Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ubuntu 21.04

ubuntu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 322 posts

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#311

Post by Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL »

_odey wrote: post #23

There was an article here a few months ago about TPM backed full disk encryption in Ubuntu 21.04: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Ubuntu-2... Anybody know what happened to that idea? It's been a long time desire of mine to have a secure Linux laptop without needing to enter my password twice during startup and I was hoping to get it with this release, but when I tried the beta the installer did no…

> "It's been a long time desire of mine to have a secure Linux laptop without needing to enter my password twice during startup"

Only with regards to that sentence (as I don't know much about TPM): You can simply opt for full disk encryption during install, and then you can also select "automatically log me in on boot" (not exact wording) when creating your user. So you enter the encryption password and that's it. Not sure why you would _need_ to enter password twice with encryption?

That's how I handle it. Screen lock, or returning from suspend still prompts for user password as usual.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#312

Post by nix23 »

moistbar wrote: post #283
nix23 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, Bret Barker has published an open source (Apache License) SNAP store on GitHub. We’re already looking at how to flesh out his proof-of-concept and bring it into snapcore itself. https://github.com/noise/snapstore/

"snapstore was a minimalist example of a "store" for snaps, but is not compatible with the current snapd implementation. As a result I have removed the contents here to avoid further confusion."

See, no self hosting possible anymore.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#313

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

bayindirh wrote: post #222
hansel_der wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just "Meh, let's port it in a weekend and be done with it" maybe time to get on with it.

I'm not sure that you understand the size of the task and the number of people and software packages involved. Nevertheless, I'll try to call around to see who can start shortly. :)

I think this applies to the whole community. For many years we just assumed we could runt CentOS forever. When RH bought them there was an initial shock but they quickly clarified CentOS is not going anywhere so we were happy. Now that it's gone I kind of regret I didn't insisted or at least kindly asked some vendors for Debian compatibility. I didn't because I didn't have to, an now we're all screwed.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#314

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

simias wrote: post #200
1337shadow wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how moving to a rolling release strategy results in any kind of "death", seems like FUD to me. Rolling release, trying to stick to upstream releases as closely as possible, works well with Arch Linux, I'm glad CentOS learned from Arch Linux success. DISCLAMER: I'm not even a CentOS user, but I just like what RH does and has done for "the Linux community" as you call it (I would just call it "society" bu…

The move is pretty transparent to me, when CentOS was effectively "free RHEL" many people who didn't feel they needed support just ran CentOS in lieu of RHEL knowing that they'd get near-100% compatibility without paying a dime. The fact that it's a rolling release is not really the problem per-se, it's more that you can no longer expect that CentOS n == RHEL n . It's not a drop-in replacement. You can't expect that…

> And I'm 100% certain that it's exactly what RedHat/IBM counted on: no more free candy, just buy a license.

One thing I don't understand is why they vehemently deny it was the reason.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#315

Post by Quekid5 »

intergalplan wrote: post #276
CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I'm not the one who downvoted you, so have an upvote, but) I think they renamed their reference implementation to "Weston" to differentiate it from the Wayland spec/interface. Gnome implements its own, as does KDE, as does Sway. But I'm a simple person, and in my eyes even bare Weston is "good enough" in that "startx" sort of way...

They have a compositor named Weston, yes, but then what is libwayland, on which Gnome (and others) depend? Wikipedia: > Wayland is a communication protocol that specifies the communication between a display server and its clients, as well as a C library implementation of that protocol. That's the C library also named Wayland and made by the people guiding the Wayland spec on which Gnome depends, no? Or are there thre…

They could have perhaps done better to differentiate All The Things, but libwayland is just a C implementation of speaking the Wayland protocol...?

AFAIUI, e.g. KDE doesn't actually use any of that. (I could be wrong, I honestly don't care that much about the minutiae.)

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#316

Post by flurdy »

pacoverdi wrote: post #215
julianlam wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What level of scaling are you using? I tried turning on "large text" in Accessibility settings, which functions like 1.25

I tried 125% and 150%, both modes are too slow for me

I have it at 125% for one of my 4k screens, and I have no lag. Then again I have an AMD card.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#317

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

nix23 wrote: post #312
moistbar wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"snapstore was a minimalist example of a "store" for snaps, but is not compatible with the current snapd implementation. As a result I have removed the contents here to avoid further confusion."

See, no self hosting possible anymore.

But this is the opposite of the principles Linux has been built on. How can Canonical hope Snap gains popularity if the very software powering up the Snapstore is closed?

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#318

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

CrazyPyroLinux wrote: post #270
intergalplan wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's surprised me about modern Gnome is how much heavier and worse-performing it is than... KDE. What a reversal compared with the Gnome2 days.

Agreed - I should clarify that my Gnome gripes are mainly about how they failed to "get it right" with Gnome3. I don't really have any specific criticism of the old Gnome2 - Both it and KDE were too heavy for me in those days.

One of the best things about Linux desktop for me is that fortunately we're not forced to use Gnome3. Actually Gnome2 wasn't that bad and I'm very happy it was revived as Mate. I assume most people run Gnome3 because it was the default DE in their distro, but honestly, they should do themselves a favor and at least test some popular alternatives.

Re: Ubuntu 21.04

#319

Post by hansel_der »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #313
bayindirh wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that you understand the size of the task and the number of people and software packages involved. Nevertheless, I'll try to call around to see who can start shortly. :)

I think this applies to the whole community. For many years we just assumed we could runt CentOS forever. When RH bought them there was an initial shock but they quickly clarified CentOS is not going anywhere so we were happy. Now that it's gone I kind of regret I didn't insisted or at least kindly asked some vendors for Debian compatibility. I didn't because I didn't have to, an now we're all screwed.

> they quickly clarified CentOS is not going anywhere so we were happy. Now that it's gone ...

not to rub salt into the wound but relying on a single vendor could be considered technical debt.

Post reply on HN