at least you could keep their reviews so users could at least know if the app can be trusted.

You mean, don’t trust a flatpak uploaded by a random person, but if there are enough fake reviews, it can be trusted?

Also the location of known Wifi networks.

Embracing the GC

I never actually liked the GC in D as it didn’t seem to fit in with the general direction of the language, and Walter Bright in D at 20: Hits and Misses says:

Miss: Emphasis on GC

“secure alternative”? Others are not secure?

And mainline Linux and a Linux Desktop is still struggling today with power management. Like getting chat messages while it’s asleep.

And the really sad thing is that the power management improvements devs have been working on for the PinePhone are really very specific to that particular device and don’t help mobile Linux in general (so it’s basically wasted effort).

Jed when you want a simple, Emacs-like editor.

There is also Roundup Issue Tracker

jed

You don’t really need to switch to a different distro. Just avoid snaps/flatpack/… and use a more lightweight desktop like XFCE and you should be fine.

Don’t believe everything you hear. It’s still available as a .deb: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa

Known-good meaning a tested and working configuration The bugs are fixed upstream and they get pushed via the method of distribution, which is Flathub in this case. Well, fixes don’t normally need to be backported because flatpaks are usually fresh.

There are a few assumptions in here in order for that to work: the known-good version needs to be the latest upstream version (otherwise you might not have the latest security fixes) and users need to be comfortable always using the latest flatpak version. Some users might be more comfortable staying on a known stable version for some time.

For notifications, you’d have to follow the relevant projects directly.

Right, and each project will have its own way of handling security issues (particularly when it comes to older versions). Will they point out that versions x - y of their flatpak are affected by a security issue in component z?

Flatpaks can guarantee you have a known-good dependency chain directly tested by the developers/maintainers themselves

What does known-good mean? What if a security vulnerability is found in one of the dependencies. With an old-style distribution there is a security team that monitors security reports and they will provide a fixed package. With flatpaks it’s not clear to me if those developers will monitor each dependency for security vulnerabilities and how they will handle that. Will users even be informed about a security issue, will a fix be backported or will it only be available in the latest version?

and newer versions won’t run due to library dependencies.

Mozilla seem to be able to limit library dependencies in their builds: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/system-requirements/

But are they actually doing this? I am not seeing any changes: https://launchpad.net/~mozillateam/+archive/ubuntu/ppa still has the .deb packages

You mean like https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/en/man8/snap.8.html

Still better than a random user claiming

This is a massive security vulnerability

with no justification whatsoever.

Verifying a snap package’s authenticity seems to suggest otherwise. What’s the source for your claim?

Was there even a change to the Firefox PPA? I am not seeing a change.

That link appears to be for a Windows driver.

The description says:

In this video, we’ll do a deep dive on what C++ Polymorphism is, what “virtual” does under the hood, and ultimately why it is SUCH a performance hit compared to languages like C and Rust.

This is not about compile-time polymorphism.

“they put ads in the terminal” isn’t really accurate.

Their “ubuntu-advantage-tools” adds information to one of their other products to the output of apt. You can easily get rid of that by uninstalling/replacing “ubuntu-advantage-tools”. It’s definitely not like they are selling ad space in your terminal to third parties.