If you install (well more like unpack) Firefox from the official binary tarball, that will update itself.

Wait do you reply to everyone using the term Zionist with that? Because that’s some random tangent if I’ve ever seen one, triggered by a single word. Good derailing tactic though, you completely changed the subject.

I’m not even sure what your point is. Are you confused about what Zionism is? Because that’s funny for a Zionist to be confused about. It means you support the existence of a Jewish-supremacist state, and it’s a 19th century nationalist idea from Europe. So whatever you’re on about is irrelevant. I’m calling you a Zionist, since you clearly support Israel or you wouldn’t be taking the time to spread incorrect bullshit in defense of the IDF here.

Maybe you’re confused about my comment. Let me explain. You said:

So the IDF controls the border between Gaza and Egypt? You should let Egypt know their border isn’t sovereign anymore.

Egypt controls Egypt’s side of the border. Israel controls the Gaza side, what with them occupying it. Since that should be pretty obvious, it sounds like you think Egypt, in order to be sovereign, needs to control both sides the border, i.e. invade Gaza.

Which is funny to me, because that obviously defeats the whole purpose of a border. So I’m imaging you as a person who thinks the whole point of a border is that both sides should be controlled by the same state, since that’s how Israel does it, and you being a Zionist, you think that’s the normal way a border works. So “Zionist logic”. This is a funny thought, a person so brainwashed they don’t understand that borders are not like a checkpoint between Israel and the West Bank. There, you made me explain the joke.

Yes they do. Even if they didn’t that excuses nothing about what Israel is doing.

And I guess by your Zionist logic no country has any sovereignty if anybody but themselves controls both sides of the border, which checks out since that’s also how Israel seems to think borders work.

Tons. This on is from Oct 30 in The Nation:

The German state’s show of support has led to an outright banning of most pro-Palestine protests. […]

The reasons for the bans seemed unambiguous: German police said that there was an “imminent danger” that the assemblies will result in “inciting, anti-Semitic slogans,” as well as “glorification of violence.”

Preemptively. Because antisemitism and “glorification of violence” might occur. And by antisemitism they mean things like this:

On October 13, Berlin police declared uttering the slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” forbidden and indictable. That same day, Berlin’s education senator, Katharina Günther-Wünsch, sent a letter to all Berlin school principals offering them the option to ban students from wearing “pro-Palestinian symbols such as the keffiyeh.” “Any act or expression of opinion that can be understood as advocacy or approval of the attacks against Israel,” she wrote, “constitutes a threat to school peace and is prohibited.”

Yeah no the other poster is correct, I meant Ubuntu doesn’t do feature updates after release. You seem worried about something that’s quite unlikely to happen (breakage introduced from minimal patches), while delaying security fixes. And I assume the vast majority of updates are security fixes.

And I also think you’re being rude in this whole thread.

Ubuntu only does security updates, no? So that seems like a bad idea.

If you still want to do that, I guess you’d probably need to run your own package mirror, update that on Monday, and then point all the machines to use that in the sources.list and run unattended-upgrades on different days of the week.

Check again what the parent poster said:

As long as they are not violent they can protest all day long.

Which is what I replied to, and which is clearly not true, they ban nonviolent protests all the time.

What you’re saying is absolute horseshit.

They banned many many protests in Germany (before they happened, at the permit phase). The excuse the authorities give is usually vague security concerns, and they always argue that something antisemitic or glorifying violence might be said. And they explictly define any fundamental critique of Israel as antisemitism and any positive mention or symbol of any armed resistance group as glorifying violence, but only for pro-Palestinian groups. You can show support for the IDF as much as you like, in fact providing not just symbolic support, but support in the form of actual lethal weapons is facilitated at the highest levels of the state. That is legal and encouraged. Saying “Palestine will be free.” gets you detained.

I’d say grub is having trouble with your hardware (mainboard or disk maybe).

You could try to update your mainboard’s firmware, or install another bootloader (or maybe just a newer version of grub). I’m not sure what the easiest way to get a different bootloader is. I don’t think Debian’s installer offers anything besides grub. Maybe other people can point to a distro where installing something other than grub is easy.

Because switching out the bootloader on an unbootable system (i.e. not from the installer) is going to be whole pain in the butt involving booting into a live usb, mounting and chrooting and god knows what.

Linux has full time developers. Blender has full time developers. Lots of other projects have full time developers. They still don’t sell my data to Google.

A web browser is a very visible piece of software, relied upon by end users, businesses and governments alike. I’m sure enough people and organizations would donate their time and money to fund this, if it existed.

You said:

Again, no, that’s not true. This API is only used by sites that opt into it, and in so doing, they are disabling the normal tracking which is far more invasive.

OK, your source for this:

A full version of an in-browser attribution API will offer strong privacy protections, while providing considerable flexibility in how to measure ad performance. Our long term goal is a standardized attribution solution. We believe that a good attribution system will give advertising businesses a real alternative to more objectionable practices, like tracking, which should allow browsers to further restrict those practices.

Nowhere does it say websites are disabling other tracking methods.

It says that browsers could (maybe, in the future) restrict other methods of tracking, if this gets widespread mainstream adoption. Why are these things related exactly? Mozilla could presumably implement these tracking restrictions right now. The reason they are related in the minds and PR of Mozilla drones is that they don’t dare do this without providing an alternative for the ad industry. Their corporate overlords won’t “allow” it.

But right now, this restricts and replaces nothing, they literally are giving you vague promises about future improvements, while already collecting your data, like I said.

I will remind you that you accused others of spreading misinformation in this thread. I will accept your little mea culpa song and dance now. Gimme!

Can you imagine a world where Linux wasn’t directly getting paid by Amazon to hook all your machines up to AWS? You can’t! And how could vim possibly be developed without dropbox integration and sponsorship, that would never work. There is no way a world exists where Krita doesn’t sell all your drawings to OpenAI, how are they going to make any money?

None of these nice things could exist if they weren’t selling out their users, that’s just reality.

I can’t find this in the announcements and stuff. Where does it say that exactly?

Where does it say that? How would this be enforced?

This API instead

Instead of what? As I said, this is in addition to existing tracking, with some vague promise that if current tracking methods were banned or abandoned, this could be used instead. Except it’s not getting banned (Mozilla is not going to out-lobby Google) or abandoned (market forces prevent that), and why oh why would I want some alternative way for ad companies to get my data in that situation anyway? Let them die.

Now if another person is going to repeat this nonsense talking point, which you have picked up strait from Mozilla’s corporate PR, I’m going to lose my mind. Have some critical thinking skills. They are giving away your data right now and they give you nothing in return except a nonsense promise of a fairytale future.

Please I just want a browser that acts in the user’s interest only, does not work with Meta on adtech, and does not think it’s their duty to save the ad industry from itself.

Ok, I misremembered it says “pay” for the aggregate results, not sell.

Our DAP deployment is jointly run by Mozilla and ISRG. Privacy is lost if the two organizations collude to reveal individual values. We safeguard against this in several ways: trust in both organizations, joint agreements, and operational practices.

A full solution will require that advertisers — or their delegated measurement provider — receive reports from browsers, select a service, submit a batch of reports, and pay for the aggregation results, choosing from a list of approved operators.

For the trial, the results for each task will be sent to Mozilla’s telemetry systems, which will be used to access aggregated statistics.

So it doesn’t say ISRG is going sell data, but the “full solution” will have other operators that get payed, i.e. they’re going to sell the aggregate data. Also, they envision multiple such operators, all of which it seems need to be “trusted”.

https://github.com/mozilla/explainers/tree/main/ppa-experiment#end-user-benefit

Ah yes, the hypothetical second step, in which tracking is going to be outlawed (I’m not holding my breath), except, of course, for the third party services that do the aggregating, which will “sell” (literal quote) the aggregate data, so I guess these are by semantic sophistry not adtech companies but something else.

I’m so glad this genius “plan” can be used to justify Mozilla funneling data to adtech firms right now, because in some hypothetical future timeline this somehow can be construed with a bunch of hand-waving and misdirection to be in my interest.

How about instead we have a browser that only cares about the users, and not give a fuck about adtech? Its number one goal should be to treat adtech as hostile, and fight to ruin that whole industry.

The CTO of Mozilla and some other employee are posting on r/firefox defending this shit.

They say it is their job to help the adtech industry, by finding a compromise between my interests and Facebook & co’s interest. Only they get 90% of their revenue from adtech, so their actual job is to sell me out.

This “plan” involves collecting additional data on behalf of adtech right now, and then there’s a hypothetical second step, in which they will lobby to force this new system on everyone. Only (a) this second step is not going to happen, and (b) instead of being tracked by adtech companies, I’d now be tracked by “trusted third parties” or some shit which then sell my data, in aggregated form, to adtech companies. Wow. Great improvement this, we now have middlemen that are, uh, by semantic re-definition, not adtech companies.

So the actual second step is “???” and the third step is presumably “profit”.

This does not prevent regular ad tracking, this provides additional data to advertisers. It also means Mozilla is now tracking me, and then Mozilla does this “anonymizing” on their servers. I do not trust Mozilla with this data, and I don’t trust that no way can be found de-anonymize or combine this data with other data ad networks already collect.

This is not in my interest at all. This data should not be collected. The ad networks can suck it, why should I help them?

https://blog.privacyguides.org/2024/07/14/mozilla-disappoints-us-yet-again-2/

This is a screenshot of window running a VM, so yes it is a window running a whole desktop. The top window decoration, menu bar, and the very bottom panel are not part of the old desktop, but rather from the modern host system.

I agree though, it is confusing. Main problem (and I remember this) is that this is Gnome with Enlightenment as a wm, and Enlightenment had aspirations to be more than a wm. So there’s some duplication of effort there, and no integration/communication between the two projects (Gnome in the next version used sawfish/sawmill as wm, which was more coordinated with Gnome).

Enlightenment has/had its own toolkit, which you can see here in the DOX window, which is different from Gtk. Enlightenment also has a bunch of widgets, like the top bar and the stuff in the bottom corners, which are non-Gnome and clash with and are on top of the Gnome panel. The desktop icons are also zero pixels under the Enlightenment top bar, which suggest the people responsible weren’t coordinating at all.