On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: <https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session
support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this, adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session
support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this, >> adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics, but
the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating X11
pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it breaks some
X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session
support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this, adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it breaks some
X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote: >><https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session
support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this, >> adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics, but
the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating X11
pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it breaks some
X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
vallor wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:31:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Manwhy
<rotflol2@hotmail.com>
wrote in <slrn100kfa7.edd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session >>>>> support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through
with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics, but
the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating X11
pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it breaks some >>> X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples
workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
I stopped using Fedora when they were removing code from openssl for
which
they claimed they weren't sure about a patent incumberance.
It wasn't just flags in the SRPM that disabled elliptical-curve crypto,
they actually took the code for ECC out of openssl.
I jumped ship to Linux Mint, and I'm much happier for it.
vallor wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:31:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Manwhy
<rotflol2@hotmail.com>
wrote in <slrn100kfa7.edd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11
session support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through
with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics,
but the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating
X11 pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it
breaks some X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything
all the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break
peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
I stopped using Fedora when they were removing code from openssl for
which they claimed they weren't sure about a patent incumberance.
It wasn't just flags in the SRPM that disabled elliptical-curve crypto,
they actually took the code for ECC out of openssl.
I jumped ship to Linux Mint, and I'm much happier for it.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 14:04:44 -0700, % <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote in <DR-dndcAYLDsOpf1nZ2dnZfqnPYAAAAA@giganews.com>:
vallor wrote:
On Thu, 24 Apr 2025 13:31:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Manwhy
<rotflol2@hotmail.com>
wrote in <slrn100kfa7.edd.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11
session support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through
with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics,
but the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating
X11 pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it
breaks some X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything
all the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break
peoples workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
I stopped using Fedora when they were removing code from openssl for
which they claimed they weren't sure about a patent incumberance.
It wasn't just flags in the SRPM that disabled elliptical-curve
crypto,
they actually took the code for ECC out of openssl.
I jumped ship to Linux Mint, and I'm much happier for it.
Because when I realized Red Hat was telling the Fedora maintainers to
remove code from openssl, that Fedora wasn't the kind of distro I wanted
to run.
I was also tired of using rpmfusion to supplement what was missing from Fedora -- little things, like being able to play mp3's.
The closest I've gotten to Fedora since then was to boot a live version
of Nobara, which was disastrous. Linux Mint "just works".
Yep. I'm not that crazy about IBM/Red Hat anyhow. CentOS was my first
"I'm finally moving away from Windows" distribution. But Red Hat
swallowed them up (well after I quit using CentOS, I should add).
On 2025-04-24 09:31, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-24, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:This was one of the reasons I left Fedora and went to Debian. I had
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session >>>> support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
been tired of the frequent release cycle, and some of the politics, but
the fact they would be earlier than other distros in deprecating X11
pushed me to Debian. Nothing against Wayland per-se, but it breaks some
X applications, and my Window Manager.
The "developers" today are terrible, constantly breaking everything all
the time. How they feel it is acceptable to constantly break peoples
workflows is beyond me. Sheer arrogance.
I went to Ubuntu specifically because I wanted Wayland (for touchpad gestures) and a proper support for the NVIDIA proprietary driver. The
only issues I have are that the audio becomes distorted when using
speakers and an external _if_ I play a game in Heroic Games Launcher
(but there's no reason to believe it's Wayland anyway since the problem
does not occur if I don't use an external monitor or speakers) and I
can't add a bookmark directly into the sidebar in Brave (it could be a
Brave issue but it doesn't occur in the same version of Brave used on Cinnamon and X11). Other than that, it's better in every way.
On 2025-04-24, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-24 08:43, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session >>>> support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
Yep. The only problem I have with Fedora is that it constantly breaks
the NVIDIA driver. Otherwise, I'm in favour of them continuously
improving the experience by phasing out older software. In the end, if
people don't like the change away from X11, they can choose a variety of
distributions that insist on keeping it. That's what great about Linux
and its almost unlimited amount of choices.
Yep. I'm not that crazy about IBM/Red Hat anyhow. CentOS was my first "I'm finally moving away from Windows" distribution. But Red Hat swallowed them
up (well after I quit using CentOS, I should add).
On 2025-04-25, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-24, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:I haven't used Fedora in years but I agree with the other person (vallor?) that
On 2025-04-24 08:43, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-23, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
<https://www.phoronix.com/news/F43-Change-Wayland-Only-GNOME>
By GNOME 50 next year upstream could completely remove its X11 session >>>>> support.
Fortunately I can choose something NOT Fedora. If they go through with this,
adios Fedora on the laptop I never use.
Non-problem solved.
Yep. The only problem I have with Fedora is that it constantly breaks
the NVIDIA driver. Otherwise, I'm in favour of them continuously
improving the experience by phasing out older software. In the end, if
people don't like the change away from X11, they can choose a variety of >>> distributions that insist on keeping it. That's what great about Linux
and its almost unlimited amount of choices.
Yep. I'm not that crazy about IBM/Red Hat anyhow. CentOS was my first "I'm >> finally moving away from Windows" distribution. But Red Hat swallowed them >> up (well after I quit using CentOS, I should add).
after install it seemed like there was a lot of work to install what I would consider basics and if I remember correctly, I needed to go outside the standard
repos to install these.
Also I never liked the default Fedora layout. To me it look rough and cheap looking.
Yes I know it of course can be changed but it was one more less than polished item.
I went LinuxMint, switched to MXLinux for a while and am now back with LinuMint and
am very happy with it.
With Linux there truly is something for everyone willing to poke around.
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not worth it, let’s just drop it”.
I haven't used Fedora in years but I agree with the other person
(vallor?) that after install it seemed like there was a lot of work to install what I would consider basics and if I remember correctly, I
needed to go outside the standard repos to install these.
Also I never liked the default Fedora layout. To me it look rough and
cheap looking.
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you
can't just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does,
then yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s >> not worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
It's not a matter of what they *should* do, it's a matter of choosing something different that better fits your needs. If Fedora jettisons
X11, I'll jettison Fedora. It's a matter of choice. With Linux you *can* choose what you prefer (unlike Windows or Macs).
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not >>> worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense,
but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
Borax Man wrote:
What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software. It seems to
be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people. That is, they
want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be >>done. People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think
is best, rather than what *other* people need. They think that "work"
is just a way they can actualise themselves. Companies bend towards
this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the
customers needs. We, the users, need our software to work. If you want
to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
I don't know why you think that people can "do what they want" in
defiance of market forces. The same with companies "bending" away
from their needs or their customers' needs.
If they don't do the right things, they will be beaten in the market
by someone who is.
What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software. It seems to
be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people. That is, they
want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be
done. People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think
is best, rather than what *other* people need. They think that "work"
is just a way they can actualise themselves. Companies bend towards
this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the
customers needs. We, the users, need our software to work. If you want
to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not >>> worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense,
but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
That is, they want to work on what they want to work on, rather than
what needs to be done.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would
have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
This idea that "market forces" just fixes things runs contrary to
observed experience. Many companies still turn a profit DESPITE
massive ineff[icen]cies and avoidable errors.
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software. It seems to >>>>be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people. That is, they >>>>want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be >>>>done. People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think >>>>is best, rather than what *other* people need. They think that "work" >>>>is just a way they can actualise themselves. Companies bend towards >>>>this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the >>>>customers needs. We, the users, need our software to work. If you want >>>>to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
I don't know why you think that people can "do what they want" in
defiance of market forces. The same with companies "bending" away
from their needs or their customers' needs.
If they don't do the right things, they will be beaten in the market
by someone who is.
Not necessarily. This idea that "market forces" just fixes things runs
contrary to observed experience. Many companies still turn a profit
DESPITE massive ineffeciecies and avoidable errors. This is an
ideological position, not one based on observation of the real world.
Also, the "market" often moves according to external forces, or it
doesn't due t intertia, or network effects. ie, you use product X, not
becaues its good, but because you need to interact with others also
using product X. Product X can turn to crap, but you can't leave,
because that is where everyone still is.
A prime example, Windows.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 11:02:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
This idea that "market forces" just fixes things runs contrary to
observed experience. Many companies still turn a profit DESPITE
massive ineff[icen]cies and avoidable errors.
That’s true in the proprietary software world because of “vendor lock-in”
which inhibits effective competition.
Open Source helps remedy that problem, by removing the lock-in effect.
This is why there are entire thriving industries built on top of Open
Source, which have completely destroyed, or are destroying, many
proprietary products in those spaces.
They work because they are making money out of Open Source. They don’t
work because somebody is complaining about stuff they get for free.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:09:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
That is, they want to work on what they want to work on, rather than
what needs to be done.
Or rather, they work on what they see as needs to be done.
If you want them to work on what you see as needing to be done, by all
means hire them and pay them for it.
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software. It seems to
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>>>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took >>> off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people. That is, they
want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be
done. People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think
is best, rather than what *other* people need. They think that "work"
is just a way they can actualise themselves. Companies bend towards
this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the
customers needs. We, the users, need our software to work. If you want
to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
Linus is "older school". "Don't break userspace" is something hes
stated.
As I said, I don't object to modernising the graphical system, but you
have to accept, have to accomodate the Unix Legacy. If you don't want
that Legacy, work on a new OS, where you *can* just architecture
everything as you wish.
Can't argue with you here. I guess I misunderstood your point. Sorry. I tend to read too quickly sometimes.
No, I think he's saying it would have worked better with Wayland. But
that's speculation.
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not >>>> worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense,
but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew
better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better
than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took >> off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would
have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Open Source doesn't really remedy the problem, if you can't modify the source.
This is why Fedoras decision irks me a bit.
I utilise X specific things, so its fine if some people don't care
and just want Wayland, but the choice should remain.
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>>>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took >>> off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in
Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would
have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a
provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels "claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such version and are often abandoned.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity vs Gnome 2 debate.
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
On 2025-04-26, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:09:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
That is, they want to work on what they want to work on, rather than
what needs to be done.
Or rather, they work on what they see as needs to be done.
If you want them to work on what you see as needing to be done, by all
means hire them and pay them for it.
If you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
Borax Man wrote:
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
Its not just some belief. What happens in the Open Source world is, >somebody comes along and shows us a way that is provably better. And so, >inevitably, the old ways get abandoned in favour of the new.
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to >write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
chrisv wrote:
I don't know why you think that people can "do what they want" in
defiance of market forces. The same with companies "bending" away
from their needs or their customers' needs.
If they don't do the right things, they will be beaten in the market
by someone who is.
Not necessarily. This idea that "market forces" just fixes things runs >contrary to observed experience. Many companies still turn a profit
DESPITE massive ineffeciecies and avoidable errors. This is an
ideological position, not one based on observation of the real world.
Also, the "market" often moves according to external forces, or it
doesn't due t intertia, or network effects. ie, you use product X, not >becaues its good, but because you need to interact with others also
using product X. Product X can turn to crap, but you can't leave,
because that is where everyone still is.
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 08:15:48 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would
have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Are you trying to say that Unity would have been preferable to Wayland?
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't >>>>>> just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then >>>>> yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some
degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We
also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took >>> off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or
Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in
Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would
have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a
provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels "claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such version and are often abandoned.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity vs Gnome 2 debate.
Nobody wanted to fix the X11 issues.
Unity was their Gnome 3-like interface. Mir was what they unveiled to
compete with Wayland. As for whether it would have been preferable,
probably not. I imagine that it would have worked well with Unity, but
not so much with other desktop environments. Canonical wouldn't have
cared either.
Borax Man wrote:
chrisv wrote:
I don't know why you think that people can "do what they want" in
defiance of market forces. The same with companies "bending" away
from their needs or their customers' needs.
If they don't do the right things, they will be beaten in the market
by someone who is.
Not necessarily. This idea that "market forces" just fixes things runs >>contrary to observed experience. Many companies still turn a profit >>DESPITE massive ineffeciecies and avoidable errors. This is an
ideological position, not one based on observation of the real world.
For some definitions of "massive". Certainly, the more errors they
make and inefficiencies they have, the more vulnerable to being
out-competed they will be.
I do not agree with you that companies will bend towards allowing
workers to "do what they want", catering to them rather than the
companies or the customers needs. That just wouldn't cut it, in the
long term.
Also, the "market" often moves according to external forces, or it
doesn't due t intertia, or network effects. ie, you use product X, not >>becaues its good, but because you need to interact with others also
using product X. Product X can turn to crap, but you can't leave,
because that is where everyone still is.
We're not talking about monopolies.
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>>>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>>>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>> Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in >>>> Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction. >>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would >>>> have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke
with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave >>> it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask >>> about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a
provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top >>> position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels
"claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins
are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such
version and are often abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity
vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply
because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed
to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of
Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how it
updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical made
the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against the whole point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
Borax Man wrote:
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to >>write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
Generally speaking, if it's not needed you won't get paid to do it.
There are lots of hobbies or unpaid past times, in the world. Only a
fool ridicules others for how they choose to use their time.
Le 27-04-2025, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> a écrit :
On 2025-04-26, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 10:09:51 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
That is, they want to work on what they want to work on, rather than
what needs to be done.
Or rather, they work on what they see as needs to be done.
If you want them to work on what you see as needing to be done, by all
means hire them and pay them for it.
If you have a hammer, every problem is a nail.
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to
write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
Sometimes, when something is conceptually broken, the only way is to
start from scratch. That's what happened for Wayland. Nobody wanted to
fix the X11 issues. If you want the X11 issues being fixed instead of
the project being left alone, you have solutions. You can do the work yourself. Or, you can pay developers to do the work for you.
On 2025-04-27, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:What I was referring to problem, isn't limited to software. It seems to >>>> be a Millenial trait in general, or of younger people. That is, they
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>>>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>>>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>> Unity.
want to work on what they want to work on, rather than what needs to be >>>> done. People seeing their work as an opportunity to do what they think >>>> is best, rather than what *other* people need. They think that "work" >>>> is just a way they can actualise themselves. Companies bend towards
this, catering to their needs, rather than the companies, or the
customers needs. We, the users, need our software to work. If you want >>>> to work on it, your role is to stop our stuff breaking.
Linus is "older school". "Don't break userspace" is something hes
stated.
As I said, I don't object to modernising the graphical system, but you >>>> have to accept, have to accomodate the Unix Legacy. If you don't want >>>> that Legacy, work on a new OS, where you *can* just architecture
everything as you wish.
Can't argue with you here. I guess I misunderstood your point. Sorry. I tend
to read too quickly sometimes.
Thats cool. I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented. I used to believe that too. When I was
young, naive, I thought that "We've always done it this way" was a poor
reason to NOT change a system. Now that I'm more experienced, and been
through many changes, implemented many, I'm more skeptical about
changing things which appear on the surface to not be optimal,
especially when you think you know better.
There are other things to consider than simply "is this new method more
efficient". On paper, it can appear better, but the world doesn't work
according to 'on paper'. Its messy, and changing crappy legacy X to
shiny new Y should be done with real, real care, and often, not at all.
I agree with your points here. There are too many changes for "change sake." I think a lot of the change implemented are by those who don't have much actual experience, they just have authority to demand the change. I'm sure it's not always that way, but it seems it is too often that way.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:33:34 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is to
write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework. Its
what they CAN do.
Show us your better way in action, then.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:31:00 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
It’s not just some “belief”. What happens in the Open Source world is, somebody comes along and shows us a way that is provably better. And so, inevitably, the old ways get abandoned in favour of the new.
Tradition is a strong brake on this (you yourself are an obvious example), but in a competitive environment, the new, superior way wins out, sooner
or later.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 14:30:01 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Unity was their Gnome 3-like interface. Mir was what they unveiled to
compete with Wayland. As for whether it would have been preferable,
probably not. I imagine that it would have worked well with Unity, but
not so much with other desktop environments. Canonical wouldn't have
cared either.
Mir was quietly shelved in favor of GNOME 3 and Mutter. Probably a wise decision. Mutter has a strange association for me:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNdnVVHfseA
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:24:08 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Open Source doesn't really remedy the problem, if you can't modify the
source.
That’s one of the requirements for it to be “Open Source”.
<https://opensource.org/osd> -- clause 3.
This is why Fedoras decision irks me a bit.
You are free not to choose Fedora.
I utilise X specific things, so its fine if some people don't care
and just want Wayland, but the choice should remain.
The code doesn’t maintain itself.
Silicon Valley yahoos believe in "move fast and break things".
On 2025-04-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
Its not just some belief. What happens in the Open Source world is, >>> somebody comes along and shows us a way that is provably better. And so, >>> inevitably, the old ways get abandoned in favour of the new.
It's how evolution works.
Actually it's not "evolution," as these decisions are made by someone. They are designed (the designer often has limited foresight). These changes don't happen accidentally. But, if you want to call it evolution, just remember there are a lot "dead ends" in so-called "evolution."
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can't
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on >>>>>> what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>>>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better >>>>> than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>> Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in >>>> Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction. >>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would >>>> have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away
from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke
with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave >>> it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask >>> about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a
provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top >>> position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels
"claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins
are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such
version and are often abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity
vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply
because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed
to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of
Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how it
updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical made
the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against the whole point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
On 2025-04-28, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can'tSomebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard. >>>>>>>>
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew >>>>>> better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better
than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>>> Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in >>>>> Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction. >>>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would >>>>> have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away >>>>> from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke
with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave >>>> it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask >>>> about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a
provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top
position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels
"claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins
are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such >>>> version and are often abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity
vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply
because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed
to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of
Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how it >>> updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical made
the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against the whole >> point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are
better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
I tried Snap. It brings to mind that quote about Meth, "Not even once...".
It needed a daemon! It created additional mountpoints. Just to run a program?
That was enough to tell me it was bad design.
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think I've got it all cleared now.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 03:42, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can'tSomebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard. >>>>>>>>>
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew
better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better
than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>>>> Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing >>>>>> things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for >>>>>> Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in >>>>>> Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction. >>>>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would >>>>>> have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away >>>>>> from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke
with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave
it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask >>>>> about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a >>>>> provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top
position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels
"claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins
are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such >>>>> version and are often abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity
vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply >>>> because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed >>>> to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of >>>> Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how it >>>> updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical made >>> the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against the whole
point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are >>> better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
AppImages benefit from the fact that they can run on any distribution
with a minimum of modification, but they aren't sandboxed. For that
reason alone, Flatpak and Snap are both superior to AppImage where
security is prioritized. If I could only have one, I'd definitely go
with Flatpak though, not only because of its software selection and
security benefits but because they perform as well as native packages
(in my experience). Updating them is also an absolute breeze compared to
Snap.
There is a lot of talk about sandboxing. Am I weird for not giving rat's patootie about it? In nineteen years I've never had any security issues with Linux.
In my experience I've had better luck with AppImages than Flatpaks or Snaps. But I think it all depends on how well they're made.
Borax Man wrote:
We're not talking about monopolies.
Yes, they functionally exist
Yeah, I know that. But we were talking about a normally functioning
market, not a monopoly-dominated market. Companies in normally
functioning markets (e.g. the Linux distro market) defy market forces
at their peril.
We're not talking about monopolies.
Yes, they functionally exist
CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-04-28 03:33, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
It?s not just some ?belief?. What happens in the Open Source world is, >>>>> somebody comes along and shows us a way that is provably better. And so, >>>>> inevitably, the old ways get abandoned in favour of the new.
It's how evolution works.
Actually it's not "evolution," as these decisions are made by someone. They >>> are designed (the designer often has limited foresight). These changes don't
happen accidentally. But, if you want to call it evolution, just remember >>> there are a lot "dead ends" in so-called "evolution."
Of course there are. My analogy is fine.
Many dead ends, actually. That is why a good number of evolutionists
have gone on to become devout Christians.
Nonsense.
On 2025-04-28 03:33, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Borax Man wrote:
I think many people just have this belief that things
should be changed, reinvented.
It?s not just some ?belief?. What happens in the Open Source world is, >>>> somebody comes along and shows us a way that is provably better. And so, >>>> inevitably, the old ways get abandoned in favour of the new.
It's how evolution works.
Actually it's not "evolution," as these decisions are made by someone. They >> are designed (the designer often has limited foresight). These changes don't >> happen accidentally. But, if you want to call it evolution, just remember
there are a lot "dead ends" in so-called "evolution."
Many dead ends, actually. That is why a good number of evolutionists
have gone on to become devout Christians.
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but >>>>>>>> you can't just throw out decades of work and break it because its >>>>>>>> hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody
does, then yes, the existing developers are quite justified in
saying “that’s not worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs
work on what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make
sense, but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and
again. We also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they
knew better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they
knew better than the user what the *should* want. That's basically
why Linux Mint took off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users
wanted, not Gnome 3 or Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out
in Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right
direction.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people
would have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to
move away from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that
broke with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take
it or leave it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but,
still, when you ask about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask
why Gnome 3 doesn't a provide a method to do that, you get snarky
responses claiming this the top position is "somehow" superior. I
don't like it there, it feels "claustrophobic" to me. I always moved
the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins are supposed to fix this, but
usually they only work for such and such version and are often
abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and
Unity vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply
because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed
to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of
Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how
it updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical
made the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against
the whole point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
and your posts still look the same here
They're listed in the book I recommended. They can't come up with answer through their theory, so they eventually submit to Creationism.
On 2025-04-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:33:34 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
The problem is you have software developers who think the solution is
to write more code. Write another protocol. Write a new framework.
Its what they CAN do.
Show us your better way in action, then.
Sometimes the better way is not to start again from scratch and throw everything out.
There are plenty of examples of change which is managed well.
I didn't leave Fedora because Wayland exists, I left Fedora because
I think they were approaching removing X11 too early.
When the "auto" keyword was added to C++11, it could have created a
problem for legacy code which used 'auto' in a different context. The committee checked a lot of code to see whether it would cause an issue
and determined it wouldn't break code. This is how responsible adults
work.
This is indeed the case. You can't bring up your own snap server.
Snaps are anti-free-software. I much prefer flatpaks, but rarely use
even those.
Windows is THE desktop operating system.
On 2025-04-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Depends on who is defining it.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:24:08 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Open Source doesn't really remedy the problem, if you can't modify the
source.
That’s one of the requirements for it to be “Open Source”.
<https://opensource.org/osd> -- clause 3.
Yeah, I know. I was a user. It irked me. What is your point?This is why Fedoras decision irks me a bit.
You are free not to choose Fedora.
I utilise X specific things, so its fine if some people don't care and
just want Wayland, but the choice should remain.
The code doesn’t maintain itself.
Yeah, I know. What is your point? The point I made is stil valid.
Be careful to discard what you think is useless.
There is a reason that Windows has a Linux subsystem. There is a reason
for Powershell.
I've been around enough to see "new" solutions which are just
reinventions of what had been done before.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Windows is THE desktop operating system.
Only for those who insist on remaining loyal, no matter how buggy and
broken their systems become.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my >>>>> machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think >>> I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A
quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it
comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going
to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think I've got it all cleared now.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 03:42, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but you can'tSomebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody does, then
just throw out decades of work and break it because its hard. >>>>>>>>>
yes, the existing developers are quite justified in saying “that’s not
worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs work on
what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make sense, >>>>>>>> but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and again. We >>>>>>>> also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they knew
better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they knew better
than the user what the *should* want. That's basically why Linux Mint took
off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users wanted, not Gnome 3 or >>>>>>> Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing >>>>>> things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for >>>>>> Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out in >>>>>> Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right direction. >>>>>> Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people would >>>>>> have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to move away >>>>>> from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that broke
with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take it or leave
it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but, still, when you ask >>>>> about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask why Gnome 3 doesn't a >>>>> provide a method to do that, you get snarky responses claiming this the top
position is "somehow" superior. I don't like it there, it feels
"claustrophobic" to me. I always moved the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins
are supposed to fix this, but usually they only work for such and such >>>>> version and are often abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and Unity
vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply >>>> because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed >>>> to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of >>>> Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how it >>>> updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical made >>> the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against the whole
point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that Snaps are >>> better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and Flatpaks.
AppImages benefit from the fact that they can run on any distribution
with a minimum of modification, but they aren't sandboxed. For that
reason alone, Flatpak and Snap are both superior to AppImage where
security is prioritized. If I could only have one, I'd definitely go
with Flatpak though, not only because of its software selection and
security benefits but because they perform as well as native packages
(in my experience). Updating them is also an absolute breeze compared to
Snap.
There is a lot of talk about sandboxing. Am I weird for not giving rat's patootie about it? In nineteen years I've never had any security issues with Linux.
In my experience I've had better luck with AppImages than Flatpaks or Snaps. But I think it all depends on how well they're made.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:33:31 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
There is a reason that Windows has a Linux subsystem. There is a reason
for Powershell.
These are both acts of desperation on the part of Microsoft. After decades
of conditioning its users to be allergic to the command line, it now finds itself trying to do a complete 180°. The results are not pretty.
I've been around enough to see "new" solutions which are just
reinventions of what had been done before.
So what? That’s no excuse for perpetuating the pile of legacy baggage that is X11.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 07:42:25 -0000 (UTC), RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com>
wrote in <slrn100ucb4.cuiu.ronb02NOSPAM@3020m.home>:
On 2025-04-27, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/27/25 02:45, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 4/25/25 23:00, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 12:06:53 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I understand the problems with X11, and supporting legacy, but >>>>>>>>> you can't just throw out decades of work and break it because its >>>>>>>>> hard.
Somebody has to come along and offer to do the work. If nobody >>>>>>>> does, then yes, the existing developers are quite justified in >>>>>>>> saying “that’s not worth it, let’s just drop it”.
But they ARE doing work. They're creating new stuff that lack some >>>>>>> degree of compatibility with the old. This is the problem, devs >>>>>>> work on what the want to work on, not what people need.
In no one was willing to work on free software, that would make
sense, but people are working on reinventing the wheel again and >>>>>>> again. We also had Mir. TWO projects. Duplication.
Kind of like Ubuntu trying to force Unity on everyone because "they >>>>>> knew better." Or Gnome making huge changes in Gnome 3 because they >>>>>> knew better than the user what the *should* want. That's basically >>>>>> why Linux Mint took off. Mate and Cinnamon were what a LOT of users >>>>>> wanted, not Gnome 3 or Unity.
In the end, a lot of people ended up liking Gnome 3's way of doing
things, and it is at the core of a few desktop environments. As for
Unity and Mir, I liked the interface of Unity enough to seek it out
in Ubuntu's iteration of Gnome, and Mir was a step in the right
direction.
Had Wayland not already have been in development, I doubt people
would have had such a negative opinion of Canonical's decision to
move away from X11.
Not me. Never liked either Unity or Gnome 3. I also don't like that
customization of Gnome 3 was always an afterthought, with add-ons that >>>> broke with each release. Gnome developers seemed to have had a "take
it or leave it," mindset. It's gotten a bit better over time but,
still, when you ask about moving the top bar to the bottom, and ask
why Gnome 3 doesn't a provide a method to do that, you get snarky
responses claiming this the top position is "somehow" superior. I
don't like it there, it feels "claustrophobic" to me. I always moved
the Gnome 2 bar to the bottom. Add-ins are supposed to fix this, but
usually they only work for such and such version and are often
abandoned.
You're right about the extensions. I abandoned the idea of using them
when I noticed that they ceased to function the moment the version of
Gnome increased.
As for X11 vs Wayland, not quite sure how that fits in the Gnome 3 and >>>> Unity vs Gnome 2 debate.
It's not the same debate but a similar one. People hated on Mir simply
because Canonical introduced it. The company is apparently not allowed
to introduce its own technology if the community already developed
something similar. For example, Snap is hated even though it came out
before Flatpak did and is an improvement on AppImage. I'm not a fan of
Snap myself (I prefer Flatpak because of the software library and how
it updates), but I can't say that it's bad.
I think the reason that people don't like Snaps is because Canonical
made the Snap servers proprietary, under their control. It goes against
the whole point of Linux, that it be open source. And I don't agree that
Snaps are better than AppImages. I prefer AppImages over both Snaps and
Flatpaks.
This is indeed the case. You can't bring up your own snap server.
Snaps are anti-free-software. I much prefer flatpaks, but rarely
use even those.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:41:06 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Depends on who is defining it.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 07:24:08 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Open Source doesn't really remedy the problem, if you can't modify the >>>> source.
That’s one of the requirements for it to be “Open Source”.
<https://opensource.org/osd> -- clause 3.
That is the official definition.
Yeah, I know. I was a user. It irked me. What is your point?This is why Fedoras decision irks me a bit.
You are free not to choose Fedora.
The point is you don’t need to be “irked” by something you don’t even use
anyway.
I utilise X specific things, so its fine if some people don't care and >>>> just want Wayland, but the choice should remain.
The code doesn’t maintain itself.
Yeah, I know. What is your point? The point I made is stil valid.
Your “point” seems to be that somebody should do a lot of work maintaining
some old software just to make you happy.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:14:33 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Be careful to discard what you think is useless.
In the Open Source world, all the old stuff remains preserved in the
commit history of the source repos for all time to come. Nothing ever
really gets thrown away, so yes, it can always be resurrected if need be.
With modern programming tools, no editing change is irreversible.
On 2025-04-28 22:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Windows is THE desktop operating system.
Only for those who insist on remaining loyal, no matter how buggy and
broken their systems become.
The increasingly painful experience of updating Windows or MacOS says
all that he needs to know about whether Windows is "the" operating
system or not. We all eventually get annoyed with that, but there are
other irreparable problems in the operating system that cause more
capable individuals to look elsewhere. fTPM stuttering is not likely to
be fixed for AMD laptop users, external monitors are likely to shut off repeatedly if you play DRM content of any kind, S0 suspend is likely to
be the norm regardless of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Those are
just three good reasons to move away.
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my >>>>>> machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff. >>>>
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A
quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it
comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be >> wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going >> to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even >> the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not >> a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud members of Antifa.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 22:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Windows is THE desktop operating system.
Only for those who insist on remaining loyal, no matter how buggy and
broken their systems become.
The increasingly painful experience of updating Windows or MacOS says
all that he needs to know about whether Windows is "the" operating
system or not. We all eventually get annoyed with that, but there are
other irreparable problems in the operating system that cause more
capable individuals to look elsewhere. fTPM stuttering is not likely to
be fixed for AMD laptop users, external monitors are likely to shut off
repeatedly if you play DRM content of any kind, S0 suspend is likely to
be the norm regardless of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Those are
just three good reasons to move away.
It is still the dominant desktop operating system. Whether it deserves
to be or not, thats up for debate.
I moved away decades ago. I've gotten others to move away, but the
numbers dont lie. Most people just take the pain and live with Windows.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my >>>>>>> machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff. >>>>>
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A >>>> quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it
comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be >>> wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going >>> to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even
the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not
a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's
interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud
members of Antifa.
They are? Thats a concern if true.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap
stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but
I think I've got it all cleared now.
A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck,
it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy
to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is
not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the
line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's
interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
vallor wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:when did you decide there isn't anything you don't know
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. >> It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 10:21, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff. >>>>>>>
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A >>>>>> quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it >>>>>> comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be
wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going
to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even
the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not
a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud >>>> members of Antifa.
They are? Thats a concern if true.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
A contributor proudly announced that Gnome is Antifa on blogs.gnome.org.
So is Lunduke basing his Antifa/Ubuntu connection theory on this one contributor?
It should be mentioned that the word "ubuntu" had a "philosophical" (almost religious) meaning before it was used as the name for a Linux distribution. The fact that Canonical choose this name probably indicates their belief bias, but I haven't seen any evidence of an official Ubuntu/Antifa connection.
If I'm wrong, point me to the link or documentation.
It is still the dominant desktop operating system.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 17:11, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 10:21, Borax Man wrote:So is Lunduke basing his Antifa/Ubuntu connection theory on this one
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A
quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it >>>>>>>> comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be
wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going
to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even
the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not
a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud >>>>>> members of Antifa.
They are? Thats a concern if true.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation, >>>>> they fit the definition.
A contributor proudly announced that Gnome is Antifa on blogs.gnome.org. >>>
contributor?
It should be mentioned that the word "ubuntu" had a "philosophical" (almost >>> religious) meaning before it was used as the name for a Linux distribution. >>> The fact that Canonical choose this name probably indicates their belief >>> bias, but I haven't seen any evidence of an official Ubuntu/Antifa
connection.
If I'm wrong, point me to the link or documentation.
The connection is between Antifa and Gnome, not Ubuntu. However, this is
pretty consistent with some of the things that have been reported in the
past about Gnome and its woke policies. If he provides a direct link to
the post eventually, I'll copy it here.
Okay. Thanks.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck,
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap
stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy
to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the
line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's
interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 10:21, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to my
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff. >>>>>>>
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A >>>>>> quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it >>>>>> comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be
wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going
to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even
the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not
a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud >>>> members of Antifa.
They are? Thats a concern if true.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
A contributor proudly announced that Gnome is Antifa on blogs.gnome.org.
So is Lunduke basing his Antifa/Ubuntu connection theory on this one contributor?
It should be mentioned that the word "ubuntu" had a "philosophical" (almost religious) meaning before it was used as the name for a Linux distribution. The fact that Canonical choose this name probably indicates their belief bias, but I haven't seen any evidence of an official Ubuntu/Antifa connection.
If I'm wrong, point me to the link or documentation.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
On 2025-04-29 10:08, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 22:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:44:01 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Windows is THE desktop operating system.
Only for those who insist on remaining loyal, no matter how buggy and
broken their systems become.
The increasingly painful experience of updating Windows or MacOS says
all that he needs to know about whether Windows is "the" operating
system or not. We all eventually get annoyed with that, but there are
other irreparable problems in the operating system that cause more
capable individuals to look elsewhere. fTPM stuttering is not likely to
be fixed for AMD laptop users, external monitors are likely to shut off
repeatedly if you play DRM content of any kind, S0 suspend is likely to
be the norm regardless of how inefficient and wasteful it is. Those are
just three good reasons to move away.
It is still the dominant desktop operating system. Whether it deserves
to be or not, thats up for debate.
As long as manufacturers don't give people the option to buy their
hardware without Windows bundled on, it will retain much of its
dominance. If ever manufacturers are being treated poorly by Microsoft,
it might be beneficial for them to offer a choice upon initial bootup
the way the Endeavour OS installer does. Before you go through with installation, it gives you a list of desktop environments you can use as screenshots of how they look. This would work, but I believe Microsoft
makes it impossible for manufacturers to offer that kind of choice. If
I'm not mistaken, they tell manufacturers that if they want to carry
Windows, they cannot offer anything else. This applies for the hardware
found in stores, at the very least.
I moved away decades ago. I've gotten others to move away, but the
numbers dont lie. Most people just take the pain and live with Windows.
Windows does offer a good operating system, but the pain becomes worse
when you are aware that you can avoid a good chunk of it. If you are
like my students and don't even know what your operating system is,
you're likely to just put up with it. If you grew up with technology and
saw it progress, you're likely to be knowledgeable and aware that Linux offers some respite. I'm an example of that. I can tolerate all sorts of bullshit but even I have my breaking point.
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. >> It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
On 2025-04-30, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
Nazis. Sure man. They're everywhere. The place if full Nazis. Nazis everywhere.
What comical paranoia.
As long as manufacturers don't give people the option to buy their
hardware without Windows bundled on, it will retain much of its
dominance. If ever manufacturers are being treated poorly by Microsoft,
it might be beneficial for them to offer a choice upon initial bootup
the way the Endeavour OS installer does. Before you go through with
installation, it gives you a list of desktop environments you can use as
screenshots of how they look. This would work, but I believe Microsoft
makes it impossible for manufacturers to offer that kind of choice. If
I'm not mistaken, they tell manufacturers that if they want to carry
Windows, they cannot offer anything else. This applies for the hardware
found in stores, at the very least.
To be honest, it was many years of using a PC before I too understood
that there could be a viable alternative on the PC, and I was more "tech literate" than average. This was in the 90s. I knew of OS2 and some
toy OS's. I started to get annoyed with Windows, and desire features
and abilities that it was lacking. When I found that Linux was a thing,
it kind of mostly met what I was looking for (more power!).
I moved away decades ago. I've gotten others to move away, but the
numbers dont lie. Most people just take the pain and live with Windows.
Windows does offer a good operating system, but the pain becomes worse
when you are aware that you can avoid a good chunk of it. If you are
like my students and don't even know what your operating system is,
you're likely to just put up with it. If you grew up with technology and
saw it progress, you're likely to be knowledgeable and aware that Linux
offers some respite. I'm an example of that. I can tolerate all sorts of
bullshit but even I have my breaking point.
One of the barriers, is people cannot really imagine anything better.
People just accepted in the 90s that computers were unstable and
crashed. It was just a given, but when my friends asked me about Linux,
and I showed that I could burn a CD, listen to music and download a file
and browse *at the same time*, they were impressed. Computers didn't
need to crash. You can do reptetive tasks far, far more efficiently
than clicking through a series of GUI elements 24 times over. These are moments where people can realise they can do things, things they didn't
think they could do. Emacs was an experience like that too. For year
just using basic editing, then finding you can select words, sentences, transpose, etc. I use emacs at work, (mostly for org mode) and people
think I'm using DOS, but when they see how I manage my todo lists, it
seems like magic.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
One of the barriers, is people cannot really imagine anything better.
People just accepted in the 90s that computers were unstable and
crashed. It was just a given, but when my friends asked me about Linux,
and I showed that I could burn a CD, listen to music and download a file
and browse *at the same time*, they were impressed. Computers didn't
need to crash.
On 2025-04-29 21:22, % wrote:
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
Just when I was considering unblocking him. In his opinion, anyone who
is or supports conservatives is a Nazi, even though Hitler himself was nowhere near conservative and neither was his party.
He'll have to entertain himself with the effeminate posts by Joel and
Chris Ahlstrom because I doubt that anyone else is excited by how he
updated his kernel.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:10:07 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
They're closer to the Antifaschistische Aktion, a front of the KPD. Remind
me of how that turned out.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:24:22 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
One of the barriers, is people cannot really imagine anything better.
People just accepted in the 90s that computers were unstable and
crashed. It was just a given, but when my friends asked me about Linux,
and I showed that I could burn a CD, listen to music and download a file
and browse *at the same time*, they were impressed. Computers didn't
need to crash.
Ironically computers were more stable in the '80s. It took Windows to introduce the world to the BSOD.
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >>> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. >>> It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves
as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a
dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a heroic country to them. They're far left in their politics and will gladly
rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
On 2025-04-30 06:24, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
To be honest, it was many years of using a PC before I too understood
that there could be a viable alternative on the PC, and I was more "tech
literate" than average. This was in the 90s. I knew of OS2 and some
toy OS's. I started to get annoyed with Windows, and desire features
and abilities that it was lacking. When I found that Linux was a thing,
it kind of mostly met what I was looking for (more power!).
I was always curious, so it didn't take long for me to learn that there
were things other than DOS back in the day. I got acquainted with
Windows 3.0 fairly quickly, learned abut MacOS quickly thereafter and
soon developed an interest in OS/2 since my nerdy cousin assured me that
it was better than everything under the sun. Admittedly, I remained in
the Windows camp during that time but kept trying Linux out from about
1994 or 1995 on. I recall installing Slackware on my PC through
floppies, but I had no idea how to get much done. I tried again in 1998,
but I couldn't get sound to work and the resolution couldn't get past
800x600 (I had no idea what I was doing). By 1999, I was ready to move
but Linux itself wasn't entirely ready for what I wanted to do. I only
really started using it as the main OS on my Dell laptop around 2008 (it worked great on that), but even then I kept Windows as my overall main operating system. Once the PRISM revelations emerged, my interest in
Linux grew and I kept trying to make it my default operating system with various degrees of success. Now, I can confidently say that there are
way more benefits than there are drawbacks, no matter what hardware I
run it on.
Windows does offer a good operating system, but the pain becomes worse
when you are aware that you can avoid a good chunk of it. If you are
like my students and don't even know what your operating system is,
you're likely to just put up with it. If you grew up with technology and >>> saw it progress, you're likely to be knowledgeable and aware that Linux
offers some respite. I'm an example of that. I can tolerate all sorts of >>> bullshit but even I have my breaking point.
One of the barriers, is people cannot really imagine anything better.
People just accepted in the 90s that computers were unstable and
crashed. It was just a given, but when my friends asked me about Linux,
and I showed that I could burn a CD, listen to music and download a file
and browse *at the same time*, they were impressed. Computers didn't
need to crash. You can do reptetive tasks far, far more efficiently
than clicking through a series of GUI elements 24 times over. These are
moments where people can realise they can do things, things they didn't
think they could do. Emacs was an experience like that too. For year
just using basic editing, then finding you can select words, sentences,
transpose, etc. I use emacs at work, (mostly for org mode) and people
think I'm using DOS, but when they see how I manage my todo lists, it
seems like magic.
I found Linux to be just as crashy as Windows in the late 90s. I had
hope that BeOS might penetrate the market since it was a lot more robust
than the two, but it went nowhere. I would say that Linux's core was
always quite stable but everything atop it not so much. In my opinion,
it only became rock solid in the last decade or so.
That was my experience too. When I first used it, programs would just dissapear, and leave a "core" file. Individual programs DID crash more
than in Windows, but they rarely took the system down with it. There
were fewer crashes on Windows, but they were often more catastrophic,
taking everything down with it. A Linux program crash, well, it just vanished. At least everything else was usually untouchged. When I
found I could telnet into the system, on the occasions the screen did
freeze, I could either kill the process, kill X, or shut the system
down, at least avoiding an unclean unmount.
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax ManThe "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in
<slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of >>>>>>>> it.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps >>>>>>>>>>> did to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a >>>>>>>>>>> mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, >>>>>>>>> but I think I've got it all cleared now.
A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you.
Heck, it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just
happy to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. >>>>>>> Ubuntu is not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It
was more in the line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't
particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome >>>>>>> 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of
Ubuntu's interface. However, I won't bother with it if the
contributors are proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist
organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an
organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a
boogieman; then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower
was "Antifa". Oooo, scary.
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves
as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a
dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a
heroic country to them. They're far left in their politics and will
gladly rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and
it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow.
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD
sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe
they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their weight around. Who knows.
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 21:22, % wrote:
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
Just when I was considering unblocking him. In his opinion, anyone who
is or supports conservatives is a Nazi, even though Hitler himself was
nowhere near conservative and neither was his party.
He'll have to entertain himself with the effeminate posts by Joel and
Chris Ahlstrom because I doubt that anyone else is excited by how he
updated his kernel.
I don't think they really believe that. Its a useful rhetorical device
when you want to wield power. In the past, people would change tracks
and try to disprove this spurious allegations, which gave them moral and political leverage. This is why so many organisations have let them in,
just a little, to stop the accusations. Its not a statement of fact, or genuine, its to illicit fear and put you on the backfoot. Companies
will spend $$$$ to not have people like him accuse them of being
uninclusive or whatever.
On 2025-04-30, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:24:22 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
One of the barriers, is people cannot really imagine anything better.
People just accepted in the 90s that computers were unstable and
crashed. It was just a given, but when my friends asked me about Linux, >>> and I showed that I could burn a CD, listen to music and download a file >>> and browse *at the same time*, they were impressed. Computers didn't
need to crash.
Ironically computers were more stable in the '80s. It took Windows to
introduce the world to the BSOD.
True. My Commodore 64 never crashed, except for actual hardware failures.
My XT system very rarely crashed. Most DOS programs were pretty stable.
Even Windows 3.1 ran OK. It was Windows 95/98 that was a crapshow.
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:24, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
To be honest, it was many years of using a PC before I too understood
that there could be a viable alternative on the PC, and I was more "tech >>> literate" than average. This was in the 90s. I knew of OS2 and some
toy OS's. I started to get annoyed with Windows, and desire features
and abilities that it was lacking. When I found that Linux was a thing, >>> it kind of mostly met what I was looking for (more power!).
I was always curious, so it didn't take long for me to learn that there
were things other than DOS back in the day. I got acquainted with
Windows 3.0 fairly quickly, learned abut MacOS quickly thereafter and
soon developed an interest in OS/2 since my nerdy cousin assured me that
it was better than everything under the sun. Admittedly, I remained in
the Windows camp during that time but kept trying Linux out from about
1994 or 1995 on. I recall installing Slackware on my PC through
floppies, but I had no idea how to get much done. I tried again in 1998,
but I couldn't get sound to work and the resolution couldn't get past
800x600 (I had no idea what I was doing). By 1999, I was ready to move
but Linux itself wasn't entirely ready for what I wanted to do. I only
really started using it as the main OS on my Dell laptop around 2008 (it
worked great on that), but even then I kept Windows as my overall main
operating system. Once the PRISM revelations emerged, my interest in
Linux grew and I kept trying to make it my default operating system with
various degrees of success. Now, I can confidently say that there are
way more benefits than there are drawbacks, no matter what hardware I
run it on.
I had seen references to Linux here and there on the Internet in the
late 90s, but I just supposed that as a system I would not either be
able to run it, or make good use of it. I was invested in DOS, DOS
games and programs, programming in DOS so while I didn't like Windows
much, I wasn't that interested in leaving the ecosystem I did
understand.
However by 1999-2000, after having to reinstall windows again and again,
and knowing that staying in the past wasn't the way forward, thats when
I took Linux seriously, after hearing a bit more about it. I still knew
very little, except it was good for the Internet and that it might be
good for "power users".
I was browsing a newsagency late 2000, saw a copy of Linux Format with a Definite Linux 7.0 cover disk and decided to give it a try. Then I
learned about it being a Unix close, about the Free Software movement,
and saw a bit more of a world of computing, with a long history that I
had seen references to, but was now a part of.
I found Linux to be just as crashy as Windows in the late 90s. I had
hope that BeOS might penetrate the market since it was a lot more robust
than the two, but it went nowhere. I would say that Linux's core was
always quite stable but everything atop it not so much. In my opinion,
it only became rock solid in the last decade or so.
That was my experience too. When I first used it, programs would just dissapear, and leave a "core" file. Individual programs DID crash more
than in Windows, but they rarely took the system down with it. There
were fewer crashes on Windows, but they were often more catastrophic,
taking everything down with it. A Linux program crash, well, it just vanished. At least everything else was usually untouchged. When I
found I could telnet into the system, on the occasions the screen did
freeze, I could either kill the process, kill X, or shut the system
down, at least avoiding an unclean unmount.
But I would say by Red Hat 7.3 (the 2003 one), it was much better, and improved since then. As has, admittedly, Windows, though it has other
janky behaviour.
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is >>>>>>> pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are >>>>>> proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation, >>>>> they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman; >>>> then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa". >>>> Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves
as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a
dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a heroic
country to them. They're far left in their politics and will gladly
rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and
it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow.
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD
sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe
they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their weight around. Who knows.
vallor wrote:
On Thu, 1 May 2025 14:24:24 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>now , if they all had linux ...
wrote in <slrn101710o.2qk.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax ManThe "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know >>>>> it.
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in
<slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just >>>>>>>>> happy to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. >>>>>>>>> Ubuntu is not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It >>>>>>>>> was more in the line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of >>>>>>>>>> it.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps >>>>>>>>>>>>> did to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a >>>>>>>>>>>>> mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, >>>>>>>>>>> but I think I've got it all cleared now.
A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. >>>>>>>>>> Heck, it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search. >>>>>>>>>
particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome >>>>>>>>> 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of >>>>>>>> Ubuntu's interface. However, I won't bother with it if the
contributors are proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist
organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an
organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a
boogieman; then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower >>>>>> was "Antifa". Oooo, scary.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in >>>>> the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves >>>> as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a >>>> dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a
heroic country to them. They're far left in their politics and will
gladly rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA >>> movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and
it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow. >>>
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD
sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe
they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their >>> weight around. Who knows.
What we have here is a case of parataxic distortion -- that is to say,
stereotyping.
You know almost nothing about me. You also know almost nothing about
"Crude Sausage" or RonB, either, and at least the former has no issue
with using racial slurs, something I find both extremist and uncalled-
for.
The problem is extremism. Unfortunately, politics are so polarized now
that it's difficult to have a meaningful dialogue. Even in your
invective,
you've written about protests in the same sentence as shoving the
elderly,
the latter act which I find especially egregious. But protests?
Those are a human right. We've had at least two downtown since Trump
was elected. I get police updates via email, and have seen no reports
of arrests, either there or in the local paper.
But when it comes to politics in cola, I would much rather keep
it apolitical and areligious. This seems almost impossible, given
the discussions about (say) how "woke" the RC church was under
Pope Francis. As I said: the problem is extremism.
Regarding California: there's a lot of propaganda floating
around. There are farmers here, as well as business owners
for establishments of all sizes. If you think California
is all one big college campus -- think again, it's not like
that, any more than you are like Crocodile Dundee.
We are pretty smart, though -- the envy of the rest of the U.S.
Maybe that's why they tell so many stories about us. And
California just surpassed Japan as the 4th largest economy
in the world. I'm co-founder of a business that employs
over 800 people, so I'm part of making that happen.
So with all that out of the way: if you came across a
"Nazi" -- that is to say, a White Supremacist Nationalist -- who
was spouting his BS into your face, wouldn't you be tempted
to clock him, too?
We are pretty smart, though -- the envy of the rest of the U.S.
Maybe that's why they tell so many stories about us.
But you can't do that, can you? You see, providing a test written black
on white on a paper without even looking at what the student looks like
is "racist" because blacks and brown-skinned people don't succeed as
well. It's not the person's fault. No, no, the test is racist!
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 18:43:07 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s.
I liked SUSE and still have a version where it came in a shrink wrapped
box with hardcopy documentation and the whole enchilada on CDs. (DVDs?)
I initially had problems with 13.2. By default it formatted the boot partition with btrfs. Grub didn't care for that and I'm not sure that it
does now. I selected ext4 and all was good. I liked it but missed the
leap to Leap so ran it to well past its expiration date. The box got a upgraded processor, SSD, and Fedora.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 13:28:47 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
But you can't do that, can you? You see, providing a test written black
on white on a paper without even looking at what the student looks like
is "racist" because blacks and brown-skinned people don't succeed as
well. It's not the person's fault. No, no, the test is racist!
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/black-intelligence- test-cultural-homogeneity-and-wechsler-adult
https://gwern.net/doc/iq/1977-matarazzo.pdf
The second link is a closer examination of the BITCH. The test succeeds in showing blacks speak ghetto better than whites. However there wasn't
enough spread in the black scores to tell the smart ones from the
mediocre.
I don't know whether SUSE handles or doesn't handle btrfs but Endeavour
runs it great. It's what I use on both my laptops, and I even formatted
my portable SSD in it. So far, so good.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 21:47:50 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I don't know whether SUSE handles or doesn't handle btrfs but Endeavour
runs it great. It's what I use on both my laptops, and I even formatted
my portable SSD in it. So far, so good.
run 'df -T'. Fedora uses btrfs -- except for /boot, which is ext4. That
was the default. Ubuntu uses ext4, but /boot/efi is vfat. Raspberry Pi
OS, also in the Debian family, uses ext4 but /boot/firmware is also vfat.
I believe the vfat is a UEFI thing. The Fedora box does not have a UEFI
bios.
There seems to be something with @.
https://askubuntu.com/questions/967172/grub2-does-not-detect-btrfs-
partition
The OpenSUSE I was installing for a dual boot was 13.2 from 2014. SUSE was one of the first distros to use btrfs. It was still a little experimental. Whatever the case it didn't work with btrfs at the time.
The filesystem is another one of those things I don't care about as long
as it works. I only get involved when it doesn't. My preference was
ReiserFS but somehow it became unpopular when Reiser solved his nagging
wife problem. I believe it was finally removed from the kernel in 6.13.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 14:15:35 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
That was my experience too. When I first used it, programs would just
dissapear, and leave a "core" file. Individual programs DID crash more
than in Windows, but they rarely took the system down with it. There
were fewer crashes on Windows, but they were often more catastrophic,
taking everything down with it. A Linux program crash, well, it just
vanished. At least everything else was usually untouchged. When I
found I could telnet into the system, on the occasions the screen did
freeze, I could either kill the process, kill X, or shut the system
down, at least avoiding an unclean unmount.
Depending on how the program was built you could load the core into gdb
and get useful information on why it crashed. windbg sometimes worked but more often was a disappointment.
For a developer tools on Linux like valgrind or ElectricFence were
superior to anything on Windows like Purify or BoundsChecker. The Windows tools not only were inferior but were expensive.
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has
the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and
claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board.
Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its
benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the
operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should.
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the
computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at
least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get
much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified
source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills
to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have
choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things
together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience,
NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom.
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly
on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old
AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine
for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or
so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an
update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make,
like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full
screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what
you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install
an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to
jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two
computers to Debian.
On 2025-05-01 09:54, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 21:22, % wrote:
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
Just when I was considering unblocking him. In his opinion, anyone who
is or supports conservatives is a Nazi, even though Hitler himself was
nowhere near conservative and neither was his party.
He'll have to entertain himself with the effeminate posts by Joel and
Chris Ahlstrom because I doubt that anyone else is excited by how he
updated his kernel.
I don't think they really believe that. Its a useful rhetorical device
when you want to wield power. In the past, people would change tracks
and try to disprove this spurious allegations, which gave them moral and
political leverage. This is why so many organisations have let them in,
just a little, to stop the accusations. Its not a statement of fact, or
genuine, its to illicit fear and put you on the backfoot. Companies
will spend $$$$ to not have people like him accuse them of being
uninclusive or whatever.
Being inclusive is the dumbest strategy I've ever seen. The public
school I'm at has no choice but to be inclusive and accept all of what
the people living here have to offer. The result is that the school is
ranked near the bottom of the list for academic excellence. There's a
reason private schools outperform the public ones all the time:
excluding obvious garbage is a winning strategy. How to know what's
garbage? Give potential students a test.
But you can't do that, can you? You see, providing a test written black
on white on a paper without even looking at what the student looks like
is "racist" because blacks and brown-skinned people don't succeed as
well. It's not the person's fault. No, no, the test is racist!
On 2025-05-01, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-01 09:54, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 21:22, % wrote:
vallor wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 00:25:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiroi'm glad you support them
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vurqlr$2utdn$2@dont-email.me>:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
Unfortunately, they are all over the Usenet.
(And some not-so-closet Nazis...)
Just when I was considering unblocking him. In his opinion, anyone who >>>> is or supports conservatives is a Nazi, even though Hitler himself was >>>> nowhere near conservative and neither was his party.
He'll have to entertain himself with the effeminate posts by Joel and
Chris Ahlstrom because I doubt that anyone else is excited by how he
updated his kernel.
I don't think they really believe that. Its a useful rhetorical device
when you want to wield power. In the past, people would change tracks
and try to disprove this spurious allegations, which gave them moral and >>> political leverage. This is why so many organisations have let them in, >>> just a little, to stop the accusations. Its not a statement of fact, or >>> genuine, its to illicit fear and put you on the backfoot. Companies
will spend $$$$ to not have people like him accuse them of being
uninclusive or whatever.
Being inclusive is the dumbest strategy I've ever seen. The public
school I'm at has no choice but to be inclusive and accept all of what
the people living here have to offer. The result is that the school is
ranked near the bottom of the list for academic excellence. There's a
reason private schools outperform the public ones all the time:
excluding obvious garbage is a winning strategy. How to know what's
garbage? Give potential students a test.
But you can't do that, can you? You see, providing a test written black
on white on a paper without even looking at what the student looks like
is "racist" because blacks and brown-skinned people don't succeed as
well. It's not the person's fault. No, no, the test is racist!
It's a big beat up really. Just treat people with the respect they
deserve (not I didn't say just treat people with respect). Some people
try to find problems, and when you deliberately go rooting for problems, you'll find them. So everyone tries hard to avoid being accused. It's a racket. If you can convince everyone that systemic racism is
everywhere, you can charge $$$$$ to "fix" the problem with your
workshops and speeches. The fact is, scared people are throwing money
at them, scared devs are allowing them into software projects to "fix"
them. Scared companies are putting their programs in place for fear of
being sued, or having bad press.
This is why in Australia, and I'm sure in the US, the casting for
television commercials seems to be done very carefully to avoid any
potential accusations of not being inclusive. Few believe in this
stuff, they're just trying to avoid being called bad names. It leads
people to make bad, bad mistakes.
On 2025-05-01 10:15, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:24, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
To be honest, it was many years of using a PC before I too understood
that there could be a viable alternative on the PC, and I was more "tech >>>> literate" than average. This was in the 90s. I knew of OS2 and some
toy OS's. I started to get annoyed with Windows, and desire features
and abilities that it was lacking. When I found that Linux was a thing, >>>> it kind of mostly met what I was looking for (more power!).
I was always curious, so it didn't take long for me to learn that there
were things other than DOS back in the day. I got acquainted with
Windows 3.0 fairly quickly, learned abut MacOS quickly thereafter and
soon developed an interest in OS/2 since my nerdy cousin assured me that >>> it was better than everything under the sun. Admittedly, I remained in
the Windows camp during that time but kept trying Linux out from about
1994 or 1995 on. I recall installing Slackware on my PC through
floppies, but I had no idea how to get much done. I tried again in 1998, >>> but I couldn't get sound to work and the resolution couldn't get past
800x600 (I had no idea what I was doing). By 1999, I was ready to move
but Linux itself wasn't entirely ready for what I wanted to do. I only
really started using it as the main OS on my Dell laptop around 2008 (it >>> worked great on that), but even then I kept Windows as my overall main
operating system. Once the PRISM revelations emerged, my interest in
Linux grew and I kept trying to make it my default operating system with >>> various degrees of success. Now, I can confidently say that there are
way more benefits than there are drawbacks, no matter what hardware I
run it on.
I had seen references to Linux here and there on the Internet in the
late 90s, but I just supposed that as a system I would not either be
able to run it, or make good use of it. I was invested in DOS, DOS
games and programs, programming in DOS so while I didn't like Windows
much, I wasn't that interested in leaving the ecosystem I did
understand.
However by 1999-2000, after having to reinstall windows again and again,
and knowing that staying in the past wasn't the way forward, thats when
I took Linux seriously, after hearing a bit more about it. I still knew
very little, except it was good for the Internet and that it might be
good for "power users".
I was browsing a newsagency late 2000, saw a copy of Linux Format with a
Definite Linux 7.0 cover disk and decided to give it a try. Then I
learned about it being a Unix close, about the Free Software movement,
and saw a bit more of a world of computing, with a long history that I
had seen references to, but was now a part of.
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has
the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and
claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board.
Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should.
I found Linux to be just as crashy as Windows in the late 90s. I had
hope that BeOS might penetrate the market since it was a lot more robust >>> than the two, but it went nowhere. I would say that Linux's core was
always quite stable but everything atop it not so much. In my opinion,
it only became rock solid in the last decade or so.
That was my experience too. When I first used it, programs would just
dissapear, and leave a "core" file. Individual programs DID crash more
than in Windows, but they rarely took the system down with it. There
were fewer crashes on Windows, but they were often more catastrophic,
taking everything down with it. A Linux program crash, well, it just
vanished. At least everything else was usually untouchged. When I
found I could telnet into the system, on the occasions the screen did
freeze, I could either kill the process, kill X, or shut the system
down, at least avoiding an unclean unmount.
But I would say by Red Hat 7.3 (the 2003 one), it was much better, and
improved since then. As has, admittedly, Windows, though it has other
janky behaviour.
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly
on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine
for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or
so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an
update or corrupted system files.
On Thu, 1 May 2025 14:24:24 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in <slrn101710o.2qk.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:I've seen women get assaulted by these people. I've witnessed it first
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax ManThe "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know >>>> it.
<rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote in
<slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of >>>>>>>>> it.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps >>>>>>>>>>>> did to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a >>>>>>>>>>>> mess.
You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, >>>>>>>>>> but I think I've got it all cleared now.
A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. >>>>>>>>> Heck, it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just >>>>>>>> happy to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. >>>>>>>> Ubuntu is not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It >>>>>>>> was more in the line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't
particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome >>>>>>>> 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of
Ubuntu's interface. However, I won't bother with it if the
contributors are proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist
organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an
organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a
boogieman; then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower >>>>> was "Antifa". Oooo, scary.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in >>>> the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves
as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a
dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a
heroic country to them. They're far left in their politics and will
gladly rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA
movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and
it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow.
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD
sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe
they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their
weight around. Who knows.
What we have here is a case of parataxic distortion -- that is to say, stereotyping.
You know almost nothing about me. You also know almost nothing about
"Crude Sausage" or RonB, either, and at least the former has no issue
with using racial slurs, something I find both extremist and uncalled-for.
The problem is extremism. Unfortunately, politics are so polarized now
that it's difficult to have a meaningful dialogue. Even in your invective, you've written about protests in the same sentence as shoving the elderly, the latter act which I find especially egregious. But protests?
Those are a human right. We've had at least two downtown since Trump
was elected. I get police updates via email, and have seen no reports
of arrests, either there or in the local paper.
But when it comes to politics in cola, I would much rather keep
it apolitical and areligious. This seems almost impossible, given
the discussions about (say) how "woke" the RC church was under
Pope Francis. As I said: the problem is extremism.
Regarding California: there's a lot of propaganda floating
around. There are farmers here, as well as business owners
for establishments of all sizes. If you think California
is all one big college campus -- think again, it's not like
that, any more than you are like Crocodile Dundee.
We are pretty smart, though -- the envy of the rest of the U.S.
Maybe that's why they tell so many stories about us. And
California just surpassed Japan as the 4th largest economy
in the world. I'm co-founder of a business that employs
over 800 people, so I'm part of making that happen.
So with all that out of the way: if you came across a
"Nazi" -- that is to say, a White Supremacist Nationalist -- who
was spouting his BS into your face, wouldn't you be tempted
to clock him, too?
For someone who was new, I didn't even know what these mysterious files
were! They just were yellow circles with faces, like a emojie with
croses for eyes and I think a tongue hanging out, as if dead. Or a
bomb. They just appeared on the filesystem and could be large.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a while to catch on.
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 18:14, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 17:11, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 10:21, Borax Man wrote:So is Lunduke basing his Antifa/Ubuntu connection theory on this one >>>>> contributor?
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did to myYou don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap stuff.
machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but I think
I've got it all cleared now.
There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. A
quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, it >>>>>>>>>> comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy to be
wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is not going
to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the line of... "even
the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is pretty good." (I'm still not
a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's
interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are proud
members of Antifa.
They are? Thats a concern if true.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation, >>>>>>> they fit the definition.
A contributor proudly announced that Gnome is Antifa on blogs.gnome.org. >>>>>
It should be mentioned that the word "ubuntu" had a "philosophical" (almost
religious) meaning before it was used as the name for a Linux distribution.
The fact that Canonical choose this name probably indicates their belief >>>>> bias, but I haven't seen any evidence of an official Ubuntu/Antifa
connection.
If I'm wrong, point me to the link or documentation.
The connection is between Antifa and Gnome, not Ubuntu. However, this is >>>> pretty consistent with some of the things that have been reported in the >>>> past about Gnome and its woke policies. If he provides a direct link to >>>> the post eventually, I'll copy it here.
Okay. Thanks.
I found it through a routine search in Brave:
<https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2025/04/23/the-elephant-in-the-room/>
Here is the paragraph:
"One important thing to note is that nobody involved is against Codes of
Conduct. The problem here is the Foundation’s structural dysfunction,
bad leadership, and the way the CoC was used in this case as a result.
I’m aware of the charged nature of the subject, and the potential for
feeding right wing narratives, but I think it’s also important to not
let that deter us from discussing these very real issues. But just to be
extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
But this is not Gnome officially speaking. It's someone associated with
Gnome whining because Gnome got rid of someone that he apparently respected. They guy who is attacking the Gnome Foundation is the one who wrote "Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
And this blog is, apparently, so "influential" that there has been a total
of seven responses to this post. And the responses from other Gnome people have not all been supportive.
Was it really necessary to call right wing people nazis? does this kind
of talk benefit anyone?
And...
You lost me when you said “Fuck Nazis. GNOME is Antifa”. Tell me in what
way Antifa is any different to the Nazi Brownshirts in 1930’s Germany? I
think it would be more accurate to say:
“Fuck Nazis. Antifa is Nazi”.
I don't what the issue is here, or who Sonny is or why he was (apparently) banned from Gnome, but this blogger (who, notice, is opposing Gnome here) is the one who called Gnome Antifa. So, again, Lunduke is click baiting and taking a quote out of context. This guy proves again that truth is not that important to him.
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 20:25, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
I don't care about the first part since idiots tend to think that
everyone who disagrees with them on anything is a Nazi. It's the second
part I can't stomach. If they're Antfia, I won't be using their software
and I definitely won't ever donate to them.
The "Gnome is Antifa" claim is one that Tobias Bernard is making in his personal blog and HE'S the one who is mad at the Gnome Foundation for some reason. So, apparently, Gnome is not doing what he wants them to do. This indicates that not everyone at Gnome is an unhinged, Woke moron.
On 2025-04-30, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >>> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. >>> It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
Heck, even Germany claims to be a "democracy" but they're "intelligence" arm has just declared the most popular party in Germany, AfD, "extremist" — which is probably their first step in banning Germans' voting choice in upcoming elections. Look what "democracies" in Romania and Moldova have done recently, banning popular office holders and candidates because they don't toe the Woke line. And ditto the so-called "democracy" of Ukraine (totally banning the opposition, the opposition media and jailing many of its members). "Democracy" has many "flexible" meanings these days. Basically dictatorship wolves in "democratic" lambs' clothing. And they're not even really bothering to hide it any more. It's a sick joke.
On 2025-05-02 11:20, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has
the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and
claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board.
Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its
benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the
operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should. >>>
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of
support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the
dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the
computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at
least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get
much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified
source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this
evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills
to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for
something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have
choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things
together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience,
NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom.
I enjoy the freedom of knowing that the operating system I am running
today will run just as well on this machine in five years. People don't realize how refreshing that it until they start realizing how much money they've been spending on technology, trying to keep up over a decade or
so. Things become obsolete, but there is no reason for them to be
replaced within three years the way that they used to in the 90s. Linux allows us to prevent that from happening.
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly
on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old
AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine >>> for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or >>> so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an
update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my
system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make,
like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full
screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what
you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from
Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install
an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to
jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two
computers to Debian.
Funny enough, the one feature I find most useful in Linux is the cursor automatically becoming gigantic if you lose track of it. When I want to highlight a word or a text to kids who see a duplicate of my screen,
simply jiggling my mouse around makes the cursor huge. It seems so
trivial, but it's a fantastic feature of KDE for teaching. I can manage losing some customization myself, but only because I got used to it from
the constant formatting of the 1990s. With age, it is admittedly
becoming more of a chore which is partly why I set up Timeshift to
ensure that I can keep my desktop running.
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as >> was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
On 2025-05-02 20:11, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 11:20, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has >>>>> the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and >>>>> claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board. >>>>> Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its >>>>> benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the >>>>> operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should. >>>>>
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of >>>> support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the
dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the
computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at
least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get >>>> much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified
source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this >>>> evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills >>>> to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for >>>> something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have
choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things
together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience, >>>> NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom.
I enjoy the freedom of knowing that the operating system I am running
today will run just as well on this machine in five years. People don't
realize how refreshing that it until they start realizing how much money >>> they've been spending on technology, trying to keep up over a decade or
so. Things become obsolete, but there is no reason for them to be
replaced within three years the way that they used to in the 90s. Linux
allows us to prevent that from happening.
The desktop I'm typing this message on, I build in 2009. I have not had
a need to upgrade, except for a scant few games I would not mind
playing. Just a few games, thats it. Because I don't game, there is no
other issue, at all, with having this "old" PC. It runs fine in every
other way.
This was why when my wife wanted a new Apple, I talked her into a Linux
box. WE don't want to be in the situation where software goes obsolete,
and the new OS cannot be installed anymore.
That's the kind of life I want to have. Constantly buying new hardware
is just ridiculous, especially since the demands of technology aren't changing all that much. Web sites are mostly the same today as they were
back then, only video games are becoming increasingly demanding (all the while not looking any different).
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s >>>>> and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly >>>>> on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old >>>>> AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine >>>>> for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or >>>>> so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an
update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my >>>> system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make,
like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full
screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what >>>> you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from
Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install >>>> an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to >>>> jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two
computers to Debian.
Funny enough, the one feature I find most useful in Linux is the cursor
automatically becoming gigantic if you lose track of it. When I want to
highlight a word or a text to kids who see a duplicate of my screen,
simply jiggling my mouse around makes the cursor huge. It seems so
trivial, but it's a fantastic feature of KDE for teaching. I can manage
losing some customization myself, but only because I got used to it from >>> the constant formatting of the 1990s. With age, it is admittedly
becoming more of a chore which is partly why I set up Timeshift to
ensure that I can keep my desktop running.
The last time I had to reinstall a system because it broke was over 20
years ago. And when that happened, I probably could have fixed it, but
I didn't take backups (bad idea!).
My daughter has a laptop for school with Windows 11. Today its going to
become a dual boot machine. I'm a little undecided on the distro, either
Linux Mint, Linux Mint Debian edition or plain Debian.
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 11:20, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has
the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and
claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board.
Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its
benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the
operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should. >>>>
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of
support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the
dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the
computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at
least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get >>> much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified
source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this
evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills
to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for >>> something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have
choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things
together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience,
NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom.
I enjoy the freedom of knowing that the operating system I am running
today will run just as well on this machine in five years. People don't
realize how refreshing that it until they start realizing how much money
they've been spending on technology, trying to keep up over a decade or
so. Things become obsolete, but there is no reason for them to be
replaced within three years the way that they used to in the 90s. Linux
allows us to prevent that from happening.
The desktop I'm typing this message on, I build in 2009. I have not had
a need to upgrade, except for a scant few games I would not mind
playing. Just a few games, thats it. Because I don't game, there is no other issue, at all, with having this "old" PC. It runs fine in every
other way.
This was why when my wife wanted a new Apple, I talked her into a Linux
box. WE don't want to be in the situation where software goes obsolete,
and the new OS cannot be installed anymore.
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s
and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly >>>> on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old >>>> AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine >>>> for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or >>>> so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an
update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my
system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make,
like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full
screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what
you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from
Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install >>> an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to
jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two
computers to Debian.
Funny enough, the one feature I find most useful in Linux is the cursor
automatically becoming gigantic if you lose track of it. When I want to
highlight a word or a text to kids who see a duplicate of my screen,
simply jiggling my mouse around makes the cursor huge. It seems so
trivial, but it's a fantastic feature of KDE for teaching. I can manage
losing some customization myself, but only because I got used to it from
the constant formatting of the 1990s. With age, it is admittedly
becoming more of a chore which is partly why I set up Timeshift to
ensure that I can keep my desktop running.
The last time I had to reinstall a system because it broke was over 20
years ago. And when that happened, I probably could have fixed it, but
I didn't take backups (bad idea!).
My daughter has a laptop for school with Windows 11. Today its going to become a dual boot machine. I'm a little undecided on the distro, either Linux Mint, Linux Mint Debian edition or plain Debian.
On 2025-04-30, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> >>> wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is
pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are
proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation,
they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization. >>> It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman;
then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa".
Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know
it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in
the name...
Heck, even Germany claims to be a "democracy" but they're "intelligence" arm has just declared the most popular party in Germany, AfD, "extremist" — which is probably their first step in banning Germans' voting choice in upcoming elections. Look what "democracies" in Romania and Moldova have done recently, banning popular office holders and candidates because they don't toe the Woke line. And ditto the so-called "democracy" of Ukraine (totally banning the opposition, the opposition media and jailing many of its members). "Democracy" has many "flexible" meanings these days. Basically dictatorship wolves in "democratic" lambs' clothing. And they're not even really bothering to hide it any more. It's a sick joke.
On 2025-05-01, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-30, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-30 06:10, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is >>>>>>>> pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are >>>>>>> proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation, >>>>>> they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman; >>>>> then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa". >>>>> Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know >>>> it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in >>>> the name...
As far as I know, fat vallor is from San Francisco. They see themselves
as heroes because they let their homeless create tent cities and take a
dump anywhere they want on the street. I'm sure all of India is a heroic >>> country to them. They're far left in their politics and will gladly
rewrite history to fit their beliefs.
I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this
imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA
movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and
it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow.
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD
sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe
they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their
weight around. Who knows.
I'm an American and I'm already fed up with Trump's bullshit attempts at bullying everyone worldwide — and of his idiot claims about the U.S.'s superiority. (Latest claim is that the U.S. did most of the heavy fighting
in WWII ("by far the bravest"), while 27 million Russians died in that war. If Trump's hyperinflated ego was a brain, he'd be an Einstein on steroids. Unfortunately his ego is made up of hot air and bullshit. And, like an oscillating fan, he changes direction about every five seconds.
I know in the big scheme of things his attempt at unilaterally renaming the the Gulf of Mexico, the "Gulf of America" is small potatoes next to his other, more dangerous, stupidity, but it does highlight the idiot's ego. Now he's "demanding" that both the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal allow U.S. ships free passage.
And, of course, I'm also fed up with California Woke bullcrap, but right now I'm more worried about Trump's BS.
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as >>> was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress >>> his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:11, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 11:20, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has >>>>>> the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and >>>>>> claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board. >>>>>> Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing
software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its >>>>>> benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the >>>>>> operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should. >>>>>>
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of >>>>> support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the >>>>> dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the
computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at
least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get >>>>> much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified >>>>> source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this >>>>> evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills >>>>> to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for >>>>> something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have >>>>> choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things
together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience, >>>>> NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom.
I enjoy the freedom of knowing that the operating system I am running
today will run just as well on this machine in five years. People don't >>>> realize how refreshing that it until they start realizing how much money >>>> they've been spending on technology, trying to keep up over a decade or >>>> so. Things become obsolete, but there is no reason for them to be
replaced within three years the way that they used to in the 90s. Linux >>>> allows us to prevent that from happening.
The desktop I'm typing this message on, I build in 2009. I have not had >>> a need to upgrade, except for a scant few games I would not mind
playing. Just a few games, thats it. Because I don't game, there is no >>> other issue, at all, with having this "old" PC. It runs fine in every
other way.
This was why when my wife wanted a new Apple, I talked her into a Linux
box. WE don't want to be in the situation where software goes obsolete, >>> and the new OS cannot be installed anymore.
That's the kind of life I want to have. Constantly buying new hardware
is just ridiculous, especially since the demands of technology aren't
changing all that much. Web sites are mostly the same today as they were
back then, only video games are becoming increasingly demanding (all the
while not looking any different).
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s >>>>>> and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly >>>>>> on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old >>>>>> AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine >>>>>> for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or >>>>>> so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an >>>>>> update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my >>>>> system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make, >>>>> like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full
screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what >>>>> you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from >>>>> Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install >>>>> an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to >>>>> jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two
computers to Debian.
Funny enough, the one feature I find most useful in Linux is the cursor >>>> automatically becoming gigantic if you lose track of it. When I want to >>>> highlight a word or a text to kids who see a duplicate of my screen,
simply jiggling my mouse around makes the cursor huge. It seems so
trivial, but it's a fantastic feature of KDE for teaching. I can manage >>>> losing some customization myself, but only because I got used to it from >>>> the constant formatting of the 1990s. With age, it is admittedly
becoming more of a chore which is partly why I set up Timeshift to
ensure that I can keep my desktop running.
The last time I had to reinstall a system because it broke was over 20
years ago. And when that happened, I probably could have fixed it, but
I didn't take backups (bad idea!).
My daughter has a laptop for school with Windows 11. Today its going to >>> become a dual boot machine. I'm a little undecided on the distro, either >>> Linux Mint, Linux Mint Debian edition or plain Debian.
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
She doesn't know much about computers. Was an Apple user since
childhood, so it was just a habit. She didn't like the fact that the
browser broke, because it couldn't be updated, because the OS couldn't
be updated. I said that she can get a new Apple for $$$$ and face the
same situation again, but my system, which I built once, runs and runs
and runs and stays up to date. She then left it to me to choose a
system which would just work.
As all she does is web browse, and look at photos, and I know how to troubleshoot Linux, and don't know MacOS, I made the decision. So far
so good. One niggling issue with Plasma detecting false clicks, but the
next update (When she lets me install it) should fix it. Really, if you
live entirely in the browser, you don't need the Apple Premium.
On 2025-04-30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:37:14 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
"But just to be extra clear: Fuck Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
Who could possibly object to that?
Except perhaps closet Nazis ...
You think the violent asswipes at Antifa are to be admired?
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
Lucky I'm in Australia then! We'll, we have our own problems, namely
that the government decided that we shouldn't be able to afford a roof
over our head, and that our cities need to become overcrowded slums
ASAP.
Heck, even Germany claims to be a "democracy" but they're "intelligence"
arm has just declared the most popular party in Germany, AfD,
"extremist" — which is probably their first step in banning Germans'
voting choice in upcoming elections. Look what "democracies" in Romania
and Moldova have done recently, banning popular office holders and
candidates because they don't toe the Woke line. And ditto the so-called "democracy" of Ukraine (totally banning the opposition, the opposition
media and jailing many of its members). "Democracy" has many "flexible" meanings these days. Basically dictatorship wolves in "democratic"
lambs' clothing. And they're not even really bothering to hide it any
more. It's a sick joke.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as >>>> was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress >>>> his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
On 2025-05-03, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:[*snip*]
On 2025-05-02, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-01, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm Australian, things are different here, and many Americans have this >>>> imperialistic, domanting mentality where they think the entire world
must adopt their values, their culture, their beliefs, their way of
thinking. I don't hate America, but it irks me to see the American MAGA >>>> movement copied here (look up Trumpet of Patriots for some cringe), and >>>> it also irks me to see Californians, or American Coastal elites more
broadly, act as if they have moral authority to make us adopt their
rather parochial and extreme values. Unfortunately, Australians follow. >>>>
It's sad that people like him don't realise that the REST OF THE WORLD >>>> sees these city dwelling Californians as loopy. They honestly believe >>>> they represent socity and the world. Its just...odd... A delusion.
Perhaps only existing because Big Tech is there and they can throw their >>>> weight around. Who knows.
I'm an American and I'm already fed up with Trump's bullshit attempts at >>> bullying everyone worldwide — and of his idiot claims about the U.S.'s >>> superiority. (Latest claim is that the U.S. did most of the heavy fighting >>> in WWII ("by far the bravest"), while 27 million Russians died in that war. >>> If Trump's hyperinflated ego was a brain, he'd be an Einstein on steroids. >>> Unfortunately his ego is made up of hot air and bullshit. And, like an
oscillating fan, he changes direction about every five seconds.
I know in the big scheme of things his attempt at unilaterally renaming the >>> the Gulf of Mexico, the "Gulf of America" is small potatoes next to his
other, more dangerous, stupidity, but it does highlight the idiot's ego. Now
he's "demanding" that both the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal allow U.S. >>> ships free passage.
And, of course, I'm also fed up with California Woke bullcrap, but right now
I'm more worried about Trump's BS.
Lucky I'm in Australia then! We'll, we have our own problems, namely
that the government decided that we shouldn't be able to afford a roof
over our head, and that our cities need to become overcrowded slums
ASAP.
We've got the same issue with roofs over our heads issue in this country.
The family home is rapidly being rapidly replaced by apartments and "town houses," with no property for gardens or self-sufficiency of any kind. The percentage of those who own their own homes keeps dropping.
"You'll own nothing and like it" as Klaus Schwab (who definitely owns a lot) was fond of saying. Funny how these wannabe world rulers never apply their Woke BS to themselves. Self-centered hypocrites.
On 2025-05-02 21:02, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:11, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 11:20, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
I enjoy the freedom of knowing that the operating system I am running >>>>> today will run just as well on this machine in five years. People don't >>>>> realize how refreshing that it until they start realizing how much money >>>>> they've been spending on technology, trying to keep up over a decade or >>>>> so. Things become obsolete, but there is no reason for them to beI think that Linux would have been adopted faster in the late 90s has >>>>>>> the Linux zealots at the time not been lying through their teeth and >>>>>>> claiming that Linux was stable and worked perfectly across the board. >>>>>>> Most people didn't know a thing about repositories and installing >>>>>>> software through, didn't understand what open-source was and what its >>>>>>> benefits could be and definitely weren't open to persevering with the >>>>>>> operating system when their hardware didn't work the way that it should.
I don't think that would have made much of a difference. With lack of >>>>>> support for hardware, and games, and MS Office, I think they were the >>>>>> dealbreakers. I do think they were a bit, not dishonest, but
misleading. It was said that Linux helped you learn more about the >>>>>> computer, but in really you learn about Linux, not the computer (at >>>>>> least not the hardware, that is abstracted away from you).
The whole "Free Software" thing was also a big misdirect. You don't get >>>>>> much freedom from being able to modify and redistribute the modified >>>>>> source code. I started using Linux before I knew about this, but this >>>>>> evangelism was mostly meaningless to people who didn't have the skills >>>>>> to actually make significant change to the kernel, or any of the
programs. I felt this "benefit" was just Linux evangelists reaching for >>>>>> something, and being unaware, by design, of reality.
Linux (and Unix like systems) actually offer freedom because you have >>>>>> choices of workflows, of tools, and you are able to compose things >>>>>> together. The freedom comes because you can craft your own experience, >>>>>> NOT because of the GPL. Too much was made of the GPL being freedom. >>>>>
replaced within three years the way that they used to in the 90s. Linux >>>>> allows us to prevent that from happening.
The desktop I'm typing this message on, I build in 2009. I have not had >>>> a need to upgrade, except for a scant few games I would not mind
playing. Just a few games, thats it. Because I don't game, there is no >>>> other issue, at all, with having this "old" PC. It runs fine in every >>>> other way.
This was why when my wife wanted a new Apple, I talked her into a Linux >>>> box. WE don't want to be in the situation where software goes obsolete, >>>> and the new OS cannot be installed anymore.
That's the kind of life I want to have. Constantly buying new hardware
is just ridiculous, especially since the demands of technology aren't
changing all that much. Web sites are mostly the same today as they were >>> back then, only video games are becoming increasingly demanding (all the >>> while not looking any different).
I had a lot of luck with the SUSE Linux versions back in the late 90s >>>>>>> and early 2000s. Tumbleweed was also the first Linux to work perfectly >>>>>>> on my old MSI for suspend (admittedly, Linux worked perfectly on my old >>>>>>> AMD-centric Dell laptop in the late 2000s). Windows has always been fine
for me, but I would also reinstall that thing once every three months or
so. Even in that short time though, it managed to screw up from an >>>>>>> update or corrupted system files.
I could not stand at all, formatting and reinstalling. I customise my >>>>>> system, and losing all those settings, those small changes you make, >>>>>> like that file I added to stop the windows key screwing up the full >>>>>> screen DOS prompt. You've got to do them all again, and remember what >>>>>> you did. That was one of my top 3 pet peeves that moved me away from >>>>>> Windows. Perhaps top one. I very, very rarely reinstall. One I install >>>>>> an OS, I expect it to remain until the computer dies. I've only
reinstalled Linux maybe three times in the last 10 -15 years. Once to >>>>>> jump from Fedora 11 to 18 or something, the other two to switch two >>>>>> computers to Debian.
Funny enough, the one feature I find most useful in Linux is the cursor >>>>> automatically becoming gigantic if you lose track of it. When I want to >>>>> highlight a word or a text to kids who see a duplicate of my screen, >>>>> simply jiggling my mouse around makes the cursor huge. It seems so
trivial, but it's a fantastic feature of KDE for teaching. I can manage >>>>> losing some customization myself, but only because I got used to it from >>>>> the constant formatting of the 1990s. With age, it is admittedly
becoming more of a chore which is partly why I set up Timeshift to
ensure that I can keep my desktop running.
The last time I had to reinstall a system because it broke was over 20 >>>> years ago. And when that happened, I probably could have fixed it, but >>>> I didn't take backups (bad idea!).
My daughter has a laptop for school with Windows 11. Today its going to >>>> become a dual boot machine. I'm a little undecided on the distro, either >>>> Linux Mint, Linux Mint Debian edition or plain Debian.
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
She doesn't know much about computers. Was an Apple user since
childhood, so it was just a habit. She didn't like the fact that the
browser broke, because it couldn't be updated, because the OS couldn't
be updated. I said that she can get a new Apple for $$$$ and face the
same situation again, but my system, which I built once, runs and runs
and runs and stays up to date. She then left it to me to choose a
system which would just work.
As all she does is web browse, and look at photos, and I know how to
troubleshoot Linux, and don't know MacOS, I made the decision. So far
so good. One niggling issue with Plasma detecting false clicks, but the
next update (When she lets me install it) should fix it. Really, if you
live entirely in the browser, you don't need the Apple Premium.
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why
Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the
photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it
for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded
when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one
would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft
or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from
even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If you
bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would
have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the
same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps
that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high
price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At
some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine
needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot
of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:03:01 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
For someone who was new, I didn't even know what these mysterious files
were! They just were yellow circles with faces, like a emojie with
croses for eyes and I think a tongue hanging out, as if dead. Or a
bomb. They just appeared on the filesystem and could be large.
I think it might have been SUSE but if you ran as root the background
changed to a red field with big black smoking bombs like the ones seen in cartoons.
I think Ubuntu was the first distro I ran into where root sort of disappeared.
If you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 18:49, RonB wrote:<snips>
But this is not Gnome officially speaking. It's someone associated with
Gnome whining because Gnome got rid of someone that he apparently respected.
They guy who is attacking the Gnome Foundation is the one who wrote "Fuck >>> Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
And this blog is, apparently, so "influential" that there has been a total >>> of seven responses to this post. And the responses from other Gnome people >>> have not all been supportive.
Was it really necessary to call right wing people nazis? does this kind
of talk benefit anyone?
And...
You lost me when you said “Fuck Nazis. GNOME is Antifa”. Tell me in what
way Antifa is any different to the Nazi Brownshirts in 1930’s Germany? I
think it would be more accurate to say:
“Fuck Nazis. Antifa is Nazi”.
I don't what the issue is here, or who Sonny is or why he was (apparently) >>> banned from Gnome, but this blogger (who, notice, is opposing Gnome here) is
the one who called Gnome Antifa. So, again, Lunduke is click baiting and >>> taking a quote out of context. This guy proves again that truth is not that >>> important to him.
Like I said, it's not the first time that GNOME has been associated with
leftist politics. This is just the latest edition. At this point, I'm
glad to stay away from them. Besides, I actually prefer KDE.
As of yet, I haven't yet of KDE having any kind of brain-dead Marxists
pushing their garbage on the project.
I don't doubt that Gnome can be linked to leftist politics, but that's a far cry from insinuating "Gnome is Antifa" as if the Gnome Foundation is officially endorsing these violent Antifa morons.
This appears to be just more Lunduke lying by omission in order to create click bait. I don't like dishonest bullshit like this.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 20:15:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
When you have on-site tech support... There is a video of Torvalds saying how he has to support the wife and kids and he isn't too good at Linux administration so he tries to keep them on the same distro.
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 19:15, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 14:21:25 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
wrote in <slrn1011o35.46v.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh>:
On 2025-04-29, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-29 02:15, RonB wrote:They are? Thats a concern if true.
On 2025-04-28, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-04-28 16:01, RonB wrote:
On 2025-04-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:There is a script you can use to automatically rid your system of it. >>>>>>>>> A quick search on your engine of choice will find it for you. Heck, >>>>>>>>> it comes up at the top of the results in Brave Search.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 08:49:54 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I'll admit that I didn't notice all of what installing Snaps did >>>>>>>>>>>> to my machine, but I could definitely tell that it was a mess. >>>>>>>>>>>You don't want to run 'df -a'. I'm up to /dev/loop62 for snap >>>>>>>>>>> stuff.
It took me a while to root all that snap crap out of my system, but >>>>>>>>>> I think I've got it all cleared now.
If I get more involved with Ubuntu I'll look it up. I was just happy >>>>>>>> to be wrong about some of my Ubuntu and Wayland assumptions. Ubuntu is >>>>>>>> not going to become my "go to" Linux distribution. It was more in the >>>>>>>> line of... "even the Linux 'flavor' I don't particularly like is >>>>>>>> pretty good." (I'm still not a fan of Gnome 3.)
I wasn't a fan, but I was happy to use it because I'm a fan of Ubuntu's >>>>>>> interface. However, I won't bother with it if the contributors are >>>>>>> proud members of Antifa.
I'm not sure why Antifa are not labelled as a terrorist organisation, >>>>>> they fit the definition.
That's because Antifa -- literally "Anti-fascist" -- isn't an organization.
It's a movement -- like skateboarding.
And I love it when people invoke Antifa (anti-fascists) as a boogieman; >>>>> then you know where they stand. For example: Eisenhower was "Antifa". >>>>> Oooo, scary.
The "antifa" of today have nothing to do with Eisenhower, and you know >>>> it.
Its a movement, like drug cartels.
You know, North Korea calls itself a democracy. IT must be one, its in >>>> the name...
Heck, even Germany claims to be a "democracy" but they're "intelligence" arm
has just declared the most popular party in Germany, AfD, "extremist" — >>> which is probably their first step in banning Germans' voting choice in
upcoming elections. Look what "democracies" in Romania and Moldova have done
recently, banning popular office holders and candidates because they don't >>> toe the Woke line. And ditto the so-called "democracy" of Ukraine (totally >>> banning the opposition, the opposition media and jailing many of its
members). "Democracy" has many "flexible" meanings these days. Basically >>> dictatorship wolves in "democratic" lambs' clothing. And they're not even >>> really bothering to hide it any more. It's a sick joke.
Wokism has begun to infiltrate the rather conservative Polish nation
too. Right now, it has only infected the cities but as we know here in
Canada, those cities usually decide elections. It doesn't matter what
most of the country will be against the idiocy and would rather stick to
Catholic values because blue-haired girl and their closet homosexual
boyfriends are intent on ruining everything for everyone because of some
imagine past injustice.
And once the Woke get in office, they make up phony accusations to either jail their opponents or keep them from running for office. The same thing they tried to do to Trump in the United States. Wokism is fundamentally a dishonest, petty, chickenshit, communist movement. And they use Antifa
morons as their knee-capping thugs.
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>>>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress >>>>> his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at >>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far
its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't
use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to
BTRFS.
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why
Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the
photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it
for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded
when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one
would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft
or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from
even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
That was exactly our rationale. $2000 for Apple, or about $600 for a
decent refurbished Thinkpad, to do the EXACT SAME THING. It was a
no-brainer really.
And yes, the "on site tech support" is a feature, and does matter. She wanted to play "Carmen San Deigo", on the laptop, knowing how the system worked, it was easy for me to install DosBox and set up a script which
went straight into the game from an icon. The "How do I" question gets
an answer.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If you
bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would
have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the
same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps
that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high
price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At
some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine
needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot
of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I
usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time.
If you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
If you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
I think Ubuntu was the first distro I ran into where root sort of
disappeared.
$ sudo su
On 2025-05-03 00:02, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 20:15:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
When you have on-site tech support... There is a video of Torvalds
saying how he has to support the wife and kids and he isn't too good at
Linux administration so he tries to keep them on the same distro.
Admittedly, it would be strange if Torvalds's own family didn't use
Linux. I'm wondering what they use as a distribution.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 08:16:38 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-05-03 00:02, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 20:15:40 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
She agreed to using Linux? Women are harder to sell on the idea.
When you have on-site tech support... There is a video of Torvalds
saying how he has to support the wife and kids and he isn't too good at
Linux administration so he tries to keep them on the same distro.
Admittedly, it would be strange if Torvalds's own family didn't use
Linux. I'm wondering what they use as a distribution.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SofmXIYvGM
This is where he talks about maintaining his family's computers. He
doesn't like Debian or Ubuntu but doesn't say what he does use. The video
is from 2014 but he goes on to talk about political correctness and other topics of interest. About 25 minutes in he implies he uses GNOME although
his desktop is bare bones. He never says in this talk but other places say
he uses Fedora. He does mention Debian libraries are so old nothing
written in this century will compile on it. Hyperbole but it does suggest
he prefers being on the cutting edge.
Some of the application problems he talks about may have been addressed by flatpak, snap, or AppImage in part.
He has some remarks on GPL v3 and the FSF.
Regardless of what his current thoughts on the FSF are, there is no
doubt in my mind that Linux wouldn't have gotten to where it is today
without its support. I'm also not surprised that he's not using Ubuntu.
For many, it feels like a crime to use it.
For the Gates and Schwabs of the world, we have a surplus of population
that needs to be drastically reduced. Of course they never volunteer to
lead the reducing action themselves. It's always someone else they're thinking about reducing, not the "elites."
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>>>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was >>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at >>>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but >>>> also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me, >>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference >>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long >>> term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far
its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't
use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to
BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives
me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping
that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll
just reinstall and use ext4.
On 2025-05-03 06:56, Borax Man wrote:
< snipped for brevity >
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why
Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the
photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it
for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded
when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one
would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft
or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from
even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
That was exactly our rationale. $2000 for Apple, or about $600 for a
decent refurbished Thinkpad, to do the EXACT SAME THING. It was a
no-brainer really.
And yes, the "on site tech support" is a feature, and does matter. She
wanted to play "Carmen San Deigo", on the laptop, knowing how the system
worked, it was easy for me to install DosBox and set up a script which
went straight into the game from an icon. The "How do I" question gets
an answer.
Playing DOS games is incredibly easy in Linux considering how many tools
they make available for that. Heck, even playing Windows games is easy.
Even if they were purchased on a service like GOG, you can use Heroic
Games Launcher to log in and play there. Right now, it has a minimal
audio issue, but you can use the "add automatically to Steam" feature to
load the game through the latter where no issues exist. As for my own
needs with laptop, they haven't changed since 2015. I still rip DVDs and Blu-Rays and I still use the same software that is available in Linux.
The 2021 computer does it faster than the 2015 machine, but it still
results in the same thing. It wasn't that slow on the 2015 machine
anyway. Using an old computer for my needs would be just fine.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If you
bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would
have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the
same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps
that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high
price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At
some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine
needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot
of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I
usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time.
If you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
You could video edit with older machines too, but I guess the people
doing that are incredibly impatient and will be glad to shell out
another $4k on an Apple machine that saves them thirty seconds from the previous one. I'm not that kind of person. I'll just wait those thirty seconds.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 19:45:13 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Regardless of what his current thoughts on the FSF are, there is no
doubt in my mind that Linux wouldn't have gotten to where it is today
without its support. I'm also not surprised that he's not using Ubuntu.
For many, it feels like a crime to use it.
If you watch the entire video, Torvalds' GPL 3 complaint has to do with tivoization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization
Torvalds' attitude is if you modify the code, send me the changes so I can see if there is anything worthwhile. Otherwise use it as you please. He
does mention he supports the EFF.
Stallman wasn't mentioned. Just as well since the moderator had previously cautioned people who were offended by vulgar language to leave the
session. There was an earlier back and forth about Torvalds questioning
how some people made it to adulthood since they were too stupid to find a teat to suck on.
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 01:27, RonB wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 18:49, RonB wrote:<snips>
But this is not Gnome officially speaking. It's someone associated with >>>>> Gnome whining because Gnome got rid of someone that he apparently respected.
They guy who is attacking the Gnome Foundation is the one who wrote "Fuck >>>>> Nazis, GNOME is Antifa."
And this blog is, apparently, so "influential" that there has been a total
of seven responses to this post. And the responses from other Gnome people
have not all been supportive.
Was it really necessary to call right wing people nazis? does this kind
of talk benefit anyone?
And...
You lost me when you said “Fuck Nazis. GNOME is Antifa”. Tell me in what
way Antifa is any different to the Nazi Brownshirts in 1930’s Germany? I
think it would be more accurate to say:
“Fuck Nazis. Antifa is Nazi”.
I don't what the issue is here, or who Sonny is or why he was (apparently)
banned from Gnome, but this blogger (who, notice, is opposing Gnome here) is
the one who called Gnome Antifa. So, again, Lunduke is click baiting and >>>>> taking a quote out of context. This guy proves again that truth is not that
important to him.
Like I said, it's not the first time that GNOME has been associated with >>>> leftist politics. This is just the latest edition. At this point, I'm
glad to stay away from them. Besides, I actually prefer KDE.
As of yet, I haven't yet of KDE having any kind of brain-dead Marxists >>>> pushing their garbage on the project.
I don't doubt that Gnome can be linked to leftist politics, but that's a far
cry from insinuating "Gnome is Antifa" as if the Gnome Foundation is
officially endorsing these violent Antifa morons.
This appears to be just more Lunduke lying by omission in order to create >>> click bait. I don't like dishonest bullshit like this.
Well, it's not really clickbait in my case since I already have a
lifetime subscription to his content. At this point, he doesn't make any
more money from me. Either way, I'm happy that he's pointing out what's
going on in the circles we don't automatically venture to. Without him
pointing it out, I wouldn't have any idea how leftist Mozilla or GNOME
are, and I wouldn't be aware of how much spying Firefox does by default.
I don't see any real reason to dislike him.
Reporting that there's a dispute on a Gnome blog about a pro-Antifa dink would be one thing. Insinuating that "Gnome is Antifa" is another. I don't like inaccurate headlines (I call them click bait.)
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>>>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>>>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was >>>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the >>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at >>>>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but >>>>> also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me, >>>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference >>>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long >>>> term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far
its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't
use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to
BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives
me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping
that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll
just reinstall and use ext4.
Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it. It's good, yes.
The snapshots are useful, but so are backups. It does introduce some
new administrative things you have to take care of.
I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed checksumming. It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
required.
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:56, Borax Man wrote:DosBox covers most DOS games, and its generally quite good. Almost as
< snipped for brevity >
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why
Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the >>>> photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it >>>> for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded
when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one
would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft >>>> or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from >>>> even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
That was exactly our rationale. $2000 for Apple, or about $600 for a
decent refurbished Thinkpad, to do the EXACT SAME THING. It was a
no-brainer really.
And yes, the "on site tech support" is a feature, and does matter. She
wanted to play "Carmen San Deigo", on the laptop, knowing how the system >>> worked, it was easy for me to install DosBox and set up a script which
went straight into the game from an icon. The "How do I" question gets
an answer.
Playing DOS games is incredibly easy in Linux considering how many tools
they make available for that. Heck, even playing Windows games is easy.
Even if they were purchased on a service like GOG, you can use Heroic
Games Launcher to log in and play there. Right now, it has a minimal
audio issue, but you can use the "add automatically to Steam" feature to
load the game through the latter where no issues exist. As for my own
needs with laptop, they haven't changed since 2015. I still rip DVDs and
Blu-Rays and I still use the same software that is available in Linux.
The 2021 computer does it faster than the 2015 machine, but it still
results in the same thing. It wasn't that slow on the 2015 machine
anyway. Using an old computer for my needs would be just fine.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If youIf you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would
have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the
same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps >>>> that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high
price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At
some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine
needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot >>>> of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I >>>> usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time. >>>
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
You could video edit with older machines too, but I guess the people
doing that are incredibly impatient and will be glad to shell out
another $4k on an Apple machine that saves them thirty seconds from the
previous one. I'm not that kind of person. I'll just wait those thirty
seconds.
good as the real hardware.
For windows, I have some games like Simcity 4 that work with
Wine/Lutris, but not so much under Windows.
In fact, I got DOOM 2016 working under Linux, where I couldn't get
Windows 7 installed on it at all.
On 2025-05-04 05:51, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every >>>>>>>>> publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was >>>>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the >>>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at >>>>>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but >>>>>> also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me, >>>>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files >>>>>> reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference >>>>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long >>>>> term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far
its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't
use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to
BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives
me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping
that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll
just reinstall and use ext4.
Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it. It's good, yes.
The snapshots are useful, but so are backups. It does introduce some
new administrative things you have to take care of.
I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed
checksumming. It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
required.
I can't say that I've ever had problems with ext4, but I also can't say
that I've ever had trouble with btrfs either. If I end up keeping it for
a long time on this laptop, I'll be able to form a, educated opinion
about how reliable btrfs is. I imagine that I might lose data here or
other, but I doubt it will ever be as bad as NTFS.
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as >>>> was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress >>>> his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 02:16 this Saturday (GMT):
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every
publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything >>>>>> else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its >>>>>> worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some >>>>> operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a >>>>> while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety
ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to >>>>> name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress >>>>> his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the
benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at >>>> all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files
reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for
snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
Keeping off-computer backups is also not a bad idea.
DosBox covers most DOS games, and its generally quite good. Almost as
good as the real hardware.
Keeping off-computer backups is also not a bad idea.
On 2025-05-04, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-04 05:51, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every >>>>>>>>>> publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was >>>>>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the >>>>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but >>>>>>> also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me, >>>>>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files >>>>>>> reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference >>>>>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long >>>>>> term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for >>>>>> snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that
Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far >>>>> its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't >>>>> use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to >>>>> BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives >>>> me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping >>>> that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll >>>> just reinstall and use ext4.
Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it. It's good, yes. >>> The snapshots are useful, but so are backups. It does introduce some
new administrative things you have to take care of.
I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed
checksumming. It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
required.
I can't say that I've ever had problems with ext4, but I also can't say
that I've ever had trouble with btrfs either. If I end up keeping it for
a long time on this laptop, I'll be able to form a, educated opinion
about how reliable btrfs is. I imagine that I might lose data here or
other, but I doubt it will ever be as bad as NTFS.
Just backup. BTRFS didn't have a good FSCK tool when I needed it (it
ended up making a dogs breakfast of the filesystem, to correct one error
so minor that it had almost no effect at all on the usage of the drive).
When the "elites" (so-called) look at the world's population they think "cattle," or "goyim." To them population reduction is just "thinning the herd."
On 2025-05-04 09:38, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-04, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-04 05:51, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every >>>>>>>>>>> publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot >>>>>>>>>>> about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3 >>>>>>>>>> rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was >>>>>>>>> the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the >>>>>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but >>>>>>>> also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me, >>>>>>>> NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files >>>>>>>> reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference >>>>>>>> if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for >>>>>>> snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that >>>>>>> Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far >>>>>> its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't >>>>>> use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to >>>>>> BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives >>>>> me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping >>>>> that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with
some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll >>>>> just reinstall and use ext4.
Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it. It's good, yes. >>>> The snapshots are useful, but so are backups. It does introduce some
new administrative things you have to take care of.
I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed >>>> checksumming. It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
required.
I can't say that I've ever had problems with ext4, but I also can't say
that I've ever had trouble with btrfs either. If I end up keeping it for >>> a long time on this laptop, I'll be able to form a, educated opinion
about how reliable btrfs is. I imagine that I might lose data here or
other, but I doubt it will ever be as bad as NTFS.
Just backup. BTRFS didn't have a good FSCK tool when I needed it (it
ended up making a dogs breakfast of the filesystem, to correct one error
so minor that it had almost no effect at all on the usage of the drive).
Out of curiosity, how long ago was this?
On 2025-05-04, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:56, Borax Man wrote:DosBox covers most DOS games, and its generally quite good. Almost as
< snipped for brevity >
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why >>>>> Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the >>>>> photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it >>>>> for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded >>>>> when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one
would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft >>>>> or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from >>>>> even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
That was exactly our rationale. $2000 for Apple, or about $600 for a
decent refurbished Thinkpad, to do the EXACT SAME THING. It was a
no-brainer really.
And yes, the "on site tech support" is a feature, and does matter. She >>>> wanted to play "Carmen San Deigo", on the laptop, knowing how the system >>>> worked, it was easy for me to install DosBox and set up a script which >>>> went straight into the game from an icon. The "How do I" question gets >>>> an answer.
Playing DOS games is incredibly easy in Linux considering how many tools >>> they make available for that. Heck, even playing Windows games is easy.
Even if they were purchased on a service like GOG, you can use Heroic
Games Launcher to log in and play there. Right now, it has a minimal
audio issue, but you can use the "add automatically to Steam" feature to >>> load the game through the latter where no issues exist. As for my own
needs with laptop, they haven't changed since 2015. I still rip DVDs and >>> Blu-Rays and I still use the same software that is available in Linux.
The 2021 computer does it faster than the 2015 machine, but it still
results in the same thing. It wasn't that slow on the 2015 machine
anyway. Using an old computer for my needs would be just fine.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If youIf you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5
bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would >>>>> have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the >>>>> same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps >>>>> that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high
price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At >>>>> some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine >>>>> needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot >>>>> of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I >>>>> usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time. >>>>
years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you
don't have a viable option.
You could video edit with older machines too, but I guess the people
doing that are incredibly impatient and will be glad to shell out
another $4k on an Apple machine that saves them thirty seconds from the
previous one. I'm not that kind of person. I'll just wait those thirty
seconds.
good as the real hardware.
For windows, I have some games like Simcity 4 that work with
Wine/Lutris, but not so much under Windows.
In fact, I got DOOM 2016 working under Linux, where I couldn't get
Windows 7 installed on it at all.
I'm not a game player, but I use DOSBox-X for WordStar 7, dBase (rarely now) and a screenwriting program called ScriptThing for DOS. All work well.
I have tried the Zork text games in DOSBox-X, but I'm not bright enough to get far in these.
On 2025-05-04, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-04 09:38, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-04, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-04 05:51, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:50, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 20:13, Borax Man wrote:
On 2025-05-02, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-02 16:16, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 09:13:55 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I didn't know much about ReiserFS back around 2004, but every >>>>>>>>>>>> publication was saying that it was a huge improvement over everything
else so I used it in the limited time I ran Gentoo. I can't speak to its
worth. In fact, I'm happy you mentioned it because I largely forgot
about it.
It was a journaling file system, which ext2 was not and faster for some
operations. Linux was trailing the pack. AIX was journaled in the '90s, as
was NTFS. ext3 came out in 2001, the same year as ReiserFS but it took a
while to catch on. Distros cited technical reasons for going to ext3
rather than Reiser being on trial for murder.
btrfs owes more to ReiserFS 4 than ext3/ext4. Without the notoriety >>>>>>>>>>> ReiserFS would probably have been developed instead. Not a good idea to
name a project after yourself although Torvalds has been able to suppress
his murderous impulses.
I can't recall what made me want to try ReiserFS but I believe it was
the journaling function. As a user, you don't really see any of the >>>>>>>>>> benefits, but at the time I had no idea that it wasn't a new feature at
all. I was completely unaware that NTFS already had it.
It was apparently much better when there were lots of small files, but
also a bit more prone to corruption. ext3 has been rock solid for me,
NEVER failed me, and the point of a filesystem is to store my files >>>>>>>>> reliably. Most of the time, you won't notice a performance difference
if you're just a regular desktop/laptop user.
Well, I can only hope that btrfs is an excellent filesystem for the long
term because that's what I chose. Just to be safe, I set it up for >>>>>>>> snapshots, but I can't imagine it corrupting my data the way that >>>>>>>> Windows managed to.
I've used it for storage partitions, and on my wifes laptops. So far >>>>>>> its been pretty good, and I've been using it for years now.
It has a bad repuation, but my personal experience is good. I didn't >>>>>>> use it on this laptop, mostly because I wasn't going to use the
features, needed something basic. Maybe I'll convert this laptop to >>>>>>> BTRFS.
I'm always wary of converting one filesystem to another. It just gives >>>>>> me the impression that things are very likely to break. I'm just hoping >>>>>> that I'm not wrong about btrfs and that despite its reputation with >>>>>> some, it's as rock-solid as I've been led to believe. If it isn't, I'll >>>>>> just reinstall and use ext4.
Don't bother unless you've got a good reason to use it. It's good, yes. >>>>> The snapshots are useful, but so are backups. It does introduce some >>>>> new administrative things you have to take care of.
I use it on volumes where I specifically required snapshots, and needed >>>>> checksumming. It's good, but I would still recommend EXT4 for
situations where BTRFS's additional features are not specifically
required.
I can't say that I've ever had problems with ext4, but I also can't say >>>> that I've ever had trouble with btrfs either. If I end up keeping it for >>>> a long time on this laptop, I'll be able to form a, educated opinion
about how reliable btrfs is. I imagine that I might lose data here or
other, but I doubt it will ever be as bad as NTFS.
Just backup. BTRFS didn't have a good FSCK tool when I needed it (it
ended up making a dogs breakfast of the filesystem, to correct one error >>> so minor that it had almost no effect at all on the usage of the drive).
Out of curiosity, how long ago was this?
Not sure exactly, but I would guess 10 years ago. A long time ago now.
I can't comment on BTRFS fsck since then as I've never needed to use it again.
The text games required a level of patience most people don't have
nowadays. They also more or less demanded that you create maps, take
notes and so on. My nerd cousin could do it, but no one else was willing
to.
On Mon, 5 May 2025 08:36:03 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The text games required a level of patience most people don't have
nowadays. They also more or less demanded that you create maps, take
notes and so on. My nerd cousin could do it, but no one else was willing
to.
I didn't have the patience back in the day either. I remember one based on 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I didn't care that much for the
book and I never got further than a bulldozer driving through Ford
Prefect's house or something like that.
https://www.myabandonware.com/game/the-hitchhiker-s-guide-to-the- galaxy-42#download
I think I had a low rent version of Zork on CP/M and never got far in that one either.
I wasn't a big fan of the book either and thought the movie was awful.
The TV show seemed to be okay from the limited exposure I got to it.
Either way, you were at the very beginning of the story. I only checked
out the story because I was told that it was science fiction genius, but
I guess it was a very different time when that applied.
On 2025-05-04, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
On Sun, 4 May 2025 14:40:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
Keeping off-computer backups is also not a bad idea.
At work we also kept source code backups off-site -- physical DVDs not
cloud. We used Subversion for source control so there were also many
machines that had checked out the whole tree.
I did use the corporate One Drive for projects I was working on, which was >> also handy for synching between machines.
I'm not as religious about backups at home. TBH I don't have that much
that is irreplaceable.
Same here. I do backup stuff I don't want to lose, but there's not much of
it that's worth backing up.
On Mon, 5 May 2025 14:04:42 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I wasn't a big fan of the book either and thought the movie was awful.
The TV show seemed to be okay from the limited exposure I got to it.
Either way, you were at the very beginning of the story. I only checked
out the story because I was told that it was science fiction genius, but
I guess it was a very different time when that applied.
I enjoyed Terry Pratchett's books and Tolkein was okay but most British sci-fi doesn't do it for me like Gaiman's 'Good Omens' or the whole
'Doctor Who' thing. I think it's the attempts at humor. Benny Hill, Doc Martin, Monty Python, and so forth didn't impress me either. There seems
to be a tendency to take what might be a funny gag and beat it to death.
Speaking of garbage, the movie Here deserves a mention.
I never read any of Terry Pratchett's stuff (didn't even know he was
English) but I've heard of him.
On 2025-05-05, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-05 00:48, RonB wrote:
On 2025-05-04, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-03, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-03 06:56, Borax Man wrote:DosBox covers most DOS games, and its generally quite good. Almost as >>>> good as the real hardware.
< snipped for brevity >
For someone with very basic needs, there is absolutely no reason why >>>>>>> Linux wouldn't be better than MacOS. Browsers boot up faster, as do the >>>>>>> photo viewing and management programs. Additionally, you can update it >>>>>>> for as long as you wish to keep the hardware, it only gets discarded >>>>>>> when it becomes irreparable or a chore to use. The thought that one >>>>>>> would have to get rid of their machine because a company like Microsoft >>>>>>> or Apple is no longer willing to supply updates, preventing users from >>>>>>> even using a browser is just ridiculous. Heck, it's inhumane.
That was exactly our rationale. $2000 for Apple, or about $600 for a >>>>>> decent refurbished Thinkpad, to do the EXACT SAME THING. It was a >>>>>> no-brainer really.
And yes, the "on site tech support" is a feature, and does matter. She >>>>>> wanted to play "Carmen San Deigo", on the laptop, knowing how the system >>>>>> worked, it was easy for me to install DosBox and set up a script which >>>>>> went straight into the game from an icon. The "How do I" question gets >>>>>> an answer.
Playing DOS games is incredibly easy in Linux considering how many tools >>>>> they make available for that. Heck, even playing Windows games is easy. >>>>> Even if they were purchased on a service like GOG, you can use Heroic >>>>> Games Launcher to log in and play there. Right now, it has a minimal >>>>> audio issue, but you can use the "add automatically to Steam" feature to >>>>> load the game through the latter where no issues exist. As for my own >>>>> needs with laptop, they haven't changed since 2015. I still rip DVDs and >>>>> Blu-Rays and I still use the same software that is available in Linux. >>>>> The 2021 computer does it faster than the 2015 machine, but it still >>>>> results in the same thing. It wasn't that slow on the 2015 machine
anyway. Using an old computer for my needs would be just fine.
I actually counted the cost of computers for a typical user. If you >>>>>>> bought a machine in 2020 for $2,000 and used it until 2025, you would >>>>>>> have essentially paid $400 a year for hardware that does exactly the >>>>>>> same thing you were doing twenty years earlier, except faster. Perhaps >>>>>>> that $400 number doesn't affect others, but I find that it's a high >>>>>>> price to pay for the luxury of browsing and sending a few e-mails. At >>>>>>> some point, it only makes sense to reject the idea that a new machine >>>>>>> needs to be purchased so often. Heck, five years is conservative; a lot >>>>>>> of people replace them a lot earlier than that. That's just how long I >>>>>>> usually keep my hardware. I'm going to try to go for a decade this time.
If you don't play games or do video editing, you could get easily 5 >>>>>> years out of a computer these days. Now with phones, its harder, you >>>>>> don't have a viable option.
You could video edit with older machines too, but I guess the people >>>>> doing that are incredibly impatient and will be glad to shell out
another $4k on an Apple machine that saves them thirty seconds from the >>>>> previous one. I'm not that kind of person. I'll just wait those thirty >>>>> seconds.
For windows, I have some games like Simcity 4 that work with
Wine/Lutris, but not so much under Windows.
In fact, I got DOOM 2016 working under Linux, where I couldn't get
Windows 7 installed on it at all.
I'm not a game player, but I use DOSBox-X for WordStar 7, dBase (rarely now)
and a screenwriting program called ScriptThing for DOS. All work well.
I have tried the Zork text games in DOSBox-X, but I'm not bright enough to >>> get far in these.
The text games required a level of patience most people don't have
nowadays. They also more or less demanded that you create maps, take
notes and so on. My nerd cousin could do it, but no one else was willing to.
I might give them another shot. Never thought about making maps, but that makes sense. I tried to keep track of it in my head, which I'm definitely
not smart enough to do.
On Mon, 5 May 2025 15:24:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Speaking of garbage, the movie Here deserves a mention.
I hadn't heard of it and after reading the Wiki article that's just as
well. That set off a side trip and I was surprised to find how few of Tom Hanks' movies I've seen considering how prolific he is.
On 2025-05-06, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
On 2025-05-05 22:21, rbowman wrote:
On Mon, 5 May 2025 15:24:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Speaking of garbage, the movie Here deserves a mention.
I hadn't heard of it and after reading the Wiki article that's just as
well. That set off a side trip and I was surprised to find how few of Tom >>> Hanks' movies I've seen considering how prolific he is.
My habit is that if Tom Hanks is in it, it's probably a good movie. This
one was unfortunate because the idea behind it was decent. The
storylines within are the problem.
The last Tom Hanks movie I saw was "Sully" (because my wife's father piloted his own plane and my wife wanted to see it). I've heard his voice in a
couple Toy Stories and Cars movies but I think the last Tom Hanks movie I watched of my volition was "Catch Me If You Can." I hated "Cast Away," so I think that kind of turned me away from Tom Hanks' movies. I liked his earlier, comedy stuff, a couple of his romantic comedies (with Meg Ryan) and "Green Mile." Also "Joe Vs the Volcano."
On 2025-05-05 13:06, rbowman wrote:[snip]
On Mon, 5 May 2025 08:36:03 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The text games required a level of patience most people don't have
nowadays. They also more or less demanded that you create maps, take
notes and so on. My nerd cousin could do it, but no one else was willing >>> to.
I didn't have the patience back in the day either. I remember one based on >> 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I didn't care that much for the
book and I never got further than a bulldozer driving through Ford
Prefect's house or something like that.
I wasn't a big fan of the book either and thought the movie was awful.
The TV show seemed to be okay from the limited exposure I got to it.
Either way, you were at the very beginning of the story. I only checked
out the story because I was told that it was science fiction genius, but
I guess it was a very different time when that applied.
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote at 18:04 this Monday (GMT):
On 2025-05-05 13:06, rbowman wrote:[snip]
On Mon, 5 May 2025 08:36:03 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
The text games required a level of patience most people don't have
nowadays. They also more or less demanded that you create maps, take
notes and so on. My nerd cousin could do it, but no one else was willing >>>> to.
I didn't have the patience back in the day either. I remember one based on >>> 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy'. I didn't care that much for the >>> book and I never got further than a bulldozer driving through Ford
Prefect's house or something like that.
I wasn't a big fan of the book either and thought the movie was awful.
The TV show seemed to be okay from the limited exposure I got to it.
Either way, you were at the very beginning of the story. I only checked
out the story because I was told that it was science fiction genius, but
I guess it was a very different time when that applied.
Hitchhikers guide is one of my favorite books!
Semi back on topic:
https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/mobile_browser_data_collection/
My Fedora box (KDE/Wayland) doesn't have Chrome so I wouldn't be missing anything. Ubuntu does have Chrome but I chiefly use Brave and Tor with Firefox for limited use. For some reason Khan Academy doesn't like Brave
even if I turn the shields off.
On 2025-04-29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:be.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:14:33 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
Be careful to discard what you think is useless.
In the Open Source world, all the old stuff remains preserved in the
commit history of the source repos for all time to come. Nothing ever
really gets thrown away, so yes, it can always be resurrected if need
With modern programming tools, no editing change is irreversible.
I meant more in a general sense, not specifically a code snippet.
On 2025-04-29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:33:31 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man wrote:
I've been around enough to see "new" solutions which are just
reinventions of what had been done before.
So what? That’s no excuse for perpetuating the pile of legacy baggage
that is X11.
Its not an excuse for perpetuating X11. But legacy baggage accumulates,
and things that are thrown out, make a return, in a new reincarnated
form.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:05:16 |
| Calls: | 10,386 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,589 |