Hey LinusStallman, I have noticed an issue with Mint, I can't seem to minimize the teamview remote desktop, any suggestions on a fix? I remote into Windows10 okay and control the system okay, but can't minimize the window.

Not sure. I have not used TV in a long time.

1 members found this post helpful.

10-4!

While Linux Mint is my primary about 30% of my computer use is watching TV on Netflix in a Windows 7 virtual machine hosted by Linux Mint. Whatever I can't do natively on Mint can be done inside a VM so technically you never have to leave linux.

1 members found this post helpful.

AntiX. It taught me everything I know about everything else in the gnu/linux world. Kinda like what Slackware users say about using Slackware.

Only one problem. Like when I was single. I never had a primary favorite topless dancer.
I like my variety.

I kinda sorta run Gnu/Linux/ChromeOS the same way and try and keep my hand in everything. Even BSD when time permits.

Edit: Oh, now I see. I am a full time Linux user according to the poll. But I tune Harleys still with Windows since DRM software and interface is required for the codes and fuel injection and electronic ignition modules which are little computer black boxes that are only windows software compatible. Linux has never delved into this as far as I know.

Hi g2cypress.

I doubt this is a Mint issue. It's probably not even a TV issue -- look further at the app and inspect all the options.

Linux is da king of all OS, and I enjoy working on my Xenial Xerus. The only way to see the future is looking thru LINUX

I'm very surprised to hear there is no way to watch Netflix in a "native" Linux Mint setup. Chrome/chromium and the widevine plugin don't work?

I use Chrome. Is the widevine plugin for Chromium?

I think it depend upon the country (or "territory" or "region") as Netflix runs fine in Google Chrome under Debian in the UK (as does Amazon Prime Video, as it happens). Which reminds me to try it in Firefox.

IIRC, it is made for Chrome by a google subsidiary, Widevine Technologies.

There is no arguing with those that love Windows and swear by it. So consider just a personal case of why I am not party to that view.

I professionally had to support Windows in the 1990s as part of my job. That meant trying to protect it from malware attacks. It was extremely vulnerable, and I spoent endless hours trying paid-for and free versions of defensive software in groups of 3 to five at a time to get about 93-98% protection in place. That left anywhere from 2% to 7% of known bugs active and able to get through, and that was just the known bugs.

Quick scans had to be abandoned in favor of full scans. The reason was simple: Quick scans did not check all files for suddenly discovered bugs, and to find any resident in the files, you had to retest completely with each signature update. But by the time the bugs were found, their exploits could be complete. It was verytime consuming and having to load up and run all that added code meant Windows performed poorly. But what could you do? It was not a matter of choice professionally, but personally I went for something better. And I found it in Linux.

Now to he present: My wife uses Win7 as does most of my friends and relations. That's what they started with and intend to stick with. I've been hands off Windows for years, except to step in and clean up their messes when something does wrong. When I complain of Windows shortcomings, they tune me out. They don't care, they are happy enough just to get it back to what they had, and maybe I can recover their data too.

I finally ibnstall backup drives for them and teach them to make backups, and help them for awhile, but get tired and frustrated by the fact that I am expert enough to turn to in a pinch, but not expert enough to be listened to otherwise, that I throw up my hands and tell them not to call on me any more, but take their problems to the repair shops and leave me out of it.

Except for my wife. For her I made an exception for years. But then I discovered the real power in Linux. The unlimited amount of free software, documentation, and online expert forums where you could learn to do most anything via the command line in a matter of a few hours.

Microsoft is a single top-down managed world that writes software to make sales. It does not compete with itself, and holds off any improvements for the next release, which you have to lease from them. Linux is a free bottoms up pool of talented people each writing code that they see as helpful or worthwhile, and there are all kinds of alternative solutions offered. With Lkinux, you get updates and upgrades as they happen, and pay for nothing. And you get the source code as well, while Microsoft keeps the rights to its code under copyright law.

Several projects arec underway to bring the power and might of bash and other scripting languages to Windows users. Microsodt wrote off DOS and advances there when it stopped supporting it in favor of the GUI in XP. But any real user of a PC knows if you want it done and done right, you go to the command line. Only with DOS, there was usually just one way to do simple chores. With Linux, there are more ways than you can count. And experts to tell you how.

And tools like awk, grep, sed, stat, find, man, info, apt-get, dpkg gsettings, update-alternatives, update-manager, software-center, gnome-session-flashback, xrandr, xbacklight, dd, ddrescue, gparted, gpart, gimp, screenshot, shutter, kruler, screenruler, rsync, and the LibreOffice suite take matters far beyond the simple. And those are just a few of the literally thousands of available utilities and programs that either are in the install, the Repositories, or from other sources that you can learn about and get access to online.

So, if you add bash and such to windows, you are just as well off as someone that has some distro of Windows, right? Not quite. Some 17 years of using Linus in different distros, I was never aware of being hacked. That's a big comfort zone with my exposure to windows from years back.

Last year my wife's PC with win7 got hacked, but I was not doing well at the time, so she took it to a repair shop. They charged her $247 to clean her machine, then wanted to have her pay about $200 more to add some commercial malware protection. These charges covered 1 year, meaning she would bew paying the same fees going forward year after year. She paid the $247, but rejected the rest, despite 2 days of calls saying she really needed the protection added,

I was very concerned about what happened, but my wife is hard to reason with, especially where computers are concerned. She doesn't understand them as I do, and has resented my involvement with them. She claims she hates computers, but could not have done her job without them. Her favorite hoppy involves two computers, a PC and computerized embroidery machine. My whole career was computers and telecommunications in servicing, troubleshooting, repairing, applying, and programming. Computers made me employable and kept me employed my entire civilian career.

She would not hear of me moving her to Linux. So I was stalemated. A granddaughter left her laptop with us as she uses an iPhone now. To use it, I replaced Win7 with Ubuntu-GNOME, which U wanted to try. Then my wife fell and fractured her leg and pelvis in 4 places. After a time in the hospital, she was moved to a recovery center where she has been for wweks. As she has slowly mended, she got past the worse of the pain and wanted to have her kindle, kindle fire, and her cell phone as well, But then she wanted more, and asked for a laptop with Win7 on it. You can't imagine howc I did not want to do this, but I told her I would make it happen. I got an image of Win7 and installed it on the laptop. T then brought it up to date, and installed some software that she might like or enjoy. I set up accounts and bookmarked some of her favorite sites, and set her up to get her emails as webmail.

One site nagged me about adding some protection, and as I indicated I wanted to leave that web page, it dropped the price down to $19.95. I knew Windows was vulnerable, and this offer was from Microsoft, so I decided why not? Maybe it was the thing to do. So I accepted.

Good thing I did. That investment got me a call from tech support, and a file download of a remote access program that tech support had me install. I had installed one program that found 24 registry issues and fixed them, but on rerun had found 15 more. These I would have to subscribe to the package to fix, and the $19.95 for Microsoft was cheeper.

I watcked as the tech worked, as I could see some of what he did on the screen. He explained his efforts as he worked, but he was eoo fast for me to keep up, and he was using tools I was not familiar with. The three things he sid that got my attention were:

1. There were over 1,400 folders and files added to the hard drive since I did the fresh install about 2 hours previous. They weren't mine and they weren't from Microsoft. The drive got reformatted duing the install. What were they and where did they come from?

2. All the services related to system security had been stopped. That meant admin access to my machine. Security steps and protection are not universal, especially if you use one OS to breach another So a program or a person had breached my system and disabled processes set there to prevent this. How did that happen?

3. Someone or some computer was remotely into my laptop at that very moment. That was a real scocker, as my router had even guest access password protected.

Tech support told me that this went beyond his level of vexpertise, and hev would have to turn the matter over to a crisis management team to try and clean it up. For this Microsoft would charge me a flat fee of $247, for which I would get a year of service, meaning I would get additional cleanups as need be during that time at no extra cost. Already it was going to cost me $266.95 just to get a fresh install cleaned, where I had no personal files to deal with, and I could see more money going out for follow-up protection software. On top of which I would have to license this install of Win7 for this laptop, which was just being pressed into service for my wife while she is in recovery. So my answer was, No, it is not going to happen. And I hung up.

I ignored the ringing phone for the next hour as I wiped the drive of NTDS and set up EXT4 in its place. I then installed Ubuntu 16.04 LTS and added what I wanted to it.

I figure the total cost was less than $0.0004. as it used up a lifetime of a DVD-RW disk when I wrote Ubuntu 16.04 LTS ISO image over the Ubuntu-GNOME image still on it using KJ3b which is a great, though not perfect program. The best interface/desktop I've found to date is Metacity, which is part of gnome-session-flashback. Not pretty, it is actually more versetile than most other ones. Its one significant limitation is by default it only supports two user accounts.

Remember this is just a personal evrnt in my life. My wife learned enough Metacity to get to email using my favorite browser Slimjet. She's set up for other things, but has short term memory problems that makes it hard to learn new things. So we will take it a bit at a time.

If you are sticking with Windows anyway, let me make one suggestion: Physically limit your access to the internet by disconnecting your PC or laptop as much as possible. If wired, unplug the wire. If a laptop, disable the antenna via the switch. The problem with software dependency is you cannot always trust what you see on the screen.

My desktop has Fedora 23 x64 installed. I've been using linux for over 10 years!
My spouse prefers Suse on her desktop.

1 members found this post helpful.

Linux for sure!

Not to belittle Red Hat, Fedora, and Mandrake, but the Repositories on your side are not as extensive as with the Debian distros, of which Ubuntu or one of its deviants are most common. Lots of new software makes it to the Debian repositories first. and many 3rd party repositories offer deb packages for download. I began with Knoppicks and bought Mandrake and Red Hat disks my first few years, but Linux then was not what it is today, and it was slow go in the beginning. Then my job and the need to write new code in Powerbasic kept me locked to Windows for a few more years. Free at last, I went looking for what was running at the front, and found Ubuntu. But Unity/Dash on Ubuntu is not for me, too primitive, and I went for gnome classic, and that took mr to Metacity which I found suits me best. So when starting out, get several ISOs and see what you like before you lock in to one. And realize the desktop/interface is only part of the distro makeup, and you have choice there.

I remember a few efforts early on to bring in other interfaces/desktops/file managers for Windows, but Windows users were so locked into doing it the Microsoft way and with the Microsoft look and feel that these did not catch on. I had to live with that look and feel as part of my job as I was in user support as much as anything, and had to stay up to speed on what they dealt with daily.

Linux is Linux. But what sits on the Linux kernel depends on user preferences as much as anything. If a user feels he or she has a better approach, they can mix packages, add new code, and adopt any interface (Desktop/File Management/whatever) they want.

They can then offer it as their own distro, as long as they don't charge for it, except to cover basic costs. Most just ask for donations to help meet expenses, which is their right to do. The fact that you can get most or all of it free from other sources forces such requests to remain low.

It's possible to exchange packages between Depian and RPM using programs like alien, but this is usually frowned on and not widely supported. RPM has largely been superceeded by other methods such as yum. This is not my area of involvement, so I have no opinion in this area.

But Debian is deb and debsrc referenced sources and files in specific detail, and that is something of a constant. It is also coupled with PPAs and checksums and identity checks to ensure alternate sourcing and content validation. A pretty secure effort at making sure you get what was intended, so it has held up for years,

Key to good results often depends on knowing you are dealing with a known source that is consistent in its bahavior in such matters.

For instance, in dealing with a Public Affairs office or a press secretary, you know in advance they will only tell you as much as they want you to know , and it will be consistent with what the "official" line is. The press tries to bait them into saying too much, but if they are good at their job, they will evade these topics or give the "official" answer. In any case they have no right to make policy decisions.

It is only when a person in that position comes before the press can you hope to get the truth or solicit policy change. But these attempts are often short lived, as a person in power can end the interview at any time or redirect matters into a different channel.
Only when they are held accountable to a higher power can you keep at them and possibly force the truth out and into the open.

Only in exchange for leniency are some likely to speak out then, and you often only have their word for what they reveal. The truth is always revealed by facts, so unless they can present facts as well, the real truth remains obscure.

The only other thing that works is consistency in stories, where two or more who have no chance to collaborate give effectively the same account of whatever has occurred. Exact details won't agree, as humans don't see or remember things the same as the others present, so too much agreement, or a story told the same way each time, could be rehearsed and memorized.

Just a bit of knowledge I've picked up in watching the type of shows that interest me, where people of the law or science set out to find and deal with those outside the law.

I'm a big believer in laws, law enforcement be handles as efforts to find the real facts regardless of so-called human rights, and that convictions should be based on trial by facts and science and rules of logic.

This thing of a trial by peers where you are subject to convincing the untested and strange mix of people gathered for this one purpose, is greatly flawed. You probably already know what is true based on the science involved.

Juries can be swayed by emotions and made blind to facts, and restricted by a judge's ruling from hearing or knowing all the facts. That's not right. You don't get to the truth that way. Let the facts out regardless of how they are acquired, then base judgement on those, not what the judge, jury, and lawmakers deem appropriate.

You should only have to fear the truth, when the truth puts you in the wrong, and you have cause to fear the outcome of being shown to be in the wrong. If you are hones with yourself, you know you can't always be right or in the right, so admit when you were wrong in either account and be prepared to move on.

There are such things as being wrong for the right reasons, or right for the wrong reasons, and that is a part of life. The parking of planes in center of the field in rows at Hickam Field in Hawaii was right for preventing saboteurs from sneaking up on them, but wrong in that it left them in the open for strafing from the air by Japanese zeros during the attack that took place on Dec 7, 1941.

The Japaneses made a bad strategic error and a bad tactical decision in planning and carrying out the attack. The bad strategic plan was to plan to strike the oil storage plants on the third wave of the attack, not the 1st or 2nd. The tactical error was to leave without carrying out that third wave attack, apparently fearing that the American aircraft carriers would return from maneuvers while the attack was going on.

The importance of oil was that it fueled the U.S. Navy ships and was refined for gas and diesel fuel as well. Without fuel, the remaining ships and planes were limited to immediate stores. Had the refinery been hit as well, everything would have had to be shipped in. Hawaii has no oil reserves other than was in those tanks. Almost everything had to be shipped in by sea from far away, a slow process considering the distances involved. And those tankers and freighters would not have had much protection from navy ships or planes either, especially if they deployed and used up the limited fuel they had. So the importance of those storage tanks was not fully recognized at the time.

Just a way of showing the difference between short term and long term planning, especially when it comes to non-renewable resources. If America buys and uses foreign oil rather than use its own, it will still have its own when the foreign oil plays out. That would be the smart move in my book. Instead, people want to make money here by pumping our own. And instead of bringing in Canadian oil as we could, we are forcing them to sell it to other buyers, particularly China. In the long run, how does that
help us?

UIf America does not last, then we will be part of whatever takes its place. So will our decendents. Your kids and grandkids, if they survive, may think well or badly of you. Likely badly, as the freedoms allowed today will likely be done away with. The age of easy credit and living beyond your means, and the fallacy of putting an individual's rights first will be swept away by realisms that this does not work. We cannot spend more than we gain, and yet it is happening over and over. How is that possible? I have theories, but frankly, it can't last. What will bring it to an end is not known, but the world will bring an end to America at some point in retaliation.