On 08/09/2023 16:46, Big Al wrote:
> On 9/8/23 08:18, this is what Henry Crun wrote:
>> On 08/09/2023 14:15, bad sector wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
>>>> On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
>>>>> They have this SNAP system, ...snipped
>>>>>
>>>> You do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is Linux after all. Google removing snap packages
>>>> from Ubuntu, it is pretty simple.
>>>
>>> I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there WAS an alternative way and I tried it once,
>>> but I don't have time to muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has to do it my way by
>>> default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a
>>> tomahawk or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal braker. It's not a federal case, I
>>> still use the U-Studio but its a black mark until fixed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am gradually moving laptop...netbook...eventully desktop from Ub. to MX.
>> Very smooth learning curve, some advantages, some disadvantages.
>> On Ubuntu I have been running for about  year with no snap or flatpak. If only I could avoid the horror that is systemd.
>> We are supposed to have choice, but to choose 'no systemd' immediately implies 'not Ubuntu'
>> Pity 'bout that.
>>
> Can you explain the issue with systemd?   I think Linux Mint uses it and I haven't seen any apparent issues.

My first and main objection is aesthetic. Now I know that is a non-definable, highly personal quantity. It might be
beautifully coded in it's internal working, but the overall efect is one of an all-invading. all-encopmassing entity.
Put it succintly. it breaks the tenet "Do one thing, and do it well."
Systemd defintely does not "Do one thing". As for "do it well", it's difficult to see through the maze of linked
scripts, binary logs and what have you.
As the man said to the judge "I'm a simple man, yer 'oner" And I have simple, linear thought processes, and I find the
flow of systemd - as I might have mentioned - unaesthetic. It was supposed to be a replacement for init, a modest,
well-defined proposition. It has got *WAY* out of hand.

I guess I'm just another grumpy old man.

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On 9/8/23 05:15, bad sector wrote:
> On 9/8/23 00:54, azigni wrote:
>> On 9/6/23 18:04, bad sector wrote:
>>> They have this SNAP system, ...snipped
>>>
>> You do not have use Ubuntu any flavor with Snap or Flatpaks. This is
>> Linux after all. Google removing snap packages from Ubuntu, it is
>> pretty simple.
>
> I think it was a mozilla package that went snap by default, true there
> WAS an alternative way and I tried it once, but I don't have time to
> muck around with workarounds so the bundled default software manager has
> to do it my way by default or optionally. Finally the problem isn't snap
> per-se. I have no axes to grind about flatpacks (well, maybe a tomahawk
> or two) but the charateristic that it sabotages home links is a deal
> braker. It's not a federal case, I still use the U-Studio but its a
> black mark until fixed.
>
>
You are either trolling or making a mountain out of a mole hill. There
are several references to remove snap. They all take less than ten
minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy and
paste.

Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap

First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
Doesn't get easier than than that.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 12:28:04 -0400, Henry Crun <mike@rechtman.com> wrote:
> My first and main objection is aesthetic. Now I know that is a non-definable, highly personal quantity. It might be
> beautifully coded in it's internal working, but the overall efect is one of an all-invading. all-encopmassing entity.
> Put it succintly. it breaks the tenet "Do one thing, and do it well."
> Systemd defintely does not "Do one thing". As for "do it well", it's difficult to see through the maze of linked
> scripts, binary logs and what have you.

systemd is not just one thing. It contains many components, each of which do
one thing an does it well.

With initd it just handled scheduling of starting scripts, easily broken by
cyclic dependencies, especially in edge cases.

With systemd, it handles starting things, and restarting them when needed, not
just at boot time. Those scripts may or may not include functions other then
starting and stopping. The edge cases can be handled by custom service rules that
override the defaults.

To do so properly, it also has components to handle things like ensuring file
systems are mounted when needed, as well as other resources such as network
access, etc.

While I disagree with the choice to use binary files for storing the journal,
I understand why the choice was made given that it simplifies the tools that
come with it.

The tools that come with systemd getting information about any given daemon
or the resources they use, including information from early in the boot process
that is not kept by initd.

Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning curve.
So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up scripts.

The more experience I have with it, the more I like it.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> It does much
> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.

What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?

I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
'better', then that should be just fine.

However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

--
Mike Easter

On 9/8/23 14:35, Mike Easter wrote:
> David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> It does much
>> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.
>
> What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
> init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
> 'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?
>
> I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
> 'better', then that should be just fine.
>
> However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
> systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

The kernel has a sort of monolpoly in linuxland; nothing else should
ever be allowed to come close to that status or it will start dictating
to kernel development. That's my view of it or of anything else with
like attributes (or aims), I use eight different web navigators.

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 11:25:51 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

>
> When Mageia first implemented systemd, I was not in favour of it at first, but
> decided to give it a fair chance and dig into it.
>

There is nothing wrong with systemd per se.

The problem is that distro maintainers see it totally as an
"either/or" issue.

GNU/Linux is all about CHOICE, and, to my knowledge, there are
only two distros that offer users a choice regarding systemd:
Gentoo and Linux From Scratch (LFS).

Why has systemd gained such a near-complete hegemony? Why
is there this egregious lack of choice?

Could it be that offering a choice would be too much work
for the distro maintainers? I strongly believe that this
is perhaps the major, if not only, factor.

My opinion is simple and clear:

If a GNU/Linux distro cannot offer CHOICE then it should
quietly step out of the game.

GNU/Linux is based in CHOICE, and the laziness/incompetence
of distro maintainers is no excuse to allow systemd to run
rampant.

I tremendously appreciate the fortitude and competence
of the Gentoo and LFS maintainers for continuing to offer
true and viable CHOICE.

On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:

> There
> are several references to remove snap. They all take less than ten
> minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy and
> paste.
>
> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>
> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
> Doesn't get easier than than that.

I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager then
installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the apps that
rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.

--
Fridays are Tumbleweed days: openSUSE Tumbleweed, DM=sddm, GPT,
Kernel=6.4.12-1-default on x86_64,DE=KDE,ST=x11,grub2,BIOS-boot
https://imgur.com/mWjMS5W.png https://imgur.com/RsbswMP.png

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 14:35:18 -0400, Mike Easter <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote:

> David W. Hodgins wrote:
>> It does much
>> more than just replace initd, and does so in consistent logical ways.
>
> What is your 'position' on the arguments completely separate from the
> init improvement; that many don't like that systemd likes to take
> 'control' of so many non-init responsibilities?
>
> I guess the systemd idea is that just like init, if systemd can do it
> 'better', then that should be just fine.
>
> However, it does make it progressively more difficult to 'do without'
> systemd, since it is SO much more than an init.

All of the features included in systemd logically belong together. A system level
application can not start if the resources it needs are not available. Ensuring
all the resources needed are available, and starting them if need be makes sense.
Same with mounts, and starting other applications at user login or on demand.

It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for
applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need
are available.

It's a system resource and application start/stop manager. While it's much more
than a boot time daemon starter, everything in it makes sense to integrate into
it, in my opinion.

The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the impression
given (though never stated that I can remember) that it was only intended as
a replacement for initd.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

David W. Hodgins wrote:
> The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the
> impression given (though never stated that I can remember) that it
> was only intended as a replacement for initd.

That was the /purpose/ of its introduction in 2010, a significantly needed
purpose.

wp
> They sought to surpass the efficiency of the init daemon in several
> ways. They wanted to improve the software framework for expressing
> dependencies, to allow more processing to be done concurrently or in
> parallel during system booting, and to reduce the computational
> overhead of the shell.

By 2014, Poeterring saw it/ his idea/ more broadly as:
> A system and service manager (manages both the system, by applying
> various configurations, and its services)

> A software platform (serves as a basis for developing other
> software)

> The glue between applications and the kernel (provides various
> interfaces that expose functionalities provided by the kernel)

.... and thus the 'mission creep' that became so upsetting to anti-systemd.

The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence agent to
Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to Chancellor of a
coalition to dictator and suppression of the other parties. Absolute
dictator, and not a benevolent one.

I would say systemd's success at that is based on what you said;

DH
> While it's much more than a boot time daemon starter, everything in
> it makes sense to integrate into it, in my opinion.

--
Mike Easter

On 09/09/2023 4:39, Mike Easter wrote:
> David W. Hodgins wrote:

....Snipped...

> The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence agent to
> Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to Chancellor of a
> coalition to dictator and suppression of the other parties. Absolute
> dictator, and not a benevolent one.
>
> I would say systemd's success at that is based on what you said;
>
> DH
>> While it's much more than a boot time daemon starter, everything in it makes sense to integrate into it, in my opinion.
>
>
>

I invoke Godwn's Law!!

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

"David W. Hodgins" <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> writes:
> The biggest problem with the way it was introduced was with the impression
> given (though never stated that I can remember) that it was only intended as
> a replacement for initd.

I’m not sure that’s historical. In the original announcement in 2010[1]
it already extends beyond the sysvinit responsibilities to include
socket activation, filesystem mounting, cgroup management, logging and
login accounting, with plans already in place for swap management,
session management and job scheduling. Anyone who imagined it had a
narrower focus wasn’t paying attention.

The name is a bit of a hint, really.

[1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
> On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
>
>
>> There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
>> ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and copy
>> and paste.
>>
>> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>>
>> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
>> Doesn't get easier than than that.
>
> I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager then
> installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the apps that
> rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.

"I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not afraid
of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest releases
of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many Ubuntu-specific
features, like livepatch, will only work with snap enabled. As a
suggestion, do not perform this on your main production machine, unless
you know what you are doing."

When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get problems
associated with THAT (another thread belonging in alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).

--
Saturdays are Ubuntu-Studio days: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
(Jammy Jellyfish),Kernel=5.15.0-43-lowlatency on x86_64,
DM=sddm,DE=KDE,ST=x11,grub2,GPT,BIOS-boot
https://imgur.com/1swkolq.png https://imgur.com/RsbswMP.png

On 9/9/23 6:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
> On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
>> On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
>>> ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and
>>> copy and paste.
>>>
>>> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>>>
>>> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
>>> Doesn't get easier than than that.
>>
>> I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager
>> then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the
>> apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
>
>
> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
> with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not
> afraid of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest
> releases of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many
> Ubuntu-specific features, like livepatch, will only work with snap
> enabled. As a suggestion, do not perform this on your main production
> machine, unless you know what you are doing."
>
> When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
> just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
> Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
> snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
> goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
> and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get
> problems associated with THAT (another thread belonging in
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).
>
>
>
Reminds me of the good old days when M$ claimed that Internet Explorer
was deeply integrated into the OS, and the court case that came out of
this entwining.

Henry Crun wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>> The anti-/s see it as 'Hitlerian' - going from party intelligence
>> agent to Nazi party orator to leader of the Nazi party to
>> Chancellor of a coalition to dictator and suppression of the other
>> parties. Absolute dictator, and not a benevolent one.
>
> I invoke Godwn's Law!!
>
:-) I knew /someone/ was going to say that :-)

In 1994, Mike Godwin wrote a fun article for Wired mag.

https://www.wired.com/1994/10/godwin-if-2/

> He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics

The/His Wired article also provides various corollaries.

And, I tend to agree w/ DWH's position, even while bringing up some
anti-systemd arguments.

My everyday driver is a systemd distro and I'm also a 'fan of' MX Linux.

--
Mike Easter

On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 18:47:30 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:

>
> It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for
> applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need
> are available.
>

Oh, is it?

I have never ever used that P.O.S. known as "systemd" and have never ever
experienced any issues whatsoever regarding software usage.

Would you care to give some specific examples where systemd is essential?

In my opinion, any GNU/Linux software developer that creates software that
is dependent on systemd should be ostracized from the FOSS community.

But that will potentially implicate all the RedHat/IBM lackeys at freedesktop.org.

People stand up! Purge these commercial influences from FOSS.

On Fri, 8 Sep 2023 18:39:54 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:

>
>> The glue between applications and the kernel (provides various
>> interfaces that expose functionalities provided by the kernel)
>
> ... and thus the 'mission creep' that became so upsetting to anti-systemd.
>

There never was any "mission creep."

The RedHat/IBM lackey Poettering had stated from the very outset that
systemd was/is intended to be the one-and-only interface between the
Linux kernel and user space.

Fortunately, after more than a DECADE, he and his cronies have failed
to achieve that goal. Note the great failure of their "bus1" initiative.

But the attempt will continue, and all those fools who support systemd
are complicit in this willful expropriation of GNU/Linux by a corporate
agenda.

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 08:29:24 +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:

>
> I’m not sure that’s historical. In the original announcement in 2010[1]
> it already extends beyond the sysvinit responsibilities to include
> socket activation, filesystem mounting, cgroup management, logging and
> login accounting, with plans already in place for swap management,
> session management and job scheduling. Anyone who imagined it had a
> narrower focus wasn’t paying attention.
>

Exactly! Great point!

But there are multitudes of fools and dupes who are NOT paying attention.

The stated goal of systemd, as has been explicated in formal documents,
is the takeover and control of all user-space possibilities so that
COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE, ala RedHat/IBM, will have an easy time.

Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds did not create their masterpieces
so that grubbing commercial enterprises could easily benefit.

The sooner systemd is rejected by all the better.

On 2023-09-09 07:59, Nic wrote:
> On 9/9/23 6:48 AM, bad sector wrote:
>> On 2023-09-08 17:03, bad sector wrote:
>>> On 9/8/23 14:08, azigni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are several references to remove snap. They all take less than
>>>> ten minutes. All you need to do is be able to open a terminal and
>>>> copy and paste.
>>>>
>>>> Web browser Search: Ubuntu remove snap
>>>>
>>>> First suggestion of my search: https://itsfoss.com/remove-snap/
>>>> Doesn't get easier than than that.
>>>
>>> I'll look into it on Sunday, to see how the default package manager
>>> then installs/upgrades/reinstalls all my apps without snap. Its the
>>> apps that rule, OSes are after all just plugins for them.
>>
>>
>> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
>> with the system. Advanced users may do this only if they are not
>> afraid of the command line and troubleshooting the system. The latest
>> releases of Ubuntu has snap integrated deeply. Also, many
>> Ubuntu-specific features, like livepatch, will only work with snap
>> enabled. As a suggestion, do not perform this on your main production
>> machine, unless you know what you are doing."
>>
>> When I read stuff like this I normally run like hell, but this time I
>> just backed up the 'buntu partition and went at it. Turns out that
>> Firefox-v-nonsnap was already installed and the only snap stuff left was
>> snap system files. Killed every one of them. We'll see where the road
>> goes, for now (because I also want to do something useful with my time
>> and the zasf-dssi is absent in the installed Rosegarden) I get
>> problems associated with THAT (another thread belonging in
>> alt.os.linux.ubuntu only).
>>
>>
>>
> Reminds me of the good old days when M$ claimed that Internet Explorer
> was deeply integrated into the OS, and the court case that came out of
> this entwining.

Well lo and behold the system rebooted OK but then I only got a single
curser flash for logging-in and everything froze like Loctite®. I'm
already using the recovered *.dd partition :-)

Of course if Ubuntu want to follow microcancer that, as we say, is their
ship, their bridge, their watch.

bad sector wrote:
> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
> with the system.

"built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
easily remove it, it is not "built-in"

lsb_release -a && apt-cache policy snapd firefox
No LSB modules are available.
Distributor ID: Ubuntu
Description: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
Release: 22.04
Codename: jammy
snapd:
Installed: (none)
Candidate: 2.58+22.04.1
Version table:
2.58+22.04.1 500
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-updates/main amd64
Packages
500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security/main amd64
Packages
2.55.3+22.04 500
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
firefox:
Installed: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
Candidate: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
Version table:
1:1snap1-0ubuntu2 -1
500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
*** 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1 500
500 https://ppa.launchpadcontent.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu
jammy/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> bad sector wrote:
>> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
>> with the system.
>
> "built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"

OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then
I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm writing from
it. End of story.

> lsb_release -a && apt-cache policy snapd firefox
> No LSB modules are available.
> Distributor ID: Ubuntu
> Description: Ubuntu 22.04.3 LTS
> Release: 22.04
> Codename: jammy
> snapd:
> Installed: (none)
> Candidate: 2.58+22.04.1
> Version table:
> 2.58+22.04.1 500
> 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-updates/main amd64
> Packages
> 500 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy-security/main amd64
> Packages
> 2.55.3+22.04 500
> 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
> firefox:
> Installed: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
> Candidate: 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1
> Version table:
> 1:1snap1-0ubuntu2 -1
> 500 http://us.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu jammy/main amd64 Packages
> *** 117.0+build2-0ubuntu0.22.04.1~mt1 500
> 500 https://ppa.launchpadcontent.net/mozillateam/ppa/ubuntu
> jammy/main amd64 Packages
> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
>

On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 11:56:06 -0400, Nux Vomica <nv@linux.rocks> wrote:

> On Fri, 08 Sep 2023 18:47:30 -0400, David W. Hodgins wrote:
>
>>
>> It's becoming harder not to use systemd because it simplifies things for
>> applications that don't have to duplicate code to make sure things they need
>> are available.
>>
>
> Oh, is it?
>
> I have never ever used that P.O.S. known as "systemd" and have never ever
> experienced any issues whatsoever regarding software usage.
>
> Would you care to give some specific examples where systemd is essential?
>
> In my opinion, any GNU/Linux software developer that creates software that
> is dependent on systemd should be ostracized from the FOSS community.
>
> But that will potentially implicate all the RedHat/IBM lackeys at freedesktop.org.
>
> People stand up! Purge these commercial influences from FOSS.

I am not saying it's essential. This is linux so there are always other ways of
doing things. It's easier for developers and distribution providers to use and
debug, and provides tools for them that simplify things. Those tools are now
used by some desktop environments such as gnome. While gnome can be used without
it, it's more difficult.

Where systems like sysv init are more difficult to work with are the edge cases
such as having /usr/local on a remote file system and it containing things to
be started at boot. That type of setup is used in some organizations. It can be
done, but is not easy, and since sysv init doesn't support having overrides in
a location that is not part of the package, updates must be done with more caution.

If you just use a linux install, the learning curve of the switch will be annoying
because the benefits are mostly not visible to end users. They do benefit from
fewer bugs, and having easier ways to customize things, but if they don't need
to customize things they will not see those as benefits.

For the package developers and distribution creators the benefits are much more
obvious.

If redhat and/or ibm ever decide to make changes to systemd that annoy enough
developers and distribution creators, then like any gpl licensed software, it
will get forked.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

bad sector wrote:
>
> OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then
> I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm writing from
> it. End of story.

Removing snapd has nothing to do with gdm3 used to login stock Ubuntu.
You removed something else.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

---Not directed or meant as a direct reply to previous post.

I am amazed at all the crying and gnashing of teeth over small parts of
Linux. There are currently over 200 separate Linux distributions, some
of which are not children and do things there own way. Try one of them,
it may meet all your expectations.

MY first venture was Suse on three floppy diskettes. I didn't appreciate
what it was and bought a imac, then a second. Finally I retried Linux,
PCLinux OS, and from there to Debian with a little hopping along the
way, but mostly Debian based.

My point is, there are lots of options out there. If you do not like
Windoze, like to get petty over how your pc boots up, get over it, and
move on to another distro.

Ubuntu is going to do whatever Ubuntu wants. That should be perfectly
clear. Debian spent over $8 million last year. The other big players are
dropping/dumping in big bucks too.

I have donated $0.00 to Linux. I'm grateful for Linux in all its forms.
Be grateful, you too can be a user for $0.00. If that isn't good enough,
move on to another OS.

Without going past the first page of search results, I found these
alternate OS's. Maybe one of them fits you to a tee.

1. Linux: The Best Windows Alternative
2. Chromium OS
3. FreeBSD: The Free Operating System That Isn’t Linux
4. FreeDOS: Free Disk Operating System Based on MS-DOS
5. illumos: A Free OS for Your PC
6. ReactOS: The Free Windows Clone Operating System
7. Long-Running Free OS Haiku
8. MorphOS: An Alternative OS for Old Macs
9. A Free Alternative Operating System: AROS
10. MenuetOS
11. PrimeOS: A Free Android OS for PC
12. One of the Oldest Alternatives to Windows: RISC OS

If either Linux or one of these do not work for you, can we just stop
the whining?

On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
> On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> bad sector wrote:
>>> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
>>> with the system.
>>
>> "built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
>> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
>
> OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out, then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled
> and now I'm writing from it. End of story.
>
>
>
<..snipped...>

probably PBK&C
Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running fine withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.

--
No Micro$oft products were used in the URLs above, or in preparing this message.
Recommended reading: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#befor

On 9/10/23 01:00, Henry Crun wrote:
> On 09/09/2023 23:53, bad sector wrote:
>> On 2023-09-09 15:16, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> bad sector wrote:
>>>> "I advise against removing snap support from Ubuntu as it is built-in
>>>> with the system.
>>>
>>> "built-in with the system" Sorry I am calling bs on that one. You can
>>> easily remove it, it is not "built-in"
>>
>> OK, take it up with the copuke guru who wrote it. Me I took it out,
>> then I couldn't log in any more, then I backleveled and now I'm
>> writing from it. End of story.
>>
> <..snipped...>
>
> probably PBK&C

That's always possible but the steps listed really exlude unrelated
interventions.

> Not a guru, myself. Followd easy-to-find instructions, now running fine
> withot snap Ub. 20.04, fully updated.

I followed the instructions:

1
removed all the 'snap-listed' snap-based packages and then

2
removed all the snap-system packagess that remained.

I did nothing else. I might try again if and when I have time.