>"Firefox is just a ui on iOS."

That is 100% not by Mozilla's choice.

>"Chrome is not a boggieman. It's open source, and runs on almost everything."

Chrome is most certainly NOT open source. It is 100% closed. Chromium is open-source, but it is not an open project. Google controls 100% of what goes it in, and brutally so. And it is too big/complex to actually fork. So multiplatform browsers that are not Firefox-ish are, indeed Chromium, for most purposes that matter (Google's control over standards, security, control).

>"They have gone back enough into niche status I wouldn't recommend Firefox to general people."

Then you are doing everyone a great disservice.

>"Vivaldi and Brave retain support for manifest v2 if I remember correctly, so you can continue to use proper ublock origin, and not the shitty v3 version."

Until changes in the base Chromium code they try to maintain become un-maintainable. They don't have the resources to actually perform a true fork.

Vivaldi, Brave, Edge, Opera, whatever, they are all Chromium underneath. They all lend support to Google's control over web "standards" and they all contribute to a dangerous monoculture. One that will have serious security, privacy, and standards implications. Firefox (or its children) are the only real multiplatform alternative left now. And it is not like you have to sacrifice anything to use it.

>"It is like Chrome WITHOUT the Google Spyware and ads."

Except it is, at it's core, Chrome, since it is based on Chromium. And, thus, you still giving power and control to Google. And still promoting a dangerous monoculture, and not protecting from the security and standards nightmare that will be a resulting from that.

If I were *forced* to use a Google-based browser, it might be Brave. It is an obvious better choice, and also somewhat erodes a bit of Google's grip. But I have zero reasons to use Brave over Firefox, and many reasons to use and promote Firefox over any "chrom" browser.

>"It just needs an email client."

https://www.thunderbird.net/

>"The snap package is pretty bad. The moment you install the native package though, you wonder why you ever put up with the performance hit in the first place "

And the solution is:

* Don't use Ubuntu
* Don't use Snap
* Don't use containers for important software that should be native

https://linuxmint.com/

>"I take that back; I did run into a site (can't remember now what it was) that told me I needed to update my browser, when what they actually wanted me to do was switch to Chrome/Chromium."

And it is up to us to make noise about that. I know *I* do. It is rare I run across such a site, but you can bet I will immediately Email them at a minimum. If it is a site for a place I would do business, I will do a lot more, up to and including making sure their marketing department knows they are going to lose business from me and others. I closed a bank account over it and let them know, and then recommended to everyone I know not to use that bank because they were incompetent. (They eventually fixed it, but far too late).

It is the ultimate in lazy to not be able to "support" the only three browsers they are likely to ever encounter- chrom*, Firefox, and Safari. There was a time there were a dozen actually different browsers and sites managed. And the reality is that most of this isn't even real, a site can complain about your browser, or throw out a message, and you change the user agent

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-...

and it magically works fine. But such warnings can cause SEVERE damage to the adoption and mindshare of Firefox. So can clueless "support staff" saying or "recommending" you just "use Chrome." This mentality has to change.

>"Where I live, most people just use the recycle bin and the trash can as the same thing. It is a two for one deal! woohoo!"

In some (many?) areas it all goes to the dump anyway (without any recycling).

Too bad that is not what the article is about. It is about contaminating the recycling. It is not about failing to recycle. The title is WRONG. Even the summary doesn't support the title.

>"Ohio City Using AI-Equipped Garbage Trucks To Scan Your Trash, Scold You For Not Recycling"

No, that is not what the article says and not what the summary says. There is ZERO in there about scolding people about NOT recycling. They are scolding people who put incorrect junk into their recycling bins. Big difference.

>"It's required for several major GUI apps, like Chromium."

But you should be using Firefox, not chromium ;) And Ubuntu containerizes Firefox as well. And LibreOffice, and GIMP, and all the important things.

Your point is correct and understood, however. Yes, Ubuntu is trying to force everyone to use containers, which is a horrible move to start with. And Snap containers, which makes the horrible move even more horrible.

That is one of several reasons droves of people have left Ubuntu for Mint. And Mint is ready to debase from Ubuntu if needed. And there is always Debian.

>"I switched back from Ubuntu to Debian when Snaps became an unavoidable thing. I only switched to Ubuntu for compatibility with more recent software, but nowadays I don't notice anything that's not available on Debian."

I would be much more inclined to use Debian than Ubuntu on a new server install. And more more inclined to use that or Mint for a desktop install. Even Mint is hedging their bets against Ubuntu with their alternative LDME distro in the wings.

Given a chance, Ubuntu will act just like RedHat. They have already shown a lot of hostility.

>"Every other distro action that I see further supports my growing opinion that Debian is the answer."

I concur. I wish we would pour the effort and funds into the Debian project directly and make its LTS version the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". If vendors back it, it can happen. I have had enough of corporate capture and monetization of what server Linux should be.

I am all for paid actual support- tech calls, installs, Email, chat groups, training, education certifications, equipment certifications, etc. But not for the actual Linux distro use. It flies in the face of the entire spirit of GNU/Linux. People are SICK TO DEATH of dealing with "entitlements" and 1,000 page licensing agreements and crap just to have access to a stable, business-friendly Linux distro.

>"Debian solves all the issues."

Not quite, the LTS is still not completely long enough for many platforms. But it is close. And without large hardware vendor-backing from HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc; and software or cloud vendors, it will be problematic. Swing enough of those and it is very possible the others will quickly follow.

>"Honestly though, at this point, it might be wiser for people to consider repackaging Ubuntu Pro packages (for server use) minus the branding"

No thanks. I see Ubuntu as better than RedHat, but just as irritating and hostile in many ways. It is why I use Mint for desktops (like an ever increasing number of Linux users) and not Ubuntu. But Mint really meant only for desktop, not server use...

I would love to see business resources funneled directly into Debian, so its stable release could become the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". Just need some even longer package update support and more vendor backing and it could happen.

>"That is nothing compared to the damage they did by making taking over CentOS with promises and then breaking those promises."

Completely agreed. And the moves/hostilities after that were almost as bad. It poisoned RedHat forever in many, many people's eyes.

>The fact Rocky Linux [rockylinux.org]

And Alma Linux, https://almalinux.org/ which came first

>"exists is good"

Indeed.

>"Nobody needs RedHat and nobody should be making new installs using it."

We should actually turn focus back to Debian and somehow pour resources into that, making it the new definition of "Enterprise Linux". Because we CERTAINLY don't want it to be Ubuntu at this point.

>"They save the company a ton of money - one touch screen can duplicate 10, 20 30 or more gauges."

None of that should be on a touchscreen. It should be on a dashboard screen in front of the driver. The touchscreen should be in the center.

>"But when the touch screen breaks, you lose everything rather than just the rpm."

Not when you also have a proper dashboard display (looking at your, Tesla- what a horrible idea). However, yes, if that dashboard display dies, you are kinda S out of luck! :) But, even non-digital dashboards in some later vehicles have a master controller with single-points of failure as well.