Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Hi,
I don't think that FC32 is released yet.
Ranjan
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 11:10:27 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
-- Important Notice: This mailbox is ignored: e-mails are set to be deleted on receipt. Please respond to the mailing list if appropriate. For those needing to send personal or professional e-mail, please use appropriate addresses.
On 2020-04-18 12:13, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
Hi,
I don't think that FC32 is released yet.
Ranjan
I am running it right now. It is the pre-release.
# cat /etc/redhat-release Fedora release 32 (Thirty Two)
I have no issue with running the pre because it is usually the actually release anyway and when the actual hits, dnf will update to it, if there is anything to update.
And this is in my fly-before-you-buy test Virtual machine of Fedora. I install test things there first.
On 2020-04-18 11:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Opened:
GPG check FAILED on RPM installation with Fedora 32 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/9315
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 12:30 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 11:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Opened:
GPG check FAILED on RPM installation with Fedora 32 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/9315
Once again: F32 is unreleased. Bug reports should be notified on the Test list.
poc
On 2020-04-19 06:03, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 12:30 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 11:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Opened:
GPG check FAILED on RPM installation with Fedora 32 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/9315
Once again: F32 is unreleased. Bug reports should be notified on the Test list.
And, once again, brave isn't part of Fedora.
On 2020-04-19 03:30, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 11:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Opened:
GPG check FAILED on RPM installation with Fedora 32 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/9315
I checked that open issue. It doesn't appear as any action has been taken since it shows
Assignees No one assigned Labels None yet Projects None yet Milestone No milestone Linked pull requests Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. None yet
I did the following
1. Installed Brave on a fully updated F31 VM. No Problems 2. Installed Brave on a fully updated F32 Beta VM. No Problems 3. Upgraded the F31 VM by doing sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
And the upgrade succeeded without problems.
You may want to run your test again.
On 2020-04-20 18:29, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-19 03:30, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 11:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
-T
Opened:
GPG check FAILED on RPM installation with Fedora 32 https://github.com/brave/brave-browser/issues/9315
I checked that open issue. It doesn't appear as any action has been taken since it shows
Assignees No one assigned Labels None yet Projects None yet Milestone No milestone Linked pull requests Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue. None yet
I did the following
1. Installed Brave on a fully updated F31 VM. No Problems 2. Installed Brave on a fully updated F32 Beta VM. No Problems 3. Upgraded the F31 VM by doing sudo dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=32
And the upgrade succeeded without problems.
You may want to run your test again.
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
On 2020-04-20 23:13, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
Hi Ed,
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5d13a788 gpg(Brave Software support@brave.com) 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
How to I remove the brave on so I can start over?
Also, do I need all the way back to Fedora 27?
-T
On 2020-04-21 16:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-20 23:13, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
Hi Ed,
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5d13a788 gpg(Brave Software support@brave.com) 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
How to I remove the brave on so I can start over?
Also, do I need all the way back to Fedora 27?
sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5d13a788 (probably optional)
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc should get you gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8 installed.
On 2020-04-21 01:33, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 16:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-20 23:13, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
Hi Ed,
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5d13a788 gpg(Brave Software support@brave.com) 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
How to I remove the brave on so I can start over?
Also, do I need all the way back to Fedora 27?
sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5d13a788 (probably optional)
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc should get you gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8 installed.
Reinstall did not work. Poop!
But the old one did remove
Do I need all those old keys? Or are they not hurting anything?
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
On 2020-04-21 16:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-21 01:33, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 16:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-20 23:13, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
Hi Ed,
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5d13a788 gpg(Brave Software support@brave.com) 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
How to I remove the brave on so I can start over?
Also, do I need all the way back to Fedora 27?
sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5d13a788 (probably optional)
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc should get you gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8 installed.
Reinstall did not work. Poop!
But the old one did remove
Do I need all those old keys? Or are they not hurting anything?
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
You still don't have
c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key a.k.a. gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
installed.
How did
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc
fail?
On 2020-04-21 02:15, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 16:55, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-21 01:33, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 16:02, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-20 23:13, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 14:07, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Still getting
warning: /var/cache/dnf/brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_-d55d330619c02b48/packages/brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm: Header V4 RSA/SHA512 Signature, key ID 82d3dc6c: NOKEY Public key for brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm is not installed
Check....
[egreshko@f32x ~]$ rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
Hi Ed,
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* c2d4e821-5d13a788 gpg(Brave Software support@brave.com) 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
How to I remove the brave on so I can start over?
Also, do I need all the way back to Fedora 27?
sudo rpm -e gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5d13a788 (probably optional)
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc should get you gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8 installed.
Reinstall did not work. Poop!
But the old one did remove
Do I need all those old keys? Or are they not hurting anything?
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
You still don't have
c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key a.k.a. gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
installed.
How did
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc
fail?
Same error:
Public key for brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch.rpm is not installed
On 2020-04-21 17:25, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
You still don't have
c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key a.k.a. gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
installed.
How did
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc
fail?
Same error:
Public key for brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch.rpm is not installed
????
Isn't that error message the result of trying to install brave-browser?
As I said....
It seems you *don't* get...
[root@f31x ~]# rpm -qa | grep c2d4e821-5e7252b8 gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
Do you?
So, you have to import it with the "rpm --import" command. Did that work?
On 2020-04-21 02:34, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-21 17:25, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
You still don't have
c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key a.k.a. gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
installed.
How did
sudo rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc
fail?
Same error:
Public key for brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch.rpm is not installed
????
Isn't that error message the result of trying to install brave-browser?
As I said....
It seems you *don't* get...
[root@f31x ~]# rpm -qa | grep c2d4e821-5e7252b8 gpg-pubkey-c2d4e821-5e7252b8
Do you?
So, you have to import it with the "rpm --import" command. Did that work?
Hi Ed,
Ooops. Forgot to reinstall the key. :'(
And now everything works right.
Thank you for sticking this through! You are awesome!
-T
# rpm --import https://brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com/brave-core.asc
# rpm -qa --qf '%{VERSION}-%{RELEASE} %{SUMMARY}\n' gpg-pubkey* 9db62fb1-59920156 gpg(Fedora 28 (28) fedora-28@fedoraproject.org) 429476b4-5a886537 gpg(Fedora 29 (29) fedora-29@fedoraproject.org) f5282ee4-58ac92a3 gpg(Fedora 27 (27) fedora-27@fedoraproject.org) c2d4e821-5e7252b8 Brave Software support@brave.com public key 3c3359c4-5c6ae44d gpg(Fedora (31) fedora-31-primary@fedoraproject.org) cfc659b9-5b6eac67 gpg(Fedora (30) fedora-30-primary@fedoraproject.org) 12c944d0-5d5156ab Fedora (32) fedora-32-primary@fedoraproject.org public key
# dnf install brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch Last metadata expiration check: 1:35:01 ago on Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:27:40 AM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: brave-keyring noarch 1.8-1 brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_ 11 k
Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 1 Package
Total size: 11 k Installed size: 11 k Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: [SKIPPED] brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch.rpm: Already downloaded
Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Installing : brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch 1/1 Running scriptlet: brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch 1/1 Redirecting to /bin/systemctl start atd.service Failed to start atd.service: Unit atd.service not found. warning: %post(brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
Error in POSTIN scriptlet in rpm package brave-keyring Verifying : brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch 1/1
Installed: brave-keyring-1.8-1.noarch
Complete!
# dnf install brave-browser Last metadata expiration check: 1:35:40 ago on Tue 21 Apr 2020 01:27:40 AM PDT. Dependencies resolved. ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Installing: brave-browser x86_64 1.7.92-1 brave-browser-rpm-release.s3.brave.com_x86_64_ 72 M
Transaction Summary ================================================================================ Install 1 Package
Total download size: 72 M Installed size: 72 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64.rpm 944 kB/s | 72 MB 01:18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 944 kB/s | 72 MB 01:18 Running transaction check Transaction check succeeded. Running transaction test Transaction test succeeded. Running transaction Preparing : 1/1 Running scriptlet: brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64 1/1 Installing : brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64 1/1 Running scriptlet: brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64 1/1 Redirecting to /bin/systemctl start atd.service Failed to start atd.service: Unit atd.service not found.
Verifying : brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64 1/1
Installed: brave-browser-1.7.92-1.x86_64
Complete!
ToddAndMargo via users writes:
Hi Ed,
Ooops. Forgot to reinstall the key. :'(
And now everything works right.
Thank you for sticking this through! You are awesome!
To answer your other questions: the GPG keys for older Fedora releases are harmless.
But I have believed, for quite some time, that they are a low risk security hole. A signing PGP key was compromised at least once, many years ago, forcing the whole release to get re-signed.
If one of the older releases' PGP keys gets compromised, things might get a bit dicey, if a few more dominoes can get felled, in the right direction. Say someone swipes F29's PGP key, right now. Hoo boy. A lot of systems will probably trust anything signed by that key.
I always thought that (these days) dnf system-upgrade should, at some point, delete the old release's pgp key. I dimly recall seeing something in Bugzilla about it. Every few releases I sift through my RPM databases, and manually delete old release keys.
Why are pgp keys in the rpm database anyway? That seems like a bunch of extra work. /etc/yum.repos.d already contains:
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
So, why isn't that enough? This should be sufficient to verify signatures on download packages. Why do they have to get imported somewhere in the rpm database, as a fake package, in order to be useful?
On 2020-04-21 20:19, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
ToddAndMargo via users writes:
Hi Ed,
Ooops. Forgot to reinstall the key. :'(
And now everything works right.
Thank you for sticking this through! You are awesome!
To answer your other questions: the GPG keys for older Fedora releases are harmless.
But I have believed, for quite some time, that they are a low risk security hole. A signing PGP key was compromised at least once, many years ago, forcing the whole release to get re-signed.
If one of the older releases' PGP keys gets compromised, things might get a bit dicey, if a few more dominoes can get felled, in the right direction. Say someone swipes F29's PGP key, right now. Hoo boy. A lot of systems will probably trust anything signed by that key.
I always thought that (these days) dnf system-upgrade should, at some point, delete the old release's pgp key. I dimly recall seeing something in Bugzilla about it. Every few releases I sift through my RPM databases, and manually delete old release keys.
Why are pgp keys in the rpm database anyway? That seems like a bunch of extra work. /etc/yum.repos.d already contains:
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-$releasever-$basearch
So, why isn't that enough? This should be sufficient to verify signatures on download packages. Why do they have to get imported somewhere in the rpm database, as a fake package, in order to be useful?
Would it hurt anything to remove the old ones?
On 2020-04-22 11:46, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Would it hurt anything to remove the old ones?
Hurt? No. Cause you an inconvenience at a later date? Maybe.
Example. Let's say you want to install some SW from an earlier release of Fedora that was dropped. So, you go back and find an rpm and luckily it doesn't have a dependency issue. But the rpm came from F29 and you've removed the public keys for F29. So, it won't install without using the --nogpgcheck flag.
On 2020-04-21 21:38, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-22 11:46, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Would it hurt anything to remove the old ones?
Hurt? No. Cause you an inconvenience at a later date? Maybe.
Example. Let's say you want to install some SW from an earlier release of Fedora that was dropped. So, you go back and find an rpm and luckily it doesn't have a dependency issue. But the rpm came from F29 and you've removed the public keys for F29. So, it won't install without using the --nogpgcheck flag.
Makes sense now. Thank you!
On 2020-04-19 02:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
Aside from the fact that F32 issues/comments should be going to the test list, "brave" isn't a fedora repo/project. So, just like rpmfusion, it need not be mentioned here.
On 2020-04-18 13:22, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-19 02:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*
to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
Aside from the fact that F32 issues/comments should be going to the test list, "brave" isn't a fedora repo/project. So, just like rpmfusion, it need not be mentioned here.
Hi Ed,
Kinda sorta yes and kinda sorta no.
This is for folks "using" Fedora, so non OS things do get discussed. And the testing folks did announce FC32 here.
I will also post over on the testing group. Probably get told the same thing.
:'(
-T
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 13:56 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 13:22, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-19 02:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
Aside from the fact that F32 issues/comments should be going to the test list, "brave" isn't a fedora repo/project. So, just like rpmfusion, it need not be mentioned here.
Hi Ed,
Kinda sorta yes and kinda sorta no.
This is for folks "using" Fedora, so non OS things do get discussed. And the testing folks did announce FC32 here.
I will also post over on the testing group. Probably get told the same thing.
Why would you be told the same thing? The Test list is clearly where this should go (except for the Brave stuff which as Ed says is not part of Fedora).
poc
On 2020-04-18 15:05, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 13:56 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 13:22, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-19 02:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
Aside from the fact that F32 issues/comments should be going to the test list, "brave" isn't a fedora repo/project. So, just like rpmfusion, it need not be mentioned here.
Hi Ed,
Kinda sorta yes and kinda sorta no.
This is for folks "using" Fedora, so non OS things do get discussed. And the testing folks did announce FC32 here.
I will also post over on the testing group. Probably get told the same thing.
Why would you be told the same thing?
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad. I have been a fan of it since Netscape. Brave is also the most private of all the Browsers. See: https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
The Test list is clearly where this should go (except for the Brave stuff which as Ed says is not part of Fedora).
poc
My intention was since Brave does run and run well on Fedora that other may have had the same issue I had and would appreciate seeing how to handle it. Plus the fix action will work with other programs having the same issue.
I was being helpful. A lot of folks on this list have been extremely helpful to me, so I was giving back.
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 19:18 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad.
I cannot say that I've noticed that, at all.
If anything, over recent years I've seen less and less of websites that depend on a particular browser. In recent times I've seen a couple, that tell me to upgrade my browser, with an error message that's actually related to having to downgrade my browser (back to some version from several years ago).
On 2020-04-18 20:58, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 19:18 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad.
I cannot say that I've noticed that, at all.
If anything, over recent years I've seen less and less of websites that depend on a particular browser. In recent times I've seen a couple, that tell me to upgrade my browser, with an error message that's actually related to having to downgrade my browser (back to some version from several years ago).
Hi Tim,
I provide IT services to small businesses that can not afford their own staff. What I have noticed is that Firefox no longer works on business to business portals, especially government ones. And online ordering has been impacted too. You can't finalize and place an order on swansonvitamins.com. The only tech support and sales chat service I can get to work is Star Tech's. Things are just getting worse and worse.
What I have been doing is installing both Firefox and Brave on customer's machines. I tell them if one browser does not work, use the other. I have had to make folks default browser Brave due to these issues.
This is sad as I adore Firefox and hate to see it dying like this.
The thing is that Firefox is not tolerant of mistakes on web sites. They are purest and think the web site should be fixed. The customers do not care. Their attitude is "either it works or it does not. Here is a quarter, go tell your excuses to someone that cares. I will use what works." It is harsh, but it is also reality.
-T
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 21:24 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
The thing is that Firefox is not tolerant of mistakes on web sites. They are purest and think the web site should be fixed.
All web browsers are tolerant of authoring faults, some browsers are way too tolerant (and in doing so, often introduce security flaws). It's all too common for web service coders to NEVER test their code, and just see if it appears to work in one or two browsers. No browser is a fault-tester.
Plenty of coders do not know HTML, JavaScript, etc., and flagrantly violate how it's supposed to be used. It's sheer lunacy to expect that kind of site to work properly in any browser. You can only make so many guesses about how broken code was supposed to work. Not to mention that we still have the situation that some browsers offer extra special (off-spec) features that simply are not going to exist in other browsers, and we still have dumb coders who don't see what's wrong with trying to use such quirks.
There's a bunch of web hosts who are real slack-arses who think that they can leave SSL certificates seriously out-of-date and expect their clients to just skip past a rejected certificate. On some browsers, they rightly refuse to bypass certain levels of unacceptable certificates.
Again, we still get websites that are only designed to work with Microsoft products, perhaps with encouragement rather than just sheer laziness. When faced with a site like that, there's nothing that Firefox, or any other browser, coder can do about it.
It's an unfortunate reality that we almost have to have more than one browser installed. And while you've found bias against Firefox, others will have found bias against other browsers. And it is well worth tracking down a contact address for a business service, or the turn-key web portal author, and sending them the "I was going to do business with you, but your website failed to work with my mainstream browser."
And there's the converse, like this: https://webcompat.com/ Where it hopefully aids in finding shortcomings in browsers. Because sometimes it is the browser's fault.
On 2020-04-19 02:20, Tim via users wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 21:24 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
The thing is that Firefox is not tolerant of mistakes on web sites. They are purest and think the web site should be fixed.
All web browsers are tolerant of authoring faults, some browsers are way too tolerant (and in doing so, often introduce security flaws). It's all too common for web service coders to NEVER test their code, and just see if it appears to work in one or two browsers. No browser is a fault-tester.
Plenty of coders do not know HTML, JavaScript, etc., and flagrantly violate how it's supposed to be used. It's sheer lunacy to expect that kind of site to work properly in any browser. You can only make so many guesses about how broken code was supposed to work. Not to mention that we still have the situation that some browsers offer extra special (off-spec) features that simply are not going to exist in other browsers, and we still have dumb coders who don't see what's wrong with trying to use such quirks.
There's a bunch of web hosts who are real slack-arses who think that they can leave SSL certificates seriously out-of-date and expect their clients to just skip past a rejected certificate. On some browsers, they rightly refuse to bypass certain levels of unacceptable certificates.
Again, we still get websites that are only designed to work with Microsoft products, perhaps with encouragement rather than just sheer laziness. When faced with a site like that, there's nothing that Firefox, or any other browser, coder can do about it.
It's an unfortunate reality that we almost have to have more than one browser installed. And while you've found bias against Firefox, others will have found bias against other browsers. And it is well worth tracking down a contact address for a business service, or the turn-key web portal author, and sending them the "I was going to do business with you, but your website failed to work with my mainstream browser."
And there's the converse, like this: https://webcompat.com/ Where it hopefully aids in finding shortcomings in browsers. Because sometimes it is the browser's fault.
I can't argue with anything you said.
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 21:24:01 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
I provide IT services to small businesses that can not afford their own staff. What I have noticed is that Firefox no longer works on business to business portals, especially government ones. And online ordering has been impacted too. You can't finalize and place an order on swansonvitamins.com. The only tech support and sales chat service I can get to work is Star Tech's. Things are just getting worse and worse.
What I have been doing is installing both Firefox and Brave on customer's machines. I tell them if one browser does not work, use the other. I have had to make folks default browser Brave due to these issues.
This is sad as I adore Firefox and hate to see it dying like this.
The thing is that Firefox is not tolerant of mistakes on web sites. They are purest and think the web site should be fixed. The customers do not care. Their attitude is "either it works or it does not. Here is a quarter, go tell your excuses to someone that cares. I will use what works." It is harsh, but it is also reality.
I run firefox nightly, the development version. I see hundreds to thousands of changes to firefox daily. So it is being actively maintained and developed.
What you are describing was explained by Tim in another post that you agreed with. My take is that you are installing security holes on your customer's machines. You should definitely get them to sign a waiver that you are not responsible for any security breaches.
I *like* that firefox is security conscious. It warns me so I know there is a threat, and then gives me the option of continuing or leaving. I have control, not some browser developer who decides for me without my knowledge.
Hey, I get it. Most people, including small business people, don't care about security, as long as they get to do what they want, when they want; it's too much effort and hassle. All we have to look at is the billions in dollars that black hat hackers extract from them to know that. So, you are walking a line between staying in business and security, and if you don't stay in business, you won't have to worry about security. Easy call.
On 2020-04-19 08:33, stan via users wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 21:24:01 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
I provide IT services to small businesses that can not afford their own staff. What I have noticed is that Firefox no longer works on business to business portals, especially government ones. And online ordering has been impacted too. You can't finalize and place an order on swansonvitamins.com. The only tech support and sales chat service I can get to work is Star Tech's. Things are just getting worse and worse.
What I have been doing is installing both Firefox and Brave on customer's machines. I tell them if one browser does not work, use the other. I have had to make folks default browser Brave due to these issues.
This is sad as I adore Firefox and hate to see it dying like this.
The thing is that Firefox is not tolerant of mistakes on web sites. They are purest and think the web site should be fixed. The customers do not care. Their attitude is "either it works or it does not. Here is a quarter, go tell your excuses to someone that cares. I will use what works." It is harsh, but it is also reality.
I run firefox nightly, the development version. I see hundreds to thousands of changes to firefox daily. So it is being actively maintained and developed.
What you are describing was explained by Tim in another post that you agreed with. My take is that you are installing security holes on your customer's machines. You should definitely get them to sign a waiver that you are not responsible for any security breaches.
I *like* that firefox is security conscious. It warns me so I know there is a threat, and then gives me the option of continuing or leaving. I have control, not some browser developer who decides for me without my knowledge.
Hey, I get it. Most people, including small business people, don't care about security, as long as they get to do what they want, when they want; it's too much effort and hassle. All we have to look at is the billions in dollars that black hat hackers extract from them to know that. So, you are walking a line between staying in business and security, and if you don't stay in business, you won't have to worry about security. Easy call.
Hi Stan,
If you are using Firefox Nightlies, you are in for a wild ride. They are B-U-G-G-Y. I only test them when I am forced to for by some issue and I get back off them as soon as possible
Mozilla has a LONG history of not working around broken code on web sites. The idea is if enough users complain, then the web site will fix their code. The problem is "enough users".
But here is the rub. Firefox has been dumped by so many people over this issue, that it is no longer a serious choice for anyone who wants a broadly compatible browser.
Here are the statistics: https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx
Firefox now only has 8.49% of the market. And because of that, Firefox users are seen as ridiculous when they ask a web site to fix their code. NO ONE will put the effort into making their stuff work with a niche browser that only 8% of users actually use.
And what makes you think Firefox is the king of security? Here is a run down: https://vpnpro.com/blog/most-secure-browser/
Firefox is rated number 4, behind number 2 Ungoogled Chromium (Blink) and number 3 Brave (Blink).
So as long as you stay away from Chrome (google), your security is just fine adn the same or better than Firefox.
And as far as business goes, #1 is works, #2 is security. I CAN NOT tell a customer to drop their customer because their customer's business-to-business portal does not work in an obscure browser -- be it Firefox, Opera, Safari, are Acme Browser.
Why would I tell a customer to close his business because his customer ignores a weird, obscure niche browser, such as Firefox, especially since Firefox give no extra security protection or privacy over non-googled Blink based browsers? If the buyer demands you use Blink, you use Blink. There are plenty of other sellers out there that want our business. Closing one's business is not an option.
Brave (Blink) run very well and is even more private that Firefox. Here is a study for you to look at
https://www.scss.tcd.ie/Doug.Leith/pubs/browser_privacy.pdf
Firefox fall in the middle. The most private is the Blink based Brave.
Firefox is not more secure and not more private than ungoogled Blink. And at 8.49% of the market, Firefox is in no position to demand anything from anyone. Either they fix their stuff (not my exact word) or their market shared will drop to oblivion.
Don't get me wrong. I adore Firefox and have been a fan since Netscape. But unless they change their attitude, they are not a good choice for a broadly compatible browser.
And to repeat myself, this is the customer's attitude:
It either works or it does not. I will use what works. Here is a quarter, go tell your excuses to someone who cares
Now for security, I do security consulting for PCI (Payment Card Industry). The overwhelming cause of security breaches is the user, not the software. He does stupid things, like inserting unknown USB flash drives into his system and clicking an any link he finds.
The CLASSIC way to breach a company is to draw up a bunch of flash drive with viruses on them, and scatter them in the companies parking lot at night. About one in twenty get plugged in.
And ransomware is almost always the user being tricked into clicking on a link in this eMail.
Now if you really, really, really cared about security, you would drop Windows and move to Fedora. But then you are back to the same old problem. If Fedora does not run the software you need it to run, "it does not work. I will use what works". It does not matter if Fedora is 1000 times better written and has 10,000 times better security than Windows, the customer does not care.
-T
On Sun, 2020-04-19 at 15:08 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
But here is the rub. Firefox has been dumped by so many people over this issue, that it is no longer a serious choice for anyone who wants a broadly compatible browser.
Is it, though? So many people just use whatever came pre-installed on their system. If it's Windows, it was IE (and it's descendents). Mac and iPhones, Safari. Android phones, Google. Personally, I'd put a lot of that page's stats down to more and more people using mobile phones than PCs.
If a site they want to use fails with their browser, they may try installing another. Chance are, though, that they'll give up and try another website.
That's the info you need to take home. While you're saying, at the moment, Firefox is failing you/them, when it comes to badly authored websites, that goalpost changes with their unassociated website and web-browser updates. Next week, their stuff-ups may shut-out the browser that was previously working.
If you want things to work, you have to do it right, in the first place.
On 2020-04-20 03:01, Tim via users wrote:
On Sun, 2020-04-19 at 15:08 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
But here is the rub. Firefox has been dumped by so many people over this issue, that it is no longer a serious choice for anyone who wants a broadly compatible browser.
Is it, though? So many people just use whatever came pre-installed on their system. If it's Windows, it was IE (and it's descendents). Mac and iPhones, Safari. Android phones, Google. Personally, I'd put a lot of that page's stats down to more and more people using mobile phones than PCs.
Chrome is not preinsalled, yet it get the gets over 70% of market. NOw mind you , the folks doing the measurements can't tell oe Blink browser from another, so they all get called Chrome.
If a site they want to use fails with their browser, they may try installing another. Chance are, though, that they'll give up and try another website.
Yes. The days of one browser are gone. I finding myself using Firefox for certain things, Brave for others, and weird old Vivaldi for yet others.
And in the Windows world, on new machines, I remove the Edge icons and install IE icons. Edge is atrocious.
I also install Firefox and Brave, some times Vivaldi.
That's the info you need to take home. While you're saying, at the moment, Firefox is failing you/them, when it comes to badly authored websites, that goalpost changes with their unassociated website and web-browser updates. Next week, their stuff-ups may shut-out the browser that was previously working.
I tell them to use Firefox first, as I do, then Brave if it does not fork in Firefox. I import Firefox's profile into Brave so the have their bookmarks and password words in both.
If you want things to work, you have to do it right, in the first place.
It is amazing to me how many Windows users dump Edge so quickly for Chrome.
It is sad that there are still some websites that require IE, especially since Active X is such a security hazard.
On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 12:08 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Chrome is not preinsalled, yet it get the gets over 70% of market.
It is on every Android phone I've seen.
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 15:08:29 -0700 ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
If you are using Firefox Nightlies, you are in for a wild ride. They are B-U-G-G-Y. I only test them when I am forced to for by some issue and I get back off them as soon as possible
I've been running it for years, and yes, I've reported a few bugs in that time, and they have been fixed quickly. But mostly, it just works. I wouldn't recommend it for people who view the browser as an appliance, it is like rawhide in fedora, the development environment where changes are introduced.
Mozilla has a LONG history of not working around broken code on web sites. The idea is if enough users complain, then the web site will fix their code. The problem is "enough users".
That's not a detraction for me, that's a recommendation. If a website can't be bothered coding to standards, what is the probability that they use secure protocols, and are secure? How likely are they to protect my privacy? How likely are they to store my personal data securely? Sloppy is sloppy, and if they don't have protocols in place to create a website that adheres to standards, they are sloppy. So when firefox warns, that tells me to be careful with that website. As Tim said, in that case I usually just leave and go to a website that doesn't warn. That is, their incompetence loses me as a (potential) customer / user.
But here is the rub. Firefox has been dumped by so many people over this issue, that it is no longer a serious choice for anyone who wants a broadly compatible browser.
Here are the statistics: https://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx
Heh. I run Fedora, so I know that market share is not an indication of quality. If so, we would all be running windows, or maybe macos, since they have a greater market share.
And what makes you think Firefox is the king of security? Here is a run down: https://vpnpro.com/blog/most-secure-browser/
Firefox is rated number 4, behind number 2 Ungoogled Chromium (Blink) and number 3 Brave (Blink).
I interpret that page differently than you do. I agree that Tor with a vpn is probably the most secure way to browse, but it is above my trade-off for hassle / cost for security / privacy. I think their testing methodology is for browsers out of the box. But as they say, firefox with the right add-ons can be customized to be as secure as any of the top browsers. Me in charge of customization, that's a winner for me. In the end, I think this discussion is like the old KDE vs Gnome argument that used to rage in linux. Emotional, and dependent on user needs and preferences. Any of the top 4 browsers in that list are fine to use. I will concede that according to that page, brave is secure, so you are justified in installing it.
And as far as business goes, #1 is works, #2 is security. I CAN NOT tell a customer to drop their customer because their customer's business-to-business portal does not work in an obscure browser -- be it Firefox, Opera, Safari, are Acme Browser.
Why would I tell a customer to close his business because his customer ignores a weird, obscure niche browser, such as Firefox, especially since Firefox give no extra security protection or privacy over non-googled Blink based browsers? If the buyer demands you use Blink, you use Blink. There are plenty of other sellers out there that want our business. Closing one's business is not an option.
I agreed with you in my previous comments. Your use case and mine are very different, so it isn't so surprising that we have different perspectives.
Brave (Blink) run very well and is even more private that Firefox. Here is a study for you to look at
Thanks for this link, very good. Based on that, out of the box, brave is more secure than firefox. I fixed most of the issues they mention about firefox a long time ago, but haven't revisited them lately. I'll have to check again.
Firefox fall in the middle. The most private is the Blink based Brave.
For calling home privacy, which is only one aspect of privacy. As far as hacking goes, the link above this one stated that google chrome has won a competition to resist compromising the browser in a period of time two years in a row. But, of course, chrome has other privacy issues. It surprises me that your clients are concerned about google tracking them, with their attitude. It seems chrome would be a good solution for them; they pay for secure browsing with their tracking privacy, which they don't care about.
Now for security, I do security consulting for PCI (Payment Card Industry). The overwhelming cause of security breaches is the user, not the software. He does stupid things, like inserting unknown USB flash drives into his system and clicking an any link he finds.
The CLASSIC way to breach a company is to draw up a bunch of flash drive with viruses on them, and scatter them in the companies parking lot at night. About one in twenty get plugged in.
I recall reading that most exploits are due to social engineering. I suppose that this would be part of that. But there are lots of attempts at penetration performed over the web, and some of them are by state actors, so are very sophisticated (because they have the resources to make them so). I allow that the most sophisticated are unlikely to be targeting small businesses.
And ransomware is almost always the user being tricked into clicking on a link in this eMail.
Interesting to know, not that it is of concern to me.
Now if you really, really, really cared about security, you would drop Windows and move to Fedora. But then you are back to the same old problem. If Fedora does not run the software you need it to run, "it does not work. I will use what works". It does not matter if Fedora is 1000 times better written and has 10,000 times better security than Windows, the customer does not care.
Good business for anti-virus providers. And you.
On 2020-04-20 12:50, stan via users wrote:
Now if you really, really, really cared about security, you would drop Windows and move to Fedora. But then you are back to the same old problem. If Fedora does not run the software you need it to run, "it does not work. I will use what works". It does not matter if Fedora is 1000 times better written and has 10,000 times better security than Windows, the customer does not care.
Good business for anti-virus providers. And you.
It gets my goat that I can not give the customer a stable and secure operating system to run their stuff on. That being said, I do realize I would not have a job with M$ poor quality. But with a guy like me setting you up, you can cope.
Put to poetry:
Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that.
Wish Go To Assist would get off their butts and FINALLY support Linux.
On 2020-04-20 12:50, stan via users wrote:
It surprises me that your clients are concerned about google tracking them, with their attitude.
Their attitude is based on meeting their customer's needs. If one web browser does not work with the their customer's requirements, my customer does not have a choice to go elsewhere.
I personally HATE ads with a blinding passion. When some web site gets huffy with me over my ad ablocker and tracker blocker, I go elsewhere. As you do when you hit a buggered up web site with Firefox. But, my customer's do not have that option.
By the way, I have seen those warning in Firefox before. Recently though, the buttons just don't work. Swanson vitamins can't finalize an order over Firefox. You have to call them and they dig out the order and finalize it for you. Works perfectly in Brave.
And as far as security and privacy, my customers rely on me for that. I try to protect them a well a possible without driving them to distraction. This is why I tell them to stay away from Chrome (Blink) and use Brave (also Blink) instead. Virtually everything that works in Chrome, works in Brave.
Another one of the big things that no longer works in Firefox is video on news sites, especially Foxnews and Yahoo. It is on to Brave for them.
This horse is dead. Beating it will add nothing to Fedora users lives. I buy on Swanson using FF and have NO problems.
On Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 18:21, ToddAndMargo via users users@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
On 2020-04-20 12:50, stan via users wrote:
It surprises me that your clients are concerned about google tracking them, with their attitude.
Their attitude is based on meeting their customer's needs. If one web browser does not work with the their customer's requirements, my customer does not have a choice to go elsewhere.
I personally HATE ads with a blinding passion. When some web site gets huffy with me over my ad ablocker and tracker blocker, I go elsewhere. As you do when you hit a buggered up web site with Firefox. But, my customer's do not have that option.
By the way, I have seen those warning in Firefox before. Recently though, the buttons just don't work. Swanson vitamins can't finalize an order over Firefox. You have to call them and they dig out the order and finalize it for you. Works perfectly in Brave.
And as far as security and privacy, my customers rely on me for that. I try to protect them a well a possible without driving them to distraction. This is why I tell them to stay away from Chrome (Blink) and use Brave (also Blink) instead. Virtually everything that works in Chrome, works in Brave.
Another one of the big things that no longer works in Firefox is video on news sites, especially Foxnews and Yahoo. It is on to Brave for them. _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 4/18/20 7:18 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad. I have been
I haven't noticed this, but if so, it's because Google nearly has a monopoly now and they're doing the embrace and extend of the web.
On 2020-04-18 20:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/18/20 7:18 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad. I have been
I haven't noticed this, but if so, it's because Google nearly has a monopoly now and they're doing the embrace and extend of the web.
It has been driving me crazy. The last site to bork was Intel's sales contact page. Can't send the message after filling out their forms
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 01:26, ToddAndMargo via users < users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2020-04-18 20:59, Samuel Sieb wrote:
On 4/18/20 7:18 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad. I have been
I haven't noticed this, but if so, it's because Google nearly has a monopoly now and they're doing the embrace and extend of the web.
With MS Edge Beta using Google's engine, public web sites have good reason to abandon designs that depend on Explorer, but many internal corporate sites still require Explorer.
It has been driving me crazy. The last site to bork was Intel's sales contact page. Can't send the message after filling out their forms
Intel's sales and support web sites were horrible when I was using their compilers. Fortunately I could develop using GNU compilers and then make a few changes (and the odd bug report) to get performance benefits from Intel's compilers. Those benefits are now largely irrelevant -- CPU improvements mean the workloads have become I/O bound.
Large enterprises (such as my former employer) have all sorts of legacy tools that only work on MS Explorer. In my case a massive redesign of the pay system should have been the start of a move to modern, platform independent, designs. The new pay system was supposed to reduce the number of staff (needed to do manual workarounds for limitations/bugs of the legacy system), but came with a new set of limitations/bugs that needed even more staff and many cases of incorrect pay. I suspect this experience delayed replacement of other problematic legacy systems.
People are going to continue being hurt, even killed (Boeing) by mismanaged IT in large organizations. When I consider investing in a company I look at their web sites, participation of their IT people in standards organizations and conferences, etc.
On 2020-04-19 08:22, George N. White III wrote:
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 01:26, ToddAndMargo via users <users@lists.fedoraproject.org mailto:users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On 2020-04-18 20:59, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 4/18/20 7:18 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: >> Because Brave is not part of Fedora, although it should >> be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer >> websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad. I have been > > I haven't noticed this, but if so, it's because Google nearly has a > monopoly now and they're doing the embrace and extend of the web.With MS Edge Beta using Google's engine, public web sites have good reason to abandon designs that depend on Explorer, but many internal corporate sites still require Explorer.
Ya, no fooling. U-Haul's web portal comes to mind. It also blocks any transition to more reliable operating systems like Fedora. But that is of little consequence, Fedora won't be adopted until it runs all teh other software they need. Quickbooks is the typical deal killer for Fedora adoption.
It has been driving me crazy. The last site to bork was Intel's sales contact page. Can't send the message after filling out their formsIntel's sales and support web sites were horrible when I was using their compilers. Fortunately I could develop using GNU compilers and then make a few changes (and the odd bug report) to get performance benefits from Intel's compilers. Those benefits are now largely irrelevant -- CPU improvements mean the workloads have become I/O bound.
Ya. I have worked in industry before where engineers were treated like despised expenses. And the sooner they could get rid of us, the better. The cleanest description I have heard of it was that we are rags to be disposed of when finished with us. I love the part where they get in your face and yell "JUST SHIP IT!!!"
By the way, pointy haired boss, the customer will forgive you if you are late and it works versus on time and it does not work. They NEVER forgive/forget not works.
Large enterprises (such as my former employer) have all sorts of legacy tools that only work on MS Explorer. In my case a massive redesign of the pay system should have been the start of a move to modern, platform independent, designs. The new pay system was supposed to reduce the number of staff (needed to do manual workarounds for limitations/bugs of the legacy system), but came with a new set of limitations/bugs that needed even more staff and many cases of incorrect pay. I suspect this experience delayed replacement of other problematic legacy systems.
People are going to continue being hurt, even killed (Boeing) by mismanaged IT in large organizations. When I consider investing in a company I look at their web sites, participation of their IT people in standards organizations and conferences, etc.
Well stated.
Do you remember when "Thin Clients" were suppose to replace us? Cloud computer is a regurgitation of that. Cloud computers in just Client /server with a really bad connection between the two. Some things it works marvelously on and others it is tragic. It is a matter of knowing the difference.
Ah but those Dilbert style managers only think of how much money they will save by getting rid of us. Gee Wiz pointy haired boss, you could reduce your overhead to zero by firing ALL your employees!!
One of my computers uses a paid service to fill his store with music for the customers. Whenever they call me with a problem, if I can't hear music playing in the background, I know their Internet is down. Chuckle. Fortunately, he is so aware of the Internet issues with his music, that he takes my advice and will not migrate his point-of-sale software to the cloud.
Other customer of mine do point-of-sale on the cloud. They have to pay for TWO internet services to keep from going down all the time. They do not make the best impression on their customers.
On 2020-04-20 12:27, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Other customer of mine do point-of-sale on the cloud.
I tell these customer they MUST have in place the means to make manual sales. Problem with that is that the employees hate doing that so much, that they just tell the customer to come back later. "I forgot how. What was I suppose to do?" My Aunt Fanny you forgot.
On Mon, 2020-04-20 at 12:37 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
I tell these customer they MUST have in place the means to make manual sales.
I know of one business who's computer system failed, and the only reason they didn't go under, too, was because they did manual invoicing (they took orders on old fashioned invoice books, then copied over the info into their computer, afterwards). Without that, they wouldn't know who owed them what, etc.
I've always worked similarly. Unpaid invoices on the desk, paid invoices in the filing cabinet. The data is duplicated onto the computer so I can assess the state of things at the drop of a hat.
Of course, that's harder to do with big business.
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 19:18 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 15:05, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sat, 2020-04-18 at 13:56 -0700, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
On 2020-04-18 13:22, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 2020-04-19 02:10, ToddAndMargo via users wrote:
Hi All,
To get FC32 to upgrade on on eof my VM's, I have to add
--disablerepo=brave*to the following:
#dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* ... # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=32 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave*
Aside from the fact that F32 issues/comments should be going to the test list, "brave" isn't a fedora repo/project. So, just like rpmfusion, it need not be mentioned here.
Hi Ed,
Kinda sorta yes and kinda sorta no.
This is for folks "using" Fedora, so non OS things do get discussed. And the testing folks did announce FC32 here.
I will also post over on the testing group. Probably get told the same thing.
Why would you be told the same thing?
Because Brave is not part of Fedora,
I was referring to the dnf problem, not to Brave.
although it should be, especially with Firefox working on fewer and fewer websites. Firefox is dying and that is really sad.
I use Firefox daily and it continues to improve. I don; t know why you say it's dying. I've also used Brave but it tends to have more issues than FF with some sites.
poc
On 2020-04-19 04:29, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I use Firefox daily and it continues to improve. I don; t know why you say it's dying. I've also used Brave but it tends to have more issues than FF with some sites.
poc
I install Firefox on all my customers machine, then Brave when they complain. New machines get Edge removed and substituted with IE, plus Firefox and Brave.
Then I wait for the calls. Anyone dealing with business-to-businiss portals get moved to Brave in pretty short order. Their tech support tell you to use Chrome (Blink) and hangs up on you.
In my own business, I have found one site that does not work on Brave and multiple sites that do not work with Firefox. It is usually filling out forms and vendor chat dialogs.
Star Tech's chat works with anything. I have yet to find another that I use that does. For them, I use Brave. Sometimes, I will experiment with chat and Vivaldi as they are both Blink based, but Vivaldi still needs some polish.
My ABSOLUTE WORST browser of ALL TIME, is Midori.
-
Ed Greshko -
George N. White III -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Ranjan Maitra -
Sam Varshavchik -
Samuel Sieb -
stan -
Stephen Perkins -
Tim -
ToddAndMargo