Could this really be the start of Godot's triumph? :woot: it is totally free, open source and Linux is number one. Just think about that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Another one of these new indie ones on more peculiar side is Cat's Request didn't yet find on GOL: https://linuxgameconsortium.com/cats-request-point-click-solve-mysteries/ [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: EhvisWell, if they insist on taking away choice when it comes to snaps, then I feel a reduction by at least one user will come in the near future.

Ubuntu is taking away your choice? How exactly so? If you dont like Snaps or any of this universal packaging thing, there is Synaptic. Also apt and deb are still working are they not? Why do you NOT just purge snapd and stop the "pain" for you or whatever?

The universal sandbox packages are the future, no matter what shortcomingg they might have currently. For example Flatpak can't be chosen for Vivaldi browser because of Flatpak engineering it would require Vivaldi to turn off Sandboxing for their browser - something they will not do. Snaps doesn't have this issue; they're more flexible. They work different and both (and AppImages too) have their place.

Snap apps advantage is that they're easy to install on any distro. They also take away the problem of package incompatibility or risk of uninstalling also useful packages when uninstalling a one application. Red Had's Fedora don't come with snapd installed by default. Flatpak is their baby.

Looks like Canonical verifies each Snap and who packaged it with dedicated staff. I don't know how Red Hat does it with Flatpaks. Snaps have not shown problems for me personally for years now, but looks like you're basically on a wrong distro for wrong reasons.

Most "angry" people writing about this "forcing" and "down the throat" ad nauseum miss the fact that you can do whatever to your Ubuntu. But if you don't like Canonical's choices (which obviously serve their model) why are you keeping with it then? That makes no sense. If only you'd explain adequately your objections in terms that beginners can also understand. Just stating "Canonical are taking away choice" isn't it. Right?

It's unbelievable how some people express such hate on what Canonical is doing. Many proclaim "they have left Ubuntu" for something else but keep on talking ill about it or even just using it in reality (going back to it).

Alternatives are like hundreds. Ubuntu isn't going back. Time to move on eh? Just accept that there's nothing for you in the land of Snaps which is where Ubuntu is clearly heading. I'm pretty sure you have noticed that.

Why not just switch distro and be happy.. :huh:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: StoneColdSpiderWhat percentage do we need before we Execute Order 66???........ [External Link]

The evil empire Microsoft is already at alert. But the brave Linux Jedi of The Light Side are ready to even sacrifice themselves for common good.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So it looks that the bulk of packages in a Linux Mint install come actually directly from Ubuntus repositories.

packages . linuxmint . com does not directly tie to Ubuntu but many packages could have been rebuilt from Ubuntu. Likewise, almost all of the packages in Ubuntu are rebuilt from Debian.

A count committed via the method described at Linuxuprising dot com some time back counted all packages including original versions and those higher in the updates, security and backports, no PPAs added, and both i386 and amd64 (the Linux Mint repositories come from packages. linuxmint dot com and http://packages [External Link] . linuxmint dot com/ does not look like packages . ubuntu dot com/)

Linux Uprising ended up on numbers where 0.7% came from Mints repos, 99.3% from Ubuntu's. If this is true even to day, it is huge.

So this is why some say Linux Mint isn't a full true distribution, no matter how good or bad it works. Linux Mint relies on Ubuntu packages to make their system fundamentally work, right? This seems to have occasional consequences:

Linux Mint devs don't have upload privileges to Ubuntu repositories they rely on: they have to build packages themselves (costly resource wise to build, host etc.) They've chosen to rely on packages Ubuntu provides, and to add an extra layer on their system - runtime adjustments.

As a consequence of this is that often times possible extra security holes can get to be in Linux Mint's overall system, extra resources required by the extra layer of software.

When these problems occur? Whenever upstream (Ubuntu the upstream of Linux Mint) makes changes as Ubuntu doesn't consider the runtime adjustments in their testing, thus also a reliability issue can happen.

Or do i miss something fundamental? I mean, Linux Mint is great and all but that's the deal of it in practice it seems.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: vengador4201

Quoting: dziadulewiczA big hand to Ubuntu also: Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu LTS and Mint uses Ubuntu's software repositories without any compensation :whistle:

And Ubuntu uses Debian's repositories, though I don't know for sure that it's "without compensation". That's kinda how open source software works.

I know how open source software way works, but is it not the case that Ubuntu has their own repositories, to which they put packages also from Debian's repositories for starters, but their own repositories are in own servers:

Main - Canonical-supported free and open-source software.

Universe - Community-maintained free and open-source software.

Restricted - Proprietary drivers for devices.

Multiverse - Software restricted by copyright or legal issues.

Because if they only just took advantage of Debian's repositories, they would end up with very old versions of software? Is it also not the case that Linux Mint just straight up uses Ubuntu's SERVERS (from where the users download from)?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

A big hand to Ubuntu also: Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu LTS and Mint uses Ubuntu's software repositories without any compensation :whistle:

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: m2mg2```

People want Linux to be just like Windows. We use it because it's not Windows. Please, don't make it Windows. Then those of us that care about what Linux is/was, will have to go to BSD.... and we will. Not that the ones who take it over will care.

No. "Linux" will never be like Windows. It is not locked down, choices many. Things are, what's the key here, OPEN. Linux user can always choose whatever one wants. There is always an offering to no matter what that desire or requirement is. The user (not the used) can decide all and everything and the standards are pretty much sane on any popular distro.

Linux can NEVER be "like Windows". But what Linux truly can be sooner than later: a de facto standard in all of computing. Lies, prison cells and abuse will never fly in the long run. It's the true freedom that people desire consciously -or subconsciously.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Wow, a totally free as in freedom Minecraft engine and a game. Gotta get into this at long last. Found an interview (by Wikinews) of the main developer too via news about the release: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Open_source_game_developer_Perttu_Ahola_talks_about_Minetest_with_Wikinews [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This is how it always starts. IBM has never been a Linux company, they have shady past in the 30's 40's Germany and Red Hat is but a name now from what it used to be.

There are plenty of alternatives out there.

View this comment - View article - View full comments