Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Available To Download; Mozilla To Offer 0-Day Firefox Releases Via Snaps

Posted by msmash on from the firefox-becomes-default dept.

Reader prisoninmate writes: The latest, and hopefully, the greatest version of Ubuntu is now available to download. On the sidelines, Mozilla today announced the availability of future releases of its popular Firefox web browser in the snap package format for Ubuntu 16.04 LTS. Earlier today, Canonical unleashed the final release of the highly anticipated Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus) operating system, bringing users a great set of new features and improvements. Also today, it looks like Canonical has renewed its partnership with Mozilla to offer Firefox as the default web browser on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and upcoming releases of the Linux kernel-based operating systems. As part of the new partnership, Mozilla is committed to distributing future versions of Firefox as a snap package. Having Firefox distributed in the snap format means that you'll have 0-day releases in Ubuntu 16.04. Yes, just like Windows and Mac OS X, users are enjoying their 0-day releases of Mozilla Firefox and don't have to wait for package maintainers of a particular GNU/Linux distribution to update the software in the main repositories. For Mozilla, having Firefox as a snap package means that they'll be able to continually optimize it for Ubuntu.

74 comments

  1. Alchemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will set you free.

  2. .deb repositories by dmbasso · · Score: 1

    Yes, just like Windows and Mac OS X, users are enjoying their 0-day releases of Mozilla Firefox and don't have to wait for package maintainers of a particular GNU/Linux distribution to update the software in the main repositories.

    Really? I mean, are you guys so fucking retarded that you're not able to setup your own .deb repositories? Fuck, you can even use Launchpad's PPAs!

    --
    `echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
    1. Re:.deb repositories by BigU+03C0mpin · · Score: 0

      Really? I mean, are you guys so fucking retarded that you're not able to setup your own .deb repositories? Fuck, you can even use Launchpad's PPAs!

      How exactly do you equate not wanting to have to jump through hoops to do something to someone being retarded? Just because it's easy to type in a few extra commands to get what you want doesn't mean you should have to do it. Not everyone longs for the days of yore where you had to do 6 hours of preconfiguration to have a viable desktop linux system. This is one of the reasons I like Android over IOS, I can do a number of things with less taps. Or if I'm feeling especially lazy I can tell the google app to do it for me and voila, no taps.

      I welcome this development. Anything to make it easier to be productive/use is a step in the right direction.

    2. Re:.deb repositories by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Adding an extra repo to your package manager once and getting the update the same day ever after...vs. manually going to their website and downloading it each time.

      Hmm.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    3. Re:.deb repositories by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Chrome comes as a .deb (so it opens by default in a nice GUI tool that installs it with one click) that adds and enables its own repo, so there's always that.

      Of course, Chrome's version is also broken (it doesn't bother to specify architecture, which means everyone using a combination 32 bit + 64 bit Ubuntu has lately started to get errors whenever they apt-get update because Chrome isn't available for ix86-32 any more. But that's another issue.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:.deb repositories by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a regression, and a bad one. You can push 0-day updates via the standard ubuntu/debian package repository. Firefox doesn't even really have that many dependencies (it has an amazing amount of shit compiled into it. libjpeg, libpng, gzip..it links to the system libraries for almost nothing). This is for stability, but it also increases the risk of security holes quite a bit. A researcher at RMIT did a talk at Ruxcon one real about tools he wrote to scan manjor software projects to find vulnerable versions of embedded libraries.

      In any case, snappy are a regression. Linux package management was always way superior to Android/Apple monolithic self contained apps. Linux now has svchost (systemd) and monolithic packages (snappy). How else can we fuck it up even more?

    5. Re:.deb repositories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Preach. Sane, secure, centralized package management is a really big reason to use Linux. Snaps seems to ignore this important philosophy. I understand that Ubuntu must keep this long languishing dream of convergence going and that Snaps are there most recent flounder towards that...but come on now.

    6. Re:.deb repositories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chrome had been saying for like 2 years they were dropping 32 bit. It wasn't the most elegant approach, but well forewarned.

    7. Re:.deb repositories by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      I believe snappy packages are self-updating.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re:.deb repositories by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Linux package management was always way superior to Android/Apple monolithic self contained apps

      In every way except for everyone being able to push their latest software whenever they want. I'm as much of a fan of apt-get install x to just have something magic its way on my computer as the next person. Linux package management is frigging amazing, but it's not a panacea for everything. In fact I was keen to get this Ubuntu update just so I can move to a newer version of the very outdated samba server that was in the standard repository. Attempting to add another PPA for the updated software just proceeded to cost me a day trying to fix the resulting broken dependency list thanks to anything that isn't blessed by the maintainer being ultimately unsupported.

      Snappy is a shithouse replacement for a package manager, but it's a very welcome addition along side a traditional system where you want to be sure you can run something without breaking something else, something that Linux can not do without full time people dedicated to managing repositories in ways that doesn't break anything.

    9. Re:.deb repositories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forewarned or not, their package is still not specifying the architecture type, causing errors for a lot of people. Yes, there is a way to fix it, but that shouldn't be necessary.

    10. Re:.deb repositories by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      So did they forget to tell their own programmers? (This is their bug, not our's. Oh, and BTW, did I tell you that if an end user manually fixes the problem, a cron job installed by Chrome automatically reverts it to default-architectures version?)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:.deb repositories by Aaden42 · · Score: 2

      I need somebody to give me a sanity check on this snappy thing. Sounds like you're packaging your app and all it's dependencies in one archive, and installing that in a sandbox/chroot or just funky LD_CONFIG so that the binaries in the snap access their own private libraries. Is that about right?

      So now with system-installed libraries like OpenSSL, if there's a vulnerability in OpenSSL, you patch OpenSSL, maybe kill/restart everything linked to it on the system, and life goes on.

      If I'm groking snaps properly, the next OpenSSL vuln means we need to update EVERY SINGLE APP that uses OpenSSL since they all have their own private copy of it. And we have to depend on each of the developers of those apps to ship updates w/ new OpenSSL instead of depending on the distro maintainer to ship one copy of it.

      Am I missing something? And sorry (not sorry...) to pick on OpenSSL, but in terms of libraries that practically everything links to & has had multiple serious issues in recent memory, it was either that or glibc...

    12. Re:.deb repositories by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      If you want bleeding edge just reconfigure your package manager to track Unstable or Hurt Me Good or whatever they call it.

      How long is turnaround for Testing anyway? Or does it vary too widely to really have a useful answer to that?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    13. Re:.deb repositories by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Ahh yes, just reconfigure an entire system to use unstable packages for the sake of one program.

      Nope, I'll just install a Snap package.

    14. Re:.deb repositories by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Hey, I didn't say it was better. It just sounded like you were saying it wasn't possible.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    15. Re:.deb repositories by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No, don't get me wrong. If there's one thing that Linux is known for is that somehow everything is possible in one way or another.

      But frankly I'm getting sick of the meme that you can do anything by (insert stupendously complicated instructions here), and doubly so when it refers to something as basic as installing a program.

    16. Re:.deb repositories by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Sounds pretty accurate. My first reply was a bit provocative to begin with.

      Have a nice weekend :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    17. Re:.deb repositories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can use apt pinning to only pull in the unstable packages you want and keep the rest of the system on stable.

      Admittedly this can get a bit messy when a newer package also needs lots of newer dependencies.

    18. Re:.deb repositories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the Linux will also get those update agents which plague Windows? It is just silly, that system has adobe-speedlauncher, java-updater, google.agent, firefox-update-agent, asus-updater, etc. And naturally all they need to start on system startup and they truly need to eat as much CPU as possible and scan as many files as possible.

  3. Re:Let's put Prince on the $20 bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    But he is no muslim, and no woman.

  4. No. Just no. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The constant usage of "zero-day" is annoying enough already without taking it and applying it to something completely different.

    Unless literally Mozilla is going to release builds of Firefox to exploit unpatched vulnerabilities in Ubuntu...

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    1. Re:No. Just no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the summary's fault. None of the links call it a "zero day" thing. I guess the summary would be too boring if they didn't inject some hint of sentationalism into the summary?

  5. Already so by F.Ultra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The problem with this announcement is that Firefox where already available in the Ubuntu repositories practically at the same day that they released binaries for Windows and OS X. A long long time ago Firefox where frozen just like the rest of the software but since then you got the newest version even if you used 12.04LTS so this only means that Mozilla will now do what Ubuntu have been doing but with a snap instead of a .deb

  6. Looks good! My Tiny review. by BrookHarty · · Score: 2

    Downloaded the mate spin, and so far, looks really nice. No virtualbox guest issues, the virtualbox boot resolution error is gone. Installed zfs and partitioned and made some zpools, flawless.

    All I had to do apt-get install zfsutils-linux zfs-initramfs and modprobe zfs, and it was good to go.

    I tried loading zfs in the live cd, and checked if gpart showed zfs, but it didnt. That would have been the icing on the cake, create a zfs for a boot/root/swap and go.

    I didn't have the restricted repo installed, so i just apturl apt://ubuntu-restricted-extras and had all the 3rd party installed.

    Mate seems to be locked at 1.12.1 when 14 is out, prob not a big issue.

    GTK is 3.18, so no 3.20 issues to worry about. Noticed clearlooks is now named tradtionalok, assume thats to fix the gtk2/gtk3 meta theme, no need for clearlooks-phenix anymore. Firefox Beta/Dev doesnt support GTK 3.20 yet, so nice to see. (And breeze theme is broken in 3.20 if your a KDE user, so wanting themes to match across gtk2/gtk3/qt, nice to see no issues there. Bring on unix themes!

    Software Boutique would not work with my proxy. The rest of the system appeared to use the proxy just fine.

    Looks like a good Mate spin to me! And LTS, my co-workers will be happy.

    1. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to be a bit behind the times. When did we go from distro to flavor, then from flavor to spin? Why do we keep having to change names for things?

    2. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, cause I mean 200 years ago they were speaking the exact same English we are today. Language is a constant and never changes.

    3. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Ubuntu is the distro. Mate is the spin -- it has all the same ubuntu packages, but a different default-installed selection. It's a useful distinction since there are so many different spins of ubuntu for each different desktop environment and it would be wrong to imply that any of them have anything unavailable to the others.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    4. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't boot very quickly. takes 15 seconds.

    5. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I tried loading zfs in the live cd, and checked if gpart showed zfs, but it didnt.

      Errr ZFS doesn't run on a partition level, it's a bit different from the traditional filesystem so I don't think there are any plans to ever add zfs to tools like gparted.

      That said there's been no problem running ZFS as your root filesystem in the past and I imagine there won't be a problem now either unless they royally screwed something up.

    6. Re:Looks good! My Tiny review. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ZFS supports partitions since you need to in order to have a boot partition that can bootstrap ZFS. But in general, if it's not your boot partition you usually let it manage the entire HD. It used to be that they recommended you not use ZFS with partitions because of some sync issue.

  7. Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I know I need to install Firefox updates often and quickly, because they typically include security fixes.

    But aside from those security fixes, I really, really don't want to upgrade Firefox.

    Starting with Firefox 4, I think that every Firefox upgrade has left me worse off.

    Firefox's UI is now way harder to use, especially after Australis was released. Firefox 3.6 was easy to us because it had sensible menus, a sensible toolbar, a status bar, and other useful UI functionality. But that has been gradually stripped away! Now everything is under the hamburger menu, which totally defeats the purposes of menus. Menus are supposed to organize functionality, not obscure it by throwing it all in one place!

    Useful preferences that I used to use a lot, like disabling JavaScript, have been removed. Now I have to dig into about:config or use extensions that repair the functionality that Mozilla unnecessarily removed.

    I don't think that Firefox has gotten any faster, and I don't think it uses any less memory. It still feels really slow and bloated compared to Chrome and Edge.

    Then there were the upgrades that forced ads into the browser, and included junk like Pocket and Hello. I wanted none of them, yet I had them forced on me!

    I used to like using Firefox. But now I just get a bad sense of dread any time I see that a Firefox update is available. Instead of wondering how my web browsing experience will be made better, I instead worry about how my web browsing experience will be ruined yet more.

    1. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Try out Pale Moon :) They've even got a Linux version.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    2. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see how it's significantly less usable now, unless you're really talking about an option they removed or something. The UI's fine. It can be themed. It can be customized, even if you might need to install an addon or two in a pinch to get back something you (for some reason) simply can't live without. As for the things they "forced" upon you, you really need to take a chill pill there: nobody forced you to use Pocket or Hello, they were just buttons to activate the features that could be trivially disabled. Even the ads could be trivially disabled, and were just a test program they recently ended. This is all "pea under the mattress" stuff. You'll have to do just as much work to customize most browsers, unless you just used the pre-Australis defaults and don't mind using Pale Moon while it still stick to the pre-Australis code that's dragging it down now. So pull up your boots and move on already. Things really aren't anywhere near as bad as you're portraying them, and if someone like me could adjust (despite having dozens of addons, a custom theme, and about:config settings and such), then I'm sure you'll be just fine. All this effort you put into venting would have probably been better off just migrating to a newer Firefox version already.

    3. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your comment highlights exactly what's wrong with Firefox today: software that used to work effortlessly now requires more and more and more customization, the use of themes, the use of extensions, the disabling unwanted functionality, hand holding, etc., etc., etc., etc. with each release, just to get it to a minimally usable state!

      It's a good thing when software can be voluntarily extended and customized to make it more powerful.

      It's a bad thing when software must be extended and customized just to get it to be barely usable, especially when this wasn't necessary before.

      That's clearly not forward progress being made. That's severe regression. Having to fix Firefox through such customization is shameful!

    4. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, the real problem is that some people think that THEIR customizations should be the default, and shouldn't require addons. It somehow feels wrong to have to be the one to install a few addons, and it even counts as a "regression" to some people even if the feature is removed even if it's unmaintained, broken for many users, and/or is holding Firefox back in some way. It's terribly easy to get caught up in a mentality where forward progress is not actually forward progress and is "shameful", just because you're no longer the one who has the least work to do to customize the out-of-box experience.

    5. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a bad thing when software must be extended and customized just to get it to be barely usable

      What do you mean? Just like Chrome I can install FF and just use it as a web browser, it's perfectly usable. I'm not saying there aren't settings that you could change but what it is that you're constantly dicking around with in there that is a requirement for making it "usable"? Even if you have a particular preference, just set it when you install the browser and be done with it.

      I often see these critiques using terms like "barely usable" so I'm wondering if you can explain what your web browsing workflow is?

    6. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first customization to make is to enable the menu bar ; if you're in Windows or perhaps some enviroment, going to about:config and typing 'title' gives you the entry to toggle the title bar back.
      Then remove hello/etc., you may even remove bookmarks/history or move them.
      Then you need extensions for the web filtering anyway and you have to set crap like the download folder, search engine etc.
      Done in a couple minutes and the menus seem about the same as in firefox 1.0.
      The Windows 2.0 / Motif conventions are mostly there.

    7. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you even use firefox? Or do you just parrot stuff you've read elsewhere? On Ubuntu it has a normal menu:
      File Edit View History Bookmarks Tools Help

      In other situations it's 3 clicks to enable the menu.

    8. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 informative to this !!! I moved to Pale Moon as soon as they started ruining the Firefox UI and I've not looked back.

    9. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No, we just want the old paradigm of Firefox (3.x days) back where they didn't have ANY* pointless extra bloat like Pocket, Twitter integration, etc., etc. built in. If you want extra functionality, install the extensions.

      So your entire post is apologetic nonsense.

      *well okay I'm sure there was some but nothing compared to these days

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    10. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying there aren't settings that you could change but what it is that you're constantly dicking around with in there that is a requirement for making it "usable"? Even if you have a particular preference, just set it when you install the browser and be done with it.

      Way back in the 3.0 days it was just a couple settings in about:config that some people disabled to prune down the AwesomeBar behavior. Then it required an extension. Then they took out the status bar. Then Australis rolled and they started removing the about:config options you used to undo all this crud...

      So yes, in theory you can do it just once when you install it, but there's quite a few values to twaddle and even some things that can't be turned off at all. Have you seen Classic Theme Restorer? It's basically 19 pages full of checkboxes and dropdowns, and I still haven't found a way to put the page title back in the window frame.

      Plus with most new releases they screw around with something new and you add another variable or three to your list of things to unfuck.

      I often see these critiques using terms like "barely usable" so I'm wondering if you can explain what your web browsing workflow is?

      Firefox 3.5 pretty much exactly, plus a couple extensions. If I wanted no status bar, everything collapsed into one menu button, and no searchbar I'd be using Chrome, dammit.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've shot your own point down. Firefox always has had significant "bloat", you just fail to acknowledge it or think that it wasn't bloat because you personally liked it. It's unfair to consider any tiny extra you like as "non-bloat" and anything you don't really care for as "bloat". That's the very definition of a double standard. And yes, those features you list are hardly more than a few kilobytes of stuff. They're not what would traditionally be considered "bloat", they really are just features that you don't care for, but others do. As such, you're really pissing in the wind here. Why not complain about the real web-standards bloat instead of trivial stuff? And why not acknowledge that Mozilla *has* acknowledged your concern, and will now ship such "extras" as bundled addons (and have already moved to do so)? Honestly, if I'm an apologist then you're downright spreading FUD and self-serving misinformation.

    12. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is asinine. You simply don't get to make claims of Firefox getting "bloated" in one comment, and then talk about removed features as though they weren't bloat, when they clearly are NOT necessary for the bulk of users. And no, vainly tossing around Chrome comparisons does not bolster your case. What you think is necessary in a browser simply doesn't match what others think is necessary. Mozilla has even decided to offer any other new uncommon features as bundled addons... they're moving in the very direction you wanted them to move in, and yet you're quibbling because what you really want is for them to support what YOU want them to support. You personally may have had to install fewer addons before, but you're not some special snowflake.

    13. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the entire reason they started Firefox was to de-bloatify the Mozilla Suite, right? So not so much "always."

      So you're saying that it's impossible to write software without buckets of bloat. Since you ignored my entire post so will I yours.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    14. Re:Do I even want Firefox updates?! by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      What you think is necessary in a browser simply doesn't match what others think is necessary.

      Except for the part where Mozilla is hemorrhaging users. So yeah, apparently it does.

      And I'm talking about core features of 90% of program GUIs in the last 3 decades. Ditching menus and status bars are not "optional features." Oh, and as you say above, I'm sure that's just a couple k right, so it doesn't matter? But I'm the one being inconsistent, somehow.

      they're moving in the very direction you wanted them to move in

      Nope.

      yet you're quibbling because what you really want is for them to support what YOU want them to support.

      I'm going to tell you one more time that you're full of crap. I want the classic GUI elements we've all been using for the last couple decades, and most of the rest as extensions. If in doubt, prune it out. Which I've been quite consistent about in this comment tree.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  8. What is Mir like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have heard that this release of Ubuntu optionally includes Mir, their new display server X replacement thing.

    I don't know much about it, but if they've managed to ship it and it's usable, then that means that should mean the end of Wayland.

    We've been hearing for many years now that Wayland is "the future", yet we haven't seen anything materialize.

    If Ubuntu has succeeded with Mir, then it's time for the other major Linux distros to do the right thing and standardize on it.

    There's no point wasting time with Wayland if Mir is available.

    1. Re:What is Mir like? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16.04 does not ship with MIR. You can install it I believe, but it is not done yet. Also, what are you on about? There is regular news on the progress of Wayland if you care to look and a lot distros come with it installed already to play with, you can choose to use it from the GDM Login in Fedora instead of X. What exactly do you mean by "do the right thing"? Everybody else is invested in Wayland and DGAF about MIR. MIR will end up just like Unity, nobody but Ubuntu will use it.

  9. Re:And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have you reported the bug to Oracle?

  10. Re: And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course he hasn't because there is nothing to report. The MySQL unit file works flawlessy.

  11. Still some issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A couple hours ago i tryed it and to my amazement, the hostname was wrongly configured as out of the box.

    So, i will wait a couple of months for this issues to be ironed out.

  12. Snaps are for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Modern app appers ONLY app apps, NOT LUDDITE SNAPS!

    Apps!

    1. Re:Snaps are for LUDDITES. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're gonna have to retrain yourself to be a snapp developer from now on. Snapp is where the app is these days.

  13. Re: And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unit files are very simple. Just fix it.

  14. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't wait. It's like xmas.

  15. Re: And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hello m$ shill #1701! Please go the counter for your cheque! Ty.

  16. euh... why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't one already do this with a normal repository? or for ubuntu one can use a PPA to get the latest version... or heck, just skip straight to debian and use testing/sid....

  17. Re:And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > My FreeBSD system boots perfectly each and every time.

    And, I bet it doesn't swallow syslog messages either.

    CAPTCHA tableau -- where I work!

  18. Tabs fucked up by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    One major disappointment is that the change Gnome did to xterm which fucked up tabs have now also been implemented in Gedit... First of all they spread the tabs over the entire width which makes it hard to actually see how many tabs you have opened but worse is that there is no real indicator for which tab is the active one. It might look prettier (not convinced there either) but productivity went out the window.

  19. Re: And the systemd unit file for... by armanox · · Score: 1

    Who said anything about him being a Microsoft Shill? Being anti-systemd has nothing to do with Microsoft.

    --
    I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  20. Re: And the systemd unit file for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello m$ shill #1701! Please go the counter for your cheque! Ty.

    The unit file for MongoDB is missing! How can you attack people that complain about just how broken systemd is when reading over and over again reproduction steps to reproduce so many different systemd bugs? Here's yet another I read in a bug this morning that of course was resolved as wontfix:

    cd /tmp
    wget http://repo.mongodb.org/apt/ubuntu/dists/precise/mongodb-org/3.2/multiverse/binary-amd64/mongodb-org-server_3.2.5_amd64.deb
    ar vx mongodb-org-server_3.2.5_amd64.deb
    tar -xvf data.tar.gz

    Then notice that there is no mongodb.service file in the .tar file. It doesn't exist. How can you defend that?

  21. Sad news ... Prince, dead at 57 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just heard some sad news on talk radio - singer / songwriter
    Prince was found dead in his Minnesota home this morning. There
    weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the Slashdot community
    will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy his work, there's no denying
    his contributions to popular culture. Truly an American icon.

  22. Ubuntu 16.04 minimal server step by step by Coop32 · · Score: 1

    Found this this tutorial recently, where you may find the installation of a Ubuntu 16.04 minimal server step by step. The purpose of the guide is to show the basic installation of Ubuntu 16.04 that can be used as basis for our other Ubuntu tutorials here at howtoforge like our perfect server guides. However, server control panel is a question, but not in this case (I use ServerSuit).