Nemo and Caja are about the same to me (I don't think I could name more than two differences off the top of my head), but by using either one, you're admitting that GNOME3-Nautilus is the worst of the bunch.
As someone that's been using Ubuntu MATE for over a year, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sound, battery, network, and Bluetooth indicators are all visible and working on my top bar out of the box.
I'm not exactly sure what about MATE allegedly doesn't "integrate" with Ubuntu, but its applets work just fine. v1.12 will support GTK+3, so that argument will only be valid for a little bit longer.
Now for the downsides of of GNOME fallback mode: it is much more resource intensive, a lot of the GNOME tools (particularly Nautilus) are still missing a lot of their gutted GNOME2 functionality which MATE restores, and GNOME3 comes with a lot of crapware (who the heck uses "Web" over Firefox or Chromium?).
What's easier, teaching somebody who isn't tech savvy: A) how to use KeePass X or some other offline password manager; or B) to manually compose a bundle of strong, memorable passwords, to change them at least once a year, but not to re-use them, not to use them on any computer that could keylog them, and not to write them down or save them in plaintext?
Yes, Ubuntu and Mint are almost the same under the hood. However, as far as I can tell, there's no way to automate security updates in Mint without writing a cron script. Plus I prefer Deja Dup/duplicity (in Ubuntu by default) to whatever Mint's backup tool is.
Another issue is the fact that Mint is based off of 14.04 LTS packages, whereas 15.10 packages are much newer. Since I write Python 3 scripts, that's a bit more convenient for me.
Neither Mint nor Ubuntu have Wayland or Mir yet. I prefer Ubuntu because its scheduled backup and security update tools are easier to automate. Mint's "software center" is far superior to Ubuntu's, though. I've also found WINE and multi-monitor support to be better in Mint.
In my time of using Ubuntu (every version since 14.04), the only technical problems I suffered were some glitches with Unity (that has since been avoided because I moved to MATE). I've tried both Fedora 21 and 22 and both of them would terminally crash on me; if I had cared enough to force it to work, maybe I could've fixed it, but what's the point when Ubuntu works perfect for me out of the box? So your claim that "Fedora is always more stable than Ubuntu" is demonstrably false in my case.
In regards to CentOS: it's worked fairly well for me in my experience. But there's four reasons I prefer Ubuntu. The first is that enabling automatic security updates, the firewall, and the scheduled backup takes about two minutes total in Ubuntu, so it's much faster and easier to install it on my friends' and co-workers' computers. Plus these tools all have an extremely rudimentary GUI (Software Updater, gufw, and Deja Dup respectively), so it's easier to manage for those people that are not technically saavy. The second reason I prefer Ubuntu is because it supports MATE out of the box, which is superior in many ways to GNOME fallback mode in CentOS. The third reason is because Ubuntu has broader hardware support; correct me if I'm wrong, but CentOS does not yet support UEFI boot, does it? I would have to roll my own kernel to a newer version. The Ubuntu family has better driver support in any case. And the fourth reason is because my friends and co-workers want to use MP3s, DVDs, TrueType fonts, Flash and Java, which can all be enabled out of the box from an Ubuntu install, whereas you have to know how to hack in support when using CentOS.
Mint is superior to Ubuntu in many ways. The only reason I prefer Ubuntu MATE to Mint MATE is because of the automatic security updates and backup tools, which are more convenient for when I install Linux on my co-workers' or friends' computers.
I don't use Ubuntu because it's cool, I use it because it allows me to get my work done. I'm sure Fedora is perfect for its users, but in my experience it's less stable.
Speaking as a user of Ubuntu MATE: It has the best hardware support of any distro I have ever used, it has the best selection of default software (except that obnoxious GNOME Keyring/Seahorse, which I replace with KeePass X). I have not had any problems with PulseAudio, NetworkManager, or systemd.
Mint is about just as good honestly, so if you have some moral qualms against Canonical (e.g. because of the Amazon search plug-in), it's a perfectly viable alternative. Fedora is too crashy for me to use--that's just my experience. I like Debian a lot, but I have to fiddle with the defaults far too much for my taste (I give lots of Ubuntu MATE USBs to my friends and co-workers to try out, it's a lot more user friendly than Debian is).
Why do you like KDE?
on
KDE Turns 19
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I'm curious to hear from some KDE fans. In my experience, the K applications are almost universally inferior to other free counterparts (who uses Calliga Suite over LibreOffice? Konqueror over Firefox/Chromium?), and I have found Plasma to be gaudy and bloated compared to MATE and Xfce. But that's just me. Any reasons why KDE is so great, beyond its vast customizability?
...I already knew something was wrong when Motorola never pushed any security patches for Stagefright. I'm just going to flash CyanogenMod and be done with it. Don't buy anything Motorola/Lenovo ever again, obviously.
Unless you wanted/intended to profit off of FLIF using locked hardware or DRM'd implementations, there shouldn't be any problem with the fact that its reference is GPLv3.
We know the Russian government is evil, spies on its citizens. We know. Pointing it out continually does not diminish the Orwellian nightmare that the U.S. government has become, or diminish the heroism that was required for Snowden to ever accomplish what he did.
I know you don't care because you're shills, I'm only letting you know that your ad hominem arguments are 100% ineffective and you should move on to something better. Thanks.
Your response indicates confusion on several levels.
First of all, the point of encryption is that even if an evildoer (E.D.) were to intercept your data, he wouldn't be able to read it unless he had the key. So even if E.D. acquired root access to your Windows computer, he couldn't read your encrypted data.
Most people use encryption to prevent somebody from stealing their phone/laptop and copying the data off of the drive. This vulnerability in TrueCrypt does not aid the E.D. if they stole your physical drive, since they still need the key to load the encrypted drive. It also doesn't help the E.D. from getting your encrypted data off of an Internet server.
So what's this vulnerability about? If the E.D. already has access to your computer, but doesn't have admin access, but does notice TrueCrypt is already installed, he can use it to gain admin access from your privilege-restricted user account. However, most Windows users run with admin privileges constantly anyway, so this is not problematic for them for the most part. It's a security concern, however, if you're a sysadmin and you have users on your server that use TrueCrypt. But the data encrypted thereby is totally safe (except for the usual attack vectors: keyloggers, brute force password breaking, etc.).
I am just wondering what advantages I get from the Adblock Browser over using Firefox for Android with uBlock Origin (or Adblock Plus/Edge if you prefer)? TFA doesn't seem to enlighten me.
Actual conclusion: paper that a particular copy of the Qur'an was written on *might* be older than Muhammed himself. I don't see many Muslims apostatizing over that.
I see some people mentioning the Shroud of Turin. The infamous carbon dating of it was actually done on a corner that was not part of the original relic; there was a fire in the Middle Ages, and its caretakers repaired it with a piece of cloth they had. The carbon dating confirmed that. Unfortunately most journalists ran with the erroneous conclusion that the sacred artifact itself was scientifically confirmed to be a forgery, which it wasn't.
People downloaded Firefox knowing what the default search engine would be. Users of CyanogenMod did not expect an OTA update to fuck with their chosen setting.
Slashdot Mirror
Nemo and Caja are about the same to me (I don't think I could name more than two differences off the top of my head), but by using either one, you're admitting that GNOME3-Nautilus is the worst of the bunch.
As someone that's been using Ubuntu MATE for over a year, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sound, battery, network, and Bluetooth indicators are all visible and working on my top bar out of the box.
I'm not exactly sure what about MATE allegedly doesn't "integrate" with Ubuntu, but its applets work just fine. v1.12 will support GTK+3, so that argument will only be valid for a little bit longer.
Now for the downsides of of GNOME fallback mode: it is much more resource intensive, a lot of the GNOME tools (particularly Nautilus) are still missing a lot of their gutted GNOME2 functionality which MATE restores, and GNOME3 comes with a lot of crapware (who the heck uses "Web" over Firefox or Chromium?).
What's easier, teaching somebody who isn't tech savvy: A) how to use KeePass X or some other offline password manager; or B) to manually compose a bundle of strong, memorable passwords, to change them at least once a year, but not to re-use them, not to use them on any computer that could keylog them, and not to write them down or save them in plaintext?
The answer seems pretty obvious to me.
Why exactly would you use GNOME fallback over MATE...?
I'm currently running Ubuntu 15.10 MATE on an HP Stream 13 and everything works perfectly.
Yes, Ubuntu and Mint are almost the same under the hood. However, as far as I can tell, there's no way to automate security updates in Mint without writing a cron script. Plus I prefer Deja Dup/duplicity (in Ubuntu by default) to whatever Mint's backup tool is.
Another issue is the fact that Mint is based off of 14.04 LTS packages, whereas 15.10 packages are much newer. Since I write Python 3 scripts, that's a bit more convenient for me.
Neither Mint nor Ubuntu have Wayland or Mir yet. I prefer Ubuntu because its scheduled backup and security update tools are easier to automate. Mint's "software center" is far superior to Ubuntu's, though. I've also found WINE and multi-monitor support to be better in Mint.
In my time of using Ubuntu (every version since 14.04), the only technical problems I suffered were some glitches with Unity (that has since been avoided because I moved to MATE). I've tried both Fedora 21 and 22 and both of them would terminally crash on me; if I had cared enough to force it to work, maybe I could've fixed it, but what's the point when Ubuntu works perfect for me out of the box? So your claim that "Fedora is always more stable than Ubuntu" is demonstrably false in my case.
In regards to CentOS: it's worked fairly well for me in my experience. But there's four reasons I prefer Ubuntu. The first is that enabling automatic security updates, the firewall, and the scheduled backup takes about two minutes total in Ubuntu, so it's much faster and easier to install it on my friends' and co-workers' computers. Plus these tools all have an extremely rudimentary GUI (Software Updater, gufw, and Deja Dup respectively), so it's easier to manage for those people that are not technically saavy. The second reason I prefer Ubuntu is because it supports MATE out of the box, which is superior in many ways to GNOME fallback mode in CentOS. The third reason is because Ubuntu has broader hardware support; correct me if I'm wrong, but CentOS does not yet support UEFI boot, does it? I would have to roll my own kernel to a newer version. The Ubuntu family has better driver support in any case. And the fourth reason is because my friends and co-workers want to use MP3s, DVDs, TrueType fonts, Flash and Java, which can all be enabled out of the box from an Ubuntu install, whereas you have to know how to hack in support when using CentOS.
Mint is superior to Ubuntu in many ways. The only reason I prefer Ubuntu MATE to Mint MATE is because of the automatic security updates and backup tools, which are more convenient for when I install Linux on my co-workers' or friends' computers.
I don't use Ubuntu because it's cool, I use it because it allows me to get my work done. I'm sure Fedora is perfect for its users, but in my experience it's less stable.
Speaking as a user of Ubuntu MATE: It has the best hardware support of any distro I have ever used, it has the best selection of default software (except that obnoxious GNOME Keyring/Seahorse, which I replace with KeePass X). I have not had any problems with PulseAudio, NetworkManager, or systemd.
Mint is about just as good honestly, so if you have some moral qualms against Canonical (e.g. because of the Amazon search plug-in), it's a perfectly viable alternative. Fedora is too crashy for me to use--that's just my experience. I like Debian a lot, but I have to fiddle with the defaults far too much for my taste (I give lots of Ubuntu MATE USBs to my friends and co-workers to try out, it's a lot more user friendly than Debian is).
I'm curious to hear from some KDE fans. In my experience, the K applications are almost universally inferior to other free counterparts (who uses Calliga Suite over LibreOffice? Konqueror over Firefox/Chromium?), and I have found Plasma to be gaudy and bloated compared to MATE and Xfce. But that's just me. Any reasons why KDE is so great, beyond its vast customizability?
With Snowden's revelations about XKEYSCORE, Putin's suspicions were proved just about completely true.
I hope it's as riveting as their Windows 7 launch party was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cX4t5-YpHQ
...I already knew something was wrong when Motorola never pushed any security patches for Stagefright. I'm just going to flash CyanogenMod and be done with it. Don't buy anything Motorola/Lenovo ever again, obviously.
Unless you wanted/intended to profit off of FLIF using locked hardware or DRM'd implementations, there shouldn't be any problem with the fact that its reference is GPLv3.
We know the Russian government is evil, spies on its citizens. We know. Pointing it out continually does not diminish the Orwellian nightmare that the U.S. government has become, or diminish the heroism that was required for Snowden to ever accomplish what he did.
I know you don't care because you're shills, I'm only letting you know that your ad hominem arguments are 100% ineffective and you should move on to something better. Thanks.
Your response indicates confusion on several levels.
First of all, the point of encryption is that even if an evildoer (E.D.) were to intercept your data, he wouldn't be able to read it unless he had the key. So even if E.D. acquired root access to your Windows computer, he couldn't read your encrypted data.
Most people use encryption to prevent somebody from stealing their phone/laptop and copying the data off of the drive. This vulnerability in TrueCrypt does not aid the E.D. if they stole your physical drive, since they still need the key to load the encrypted drive. It also doesn't help the E.D. from getting your encrypted data off of an Internet server.
So what's this vulnerability about? If the E.D. already has access to your computer, but doesn't have admin access, but does notice TrueCrypt is already installed, he can use it to gain admin access from your privilege-restricted user account. However, most Windows users run with admin privileges constantly anyway, so this is not problematic for them for the most part. It's a security concern, however, if you're a sysadmin and you have users on your server that use TrueCrypt. But the data encrypted thereby is totally safe (except for the usual attack vectors: keyloggers, brute force password breaking, etc.).
It keeps printing SYSTEMCTL: NOT FOUND. What's up with that?
For all of those too lazy to RTFA or summary, the flaw in TrueCrypt is that its driver in Windows is an attack vector to gain escalated privileges.
There is nothing to suggest that any data encrypted is in danger.
That being said, you should use VeraCrypt for Windows, since it's still being actively maintained.
Creepy.
I am just wondering what advantages I get from the Adblock Browser over using Firefox for Android with uBlock Origin (or Adblock Plus/Edge if you prefer)? TFA doesn't seem to enlighten me.
Actual conclusion: paper that a particular copy of the Qur'an was written on *might* be older than Muhammed himself. I don't see many Muslims apostatizing over that.
I see some people mentioning the Shroud of Turin. The infamous carbon dating of it was actually done on a corner that was not part of the original relic; there was a fire in the Middle Ages, and its caretakers repaired it with a piece of cloth they had. The carbon dating confirmed that. Unfortunately most journalists ran with the erroneous conclusion that the sacred artifact itself was scientifically confirmed to be a forgery, which it wasn't.
People downloaded Firefox knowing what the default search engine would be. Users of CyanogenMod did not expect an OTA update to fuck with their chosen setting.
It's a shitty precedent and a shitty trend to follow. If you can't see otherwise, then perhaps you should re-evaluate just who the fanboy is.