somehow, I don't fully trust google to safeguard ANY privacy.
I know they have the financial ability to do major work like this, but their results are 100% untrustable, given WHO they are and WHAT they do.
damn. we could use a good ally on the freedom trail; but google will NEVER be it.
You're not wrong, but Google's cash cow is that they are the exclusive broker of your personal information to advertisers. So it's in their best interest to keep their services secure, because (a) they don't want you going to some other service that's more secure, (b) they don't want your personal info leaking to somebody else [since its sole value to Google is that they hold it exclusively].
It's rather appalling that there even exists a multibillion dollar anti-virus industry for Windows. Although I'm not entirely blaming Microsoft here, since almost every single one of these shite companies are snake-oil salesmen that poach upon Windows' reputation for being insecure (it still is, but avast or AVG aren't going to fix it).
Sorry for being unclear; what I meant was that Ubuntu spinoffs like Mint aren't used as much as "official" Ubuntu. My source for Unity being the most-used DE of Ubuntu is this survey: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201...
KDE 4 was awesome for work. I could have tens of programs open on various desktops, plenty of konsole with tabs opened in bash in various directories, and after a reboot it would reopen everything in the same places (correct position and desktop) and even the same directories.
Not so with KDE5. A few programs reopen, placed completely randomly (wrong desktops). Most don't reopen. Konsole won't reopen. It's been buggy like that ever since. So IS IT FIXED NOW ?!?
I did some research and actually found the answer on Slashdot. So, courtesy of this anonymous coward: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
"use the corner icon (accessible by alt+F3 as well) in the window decoration and choose "Special window settings" under the "more actions" submenu. There's a tab for "size and position" that has the settings you want. Check the boxes next to "Position" and "Size" and change the dropdowns to "Remember". For most apps, this is all you need. If an application still misbehaves you can also check "Ignore requested geometry" and set it to "Force" and the "yes" radio button to make kwin ignore the app's desires completely."
For me kwin crashes for no reason very regularly (10 mins on average); back to i3 for me since Ubuntu 15.10; 16.04 is no better.
It also completely sucks when using an NFS home. Every mouse click seems to want to write some pointless logs or state back to my homedir, freezing everything up. I don't have that problem with i3: it just manages windows and doesn't do lots of unnecessary I/O.
Still pining for the pinnacle of usability and stability which was KDE3.
I've not been so hot about KDE in the past because it's been such a resource hog compared to MATE and Xfce, but I gave 5.7 a try and it's actually really nice. I have a few grumbles (e.g. I'd rather double click in Dolphin to enter a new directory than single click) but overall I'm satisfied. Also with a bit of customization, it looks really sexy on my 4K monitor.
Where's the love for Xfce? It's super-lightweight, does everything you need, installs easily, works perfectly, and you can even get distros like Ubuntu in Xubuntu flavor if you don't want to go through a very easy install. They aren't obsessed with continually "improving" (and, in the process, devolving) what is already a great thing.
The article is about a new release of KDE, why would anybody be talking about Xfce?
Why do these KDE folks still bother? GNOME has won the battle, it is by far the most popular and widely-used desktop environment on GNU/Linux. All these KDE developers should jump ship, and contribute to GNOME. Then perhaps GNU/Linux on the mainstream desktop will actually become a reality.
Actually, Unity is the most used desktop environment in the world. Over 2 million PCs in China are running Ubuntu Kylin, and most web stats show that vanilla Ubuntu is the most used distro.
KDE was good enough as a desktop design about 10 years ago. Since then it's just been pointless rewrite after pointless rewrite. It's like watching a kid who's made a perfectly good model boat continually smashing it up and rebuilding it just for the hell of it. Fun for the kid, no fun for his brother who just wants to take the damned thing to the local lake and you nkow actually sail it and have some fun !
If the people who work on this stuff spent even 50% of their time actually writing something useful then maybe, just maybe, we can finally get rid of the Windows spyware that infest the majority of home computers.
But no... here's the new KDE/Gnome etc. with yet another new way of doing the SAME OLD SHIT.
I don't think it's been rewritten several times. I think certain parts of the code base was re-written in order to support modern features like HiDPI displays, but I'm fairly certain Plasma 4 and 5 didn't start from scratch either time.
The thing you just quoted doesn't support what you just wrote. You seem to be confusing "i386" (a particular 32-bit CPU) with "32-bit library" (a library compiled to support 32-bit CPUs but also support everything thereafter).
I have a Compaq Preesario V6000 released in 2006, which is also a 32bit medium range machine, designed for "Windows xp".
It runs Windows 10 reasonably, with only a hiccup or two now and then (needs more RAM). Most websites run perfectly fine on it, and can be used for banking, browsing (mostly, it's a bit choppy on HTML5 video - Flash video seems to have fewer problems). I would imagine if it was a high-end laptop, 17 years old shouldn't be an issue.
So why would someone who just does that stop using it?
Nobody's telling you to stop using it. The question is if distro maintainers want to do the work to provide full support to computers that are AT LEAST 17 years old. The answer is, the cutting edge distros don't, but distros focused on stability like CentOS probably will.
I don't disagree with a decision to drop support for old hardware, but what about some other level of support using emulated hardware to at least give some degree of support?
I think you're missing what the point of "support" is. A company can release a binary and say they support it, without testing it and not fixing any bugs for it, but that makes them look like assholes.
They can still test the software on "better" hardware. They can also run it in a VM. That's what they expect everyone else to do.
It may not be "optimal" but it's certainly possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that they aren't really trying very hard to find 32bit x86 hardware.
I'm having difficulty apprehending what's so difficult to understand about this.
VMs and 64-bit CPUs can use the amd64 image, so there's literally no point in testing the IA-32 image on an amd64 CPU. The point of supporting an IA-32 ISO is so people on i686s and Core Duos can still use them. And you have to *test* to make sure the IA-32 image actually works on those CPUs, else you're at best wasting those peoples' time, at worst wrecking their computers.
Yes, most 64 bit chips also run 32 bit software, so no, there's no problem finding testing hardware, that's absurd.
Nobody cares if 32-bit ISOs work on 64-bit CPUs because those people are already using a 64-bit ISO. The 32-bit ISO has to be tested on ancient hardware like i686, which there's a shortage of.
Uh... as more time goes on, more exploits are found in all software, making all systems gradually more insecure. It's almost like there were a universal law governing such things *cough*.
Ubuntu's going to support IA-32 images for at least another five years (EOL for 16.04), probably seven (18.04 EOL). If your IA-32 system is still chugging by then, there'll still likely be Debian and CentOS to switch to.
Why not just drop the boot 32bit part and only have the compact 32bit libs. Like how windows server 2008 and newer is on the windows side.
Why cut off apps that can run today on a 64bit system with out needing any vm bs.
If you had read TFA, you might have found out that's exactly what most Linux distros are doing. 32-bit library support isn't going anywhere, just.ISO builds for the i686 and older.
openSUSE dropped IA-32 builds from their brand new releases, and the Ubuntu community is talking about it (nevermind that 16.04 will support their IA-32 build for another five years). It's still supported by CentOS and Debian and lots of other distros. In short, saying you're shit-outta-luck is totally not accurate.
Slashdot Mirror
somehow, I don't fully trust google to safeguard ANY privacy.
I know they have the financial ability to do major work like this, but their results are 100% untrustable, given WHO they are and WHAT they do.
damn. we could use a good ally on the freedom trail; but google will NEVER be it.
You're not wrong, but Google's cash cow is that they are the exclusive broker of your personal information to advertisers. So it's in their best interest to keep their services secure, because (a) they don't want you going to some other service that's more secure, (b) they don't want your personal info leaking to somebody else [since its sole value to Google is that they hold it exclusively].
It's rather appalling that there even exists a multibillion dollar anti-virus industry for Windows. Although I'm not entirely blaming Microsoft here, since almost every single one of these shite companies are snake-oil salesmen that poach upon Windows' reputation for being insecure (it still is, but avast or AVG aren't going to fix it).
I'm really sorry. You know, about that PCP habit you picked up after Sun went out of business.
Expressed by whom?
Sorry for being unclear; what I meant was that Ubuntu spinoffs like Mint aren't used as much as "official" Ubuntu. My source for Unity being the most-used DE of Ubuntu is this survey: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/201...
KDE 4 was awesome for work. I could have tens of programs open on various desktops, plenty of konsole with tabs opened in bash in various directories, and after a reboot it would reopen everything in the same places (correct position and desktop) and even the same directories.
Not so with KDE5. A few programs reopen, placed completely randomly (wrong desktops). Most don't reopen. Konsole won't reopen. It's been buggy like that ever since. So IS IT FIXED NOW ?!?
I did some research and actually found the answer on Slashdot. So, courtesy of this anonymous coward: https://news.slashdot.org/comm...
"use the corner icon (accessible by alt+F3 as well) in the window decoration and choose "Special window settings" under the "more actions" submenu. There's a tab for "size and position" that has the settings you want. Check the boxes next to "Position" and "Size" and change the dropdowns to "Remember". For most apps, this is all you need. If an application still misbehaves you can also check "Ignore requested geometry" and set it to "Force" and the "yes" radio button to make kwin ignore the app's desires completely."
Note you can customize this to get the double click you want (I also prefer double-clicking folders).
Please let me know how. I did look through Dolphin's settings and the option is either well hidden, or it's labeled as something I wouldn't think of.
You forgot to mention the part where you masturbated vigorously at the thought of your own trolling.
For me kwin crashes for no reason very regularly (10 mins on average); back to i3 for me since Ubuntu 15.10; 16.04 is no better. It also completely sucks when using an NFS home. Every mouse click seems to want to write some pointless logs or state back to my homedir, freezing everything up. I don't have that problem with i3: it just manages windows and doesn't do lots of unnecessary I/O. Still pining for the pinnacle of usability and stability which was KDE3.
You may be interested in Trinity DE, which is a fork of KDE3.5. https://www.trinitydesktop.org...
I've not been so hot about KDE in the past because it's been such a resource hog compared to MATE and Xfce, but I gave 5.7 a try and it's actually really nice. I have a few grumbles (e.g. I'd rather double click in Dolphin to enter a new directory than single click) but overall I'm satisfied. Also with a bit of customization, it looks really sexy on my 4K monitor.
Where's the love for Xfce? It's super-lightweight, does everything you need, installs easily, works perfectly, and you can even get distros like Ubuntu in Xubuntu flavor if you don't want to go through a very easy install. They aren't obsessed with continually "improving" (and, in the process, devolving) what is already a great thing.
The article is about a new release of KDE, why would anybody be talking about Xfce?
Why do these KDE folks still bother? GNOME has won the battle, it is by far the most popular and widely-used desktop environment on GNU/Linux. All these KDE developers should jump ship, and contribute to GNOME. Then perhaps GNU/Linux on the mainstream desktop will actually become a reality.
Actually, Unity is the most used desktop environment in the world. Over 2 million PCs in China are running Ubuntu Kylin, and most web stats show that vanilla Ubuntu is the most used distro.
KDE was good enough as a desktop design about 10 years ago. Since then it's just been pointless rewrite after pointless rewrite. It's like watching a kid who's made a perfectly good model boat continually smashing it up and rebuilding it just for the hell of it. Fun for the kid, no fun for his brother who just wants to take the damned thing to the local lake and you nkow actually sail it and have some fun !
If the people who work on this stuff spent even 50% of their time actually writing something useful then maybe, just maybe, we can finally get rid of the Windows spyware that infest the majority of home computers.
But no... here's the new KDE/Gnome etc. with yet another new way of doing the SAME OLD SHIT.
I don't think it's been rewritten several times. I think certain parts of the code base was re-written in order to support modern features like HiDPI displays, but I'm fairly certain Plasma 4 and 5 didn't start from scratch either time.
You seem to think that the only advantage amd64 has over IA-32 is that you can utilize more RAM, which is not the case.
The thing you just quoted doesn't support what you just wrote. You seem to be confusing "i386" (a particular 32-bit CPU) with "32-bit library" (a library compiled to support 32-bit CPUs but also support everything thereafter).
Read TFA. Nobody's killing 32-bit libraries. Only .ISOs for 32-bit CPUs.
I have a Compaq Preesario V6000 released in 2006, which is also a 32bit medium range machine, designed for "Windows xp".
It runs Windows 10 reasonably, with only a hiccup or two now and then (needs more RAM). Most websites run perfectly fine on it, and can be used for banking, browsing (mostly, it's a bit choppy on HTML5 video - Flash video seems to have fewer problems). I would imagine if it was a high-end laptop, 17 years old shouldn't be an issue.
So why would someone who just does that stop using it?
Nobody's telling you to stop using it. The question is if distro maintainers want to do the work to provide full support to computers that are AT LEAST 17 years old. The answer is, the cutting edge distros don't, but distros focused on stability like CentOS probably will.
Specifically IA-32 hardware, not anything 32-bit.
I don't disagree with a decision to drop support for old hardware, but what about some other level of support using emulated hardware to at least give some degree of support?
I think you're missing what the point of "support" is. A company can release a binary and say they support it, without testing it and not fixing any bugs for it, but that makes them look like assholes.
They can still test the software on "better" hardware. They can also run it in a VM. That's what they expect everyone else to do.
It may not be "optimal" but it's certainly possible.
That's not even getting into the fact that they aren't really trying very hard to find 32bit x86 hardware.
I'm having difficulty apprehending what's so difficult to understand about this.
VMs and 64-bit CPUs can use the amd64 image, so there's literally no point in testing the IA-32 image on an amd64 CPU. The point of supporting an IA-32 ISO is so people on i686s and Core Duos can still use them. And you have to *test* to make sure the IA-32 image actually works on those CPUs, else you're at best wasting those peoples' time, at worst wrecking their computers.
Yes, most 64 bit chips also run 32 bit software, so no, there's no problem finding testing hardware, that's absurd.
Nobody cares if 32-bit ISOs work on 64-bit CPUs because those people are already using a 64-bit ISO. The 32-bit ISO has to be tested on ancient hardware like i686, which there's a shortage of.
Uh... as more time goes on, more exploits are found in all software, making all systems gradually more insecure. It's almost like there were a universal law governing such things *cough*.
Ubuntu's going to support IA-32 images for at least another five years (EOL for 16.04), probably seven (18.04 EOL). If your IA-32 system is still chugging by then, there'll still likely be Debian and CentOS to switch to.
Why not just drop the boot 32bit part and only have the compact 32bit libs. Like how windows server 2008 and newer is on the windows side.
Why cut off apps that can run today on a 64bit system with out needing any vm bs.
If you had read TFA, you might have found out that's exactly what most Linux distros are doing. 32-bit library support isn't going anywhere, just .ISO builds for the i686 and older.
At least for intel Archs, you can install a 32 Bit OS on a computer with a 64 bit capable cpu.
*facepalm*
They're talking about x86 CPUs, like the i386, which cannot use the amd64 build because they don't support 64-bit. That's why it's hard to test.
Specifically IA-32 hardware, not anything 32-bit.
openSUSE dropped IA-32 builds from their brand new releases, and the Ubuntu community is talking about it (nevermind that 16.04 will support their IA-32 build for another five years). It's still supported by CentOS and Debian and lots of other distros. In short, saying you're shit-outta-luck is totally not accurate.