Recoll (thankfully) has a GUI. It isn’t the prettiest app, but it was easy to set up and I’ve otherwise quite happy with it.

I have had the exact same issue as you. Thunderbird is great, but their attachment search is not. I spent a lot of time looking for a way to make it work and what I settled on is using a third party program to serve this function: Recoll (https://www.recoll.org/index.html).

It should be available in your distro’s package repository.

You’ll need to download your messages to your computer, but it will work in the way that you expect search to work (I.e. search by filename, search by text within attachments, search by text within emails). Setup is straightforward. You just need to point it to the Thunderbird profile directory where your emails are saved. As a bonus, you get good desktop search for all the other files on your computer too.

Sadly (don’t throw anything at me), the only desktop email program that I have found that does search properly is Outlook desktop. On Linux, that is obviously a non-starter.

This 100%. I only figured this out 15 years after having started driving.

To add to this I tilt my rear view mirror (the one connected to the windshield) a little bit upwards to force me to sit a bit straighter and taller when I look at it. You slouch less so for long car trips your back ends up feeling a bit better.

Try https://www.dellrefurbished.ca

Generally speaking, if Ubuntu works, LMDE will work as well. Unless you have something that is brand brand new with drivers only located in a bleeding edge kernel, you shouldn’t have any issues.

I have LMDE on an old XPS17 and it actually worked with less fuss than standard Ubuntu, mainly because of compatibility with a truly ancient wireless chipset.

Mr. Clean Magic Erasers.

The “generic” name is melamine sponge. These work exactly the same and cost a fraction of the brand name.

Technically no. The tolerances should be more or less the same (generally 90%-110% label claim for the active ingredient) . Manufacturers aim for 100% and generally hit that target (or get very close to it).

The bioavailability could be different though - if you are doing a bioequivalence trial for generic VS brand, the generic would have to be between 80% - 120%. This difference is generally a result of the starches, fillers, and other stuff that may be in a generic formulation.

Same net effect as your comment (wider tolerances), but there is a bit more nuance.

I’ve used this since 2015 or so. It runs well on limited resources (we have it on a $10 / month VPS), and is pretty straightforward to use and even extend.

The opensource version is great and fully functional. We have bought the extended reporting and bpm pack which was also well worth it. Honestly, I can’t say enough nice things about it.

Sometimes you want to maaake some looove