Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87944 > unrolled thread

MX Linux

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 01:07 +0000
    Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 00:10 -0400
      Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 06:16 +0000
        Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 03:19 -0400
          Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 18:11 +0000
            Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 23:00 -0400
      Re: MX Linux Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-14 10:33 +0100
        Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 18:20 +0000
          Re: MX Linux Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-14 19:45 +0100
            Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 23:49 +0000
              Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-15 01:41 -0400
            Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-15 01:34 -0400
              Re: MX Linux Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-15 07:23 +0100
                Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-15 07:02 +0000
                  Re: MX Linux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-15 12:36 +0100
                  Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-16 03:39 -0400
                    Re: MX Linux The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-16 11:52 +0100
                    Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-16 17:52 +0000
                Re: MX Linux Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-06-15 08:01 +0000
              Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-15 07:00 +0000
          Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 23:05 -0400
        Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 22:32 -0400
          Re: MX Linux Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-15 07:21 +0100
            Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-15 02:50 -0400
              Re: MX Linux Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-06-15 13:19 +0100
            Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-15 06:52 +0000
              Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-16 03:37 -0400
                Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-16 17:00 +0000
            Re: MX Linux Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-06-15 13:09 +0200
      Re: MX Linux 🇵🇱Jacek Marcin Jaworski🇵🇱 <jmj@energokod.gda.pl> - 2026-06-14 11:50 +0200
        Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-14 18:16 +0000
          Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 23:04 -0400
            Re: MX Linux rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-15 06:56 +0000
        Re: MX Linux c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-14 22:35 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#87944 — MX Linux

I finally got an iso downloaded and installed. From my experience the MX 
mirrors are crap. I finally found one that sowed the download in less than 
an hour instead of hours if not days.

I chose Xfce and SysVinit with no problems. I'd had a Debian Bullseye Xfce 
install and it was a bit primitive. I also briefly tried Mint's version 
and it didn't impress me much. MX's is nice. I don't do much configuration 
for any distro. All I did was use Tweaker to move the panel to horizontal 
on the bottom with autohide and it more or less looks like KDE. I haven't 
done anything with Conky but I'm familiar with it from antiX. It can be 
handy.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#87947

On 6/13/26 21:07, rbowman wrote:
> I finally got an iso downloaded and installed. From my experience the MX
> mirrors are crap. I finally found one that sowed the download in less than
> an hour instead of hours if not days.

   Agree about the slow mirrors. It's not you, it's them.

> I chose Xfce and SysVinit with no problems. I'd had a Debian Bullseye Xfce
> install and it was a bit primitive. I also briefly tried Mint's version
> and it didn't impress me much. MX's is nice. I don't do much configuration
> for any distro. All I did was use Tweaker to move the panel to horizontal
> on the bottom with autohide and it more or less looks like KDE. I haven't
> done anything with Conky but I'm familiar with it from antiX. It can be
> handy.


   Give MX a chance. I think you will be very pleased.

   Oh, note the "MX Tools" menu ... lots of useful and
   interesting stuff there. Included is an easy to use
   sparse-image duplicating utility that you can run
   even while logged-in. Note it may not dup custom
   'fstab' options, so make an fstab.bak. Have used
   those 'images' - and they work. You can customize
   and then install the customized image on other boxes.

   Note there's the 'regular' ISO and a "AHD", advanced
   hardware distro, option. Can't go wrong with the AHD.
   Had to use it on one little box with a rather new
   Intel chip set when BullsEye first came out.

   Anyway, after decades of trying this that and everything,
   I kinda settled on MX. Great middle-road distro. Add to
   it, subtract from it ... and it's even more compatible
   than Mint.

   Remember 'Mephis' - it was nice. Still fool with Antix,
   tight and solid. MX combined the best of both - a rare
   case of where the synthesis was greater than the parts.

   And, Blessed Be Synaptic ! Your one-stop intuitive and
   useful util for everything the distro has. OctoPkg in
   Arch TRIES to be Synaptic, but it's still clunkier (in
   part because of how they split the regular repo and
   the 'AUR' repo). Amazing how much stuff there is out
   there you never even heard about - but now just HAVE
   to download  :-)

   I use XFCE ... but usually also load LXDE. You may
   pref KDE or something even odder. It's there. Note
   'autostart' is different in XFCE and LXDE.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87949

On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 00:10:30 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>   Agree about the slow mirrors. It's not you, it's them.

I finally found 

https://rsync-mxlinux.org/mirmon/index.html

rsync-mxlinux.org took about an hour.  The home page send you off to 
SourceForge and that's useless. Supposedly you can select mirrors but when 
the ftp widget showed 3 days I canceled.


>    Note there's the 'regular' ISO and a "AHD", advanced hardware distro,
>    option. Can't go wrong with the AHD. Had to use it on one little box
>    with a rather new Intel chip set when BullsEye first came out.

I saw that but I don't have any advanced hardware. The VM is on a box with 
a Haswell gen processor. (4th Gen, 2013)

>    Remember 'Mephis' - it was nice. Still fool with Antix, tight and
>    solid. MX combined the best of both - a rare case of where the
>    synthesis was greater than the parts.

antiX is okay but IceWM isn't exactly state of the art. 

>    I use XFCE ... but usually also load LXDE. You may pref KDE or
>    something even odder. It's there. Note 'autostart' is different in
>    XFCE and LXDE.

Xfce works. I don't know how much tweaking MX does but it's better looking 
than I usually think of Xfce as. The Debian Bullseye version was sort of 
plain but I never did any configuration.

I had Lubuntu on the netbook before playing with Mint. LXQt was okay. LXDE 
is semi-dead. Anyway it's a contender for replacing Ubuntu as it chases 
AI.

The Firefox on MX is newer than the Ubuntu one and when I did a search it 
said 'thinking...'  That doesn't bode well. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87952

On 6/14/26 02:16, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 00:10:30 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    Agree about the slow mirrors. It's not you, it's them.
> 
> I finally found
> 
> https://rsync-mxlinux.org/mirmon/index.html
> 
> rsync-mxlinux.org took about an hour.  The home page send you off to
> SourceForge and that's useless. Supposedly you can select mirrors but when
> the ftp widget showed 3 days I canceled.

   The usual HTTP download doesn't take NEARLY that long.
   Maybe 30-45 minutes ... at least with my shitty 5G
   connection in the USA. Start, get some coffee, take
   a shit - it's DONE.

>>     Note there's the 'regular' ISO and a "AHD", advanced hardware distro,
>>     option. Can't go wrong with the AHD. Had to use it on one little box
>>     with a rather new Intel chip set when BullsEye first came out.
> 
> I saw that but I don't have any advanced hardware. The VM is on a box with
> a Haswell gen processor. (4th Gen, 2013)

   No, that's not really "advanced". My prob was with, I think,
   the Intel N120 chip-set a year or so ago. It was "new" and
   the 'regular' distro didn't cope so well. Always use "AHD".
   Doesn't hurt a damned thing. A few extra drivers and better
   hardware detection.

>>     Remember 'Mephis' - it was nice. Still fool with Antix, tight and
>>     solid. MX combined the best of both - a rare case of where the
>>     synthesis was greater than the parts.
> 
> antiX is okay but IceWM isn't exactly state of the art.

   IceWM ... no ... not nearly. DOES have its certain PLACE still.
   Put it on some older PIs ... less drag on the CPU.

   However that's not all Antix - the bigger distros - comes with.

   There IS a CL-only Antix, if that's your thing. Very basic
   raw Deb-like. More than, say, Slitaz - but not excessively
   so. Those depressed Greek commies did a fair job.

>>     I use XFCE ... but usually also load LXDE. You may pref KDE or
>>     something even odder. It's there. Note 'autostart' is different in
>>     XFCE and LXDE.
> 
> Xfce works. I don't know how much tweaking MX does but it's better looking
> than I usually think of Xfce as. The Debian Bullseye version was sort of
> plain but I never did any configuration.

   On the whole I'm OK with XFCE ... though the main menus
   are fiddly. LXDE is more solid, but not quite as "modern".
   I like Simple - no Eye Candy, no BS. Kinda Win2k/XP, a
   fuckin' COMPUTER.

> I had Lubuntu on the netbook before playing with Mint. LXQt was okay. LXDE
> is semi-dead. Anyway it's a contender for replacing Ubuntu as it chases
> AI.

   Used to use Lubuntu ... but Canonical kinda corrupted the
   whole line by trying to FORCE you into using their 'cloud'
   bullshit. DUMPED 'em. The 'buntus have just become TOO weird
   for NO good reasons. No more - FLUSH - years ago.

> The Firefox on MX is newer than the Ubuntu one and when I did a search it
> said 'thinking...'  That doesn't bode well.

   Well, get FFox/Chromium updates at least once a week.

   The absolute version isn't what's important, it's the
   latest bug/hack fixes. Vlad/Xi ARE watching ....

   Anyway ... DO take time to check out MX. There are very
   good REASONS why I gravitated to that. It's Really Good.
   Not TOO much, not TOO little. Adjust as you need. They
   did a damned good job.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87962

On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 03:19:19 -0400, c186282 wrote:


>    However that's not all Antix - the bigger distros - comes with.
> 
>    There IS a CL-only Antix, if that's your thing. Very basic raw
>    Deb-like. More than, say, Slitaz - but not excessively so. Those
>    depressed Greek commies did a fair job.

I've got antiX 23. That release still had a 'base' along with 'full'. Full 
has LibreOffice and other stuff I do not use. I don't know why the dropped 
that option for 26.

>    Well, get FFox/Chromium updates at least once a week.
> 
>    The absolute version isn't what's important, it's the latest bug/hack
>    fixes. Vlad/Xi ARE watching ....

I use Brave and it does get updated frequently. Most distros, including 
MX, install Firefox and LibreOffice whether you want them or not. The 
Fedora box has neither. FF was available so I didn't go digging but Brave 
doesn't do Khan Academy videos the last time I tried but that was last 
year. 

If I want something descended from the diseased Mozilla tree I use 
LibreWolf. Yeah, I do use Thunderbird; I never said I was consistent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87972

On 6/14/26 14:11, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 03:19:19 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
> 
>>     However that's not all Antix - the bigger distros - comes with.
>>
>>     There IS a CL-only Antix, if that's your thing. Very basic raw
>>     Deb-like. More than, say, Slitaz - but not excessively so. Those
>>     depressed Greek commies did a fair job.
> 
> I've got antiX 23. That release still had a 'base' along with 'full'. Full
> has LibreOffice and other stuff I do not use. I don't know why the dropped
> that option for 26.

   Umm ... I *think* there are three size models right
   now - the ultra-minimialist, an 'ordinary' and a
   more 'full/everything'.

   They work well, they are reliable, they don't hog space.

>>     Well, get FFox/Chromium updates at least once a week.
>>
>>     The absolute version isn't what's important, it's the latest bug/hack
>>     fixes. Vlad/Xi ARE watching ....
> 
> I use Brave and it does get updated frequently. Most distros, including
> MX, install Firefox and LibreOffice whether you want them or not. The
> Fedora box has neither. FF was available so I didn't go digging but Brave
> doesn't do Khan Academy videos the last time I tried but that was last
> year.

   Only have ONE box I need the 'Libre' stuff on. Alas,
   as you said, most distros don't even ASK anymore. Then
   there's a lot of manual un-installing.

> If I want something descended from the diseased Mozilla tree I use
> LibreWolf. Yeah, I do use Thunderbird; I never said I was consistent.

   Ignore 'consistent' - what works, what you WANT.

   FireFox is kind of 'diseased' - but it's super-widely
   compatible and does have a million tweaks you can do
   to tune it in. Chromium, use it if FFox is not totally
   compatible. Don't have any M$ or Apple stuff.

   FFox now ... gotta spend 20 minutes turning OFF all
   the spyware and spy 'suggestions' and 'search engines'
   and such.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87957

c186282 wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> >> I finally got an iso downloaded and installed. From my experience
>> the MX mirrors are crap. I finally found one that sowed the
>> download in less than an hour instead of hours if not days.
> 
>    Agree about the slow mirrors. It's not you, it's them.
I picked a UK one and it was able to saturate my connection, 3 GB in 
just under 6 minutes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87964

On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 10:33:51 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> c186282 wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>> >> I finally got an iso downloaded and installed. From my experience
>>> the MX mirrors are crap. I finally found one that sowed the download
>>> in less than an hour instead of hours if not days.
>> 
>>    Agree about the slow mirrors. It's not you, it's them.
> I picked a UK one and it was able to saturate my connection, 3 GB in
> just under 6 minutes

You're lucky, I don't have the fastest connection but the US mirrors were 
ridiculous. r/MXLinux isn't very active but I did see a post where someone 
wondered why a mirror halfway around the world was better than the US 
ones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87967

rbowman wrote:

> I don't have the fastest connection but the US mirrors were
> ridiculous. r/MXLinux isn't very active but I did see a post where someone
> wondered why a mirror halfway around the world was better than the US
> ones.

I tried most of the US mirrors (only did about 30s from each, rather 
than a full download) they all maxed my connection at similar speed to 
UK, my conclusion, the mirrors are all fine ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87968

On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 19:45:33 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> rbowman wrote:
> 
>> I don't have the fastest connection but the US mirrors were ridiculous.
>> r/MXLinux isn't very active but I did see a post where someone wondered
>> why a mirror halfway around the world was better than the US ones.
> 
> I tried most of the US mirrors (only did about 30s from each, rather
> than a full download) they all maxed my connection at similar speed to
> UK, my conclusion, the mirrors are all fine ...

I can only report what I experienced. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87979

On 6/14/26 19:49, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2026 19:45:33 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> I don't have the fastest connection but the US mirrors were ridiculous.
>>> r/MXLinux isn't very active but I did see a post where someone wondered
>>> why a mirror halfway around the world was better than the US ones.
>>
>> I tried most of the US mirrors (only did about 30s from each, rather
>> than a full download) they all maxed my connection at similar speed to
>> UK, my conclusion, the mirrors are all fine ...
> 
> I can only report what I experienced.

   And I concur with what you've experienced.

   It's not just 'MX' either - crap mirrors seem
   to be expanding. Have had recent bad experiences
   with Deb and Fedora and OSuse and even a Solaris
   klone. The mirrors are either dead slow and/or the
   connections break.

   SOMETHING, bad, is going on.

   WHY ???

   And what's to be done ?

   There ARE (commercial/govt) entities that want to
   DESTROY Linux/UNIX. Use the Big Two spyware-loaded
   commercial operating systems instead !

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87978

On 6/14/26 14:45, Andy Burns wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
> 
>> I don't have the fastest connection but the US mirrors were
>> ridiculous. r/MXLinux isn't very active but I did see a post where 
>> someone
>> wondered why a mirror halfway around the world was better than the US
>> ones.
> 
> I tried most of the US mirrors (only did about 30s from each, rather 
> than a full download) they all maxed my connection at similar speed to 
> UK, my conclusion, the mirrors are all fine ...

   Seems the UK mirrors are good. USA mirrors
   NOT so great. Dunno why.

   There IS a way to switch mirrors ... may try
   to switch to UK tomorrow and see if there's
   an improvement.

   Crappy mirrors HAVE become a problem of late,
   and not just for MX. Set up a generic Deb a
   few months ago ... again HORRIBLE US mirrors.

   Vast Kommie Plot ???  :-)

   MAYbe just the "who gives a shit ?" psychosis
   infesting much of the world. NOT good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87982

c186282 wrote:

>    Seems the UK mirrors are good. USA mirrors
>    NOT so great. Dunno why.
> 
>    There IS a way to switch mirrors ... may try
>    to switch to UK tomorrow and see if there's
>    an improvement.

That's why i tried the USA mirrors too, they are just as fast to me as 
the UK ones, I suspect the problem is the internet connection between 
the USA mirrors (mostly big .edu) and your ISP ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87987

On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    Seems the UK mirrors are good. USA mirrors NOT so great. Dunno why.
>> 
>>    There IS a way to switch mirrors ... may try to switch to UK
>>    tomorrow and see if there's an improvement.
> 
> That's why i tried the USA mirrors too, they are just as fast to me as
> the UK ones, I suspect the problem is the internet connection between
> the USA mirrors (mostly big .edu) and your ISP ...

That doesn't make sense. My 'ISP' is Verizon wireless. How can I ping 
8.8.8.8 and see normal returns while a mirror hems, haws, and throttles 
the hell out of a download.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87992

On 15/06/2026 08:02, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>     Seems the UK mirrors are good. USA mirrors NOT so great. Dunno why.
>>>
>>>     There IS a way to switch mirrors ... may try to switch to UK
>>>     tomorrow and see if there's an improvement.
>>
>> That's why i tried the USA mirrors too, they are just as fast to me as
>> the UK ones, I suspect the problem is the internet connection between
>> the USA mirrors (mostly big .edu) and your ISP ...
> 
> That doesn't make sense. My 'ISP' is Verizon wireless. How can I ping
> 8.8.8.8 and see normal returns while a mirror hems, haws, and throttles
> the hell out of a download.
Some are actively designed to do that. reduces DOS attack damage

-- 
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before 
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88001

On 6/15/26 03:02, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>     Seems the UK mirrors are good. USA mirrors NOT so great. Dunno why.
>>>
>>>     There IS a way to switch mirrors ... may try to switch to UK
>>>     tomorrow and see if there's an improvement.
>>
>> That's why i tried the USA mirrors too, they are just as fast to me as
>> the UK ones, I suspect the problem is the internet connection between
>> the USA mirrors (mostly big .edu) and your ISP ...
> 
> That doesn't make sense. My 'ISP' is Verizon wireless. How can I ping
> 8.8.8.8 and see normal returns while a mirror hems, haws, and throttles
> the hell out of a download.

   Well, mirrors, it's not just YOUR speed, it's how
   well their software delivers, how much bandwidth
   THEY have and how much they allocate to any one user.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88003

On 16/06/2026 08:39, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/15/26 03:02, rbowman wrote:

>> That doesn't make sense. My 'ISP' is Verizon wireless. How can I ping
>> 8.8.8.8 and see normal returns while a mirror hems, haws, and throttles
>> the hell out of a download.
> 
>    Well, mirrors, it's not just YOUR speed, it's how
>    well their software delivers, how much bandwidth
>    THEY have and how much they allocate to any one user.
> 
Exactly.

Mirrors are not you tube. They don't get paid for enormous numbers of 
high speed downloads

Its often a service offered on a 'best efforts' basis using up what 
bandwidth is spare.

-- 
“when things get difficult you just have to lie”

― Jean Claud Jüncker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88009

On Tue, 16 Jun 2026 03:39:44 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Well, mirrors, it's not just YOUR speed, it's how well their software
>    delivers, how much bandwidth THEY have and how much they allocate to
>    any one user.

I go the StarLink kit yesterday and set it up. speedtest.net shows 41 Mbps 
down, 21 uo. The Verizon wireless shows 10.5 down, 0.21 up. 

speed.cloudflare.com may be more realistic and shows 30/10 for StarLink, 
3.32 Mbps/221 kbps for Verizon.

That's from the Fedora box. The speed test from the StarLink app show 101 
Mbps down. The SUSE laptop showed 105 down. 

The app shows no obstructions and the dish is oriented correctly. Despite 
the varying speed tests it is faster than Verizon. 

I also moved the Fire TV to StarLink. Neither SUSE or Fedora has a large 
update so I can't get a feeling for that difference. The Mint laptop 
updated and seemed a little snappier. It's showing 46.4 down, 11.2 up.

The router does have an Ethernet port. I'll pick up a cable and see if the 
WiFi chips in the different machine are the difference. That may also 
allow me to create a bridge for the VM.

I'll run the two in parallel for a while but faster speeds and $40 / month 
makes MuskNet attractive for me.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87990

On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 07:23:36 +0100, Andy Burns wrote:

> That's why i tried the USA mirrors too, they are just as fast to me
> as the UK ones, I suspect the problem is the internet connection
> between the USA mirrors (mostly big .edu) and your ISP ...

Is a torrent available? That would spread the bandwidth load among
multiple peers.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#87986

On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 01:34:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Crappy mirrors HAVE become a problem of late,
>    and not just for MX. Set up a generic Deb a few months ago ... again
>    HORRIBLE US mirrors.

I've had problems with VS Code from the MS repository. When I finally get 
it installed I lock the package so updates don't time out on that one.

With Endeavouur the LA mirror always ranked at the top of the list using 
the tool, never worked well in practice. I'd manually remove it from the 
list.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web