So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox? Besides sandboxing wasn't
it do have the latest and greatest version right? In installed Ubuntu
23.04 on a laptop. Found that you cannot just copy the profile from deb
install to snap, you have to create a new profile and just copy the
"important files" to the new snap version. I use to just copy the whole
profile directory, even when transferring from Windows to Linux just
worked. Any way created a scrip to simplify the process. But now to the
latest and greatest version bit...

The snap version was 111.0 where on my other laptop with 22.04 LTS where
I dumped the snap for the deb using the mozillateam-ubuntu PPA it is
running 113.0.1 same a Windows.
firefox:
Installed: 113.0.1+build1-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1

Did another update on 23.04
Now firefox is at 113.0 but seemed to lag the deb version...
firefox:
Installed: 1:1snap1-0ubuntu3

snap info firefox | grep installed
installed: 113.0-2 (2655) 255MB -

So the whole snap thing just seemed to unnecessarily complicate things.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 5/14/23 12:30 PM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?

It gets worse if you have Firefox synced to other computers.
If Snap/flatpak were the only options, I would not use Linux.

azigni wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?
>
> It gets worse if you have Firefox synced to other computers.
> If Snap/flatpak were the only options, I would not use Linux.
>
Normally, all I use is a distro/s repo/s, incl non-free and other such.

Since I mostly use a Ub derivative Mint, I also feel free to use various
..ppa/s for the specific release.

But, I also use Debian offshoots such as LMDE and Sparky.

I do NOT like to compile at all.

I /would/ use such as flatpak if it were my only avenue other than
compile, but I am more strongly anti-Snap, so I would remove Snap from a
Ub flavor or such as Neon.

I mostly prefer package managers such as Synaptic or Muon over Discover
or Software sources, so I would keep Snap out of that in favor of flatpak.

I think Ub has taken the wrong direction w/ its Snap
affection/affliction. I think Mint has taken the correct direction in
breaking w/ Ub over that issue.

--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> I /would/ use such as flatpak if it were my only avenue other than
> compile, but I am more strongly anti-Snap, so I would remove Snap from a
> Ub flavor or such as Neon.

There is a script, unsnap which can do everything w/ various options:

https://github.com/popey/unsnap/blob/main/unsnap

> These scripts are generated by unsnap.
>
> 00-backup - runs snap save for each installed snap being migrated
> 01-install-flatpak - if not already installed, will install flatpak package manager
> 02-enable-flathub - if not enabled, will add the remote flathub location in flatpak
> 03-install-flatpaks - installs equivalent flatpaks for each identified snap
> 04-remove-snaps - removes snaps for which the flatpaks have been installed
> 99-remove-snapd - removes snapd itself, which will remove all snaps

Of course, if one starts off before any snaps or flatpaks are installed
some of those install remove aren't needed.

The KDE Neon I booted recently has flatpaks default and in Discover, but
it also has snap; I don't quite get how to remove snap there, but it
allows one to choose default to be conventional repo/s over flatpak over
snap.

--
Mike Easter

On 15/05/2023 6:18, Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> I /would/ use such as flatpak if it were my only avenue other than compile, but I am more strongly anti-Snap, so I
>> would remove Snap from a Ub flavor or such as Neon.
>
> There is a script, unsnap which can do everything w/ various options:
>
> https://github.com/popey/unsnap/blob/main/unsnap
>
>> These scripts are generated by unsnap.
>>
>>     00-backup - runs snap save for each installed snap being migrated
>>     01-install-flatpak - if not already installed, will install flatpak package manager
>>     02-enable-flathub - if not enabled, will add the remote flathub location in flatpak
>>     03-install-flatpaks - installs equivalent flatpaks for each identified snap
>>     04-remove-snaps - removes snaps for which the flatpaks have been installed
>>     99-remove-snapd - removes snapd itself, which will remove all snaps
>
> Of course, if one starts off before any snaps or flatpaks are installed some of those install remove aren't needed.
>
> The KDE Neon I booted recently has flatpaks default and in Discover, but it also has snap; I don't quite get how to
> remove snap there, but it allows one to choose default to be conventional repo/s over flatpak over snap.
>
Being quite anti-snap (and I don't like systemd, either) I am trying to move my life to mxlinux.
Seems to be working, so far.
An aditional advantage is a Remastersys-style backup option, which creates an .iso image that is usefule to reinstall,
or install on a different PC.

Just a data point.
Mike

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

In <kcdk1jFpiq9U1@mid.individual.net> Mike Easter:

[Snip...]

> I think Ub has taken the wrong direction w/ its Snap
> affection/affliction. I think Mint has taken the correct direction in
> breaking w/ Ub over that issue.

Seems someone at Canonical is reading the straws in the wind ...

Enough of it! Ubuntu to Ditch Snap Completely With 24.04 LTS Naughty Nightingale

https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

OOOPS!!! Missed the April Fools dateline ... :)

For the record: I really want snap to GO AWAY ...

> https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

On 15/05/2023 13:14, Harold Stevens wrote:
> In <kcdk1jFpiq9U1@mid.individual.net> Mike Easter:
>
> [Snip...]
>
>> I think Ub has taken the wrong direction w/ its Snap
>> affection/affliction. I think Mint has taken the correct direction in
>> breaking w/ Ub over that issue.
>
> Seems someone at Canonical is reading the straws in the wind ...
>
> Enough of it! Ubuntu to Ditch Snap Completely With 24.04 LTS Naughty Nightingale
>
> https://news.itsfoss.com/ubuntu-ditch-snap/
>

Damn!! you really had me *HAPPY* for a minute there.

then I saw:

If you are arriving at this page now, let us clarify that it was a humorous post on the occasion of April Fool.

Mike
--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

In <kcehmsFd9s0U2@mid.individual.net> Henry Crun:

[Snip...]

> Damn!! you really had me *HAPPY* for a minute there.
>
> then I saw:
>
> If you are arriving at this page now, let us clarify
> that it was a humorous post on the occasion of April Fool.
>
>
> Mike

Yeah, I belatedly saw that, too. Naturally, right after I thought
to myself "Yaknow, you might want to verify the article..." :)

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at att, dotted with net. * DO NOT SPAM IT. *
I toss GoogleGroup (http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/).

On Mon, 15 May 2023 08:34:04 +0300
Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> wrote:

> On 15/05/2023 6:18, Mike Easter wrote:
> > Mike Easter wrote:
> >> I /would/ use such as flatpak if it were my only avenue other than
> >> compile, but I am more strongly anti-Snap, so I would remove Snap
> >> from a Ub flavor or such as Neon.
> >
> > There is a script, unsnap which can do everything w/ various
> > options:
> >
> > https://github.com/popey/unsnap/blob/main/unsnap
> >
> >> These scripts are generated by unsnap.
> >>
> >>     00-backup - runs snap save for each installed snap being
> >> migrated 01-install-flatpak - if not already installed, will
> >> install flatpak package manager 02-enable-flathub - if not
> >> enabled, will add the remote flathub location in flatpak
> >> 03-install-flatpaks - installs equivalent flatpaks for each
> >> identified snap 04-remove-snaps - removes snaps for which the
> >> flatpaks have been installed 99-remove-snapd - removes snapd
> >> itself, which will remove all snaps
> >
> > Of course, if one starts off before any snaps or flatpaks are
> > installed some of those install remove aren't needed.
> >
> > The KDE Neon I booted recently has flatpaks default and in
> > Discover, but it also has snap; I don't quite get how to remove
> > snap there, but it allows one to choose default to be conventional
> > repo/s over flatpak over snap.
> Being quite anti-snap (and I don't like systemd, either) I am trying
> to move my life to mxlinux. Seems to be working, so far.
> An aditional advantage is a Remastersys-style backup option, which
> creates an .iso image that is usefule to reinstall, or install on a
> different PC.
>
> Just a data point.
> Mike
>

I started using MX Linux about two years ago. To me it's the best
operating system I have ever used.

I don't like the new desktop background, so I changed back to the
original I started with. Just the MX Linux logo in the center and the
date at the top right.

Am 14.05.2023 schrieb "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com>:

> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?

Because Canonical wants to force users to snap. Because users don't like
it and don't use it voluntarily, it must be harder for them to avoid it.

On 17/05/2023 13:33, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 14.05.2023 schrieb "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com>:
>
>> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?
>
> Because Canonical wants to force users to snap. Because users don't like
> it and don't use it voluntarily, it must be harder for them to avoid it.
>

Well, all it really does is push users to try other distros (in my case mxlinux)
which have stuck with no systemd, and therefore no snap.

Mike
--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On 5/17/2023 4:08 AM, Henry Crun wrote:
> On 17/05/2023 13:33, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 14.05.2023 schrieb "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?
>>
>> Because Canonical wants to force users to snap. Because users don't like
>> it and don't use it voluntarily, it must be harder for them to avoid it.
>>
>
> Well, all it really does is push users to try other distros (in my case
> mxlinux)
> which have stuck with no systemd, and therefore no snap.
>

Technically, systemd and snap are orthogonal. You can have either one
without the other. Personally, I hate both, and am looking for a new
distro. I'll probably suffer with systemd, but go for a snap-free one.

red floyd wrote:
> Technically, systemd and snap are orthogonal.  You can have either one
> without the other.

I wasn't familiar w/ that use of the term orthogonal; so I looked it up
in the wiktionary and the wp.

I'm still not sufficiently familiar that I'm prepared to actually use it
in that context, but I agree that it is correct, considering the
'flexibility' of the orthogonal term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogonality

I also searched on comparing orthogonal and mutually exclusive which was
productive.

And, I read an article about running snap w/o systemd, such as w/ MX.
I'm understanding that snap has some 'soft dependencies' on systemd that
should be solved.

I think my choice would be to say, "Systemd and snap are two different
things."

--
Mike Easter

On 5/17/23 08:24, red floyd wrote:
> On 5/17/2023 4:08 AM, Henry Crun wrote:
>> On 17/05/2023 13:33, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 14.05.2023 schrieb "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?
>>>
>>> Because Canonical wants to force users to snap. Because users don't like
>>> it and don't use it voluntarily, it must be harder for them to avoid it.
>>>
>>
>> Well, all it really does is push users to try other distros (in my
>> case mxlinux)
>> which have stuck with no systemd, and therefore no snap.
>>
>
> Technically, systemd and snap are orthogonal.  You can have either one
> without the other.  Personally, I hate both, and am looking for a new
> distro.  I'll probably suffer with systemd, but go for a snap-free one.
>
>
Why suffer with systemd or snap.
Lots of good distros with neither.
I use PCLinuxOS, a rolling release using neither Snap nor systemd.
Linux 6.3.2 and KDE 5.27.5

bliss - my dental anesthesia is wearing off.-“Nearly any fool can use a
GNU/Linux computer. Many do.” After all here I am...
--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> my dental anesthesia is wearing off.

There was a funny Seinfeld episode of Kramer and his dental anesthesia.

1995 Mar 16, 6th season, 19th episode, The Jimmy, "He Thinks You're
Mentally Challenged"

--
Mike Easter

On 5/17/23 15:28, Mike Easter wrote:
> Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>> my dental anesthesia is wearing off.
>
> There was a funny Seinfeld episode of Kramer and his dental anesthesia.
>
> 1995 Mar 16, 6th season, 19th episode, The Jimmy, "He Thinks You're
> Mentally Challenged"

And my dental anesthesia left me with a sore jaw today.

bliss

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

Bobbie Sellers wrote:
> And my dental anesthesia left me with a sore jaw today.

Part of the problem w/ that dental business is what 'we'/they do about
our TM joint during their excursions.

I've learned that if I get them to give me a 'bite' block for a
procedure, then my TM doesn't get so 'unhinged' and I don't have a sore
jaw from how wide I opened it and held it.

That is I would get a sore jaw from my being open so much so 'long'
--not from the 'injury' to my tooth or gum or whatever was their target.
The bite block lets me situate my TM 'better'.

--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> a 'bite' block

a bite block isn't an anesthetic block (sounds like tho'), it is a
rubber thing that lets your mouth be open enough but not 'too much'
(because you can 'bite' it) but it keeps your mouth open enough.

--
Mike Easter

On 5/18/23 15:19, Mike Easter wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> a 'bite' block
>
> a bite block isn't an anesthetic block (sounds like tho'), it is a
> rubber thing that lets your mouth be open enough but not 'too much'
> (because you can 'bite' it) but it keeps your mouth open enough.
>

I have used bite blocks before but the source of the pain is the
infiltration of liquid anesthetic solution Lidocaine, procaine or
Novacaine into the tissue. When the anesthetic is absorbed by the body
it leaves the liquid behind to cause soreness the next day.

One Dentist used me for demonstration of a technique using less
of the anesthetic solution last week and my jaw was not so sore the next
day. The student just used the standard technique which requires
infiltration of a larger amount of liquid. Infiltration by hypodermic
needle, long and fine, after local topical numbing agent.

We are incredibly far off topic.
I meant my comment as a one off remark as to why I did not say
more about the Wonders of the PCLinuxOS sans Snap or even systemd.
i could rave all day about the speed of updates but why?

bliss - Evangelical Church of the bit, the nybble and the byte.
a servant of the Altar of the Gigabyte and Terabyte, Chapel of the
Kilobyte and the Megabyte.

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

On 2023-05-17, Marco Moock <mo01@posteo.de> wrote:
> Am 14.05.2023 schrieb "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com>:
>
>> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox?
>
> Because Canonical wants to force users to snap. Because users don't like
> it and don't use it voluntarily, it must be harder for them to avoid it.
>
Borg mentality in action.

On Sun, 14 May 2023 14:30:23 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> So why are we defaulting to snap for Firefox? Besides sandboxing wasn't
> it do have the latest and greatest version right? In installed Ubuntu
> 23.04 on a laptop. Found that you cannot just copy the profile from deb
> install to snap, you have to create a new profile and just copy the
> "important files" to the new snap version. I use to just copy the whole
> profile directory, even when transferring from Windows to Linux just
> worked. Any way created a scrip to simplify the process. But now to the
> latest and greatest version bit...
>
> The snap version was 111.0 where on my other laptop with 22.04 LTS where
> I dumped the snap for the deb using the mozillateam-ubuntu PPA it is
> running 113.0.1 same a Windows.
> firefox:
> Installed: 113.0.1+build1-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
>
> Did another update on 23.04 Now firefox is at 113.0 but seemed to lag
> the deb version...
> firefox:
> Installed: 1:1snap1-0ubuntu3
>
> snap info firefox | grep installed installed: 113.0-2
> (2655) 255MB -
>
> So the whole snap thing just seemed to unnecessarily complicate things.

Hopefully, this can get someone through this for now. Very simple to do.
Apt, not snap!

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-
ubuntu-22-04

Am 17.06.2023 um 04:35:49 Uhr schrieb Spiral:

> Hopefully, this can get someone through this for now. Very simple to
> do. Apt, not snap!
>
> https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-
> ubuntu-22-04

Possible, but still annoying. Think about the mess if they remove more
and more packages from the official Ubuntu repository.

On 17/06/2023 12:25, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 17.06.2023 um 04:35:49 Uhr schrieb Spiral:
>
>> Hopefully, this can get someone through this for now. Very simple to
>> do. Apt, not snap!
>>
>> https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-
>> ubuntu-22-04
>
> Possible, but still annoying. Think about the mess if they remove more
> and more packages from the official Ubuntu repository.
>

Well, so I thought about it, so now I am in the gradual process of moving to MX Linux.

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On Sat, 17 Jun 2023 13:26:57 +0300
Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> wrote:

> On 17/06/2023 12:25, Marco Moock wrote:
> > Am 17.06.2023 um 04:35:49 Uhr schrieb Spiral:
> >
> >> Hopefully, this can get someone through this for now. Very simple
> >> to do. Apt, not snap!
> >>
> >> https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/04/how-to-install-firefox-deb-apt-
> >> ubuntu-22-04
> >
> > Possible, but still annoying. Think about the mess if they remove
> > more and more packages from the official Ubuntu repository.
> >
>
> Well, so I thought about it, so now I am in the gradual process of
> moving to MX Linux.
>

You won't regret it. It's the best I have ever used. Zero problems.