losing sanity.
That's an example of a DE 'winning you over'.
As far as I know, Ub is the 'best' way to use Unity, just like LM
or LMDE are the best ways to use Cinnamon DE, as those dev/s are
the most 'committed' to that DE.
I will say that there are some other nice Cinnamons too :-) Not
so many Unity/s.
Neither am I - yet let people start with Ubuntu. They will soon move off and up with Fedora or PcBSD. I certainly had a "Ubuntu Phase" and am now miles away. Ohm no soft microbes in this house since 2009 (except from forced on work laptops).
Of course, what Apple considers 'more economical' might not be very :-)
They have this SNAP system, ...snipped
On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
They have this SNAP system, ...snippedYou do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is
Linux after all. Google removing snap packages from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
They have this SNAP system, ...snippedYou do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is Linux after all. Google removing snap packages
from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there WAS an alternative way and I tried it once, but I
don't have time to muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has to do it my way by default
or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a tomahawk or
two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal braker. It's not a federal case, I still use the
U-Studio but its a black mark until fixed.
On 08/09/2023 14:15, bad sector wrote:
On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
They have this SNAP system, ...snippedYou do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is Linux after all. Google removing snap packages
from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there WAS an alternative way and I tried it once, but
I don't have time to muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has to do it my way by
default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a
tomahawk or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal braker. It's not a federal case, I still
use the U-Studio but its a black mark until fixed.
I am gradually moving laptop...netbook...eventully desktop from Ub. to MX. Very smooth learning curve, some advantages, some disadvantages.
On Ubuntu I have been running for about year with no snap or flatpak. If only I could avoid the horror that is systemd.
We are supposed to have choice, but to choose 'no systemd' immediately implies 'not Ubuntu'
Pity 'bout that.
On 9/8/23 08:18, this is what Henry Crun wrote:
Can you explain the issue with systemd? I think Linux Mint uses it
I am gradually moving laptop...netbook...eventully desktop from Ub.
to MX. Very smooth learning curve, some advantages, some
disadvantages. On Ubuntu I have been running for about year with no
snap or flatpak. If only I could avoid the horror that is systemd. We
are supposed to have choice, but to choose 'no systemd' immediately
implies 'not Ubuntu' Pity 'bout that.
and I haven't seen any apparent issues.
On 9/8/23 08:18, this is what Henry Crun wrote:
On 08/09/2023 14:15, bad sector wrote:Can you explain the issue with systemd? I think Linux Mint uses it and I haven't seen any apparent issues.
On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
They have this SNAP system, ...snippedYou do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is Linux after all. Google removing snap packages
from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there WAS an alternative way and I tried it once,
but I don't have time to muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has to do it my way by
default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a
tomahawk or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal braker. It's not a federal case, I
still use the U-Studio but its a black mark until fixed.
I am gradually moving laptop...netbook...eventully desktop from Ub. to MX. >> Very smooth learning curve, some advantages, some disadvantages.
On Ubuntu I have been running for about year with no snap or flatpak. If only I could avoid the horror that is systemd.
We are supposed to have choice, but to choose 'no systemd' immediately implies 'not Ubuntu'
Pity 'bout that.
On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
They have this SNAP system, ...snippedYou do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is
Linux after all. Google removing snap packages from Ubuntu, it is
pretty simple.
I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there
WAS an alternative way and I tried it once, but I don't have time to
muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has
to do it my way by default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a tomahawk
or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal
braker. It's not a federal case, I still use the U-Studio but its a
black mark until fixed.
My first and main objection is aesthetic. Now I know that is a non-definable, highly personal quantity. It might be
beautifully coded in it's internal working, but the overall efect is one of an all-invading. all-encopmassing entity.
Put it succintly. it breaks the tenet "Do one thing, and do it well."
Systemd defintely does not "Do one thing". As for "do it well", it's difficult to see through the maze of linked
scripts, binary logs and what have you.
There
are several references to remove snap. They all take less than ten
minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy and
paste.
Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.
On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy
and paste.
Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.
I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and
copy and paste.
Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.
I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager
then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the
apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not
afraid of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest releases of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many
Ubuntu-specific features, like livepatch, will only work with snap
enabled. As a suggestion, do not perform this on your main production machine, unless you know what you are doing."
When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get
problems associated with THAT (another thread belonging in alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).
On 9/9/23 6:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:Reminds me of the good old days when M$ claimed that Internet Explorer
On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and
copy and paste.
Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.
I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager
then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the
apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not
afraid of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest
releases of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many
Ubuntu-specific features, like livepatch, will only work with snap
enabled. As a suggestion, do not perform this on your main production
machine, unless you know what you are doing."
When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get
problems associated with THAT (another thread belonging in
alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).
was deeply integrated into the OS, and the court case that came out of
this entwining.
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system.
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
lsb_release -a && apt-cache policy snapd firefox
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
Release: 22.04
Codename: jammy
snapd:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.58+22.04.1
Version table:
2.58+22.04.1 500
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-updates/main amd64 Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security/main amd64 Packages
2.55.3+22.04 500
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages firefox:
Installed: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
Candidate: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
Version table:
1:1snap1-0ubuntu2 -1
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
*** 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1 500
500 https://ppa.launchpadcontent.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then
I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm writing from
it. End of story.
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled
and now I'm writing from it. End of story.
On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:<..snipped...>
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out,
then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm
writing from it. End of story.
probably PBK&C
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.
On 9/10/23 01:00, Henry Crun wrote:
On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:<..snipped...>
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in >>>>> with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then I couldn't log in any more, then I
backleveled and now I'm writing from it. End of story.
probably PBK&C
That's always possible but the steps listed really exlude unrelated interventions.
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.
I followed the instructions:
1
removed all the 'snap-listed' snap-based packages and then
2
removed all the snap-system packagess that remained.
I did nothing else. I might try again if and when I have time.
I have donated $0.00 to Linux. I'm grateful for Linux in all its forms. Be grateful, you too can be a user for $0.00. If
that isn't good enough, move on to another OS.
On 10/09/2023 14:34, bad sector wrote:
On 9/10/23 01:00, Henry Crun wrote:I did this over a year ago, and the site where I read the instructions
On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:<..snipped...>
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in >>>>>> with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can >>>>> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out,
then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm
writing from it. End of story.
probably PBK&C
That's always possible but the steps listed really exlude unrelated
interventions.
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running
fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.
I followed the instructions:
1
removed all the 'snap-listed' snap-based packages and then
2
removed all the snap-system packagess that remained.
I did nothing else. I might try again if and when I have time.
is no longer accessable. But I do recall there being more ste[s than
what you mentioned. Sorry, memory cells are fading...
On 10/09/2023 14:34, bad sector wrote:
On 9/10/23 01:00, Henry Crun wrote:I did this over a year ago, and the site where I read the instructions
On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:<..snipped...>
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in >>>>>> with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can >>>>> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out,
then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm
writing from it. End of story.
probably PBK&C
That's always possible but the steps listed really exlude unrelated
interventions.
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running
fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.
I followed the instructions:
1
removed all the 'snap-listed' snap-based packages and then
2
removed all the snap-system packagess that remained.
I did nothing else. I might try again if and when I have time.
is no longer accessable. But I do recall there being more ste[s than
what you mentioned. Sorry, memory cells are fading...
Henry Crun wrote:
On 10/09/2023 14:34, bad sector wrote:
On 9/10/23 01:00, Henry Crun wrote:I did this over a year ago, and the site where I read the instructions
On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:<..snipped...>
bad sector wrote:
"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in >>>>>>> with the system.
"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can >>>>>> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out,
then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm
writing from it. End of story.
probably PBK&C
That's always possible but the steps listed really exlude unrelated
interventions.
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running
fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.
I followed the instructions:
1
removed all the 'snap-listed' snap-based packages and then
2
removed all the snap-system packagess that remained.
I did nothing else. I might try again if and when I have time.
is no longer accessable. But I do recall there being more ste[s than
what you mentioned. Sorry, memory cells are fading...
Basically following these instructions, (one of many sites with same info):
<https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-ubuntu-22-04>
Then completely remove snapd if you have not other snap apps
sudo apt remove snapd
That is it.
When I do
snap list
I see a "gnome" entry. I see Firefox too. In the tree,
Firefox is only available as a Snap, not as a .deb (whereas
Firefox is a .deb on Mint and acquired directly from Mozilla
in a brown paper bag).
If I do this
sudo apt remove snapd
then before and after I reboot the VM, the loop mounts are still there,
and the Snap packages are still running. The loop mounts are on top of
mount point /snap and thus the 4GB we see in the tree there, is all
squashfs mounts on top of /snap.
bullwinkle@SUPERFLY:~$ cat /etc/mtab
...
/dev/loop2 /snap/bare/5 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop3 /snap/core22/607 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop0 /snap/core22/858 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop1 /snap/gnome-42-2204/126 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0 <=== Trouble ???
/dev/loop4 /snap/firefox/2517 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0 <=== Trouble ???
/dev/loop5 /snap/snapd-desktop-integration/83 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/sda2 /var/snap/firefox/common/host-hunspell ext4 ro,noexec,noatime 0 0 /dev/loop10 /snap/snapd/18933 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop8 /snap/gtk-common-themes/1535 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop7 /snap/gnome-42-2204/87 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop6 /snap/snap-store/959 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
/dev/loop9 /snap/snapd/19457 squashfs ro,nodev,relatime,errors=continue,threads=single 0 0
...
bullwinkle@SUPERFLY:~$
However, with no snapd, this command no longer works.
snap list # command not found
Doing that seems to remove the management of it, at least.
If, using Synaptic, I attempt the equivalent of
sudo apt install firefox
then it includes as a dependency, the snapd package I have just removed.
So not only will I have to switch over my Firefox, before doing
additional damage, I'll need to find Gnome DE too, as a .deb .
Ubuntu Studio might have different dependencies, similar to those.
*******
I gave it a try, and Ubuntu 23.04 survived the removal of its nads.
sudo apt remove snapd
Then, boot the DVD and do a bit more work.
sudo mount /dev/sda2 /mnt
cd /mnt/snap
sudo rm -Rf *
cd ..
sudo chattr +i snap # This keeps the naughty munchkins from mounting stuff in here
sudo umount /mnt
On a reboot, it still works. There is a "gnome" entry in Synaptic,
so maybe a .deb version there awaits.
[Picture]
https://i.postimg.cc/FHKCK8Ss/ub2304-unsnapped.gif
Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning curve.
So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up scripts.
"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> writes:
Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning curve.
So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up scripts.
SysV init scripts were a puked-up cat's hairball of non-uniform shell
scripts and a bunch of symlinks. Good riddance! :-)
the creator
of Linux, one Linus Torwalds has no use for it either.
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
the creator
of Linux, one Linus Torwalds has no use for it either.
There was a pretty long interview w/ LT back in '14 about systemd. It didn't sound like he was in the anti-systemd camp then.
https://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd Torvalds says he has no strong opinions on systemd
I don't know if he's said anything lately. '14 was a long time ago.
Linus Torvalds Blocks All Code from Systemd Developer for the Linuxhis > patches are accepted.
Kernel - The developer needs to fix the problems in systemd before
Mike Easter wrote:
Bobbie Sellers wrote:
the creator of Linux, one Linus Torwalds has no use for it
either.
There was a pretty long interview w/ LT back in '14 about systemd.
It didn't sound like he was in the anti-systemd camp then.
https://itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd
Torvalds says he has no strong opinions on systemd
I don't know if he's said anything lately. '14 was a long time
ago.
Linus Torvalds Blocks All Code from Systemd Developer for thehis > patches are accepted.
Linux Kernel - The developer needs to fix the problems in systemd
before
This if from 2014 maybe he has revised his opinions since then but he
says clearly that Poettering was attempting to change the kernel to
work with systemd. Mr.Torwalds was adamant that he should fix
systemd to work with the kernel, not the kernel to work with
systemd.
<https://news.softpedia.com/news/Linus-Torvalds-Block-All-Code-from-Systemd-Developer-for-the-Linux-Kernel-435714.shtml>
Everything started from a bug in systemd that caused the operating
system to fail to boot. A solution has been proposed, but not uptream
for systemd, but for the Linux kernel, and a patch was submitted.
Basically, the bug was still there in systemd, but code has been
added to the Linux kernel so that this problem would be
circumvented.
The patch was submitted to the kernel, but Linus Torvalds is not a
big fan of adding code to the Linux kernel just to fix a problem from
another package. He is not a patient man and this is not the first
time that he intervened.
On 9/17/23 12:03, Bud Frede wrote:
"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> writes:
SysV init scripts were a puked-up cat's hairball of non-uniform
Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning curve.
So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up scripts.
shell
scripts and a bunch of symlinks. Good riddance! :-)
So sez you but some very interesting distributions have no
problem with SysVint and do not use systemd(evil). I haven't
used
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 497 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:10:34 |
| Calls: | 9,784 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,748 |
| Messages: | 6,187,450 |
