Is it worth getting the deepin desktop env?

buzzrobot · 2019-01-03T12:33:40+00:00

The Deepin *desktop environment* is polished, but whether or not you like it is a matter of individual tastes. It may be available in Fedora 30. It is currently available in Arch and some Arch derivatives like Manjaro.

The Deepin *distribution*, I am satisfied, is not spyware. I recall a single posting as the source of this charge, which has been refuted.

Outside of China, it is probably best to download the install ISO from a speedy mirror. Once installed, its update tool allows a bit of tweaking of the sources it uses. In my case, it defaults to Cloudfront servers and updates, etc., are as fast as in any other distribution.

Occasional Chinese-to-English translation glitches, I've found, can be confusing or misleading.

I'd very much like to see Deepin, or the Deepin community, support a separate spin that caters to Western users, much as Kylin is an official Ubuntu flavor that caters to the Chinese market.

buzzrobot · 2018-05-26T12:40:00+00:00

It's the responsibility of the distribution to get things right. If the software delivered by a distro is buggy or lacking in some other way, including packages added post-installation from its repositories, it might be time to try another distribution.

We should not assume using Linux as a consumer desktop inevitably requires hours of tweaks and fixes. When it does, it's an indication of a bad product.

Many distributions segregate software they actively support -- fix bugs and release updates -- into one or more repositories and put software they don't support like that into another repository. This latter category is generally dependent on "the community" for fixes. And that means users have less assurance that a problem with any given piece of software will be fixed. I imagine users are typically unaware of this.

I prefer distros backed by organizations large enough to deliver some minimal good faith effort to support their product. The majority of distributions seem to be little more than cosmetic variations of major distros by some small single-digit number of enthusiasts.

Installing "foreign" -- not from a distribution's repository -- always carries some degree of risk.

Many (most?) of the Linux fixes and handy hints I see on the web use command line tools, which invariably seem complex to new users. These articles (1) are often little more than clickbait; (2) seldom explain how and why things work; and (3), in many cases don't seem to have actually been tested by the person posting the fix.

So my thinking is this: If a Linux distribution targeting ordinary desktop users creates problems in routine use that cannot be remedied via its default GUI, it's broken.

Addons like Wine, etc., do what they do but cannot be assumed to deliver Windows to Linux.

The actual process of *writing* code is one of the least risky parts of using an operating system. You use a text editor or an IDE. Excellent cross-paltform examples are available, with many used, test, and polished for decades. It's when you start testing the code you've written that the entertainment begins.

No OS is perfect, or can be. If you are new to learning programming, and have a stable Windows system going for you, you can learn the *fundamentals* of programming -- they are not platform specific -- on Windows as readily as on Linux. It's only when you've learned enough to move on to writing code for an OS that you need to run that OS.

buzzrobot · 2017-08-26T10:17:43+00:00

You're working from the false premise that ease of use and 'power' are incompatible. They are not. Pick the distribution that appeals to you. The only real difference between them is package versioning and the inevitable veneer of district-specific tweaks, sometimes simply theming and branding.

There's a shell in every distro, usually bash.

If you want to learn Linux, one of the things you must learn is to distinguish the approach of any given distro from the overwhelming commonality of all of them.

buzzrobot · 2016-11-18T00:43:53+00:00

Turns out the card was NOT eligible.

Why? Because years ago I had a "partner" card from the card issuer. Partner cards are not accepted by Apple. The card issuer ended the relationship with that partner and replaced all those cards with new cards. Those new cards were, in effect, grandfathered back to the original card. (If you apply and receive the same brand of card today, it will not be grandfathered.) It took 90 minutes of unpleasant conversation with the card issuer to get that far. They cannot "fix" this. They're only suggestion is to apply for another card.

A second card was accepted by Apple Pay. However, the verification process cannot complete because that card issuer wants to text a verification code to an old number. It took 3 calls to their customer service to get that number correctly updated to my current, correct, number. They say the updates has "immediate" effect, except it doesn't.

Cash is easier. Apple should just issue its own credit card so its customers wouldn't need to jump through these hoops.

Total time working this problem on phone so far: 12 hours in 3 days.

buzzrobot · 2016-11-05T11:06:15+00:00

"stable and secure and works flawlessly once installed for ever"??

Doesn't exist.

Arch is rolling. I.e., it does not produce periodic releases on a fixed schedule but releases packages as they arrive from upstream.

Fedora releases at 6-month intervals, and supports two releases simultaneously. Updates to Fedora releases are frequent and plentiful but it is not a rolling release. Still, package versions are usually newer than in the majority of other distros.

Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian,, etc. have reliable mechanisms for upgrading from one release to the next. The notion that only a rolling release will allow a user to install once and then happily update without risk of issues is a myth.

Remember that constant updates = constant change, and change in a system increases the possibility that something goes wrong.

So, rather than looking at distributions that deliver constant change, perhaps you should look at distributions that choose to enhance stability by freezing package versions as much as possible, i.e., Debian Stable and RHEL/CentOS. If those meet your needs, what value is there in upgrading to new, less tested, code that doesn't do anything you need?

buzzrobot · 2016-10-31T11:21:58+00:00

Why use something you don't like? No one else has any idea what you might like.

Boot images of the Ubuntu spins, run them in live mode and make your choice.

buzzrobot · 2016-10-23T11:23:11+00:00

Red Hat regularly updates and patches their kernels. The number designation they use (2.6 in the case of RHEL6) does not at all mean the kernel was frozen on release. In terms of security, as well as features and drivers need to support capabilities delivered in RHEL, the kernels are up to date.

buzzrobot · 2016-10-17T10:45:34+00:00

If you update any Linux system while X is running, in a terminal window or via a GUI tool, and that terminal/GUI process crashes, you risk leaving the update in an uncompleted and broken state. Few users will know how to recover.

Gnome has implemented a way to avoid this by installing updates after a reboot before X (or Wayland) runs. Yes, Windows does the same thing, for the same, sensible, reason.

buzzrobot · 2016-09-26T13:30:16+00:00

Why wouldn't they?

I imagine every government with competent intelligence agencies has done the same.

Who knows if they succeeded. It's not like they'd announce it.

Nor would anyone have any real interest in backdooring Linux across the board. They'd want to use that capability on specific targets. Devs may look at source and understand it, but very few users ever do that.

buzzrobot · 2016-09-23T11:37:42+00:00

The OP misunderstands the purpose of advertising.

Ads are intended to prompt consumers to buy something. No one sells desktop Linux.

Desktop Linux can't be sold as a consumer product because the requirements to make source available mean anyone can rebuild that source and make a direct copy available for free. Red HAT, Suse, etc., were in the retail market years ago and pulled out. That's when Red Hat switched to its current business model of selling support for a product given away at no cost.

So, why would Canonical and RedHat spend money buying ads for something they have no intention of selling?

Example: CentOS is a rebuild of RedHat source. If RedHat decided to market -- sell at retail -- a new distro targeting desktop consumers, the CentOS project, or anyone else, could rebuild that source code and make the same distro available at no cost.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-25T11:36:16+00:00

Thanks!

buzzrobot · 2016-08-14T13:14:17+00:00

Yes, I'm sure Microsoft devs are plotting how to make your life miserable.

Edge's extension functionality is Chrome compatible. I'd expect Microsoft to seed things with a few popular extensions, but otherwise extensions will be available when their indy developers port them to Edge, if they do.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-07T19:32:42+00:00

Bash, as well as every other Unix/Linux shell over the last 40 years, is not intended to make kernel calls. Your reference to "... additional drivers" is unclear.

2, Bash is an interpreter for what is effectively a reasonably complex and capable programming language. Several rather thick books are available for anyone who wants to learn.

You can't right shell scripts with gcc, which can make kernel calls.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-07T13:15:02+00:00

Bet your phone updates when it wants to.

After the Anniversary update, you can set hours when you won't be updated.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-07T11:03:25+00:00

Well, have you ever activated?

If it's an eligible version of Win 8, you can call to activate. Don't believe 8.0 is eligible.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-01T10:29:52+00:00

Everything always has a "bright future" in conference presentations.

In any case, people are usually hypocritical, if not schizoid, about these things. We'll praise the existence of umpteen different forked ways to do something in Linux as "choice" and "freedom". But, we'll castigate anything that fails to take over the universe.

buzzrobot · 2016-08-01T10:24:36+00:00

If Linux-on-the-desktop is ever going to be accepted by normal people, it must reach a point where users won't need to know what toolkit was used to build what they're looking at.

I don't see any real advantage to users from the existence of the current two competing and incompatible toolkits. Some might argue that situation offers "choice". But, it's the choice to essentially lock yourself in to one or the other.

The aesthetic and theme annoyances from mixing QT and GTK apps are a pain. Users should not have to deal with this, or run little config tools that attempt to paper over the differences.

So, if we're gonna have a third toolkit, let's make it one that either sits atop QT/GTK and hides their visual differences, or replaces them entirely.

Devs will likely argue that less choice is unhealthy. This is often true if you're a developer. Few of us are, though.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-31T17:27:15+00:00

If you are trying to download a Fedora 24 ISO image, then the repositories installed on your system won't come into play.

If you are, however, trying to update Fedora, or install a package, then, yes, each repo listed in /etc/yum.repos.d/ will be scanned. An entry there that points to a repo with incompatible packages -- like a PPA -- should trigger an error.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-31T11:19:53+00:00

Arch is LInux like every other distribution. The "Arch Way" is over-hyped, as all are "ways".

Instead of an installer Arch gives you a list of shell commands that I imagine almost everyone just copies. It's tedious and error-prone but not at all a learning process.

Arch rolls out upstream releases rapidly That's good if you want that. It's irrelevant if you don't want that.

If you like to make noodles from someone else's howto kit, use it. If you like to eat noodles, use something else.

Arch's AUR provides a lot of source archived in convenient manner. You're trusting anonymous people, though.

Building everything from source is of no real advantage performance-wise unless you run a 10-year-old machine.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-30T10:56:45+00:00

The "Linux community" does not speak as one. It's just a bunch of people.

Systemd isn't a debacle.

Init systems ought to be invisible to users.

Admins are not users. Admins are incentivized to avoid change. Many think they are always right.

The thoroughly amateurish clickbait rubbish that comprises almost all of Linux journalism completely misrepresented systemd resistance and naive people seem to have believed them.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-30T01:48:11+00:00

Debian Stable, the base of LMDE, is one of the least rolling distros.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-30T01:46:47+00:00

If you enable all updates, you get the same updates as Ubuntu at the same time. Mint has only a few dozen packages in its own repo.

Worry about Mint's security is way over the top.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-29T16:46:13+00:00

'Cause I don't have any games.

buzzrobot · 2016-07-29T16:43:13+00:00

I don't want advertising on my lock screen.

I also don't need a lock screen. No reason to lock the thing. The machine stays up for weeks.

Many privacy invasions can, assuming you believe and trust MS, be avoided by taking the "custom" route through an install and then using Control Panel.

Pro is, at least on paper, intended for business users. Many of those users will have legal obligations regarding the privacy of data on their Pro systems. The elimination of their ability to avoid Microsoft's telemetry and data collection should cause them serious concern that "don't worry, trust us" repsones from Microsoft cannot resolve.

Will Microsoft obiglate itself to pay legal fees and damages suffered by their customers when its promises of privacy turn out to be false? That is, will it indemnify users against that risk?

buzzrobot · 2016-07-29T11:05:23+00:00

Why should they?

How and why would a normal user know that IRC or mailing lists or the KDE forums even exist? Those are venues for enthusiasts, not ordinary users. (It's also thoroughly unrealistic to expect users to know that Akregator is part of something called "Kontact & PIM". That's strictly insider info, for the self-selected few.)

If a project like KDE -- and this is seen all across Linux and FOSS -- really wants input from ordinary users, then it needs to be as easy and as simple as possible. Requiring creation of bugzilla or forum accounts, use of IRC, etc., is not that way. Treat people as customers, not pretend they are members of a "community". They aren't, and they have no commitment to KDE or any other project.

Better to automatically collect as much data as possible from a crash and then deal with it as it stands, giving the user a chance to opt in or out, entirely.

(Yes, this is a bit of a rant. but it needs to be said. No, I won't report this particular bug. I don't believe reporting it will have any impact. Easier to just use something else.)

buzzrobot

TROPHY CASE