What is it that you don’t like about Clevo chassis? I bought one a few years ago and I love it. It’s elegant and sturdy in my opinion. It’s also easily serviceable, so what’s to complain about it?
Mostly that they are generally made of cheap/very thin materials. They also kind of look like cheap Chromebooks (especially clevos, tongfang are better in this area). And it’s also the fact that these laptops aren’t really unique at all, they are mostly a logo swap with preselected components guaranteed to work with Linux. I’ve been using this Lenovo laptop that has a fantastic screen and an amazing CNC aluminum body, it works flawlessly and Linux support was never a consideration for them making this PC
If I am buying a laptop i want it to be unique, because if it’s not then I’ll just buy it straight from China on clevos website for half the price. What I don’t like is this is basically drop shipping but less consumer hostile
Tuxedo also offers products with an aluminum body, and while they do import the hardware from China, you get the local service and warranty guarantees any company in the EU must provide, so that’s fine by me.
Also, honest question: what do you think a unique laptop is, in particular when buying from a mass consumer brand like Lenovo? I really can’t figure out what that’s supposed to mean.
Fair enough, I agree with most of the things you said. The one I got is made of aluminum and doesn’t feel cheap/thin at all, I guess they have both cheap and “professional” options. Personally I wasn’t looking for something really unique, just for something that had a decent performance for a laptop and works well with Linux. I searched around and this model ticked all my most important boxes.
I don’t know whether Clevo engineers throught about Linux when they designed the device or not, but I can say after configuring it properly, it works without any flaws.
As for buying straight from China, I consider the idea, but at the time I didn’t find a way to buy it for cheaper than buying from a reseller. I’m in Europe, perhaps in the US or in Asia it would be different.
those warnings on mint and flathub are so ridiculous, there’s no difference between those and official ones, somebody could just as easily put something nefarious in any flatpak
This seems interesting. However, if I’m correct. What you suggest is not capable (by itself) to prevent said files to be copied through a disk clone. Am I right? Even if they’re otherwise encrypted or inaccessible, then still they will come through the disk clone. Did I understood you correctly?
I dont have a list, but I usually use this site. It also does not only show Linux distributions, but also software products like nginx, mariadb or programming languages like go, rust and python.
Edit: Some Linux distributions habe older software, which they support with security updates and also stay on one kernel version. Fedora as example gives you a new kernel after few weeks. Maybe you can be more concrete
I’ve been using a Dell XPS-15 9560 for over six years now, the keyboard needed to be cleaned after four years and and the charging port needed to be replaced (€10 inc service) recently. The battery no longer lasts 11 or so hours but it lasts 2 or so which I’ll take, for about €100 I could replace just the battery.
All of which, for how fast devices tend to break on me, is an incredibly good mileage I’d say!
And oh yeah, whatever Linux I’ve been distro hopping to has worked swimmingly!
In my opinion, those warnings are not used to help users but to shame developpers for not trully sandboxing and verifying their apps. Developpers know that having this warning will decrease the number of users downloading it. The goal in the long run is to improve app sandboxing and security.
By not letting the user import/export addon settings, bookmarks?
Btw, i hate the opinion that the dev must babysit his users. It makes software worse, not better, look at Firefox’s profille folder for an example. If you have to, make an intro to train them.
You could but where is fails is when you open one html file that then needs to loads the other files that are needed by the first.
You can not allow chain loading like this, it would bypass the sandbox.
One way of working around this would to allow the option of passing a whole folder and sub folders to the program.
The other and much harder option would be a per program portal filter that can read the html file. then workout what files that html file needs and offer that list of files to the user.
The lazy work around is allow read access to $HOME and deny access to some files and folders like .ssh
Makes sense, but at least this would generally be out of a normal users usage case (multi-file documents), and so the power user could probably just open flatseal.
For things like bookmarks it’d work fine, and by extension make the sandbox more secure
Makes sense, but at least this would generally be out of a normal users usage case (multi-file documents), and so the power user could probably just open flatseal.
I would not be so sure. Firefox has a “save web page as…” option which saves the html page and all other files needed into a sub folder.
Without better handling of reading and writing files the sandbox will break that builtin function. another way of working around this. would be to change firefox to save the web page into one file. Maybe something a .html+zip file that firefox would know how to open. However that would lock other browsers out without manualy unziping it first.
Getting sandboxing right with powerful programs is very hard and I feel the tooling is still not here yet.
linux
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.