Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #69945 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-07-26 18:40 -0400 |
| Last post | 2025-08-01 19:26 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 188 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Artix Linux and Xlibre Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2025-07-26 18:40 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-27 00:30 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-26 18:47 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-27 01:57 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-26 20:28 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-27 04:38 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 02:38 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2025-08-02 12:13 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-27 00:58 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-27 22:01 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:14 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:55 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:33 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-30 21:19 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:40 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-30 23:32 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-31 10:30 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-31 17:01 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-31 22:44 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-02 09:30 +1000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-01 23:50 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-02 10:03 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-02 13:36 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-02 14:59 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-02 23:59 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 12:13 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 12:58 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 16:34 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 17:08 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-03 18:20 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-04 09:35 +1000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 16:10 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-03 13:38 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 22:47 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-03 21:55 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:03 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-06 19:56 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 21:27 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 22:46 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-07 17:46 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 13:36 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 12:56 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-07 03:28 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 12:48 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 11:26 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 21:06 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 15:19 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:27 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 15:54 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-12 02:28 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-12 02:27 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 15:49 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-11 23:27 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 08:37 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-12 20:15 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-12 23:29 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:05 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-13 19:13 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-13 21:32 +0200
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:29 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-14 11:20 +0200
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:03 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:49 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-08-14 11:21 +0200
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 01:12 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:04 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-14 21:00 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 22:48 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-15 02:56 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-17 09:12 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:16 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 08:56 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 11:58 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:07 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-15 08:27 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 00:46 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:03 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-14 12:31 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 12:46 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 00:21 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-04 00:20 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-04 04:24 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:05 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-06 20:24 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-04 16:23 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-05 05:54 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 08:35 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-05 07:48 +0000
Wayland (was: Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre) vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-06 02:28 +0000
Re: Wayland (was: Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre) Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-06 04:22 +0000
Re: Wayland Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:10 +0100
Re: Wayland Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-06 14:42 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 11:04 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-05 20:02 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 08:29 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-05 18:19 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 19:59 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 12:02 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-05 20:10 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-06 04:24 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-05 21:46 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-06 06:33 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-06 09:13 +1000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-06 04:23 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:18 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-06 09:01 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-06 22:11 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-07 03:25 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 14:14 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-07 23:14 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-07 15:56 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 04:18 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-08-08 06:00 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 08:49 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-08 21:25 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-08 15:38 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:24 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-09 10:58 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-08-09 17:10 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 22:33 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-09 22:26 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 10:15 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-08-10 09:03 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-10 14:24 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-08-10 07:29 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-10 20:06 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-11 11:56 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-11 21:12 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-11 01:00 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-09 22:39 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-08 08:42 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-08 16:02 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-08-08 09:00 +1000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-08-09 13:05 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-06 09:15 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-06 14:46 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-08-05 08:26 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-03 00:06 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 11:42 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-30 19:39 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-31 01:06 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-30 21:23 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-28 00:21 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-28 13:57 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 05:37 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 09:02 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 11:13 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:46 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 23:51 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 23:22 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 11:45 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-30 21:18 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-07-29 07:45 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:44 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-29 16:26 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 23:54 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:17 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-29 23:23 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-29 15:44 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-29 22:56 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 09:18 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-07-30 18:18 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> - 2025-08-02 12:15 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-07-27 09:19 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-28 00:19 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 23:06 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-07-28 05:27 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-07-26 18:41 -0700
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-28 00:18 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-07-27 22:40 -0400
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-31 13:48 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2025-07-31 16:22 +0200
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-07-31 17:02 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-07-31 22:58 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-08-01 01:53 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 08:07 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 09:47 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 10:24 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 10:57 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 11:10 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-01 17:15 +0000
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:14 +0100
Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-08-01 19:26 +0000
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 18:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Artix Linux and Xlibre |
| Message-ID | <1063lgp$jmj$2@reader1.panix.com> |
Free of systemd and wayland and it just works https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,8409.0.html
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 00:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1063ruo$2kgsj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69945 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:40:19 -0400, Popping Mad wrote: > Free of systemd ... Seems they have to implement a whole systemd-compatibility layer, just to allow them to pull in packages from Arch upstream without breaking <https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,5353.0.html>. How do they handle sysvinit scripts? Does their compatibility layer include a reinvention of systemd-sysvcompat? Or do they run sysvinit directly? The first would seem to make things even more complex than systemd, while the latter would seem to be a step backwards ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 18:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10640fb$1gqnn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69946 |
On 7/26/25 17:30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:40:19 -0400, Popping Mad wrote: > >> Free of systemd ... > > Seems they have to implement a whole systemd-compatibility layer, just > to allow them to pull in packages from Arch upstream without breaking > <https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,5353.0.html>. > > How do they handle sysvinit scripts? Does their compatibility layer > include a reinvention of systemd-sysvcompat? Or do they run sysvinit > directly? The first would seem to make things even more complex than > systemd, while the latter would seem to be a step backwards ... They do not use systemd. Neither does the PCLinuxOS nor the new release of Slackel. Look at Distrowatch.com to see more data. Systemd was un-necessary but some people will do anything to controlt the choices of other people. Which may work in Enterprise situations. I dunno about that since I have never dealt with that. bliss bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.07- Linux 6.12.40- Plasma 5.27.11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 01:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106411i$2l2gd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69948 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:47:23 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > They do not use systemd. Seems they have to implement a whole systemd-compatibility layer, just to allow them to pull in packages from Arch upstream without breaking <https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,5353.0.html>. How do they handle sysvinit scripts? Does their compatibility layer include a reinvention of systemd-sysvcompat? Or do they run sysvinit directly? The first would seem to make things even more complex than systemd, while the latter would seem to be a step backwards ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-26 20:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10646dg$1gqnn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69949 |
On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 18:47:23 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> They do not use systemd. > > Seems they have to implement a whole systemd-compatibility layer, just > to allow them to pull in packages from Arch upstream without breaking > <https://forum.artixlinux.org/index.php/topic,5353.0.html>. > > How do they handle sysvinit scripts? Does their compatibility layer > include a reinvention of systemd-sysvcompat? Or do they run sysvinit > directly? The first would seem to make things even more complex than > systemd, while the latter would seem to be a step backwards ... A step baclward is a matter of opinion not of utility. In the case of Wayland it is leap forward into a world of problems. > > KiCad Advises Linux Users to Stick with X11 for Professional PCB Design > By Bobby Borisov June 27, 2025 > > The KiCad team outlines serious Wayland limitations, including window control and > crashes, urging users to stick with X11 desktops for reliability. Full article at the > next URL: > <https://linuxiac.com/kicad-advises-linux-users-to-stick-with-x11-for-professional-pcb- > design/> In the case of systemd some degree of operability has been achieved which is remarkable considering how it FU my brief experience with Mageia some years ago. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 04:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1064ag9$1kvkq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69950 |
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> Or do they run sysvinit directly? ... would seem to be a step >> backwards ... > > A step baclward is a matter of opinion not of utility. Just about every person knowledgeable on the issue considers sysvinit to be antiquated and no longer fit for purpose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 02:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qeScnWUOcK7kVBj1nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #69953 |
On 7/27/25 12:38 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> Or do they run sysvinit directly? ... would seem to be a step >>> backwards ... >> >> A step backward is a matter of opinion not of utility. > > Just about every person knowledgeable on the issue considers sysvinit to > be antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. Well ...... sticking to it won't HURT - and may improve stability/comprehension. Never really loved sysvinit but love isn't everything. I've found some good uses for systemd however - like the conditional starts, and built-in 'watchdog'. Main complaint, the SYNTAX is SO damned picky - no "intelligence" - and good examples can be hard to find. Despite propaganda, systemd is NOT the hateful Winders registry. No evil intended. More 'complexity' alas. IF you can get it to work for you then it is a great thing. As for "Artix" - never used it. "Antix" yes, a fine minimal distro, and use its MX love child for almost everything. Still say MX is the Best Damned System for general use ever devised. Not too much, not too little, always helpful. MX ... one of the GRUB boot options is to ENABLE systemd. Of late I've had to customize boots to use that. Note that while normal updates don't mess with things the "dist-upgrade" equiv between related apps WILL undo that option and you have to use 'grub-customizer' to reset things. MX, maybe to its credit, sticks to sysvinit by default but DOES offer the alternative all easy. 'Antix' seems to be writ by highly depressed commie Greeks. 'AntiCapitalista' is a theme that repeats :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Popping Mad <rainbow@colition.gov> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 12:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <106ldg1$jko$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #69955 |
On 7/27/25 2:38 AM, c186282 wrote: > > I've found some good uses for systemd however that is just ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 00:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1064m75$1lvr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69953 |
On 7/26/25 21:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> Or do they run sysvinit directly? ... would seem to be a step >>> backwards ... >> >> A step baclward is a matter of opinion not of utility. > > Just about every person knowledgeable on the issue considers sysvinit to > be antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. Then how am I typing this if SysV is not fit for the limited purpose of starting up a computer. Why has Slackel 8.0 "Openbox" decided to use SysV? How did my computers even start today if SysV is unfit to start a system? SysV does one thing well enough to stand the test of time and there are quite a few other initialization softwares. Many individuals find multi-functional systemd an unnecessarily extended attack surface. Some find it confusing after the relative simplicity of the earlier GNU/*nuxes. Many use it because their particular system distribution chose to use it. Finally I use machines that are refurbished or lightly used so older and maybe ancient SysV works well enough there? ;^) bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2025.07- Linux 6.12.40- Plasma 5.27.11
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-27 22:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10667je$35rkf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69957 |
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 00:58:29 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > On 7/26/25 21:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >> >>> On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>> >>>> Or do they run sysvinit directly? ... would seem to be a step >>>> backwards ... >>> >>> A step baclward is a matter of opinion not of utility. >> >> Just about every person knowledgeable on the issue considers sysvinit >> to be antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. > > Then how am I typing this if SysV is not fit for the limited > purpose of starting up a computer. Having had first-hand experience of writing both sysvinit scripts and systemd service definitions (as part of the work I do for a living), I know which one I prefer. And it’s not the clunky, fragile, boilerplate- ridden cobbled-together-shell-script fudge that is a leftover from the 1980s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-29 22:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106bdkb$2s14s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69972 |
On 2025-07-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 00:58:29 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: > >> On 7/26/25 21:38, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 20:28:48 -0700, Bobbie Sellers wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/26/25 18:57, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Or do they run sysvinit directly? ... would seem to be a step >>>>> backwards ... >>>> >>>> A step baclward is a matter of opinion not of utility. >>> >>> Just about every person knowledgeable on the issue considers sysvinit >>> to be antiquated and no longer fit for purpose. >> >> Then how am I typing this if SysV is not fit for the limited >> purpose of starting up a computer. > > Having had first-hand experience of writing both sysvinit scripts and > systemd service definitions (as part of the work I do for a living), I > know which one I prefer. And it’s not the clunky, fragile, boilerplate- > ridden cobbled-together-shell-script fudge that is a leftover from the > 1980s. This is starting to sound like shell wars or programming language wars or editor wars. There's objective debate of features implemented, extensibility, paradigms made easier, easeness of debugging, &c., and then there is stuff like "but I like my editor/language/shell/init system better!". You can comment on your feelings about init scripts for some init system you file under "sysvinit", you can comment on complexity of its language or verbosity or inability to cover some approach you want to use. But calling such systems "unfit" for an init system definitely is neither. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-29 22:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106bjgj$2t9mq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70111 |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:14:51 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-07-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> Having had first-hand experience of writing both sysvinit scripts >> and systemd service definitions (as part of the work I do for a >> living), I know which one I prefer. And it’s not the clunky, >> fragile, boilerplate- ridden cobbled-together-shell-script fudge >> that is a leftover from the 1980s. > > This is starting to sound like shell wars or programming language > wars or editor wars. This is a case of real-world experience. E.g. <https://web.archive.org/web/20240711140744/https://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/list/wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz/thread/BIAW7GY4KGPUGWIIRWNMBE5JSUVT2VWX/>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 09:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106cld0$33q3n$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70121 |
On 2025-07-29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 22:14:51 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> On 2025-07-27, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >>> Having had first-hand experience of writing both sysvinit scripts >>> and systemd service definitions (as part of the work I do for a >>> living), I know which one I prefer. And it’s not the clunky, >>> fragile, boilerplate- ridden cobbled-together-shell-script fudge >>> that is a leftover from the 1980s. >> >> This is starting to sound like shell wars or programming language >> wars or editor wars. > > This is a case of real-world experience. E.g. > <https://web.archive.org/web/20240711140744/https://list.waikato.ac.nz/archives/list/wlug@list.waikato.ac.nz/thread/BIAW7GY4KGPUGWIIRWNMBE5JSUVT2VWX/> That just shows the same thing that we're seeing it here. It doesn't show added complexity or difficulty with non-systemd. It shows you claiming that the alternative posted there is worse than systemd, and trying to come up with excuses to claim so, in that case counting lines. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 21:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106e29h$3e34e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70140 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:33:36 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > It doesn't show added complexity or difficulty with non-systemd. Did you not notice that the systemd service file was shorter and simpler than the sysvinit script?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 23:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106e70l$3f335$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70163 |
On 2025-07-30, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > Well, no, longer doesn't mean more complex, but, anyway, that wasn't the point, as noted with the paragraph you did not quote.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-30 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106ea1n$3fm2c$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70167 |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 23:40:21 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:
> Well, no, longer doesn't mean more complex, but, anyway, that wasn't the
> point, as noted with the paragraph you did not quote.
From my original email:
That’s 20 lines (17 excluding blank ones), nearly all of which is
repetitive boilerplate. You’ll note the one I posted was just 12,
including blank lines, of which only one was actual executable
code (all the rest were directives).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-31 10:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <106fd3u$3meek$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70170 |
On 2025-07-31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 23:40:21 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > >> Well, no, longer doesn't mean more complex, but, anyway, that wasn't the >> point, as noted with the paragraph you did not quote. > > From my original email: > > That’s 20 lines (17 excluding blank ones), nearly all of which is > repetitive boilerplate. You’ll note the one I posted was just 12, > including blank lines, of which only one was actual executable > code (all the rest were directives). You're still missing the point: what your mail/post shows, is that you're choosing to see this as a reason why systemd is superior to the other kind of init system that was brought up. This is your subjective opinion, but you're handing it out here like you're envagelizing people based on some religious book. You keep insisting that everyone must buy into your opinion of systemd being superior because you counted lines or because you personally find systemd easier to write for or to maintain. You're not even saying "systemd allows me to do this, and [init system something something] doesn't, so if you need this you need something like systemd", you're saying "systemd works better for me for what I use it for so everything else sucks". And this might not be much different from these Wayland bullies on the fediverse, to be honest... When I say this is as silly as editor or language wars can get, I mean it. (And, as a footnote, you only count lines when it is convenient for you, because IIRC you see no problem in replacing a single line or command invocation with a desktop entry file, nevermind that the desktop entry file will always end up being longer than e.g. a mailcap entry, and may need to be *created*.) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-31 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106g7ha$3t76s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70187 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-07-31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 23:40:21 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: >> >>> Well, no, longer doesn't mean more complex, but, anyway, that >>> wasn't the point, as noted with the paragraph you did not quote. >> >> From my original email: >> >> That’s 20 lines (17 excluding blank ones), nearly all of which >> is repetitive boilerplate. You’ll note the one I posted was >> just 12, including blank lines, of which only one was actual >> executable code (all the rest were directives). > > You're still missing the point: what your mail/post shows, is that > you're choosing to see this as a reason why systemd is superior to > the other kind of init system that was brought up. This is your > subjective opinion, but you're handing it out here like you're > envagelizing people based on some religious book. Except in Lawrence's case, in order to satisify his trolling urges, this is *exactly* the point. He is reading the "holy book of systemd" to everyone and envagelizing everyone to "accept systemd as their savior" and then they too will join "systemd" in "systemd heaven". It just has not yet gotten around to indicating that the pagan non-believers will all spend eternety in "sysvinit hell" unless they accept systemd as their one true init systems and savior.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-07-31 22:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <106grl1$2eac$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70187 |
On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:30:38 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2025-07-31, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 23:40:21 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: >> >>> Well, no, longer doesn't mean more complex, but, anyway, that wasn't >>> the point, as noted with the paragraph you did not quote. >> >> From my original email: >> >> That’s 20 lines (17 excluding blank ones), nearly all of which is >> repetitive boilerplate. You’ll note the one I posted was just 12, >> including blank lines, of which only one was actual executable code >> (all the rest were directives). > > You're still missing the point: what your mail/post shows, is that > you're choosing to see this as a reason why systemd is superior to the > other kind of init system that was brought up. That *is* the point. > This is your subjective opinion ... On the contrary, it is backed up by real-world examples, like that above. > You keep insisting that everyone must buy into your opinion of systemd > being superior because you counted lines or because you personally find > systemd easier to write for or to maintain. I can only describe my first-hand personal experience, after all. Feel free to describe yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-02 09:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <688d4e23@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #70206 |
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:30:38 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: >> You keep insisting that everyone must buy into your opinion of systemd >> being superior because you counted lines or because you personally find >> systemd easier to write for or to maintain. > > I can only describe my first-hand personal experience, after all. Yes and you do so at _every_ _possible_ _opportunity_. Previously I've also described my contrary experience with writing a Systemd service which cemented my opinion to stick with SysV Init. But I don't feel compelled to repeat it again and again whenever someone mentions Systemd, just for the sake of restarting the same old argument. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web