Re: Hobbyware WinCrap 11 strikes again

On 2025-02-13, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-13 1:41 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-12, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-12 1:24 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-11, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-11 1:23 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-10, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-10 2:54 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-09, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-08 12:07 p.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-08 10:40 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2025-02-08, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

On 2025-02-08 3:49 a.m., RonB wrote:

I guess checking the battery capacity is the last thing my Latitude 5300
will ever do on Windows 11. When I exited it did a small update. When I
rebooted after the update it wanted to do a disk check (and I stupidly let
it do so). After doing that and rebooting it ran into a BSOD ("we ran into a
problem"). It then wants to run diagnostics, attempts a repair and... we
start the whole loop all over again. (I tried this about six times and
finally told myself, "well, enough of that bullshit.")
>
Adios WinCrap 11. the space can better be used by Linux Mint anyhow (which
still boots fine). Another computer that will be completely freed from
Windows.

>
I would be lying if I said that it never happened to me before.

>
I was beginning to think Windows 11 was fairly solid. This surprised me. I
don't why, but I had a bad feeling when I let it do a "disk check." I was
more worried that Windows would trash my Linux grub setup for booting,
though, I didn't think it would trash itself.
>
I went ahead and deleted the Windows partitions with GParted and installed
Debian 12 in its place. I'm experimenting with creating .deb packages for
Trelby (which I found isn't that hard to do) so it'll be nice to have a
Debian install for testing purposes. (Linux Mint is more like Ubuntu and
Debian and LM are actually different enough that I have to test both.)
>
Speaking of Ubuntu, I've come to despise it and it's damn Snaps. I found out
that the Snap version of Firefox refuses to read .html files if they're not
in the home (and/or, I suppose, the Snap) directory. The documentation for
Trelby can't be read by it (installed in its normal directory). When I
uninstall the Snap version of Firefox, it won't allow me to install the .deb
version. They're definitely turning into control freaks at Ubuntu (kind of
like Windows and Mac OS).

>
I'm not a fan of Flatpak or Snap anymore and see them both as something
to use if you don't have a choice. I like the theory behind both, but
they often ignore your theme, take longer to load or have trouble
integrating with the rest of the system. If I absolutely had to go for
one or the other though, I would choose Flatpak even though Snap is
theoretically superior.

>
I don't like Snaps at all. I do tolerate FlatPaks (and use a few of them)
but if I knew how to make AppImages that's what I would prefer for Trelby.
>
And it's not Snaps I really dislike, it's Ubuntu forcing them on you.
There's other things I don't like about Ubuntu. It would definitely not be
in my top 20 list.

>
I have to admit that during the short period of time during which I used
Ubuntu recently, I was surprised that just about everything I was
running was a Snap. For security reasons, it made sense (the browser,
the e-mail client), but certain other things would have run just as well
if they were simple .deb files. They want to make Snap a standard, that
much is clear, and they're taking advantage of the distribution's
popularity to do so.

>
I think you're right. I think they're completely sold on the "container"
idea — everything in its own "silo" (or whatever they call it, "sandbox"
maybe). To me that means you lose the advatage of Linux, where small
applications are combined to create bigger applications, in one nice "flow."
This may be a good idea for servers, but I don't think there are other ways
to secure (harden) servers. I don't like it on a personal computer at all.
>
I think they call these "container" distributions. Fedora has one, CoreOS,
but they keep it separate from their standard install. That's what I wish
Ubuntu would do as, apparently, they have something called Ubuntu Core. Save
the damn Snaps for that. I guess the big one (so far) is Alpine. I don't
know if these use special containers, or Snaps or Flatpaks, or what.

>
I have no doubt that taking an all .deb or all .rpm approach might
result in some things breaking along the way. However, there is no doubt
that it's quite secure and much faster than the container approach. When
all the software you're getting is coming out of a repository which has
been checked thoroughly by professionals, and not anywhere on the web,
I'm not sure what the need for contained software is. Granted, Flatpak
and Snap make software which _isn't_ available to a repository available
to your choice of a distribution, and that is definitely an advantage.
Security, however, should not be the main reason for using Snap or Flatpak.

>
Personally I like (well made) AppImages better than either Flatpaks or
Snaps, but I do use about five Flatpaks. I quit using Snaps when I
discovered they showed up like drive partitions when I did a _df_ to check
my drive space. I didn't like that.

>
I'm not sure why they bothered making Flatpaks and Snaps when AppImages
work pretty much everywhere. I mean, how can you beat something which
requires nothing more than for you to make it executable?

>
Agreed. But some people make AppImages that don't include all the
dependencies, so they can be "mis-made."

>
Considering AppImage exists since 2004, it's a wonder that Red Hat and
Canonical felt the need to create their own. It might have been easier
to just improve it and make sure that it integrates properly with the
system.

 
I think Canonical wanted to control an Apple style "app store." I didn't
realize that Red Hat was a big supporter for flatpak. But I do know I like
flatpaks better than snaps. As far as not using AppImage... I have no idea
why they (at least Red Hat) didn't go that direction.

>
Actually, I read that Snaps were superior to Flatpaks. The problem is
that Canonical has ultimate control over their storage and distribution.
I don't mind that Canonical was trying an Apple-style approach since
Shuttleworth made a significant investment in Linux and wants to get
that money back, but I do think that Flatpak is a smart alternative to
ensure that Canonical doesn't control the operating system as much as it
does Ubuntu itself. What Canonical does with Ubuntu is their own
business and people are free to use it or ignore it.

In my opinion Snaps are not superior to Flatpaks. Snaps are invasive,
Flatpaks are easily removed. As I mentioned in another post, Trelby
(screenwriting software) includes an HTML manual. It's normal location is
/usr/trelby/trelby (up until a recent release, it's now under
usr/lib/python3.xx/dist-pkgs... — something like that). But the Snap version
of Firefox can't read anything in the /usr subdirectoryy (actually I don't
think it can read *any* file in the root directory). So Snap forces you to
try to work around it's non-standard BS, making a .deb installation package
fail that works with any other Firefox installation. (This is just one
example.)

I won't Snaps, even if there's an application that only is available as a
Snap. That's how much I don't like them.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.”  —J.R.R. Tolkien