I’ve never once had links take any sort of noticeable time to open outside of the scanner link/redirect. Which doesn’t have to do with edge or outlook. You probably are conflating two issues.
No other browser does this, and it only happens when opening the link from outlook. Which does make sense to me because edge has some kind of outlook integration. Probably our incompetent network admin and weird ass network and AD situation does not help, but it’s still a bunch of microsoft products that don’t work properly together.
I was not aware that’s a thing. So you’re saying every link I get on outlook has a redirect link stuck in front of it because of azure AD? But why does that not cause chrome or firefox to load the pages slowly?
In some configurations outlook will replace links with something like this (domain is incorrect, but here’s the gist) outlookvirusscanner.outlook.com?scanredirect=theoriginalink.com
So yes, that WILL slow you down, but there is a valid reason for it. If that’s the reason I have no idea why the others wouldn’t be slow. It might just be a I use x at home vs y at work type deal?
It lost a lot of the super-good touchscreen PDF functionality when it switched to chromium though, which I am still mad about. I hope at one point MS will return the PDF Viewer from the original edge
Chrome does have tab groups, but I don’t find them super useful. Automatic grouping by domain would be nice for my usage since I only use chrome at work.
Recently switched to using Flatpaks instead of random .debs for a number of apps on my system. /var/lib/flatpak takes up 7GiB, which honestly isn’t that much (even though it’s like quarter of the OS size), given that’s the software I use most of the time.
Was skeptical at first about Flatpaks, but SteamOS showed me that is great at just giving OS developers access to a fully populated app store with minimal work.
Honestly, nowadays I’d say “ability to install flatpaks” should be the criteria on which we decide whether an OS is really “linux” or not (that is, SteamOS is, but Android isn’t).
Edit: Okay. I said something stupid here, my bad. What I was trying to get at is the distinction between Android, etc. and “Desktop” Linuxes like traditional distros, Chromebooks and the Steam Deck. Even though it technically runs Linux, it’s hard to argue that developers for Android are really writing apps that work on “Linux”. Wheras if someone releases a Flatpak version of their app because they think the Steam deck is cool, it works on other distros “for free”.
Yup, Flatpaks are indeed great. Isolation, modern versions, no weird dependencies.
I have to manage a Debian PC fleet and I am too stupid for Ansible, so they all just got cleaned up extremely, all that bloat gone, apps replaced with flatpaks and now the system has like ⅓ the packages. Automatic updates then, VirtualBox is the only stupid thing with their kmod and all, but Virtmanager is also already on there.
Not all apps can be flatpaks, for example virt-manager, gnome-boxes can but its really restricted then.
But keeping the system slim just makes so much sense, its like removing this distro randomness which I am sure is needed for Linux to get their shit together and stop doing the same work at 10 different places.
I get better performance from the release version than from ESR. The ESR version in Debian has always been slower than the release version for me. Especially on YouTube.
Not op, but nothing significant IMO unless you’re a web developer (in which case it’s worth considering using the dev edition instead) or just want the latest features.
The ESR on Debian gets updated reasonably frequently with backported security patches and bug fixes
Not all security issues get CVEs. Thats only the security parts. Its old as balls, and Firefox never had any breaking bugs for me, thats the “old as balls” part
A package typically includes the program and its data inside the package. It’s not just an install script. Imagine if Chrome’s MSI installer was simply a wrapper that also downloaded the browser. Imagine if there was a vulnerability with this, and it downloaded and installed something else. Since the package didn’t include the program files, it wouldn’t be able to tell if they were genuine. It only fetched the MSI, which was a download that initially passed the expected checksum (if it even does that).
Additionally, file lists help ensure that programs and packages don’t conflict with one another. What if you wanted Chromium and Chrome at the same time. Can you do that? Simply wrapping an MSI doesn’t guarantee that. Perhaps there are conditionals in an installer that includes a vendored library under some circumstances, which would make them conflict.
What about package removals? Some programs leave a bunch of junk behind in their uninstaller. Typically, since packages very often contain their own files, they simply delete their files when they’re being upgraded or removed. If a package manager puts full trust in an MSI to always be exactly correct, then it loses complete control over correctly managing file removals.
I could go on and on, with more examples, but “run this binary installer” is the Wild West of putting software on your system. This is mostly the status quo on Windows, but this is a very poor standard. Other operating systems have solved this problem with proper packaging for decades.
When building a package from sources, it makes sense to wrap installers, but then you produce a package that is typically distributed by a mirror. These packages would then by downloaded by you, and contain the source of truth that is trusted to be what it is and that it’ll do what it’s supposed to do without any doubts to consistency and security.
Either the community on GitHub, or someone inside Microsoft.
You can find their repository here (I think most people here are not interested in it tho lol)
I have packaged some software for winget back when I was still using Windows, and yes it runs msi ( or exe ) silently under the hood. Installation processes that are usually done on GUI are automated just like how Homebrew does.
Yeah, but it’s mid at best. Many apps open a GUI installer even with winget. Also updates for many apps don’t work (if the app doesn’t save its version properly in the registry).
That’s the lemmy echo chamber. Poll a hundred people on how to get a program onto a computer without a browser and I’d be surprised if five people answered something other than a disk or that it’s impossible
Even saying “with a package manager” it’s much easier to have a browser to make a search to know what you want to enter to install using the package manager!
I’m sure many Linux users would be dead in the water if they were provided a computer with a distro without a browser/GUI package manager and no alternative way to access the internet.
Quick! You need to install a program, but you can’t remember the exact name of it. You have no browser installed nor a GUI package manager. What do you do?
Okay, how are you going to install a browser if you don’t know what to type? Sure, I know FF is Mozilla.Firefox, but not everyone does. And besides, I actually want Vivaldi(…only as an example) instead, which I don’t know the package name for. Without a pre-existing browser or external help, how am I supposed to install Vivaldi?
I’m not disagreeing there should be options on OS setup, firefox being pre-installed with no input is barely better than Edge being pre-installed, but no browser at all by default is just stupid for most people. If we’re going with the idea of options on setup, the no browser at all option should exist, but only if it’s behind at least 1 but preferably 2 “Are you absolutely sure?” confirmation checks.
If a Distro preinstalls the Torbrowser it is based. Or maybe a Firefox that is actually debloated and hardened, not just having fancy bookmarks and a custom start page (looking at you Fedora)
I think it’s fine if you give the option to uninstall it, many users wouldn’t know where to look to install the browser right away and they need access to the internet to find out (because they’re not familiar with the command line), they probably have a phone to look stuff up, but that’s bad user experience.
Otherwise a first run welcome screen that asks the user which browser they want to install out of a selection (including none) can be a good solution
That’s a pretty bad take, people into tech seem to mostly use firefox, people who aren’t probably don’t care, and for the people who know baout it and prefer another, can well, just uninstall it, so why not just have firefox so its simpler for everyone?? Like, on Manjaro and Garuda I could do well with that, but what if I use Ubuntu? The browser I like the most is Vivaldi, witch isn’t on the package manager, meaning that I need to download a browser to download another one instead of just using the one already in it to get it
Not related to Arch, but behold Richard Stallmann describing how he uses the internet: stallman.org/stallman-computing.html (see section “How I use the internet” and the other section below that with the same title).
I generally do not connect to web sites from my own machine, aside from a few sites I have some special relationship with. I usually fetch web pages from other sites by sending mail to a program (see git.savannah.gnu.org/git/womb/hacks.git) that fetches them, much like wget, and then mails them back to me. Then I look at them using a web browser, unless it is easy to see the text in the HTML page directly. I usually try lynx first, then a graphical browser if the page needs it.
Fuck. What the hell.
I occasionally also browse unrelated sites using IceCat via Tor. Except for rare cases, I do not identify myself to them. I think that plus Tor plus LibreJS is enough to prevent my browsing from being associated with me. IceCat blocks tracking tags and most fingerprinting methods.
Ironically I think this makes his the most unique fingerprint in the whole internet.
In fact, what I use is Maté (an English way of writing the Spanish word Mate).
As a Spanish speaker I’d just like to say
A: wtf is this even supposed to mean?
B: mate and maté are two entirely different words.
C: The mate desktop environment is named after hierba mate, no é.
Vivaldi is a great power user browser, which is generally what the Linux audience is. Firefox is pretty good for power users too and it takes the cake when it comes to privacy and security, but Vivaldi just has those exclusive features that you just can not replicate on Firefox.
It’s somewhat like Firefox used to be, cuztomizable UI and all that… a lot of menus with UI tweaks that just make your browser your own and make your life easier… it brings back what was taken from us when FF made some drastic changes.
How is it more customizable than Firefox? Last I used Chromium based browsers, stuff like TreeStyle Tab was impossible besides a hacky separate window whereas extensions in Firefox are able to make those drastic changes to the UI.
Vivaldi also has a “window panel” that is basically a tree-style list in your sidebar of all your tabs across all windows and workspaces, and recently closed tabs and sessions.
Vivaldi’s toolbar can be customized just like Firefox, but you additionally also get a bottom bar and a sidebar to place toolbar buttons on.
Vivaldi has a Spotlight-like search bar you can open with F2 to quickly find a page in your history or type any browser command like hiding the UI. You can also string multiple commands together and add them as a toolbar button.
You can add websites to your sidebar too to open them in a slide-out window of sorts (basically the same thing as Opera GX’s sidebar).
You can tile multiple tabs to open them in a split or grid view, which I haven’t found a way to replicate on Firefox so far.
And as someone else already mentioned, I personally find installing CSS and JS mods to be a lot more accessible on Vivaldi.
These features are why I prefer it over firefox, but I am curious about how it will be affectes by Manifest V3, if it losses things like an adblocker and dark reader, witch I doublt, them I will need to use waterfox, but even then, firefox, on phones and specially tablets its way worse
Customization wise, a lot. Speed wise, none at all (it’s slower any way you slice it). Compatibility wise (with websites), the same as Chrome, everything works.
For those who don’t understand: cage is a kiosk wayland window manager, which means it only runs one program in the foreground and in fullscreen.
foot is a graphical terminal emulator.
So the joke here is to run a terminal emulator in fullscreen and kiosk mode on a wayland wm from tty, which, at first sight, looks exactly the same as just tty. So you use wayland for a lookalike tty session, which is a nod at OP’s image which states you wouldn’t run a tty on x or wayland.
(But cage+foot has mouse support, nice fonts, can launch graphical programs, etc., and has itself established as a kind of rescue shell for tty-less kernel distributions)
linuxmemes
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.