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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #686037 > unrolled thread

Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms

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

Contents

  Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 06:04 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 08:53 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Johnny LaRue <xxxxxx@yyyyyy.zzz> - 2025-02-16 19:18 +0000
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 16:23 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Adison Vohn Caterson <Adison@Caterson.invalid> - 2025-02-16 21:31 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:27 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 21:38 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-16 18:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 05:08 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 06:56 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:34 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:38 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:16 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:56 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:58 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:14 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-20 20:42 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 21:24 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-21 08:26 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-24 22:37 +1100
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 16:45 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 19:06 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:11 +0300
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-20 12:51 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:18 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:13 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-18 21:40 +1100
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 08:23 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 07:15 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 17:50 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-17 14:35 -0500
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 00:19 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 19:32 -0500
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 01:29 +0000
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-21 08:35 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 13:11 -0500
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:46 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 17:32 -0500
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:33 +0000
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 05:49 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 08:10 -0500
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:56 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-02-21 18:15 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-02-21 14:42 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:23 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-17 19:40 +0300
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-17 18:59 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 14:59 +0300
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-02-20 07:18 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:25 +0000
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-21 02:11 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 07:48 +0000
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-21 21:35 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-22 10:26 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:23 +0000
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-02-20 17:04 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:13 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-02-16 08:02 -0600
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:15 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-16 12:40 -0500
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-17 05:28 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:22 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-17 15:11 -0500
          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 15:19 +0300
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 09:00 -0500
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-02-20 17:29 +0300
                Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-20 12:27 -0500
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-20 19:50 +0000
                  Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-02-20 21:22 +0000
                    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 10:53 -0500
                      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-21 18:10 +0000
                        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-21 19:24 -0500
                          Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms "Kerr-Mudd, John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2025-02-26 20:29 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Daniel70 <daniel47@eternal-september.org> - 2025-02-21 18:31 +1100
            Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-02-20 15:38 +0000
              Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-20 11:23 -0500
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-16 20:10 +0000
      Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-02-17 10:24 -0500
        Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-02-17 18:52 +0000
    Re: Microsoft admits that Windows is short-term support in realistic terms Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-02-21 08:13 +0000

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#686089

On Sun, 2/16/2025 6:04 AM, Joel wrote:
> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
> 
> 
> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
> 

Official support means, if you raise a bug that "my 8th gen Intel can't play Solitaire",
the support people at Microsoft can ignore you.

Whereas, instead of that extreme example, you're just using the thing at
home, your browser still runs, you're totally unaware of any such statements.

The only thing that won't run for sure right now, is if you boot
W11 24H2 on an E8400 Core2Duo, it's going to *crash* because it
does not have a SSE4.2 POPCNT instruction. There is nothing on
Rufus to help bypass the requirement. The MSFT installer checks whether
POPCNT support is present. That's an example of an "absolute prohibition".
I can tell people with confidence, that trying to install W11 on their
Optiplex 780, that's going to be blocked no matter what. Just as easily
as an attempt to install on a P4 or on an AthlonXP 3200 is going to be blocked
for multiple reasons.

But as for "relative statements", such as "I don't like the smell of your aftershave",
my answer to such a proclamation is "fuck you and the barge you sailed in on".
Statements like the above, mean nothing to me.

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/1tf7bPNt/patching-all-working.gif

   Paul

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

#686128

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 12:40:34 -0500, Paul wrote:

> There is nothing on Rufus to help bypass the requirement.

Even if there was, would you trust mission-critical business functions to 
such unsupported software?

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

#686152

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>> 
>> 
>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>
>Official support means, if you raise a bug that "my 8th gen Intel can't play Solitaire",
>the support people at Microsoft can ignore you.
>
>Whereas, instead of that extreme example, you're just using the thing at
>home, your browser still runs, you're totally unaware of any such statements.
>
>The only thing that won't run for sure right now, is if you boot
>W11 24H2 on an E8400 Core2Duo, it's going to *crash* because it
>does not have a SSE4.2 POPCNT instruction. There is nothing on
>Rufus to help bypass the requirement. The MSFT installer checks whether
>POPCNT support is present. That's an example of an "absolute prohibition".
>I can tell people with confidence, that trying to install W11 on their
>Optiplex 780, that's going to be blocked no matter what. Just as easily
>as an attempt to install on a P4 or on an AthlonXP 3200 is going to be blocked
>for multiple reasons.
>
>But as for "relative statements", such as "I don't like the smell of your aftershave",
>my answer to such a proclamation is "fuck you and the barge you sailed in on".
>Statements like the above, mean nothing to me.
>
>   [Picture]
>
>    https://i.postimg.cc/1tf7bPNt/patching-all-working.gif


But the point is not that I couldn't run Win11 anymore, it's that it'd
*suck* to do so - whereas Linux is running like a dream.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

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

#686184

On Mon, 2/17/2025 10:22 AM, Joel wrote:
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
> But the point is not that I couldn't run Win11 anymore, it's that it'd
> *suck* to do so - whereas Linux is running like a dream.

I don't know what more I'd want to do here.

Run MacOS in a windows. I have an emulator, and since that
doesn't use virtualization, I can still do that, but I
have no wish to. That's based on an image taken from
the Mac G4 sitting next to me.

But there really isn't anything else that's a problem here.
I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
of cats sleeping with dogs.

Anything that is "out of reach", is out of reach for
hardware reasons (not enough good PCIe slots), not because
of a software issue.

   Paul

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

#686289

Paul:

> I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
> of cats sleeping with dogs.

Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

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

#686294

On Thu, 2/20/2025 7:19 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Paul:
> 
>> I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
>> of cats sleeping with dogs.
> 
> Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
> 

Possible.

The "bash shell", so called, has a graphics stack called WSLg.

I run Firefox in it every day :-) Linux Firefox. On Windows.

    [Picture]

     https://i.postimg.cc/sDd22g3Q/bash-shell-WSLg-Firefox.gif

Running Linux okular is just as easy as Linux Firefox, to operate.

I can run Windows, bash shell (linux kernel) container, VMWare,
and VirtualBox all at the same time. At one time, it wasn't advised
to do that, but all of that is running under an inverted hypervisor.
The Windows OS is virtualized, as is the bash shell, and the
two VM hosts. VirtualBox had to be modified to run under an
inverted hypervisor, and between VirtualBox running in Linux
and VirtualBox running in?/on? Windows, the Virtualbox developers
have to support two hypervisor environments.

There is no block diagram now, for Windows, showing the virtualization
model. We have to guess how it works.

The Task Manager isn't well suited for measuring the activity
on the machine. I monitor the electrical power consumption,
as a double check that nothing is going on that I cannot "see".

   Paul


   Paul


   Paul

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

#686296

Paul to Anton Shepelev:

> > Paul:
> >
> > > I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell
> >
> > Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
>
> Possible.
>
> The "bash shell", so called, has a graphics stack called
> WSLg.

I fear you misunderstand the terminology.  In Microsoft's
"bash shell" is just a text shell, not an environment for
GUI programs.  WSLg is not part of the shell.

> I run Firefox in it every day :-) Linux Firefox. On
> Windows.
>
>   <https://i.postimg.cc/sDd22g3Q/bash-shell-WSLg-Firefox.gif>

Thanks.  I wish, however, posing direct links to images were
part of the netiquette.  This link opens not an image, but a
rather cluttered website /with/ an image.  There are image
free anonymous image hostings supporting direct links, e.g.
<catbox.moe>.

> Running Linux okular is just as easy as Linux Firefox, to
> operate.  I can run Windows, bash shell (linux kernel)
> container, VMWare, and VirtualBox all at the same time. At
> one time, it wasn't advised to do that, but all of that is
> running under an inverted hypervisor.  The Windows OS is
> virtualized, as is the bash shell, and the two VM hosts.
> VirtualBox had to be modified to run under an inverted
> hypervisor, and between VirtualBox running in Linux and
> VirtualBox running in/on Windows, the Virtualbox
> developers have to support two hypervisor environments.

Too much virualisation to my taste, and too little real
thing.  Beware the legions of lobotomized Unices:

  <https://czep.net/17/legion-of-lobotomized-unices.html>

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

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

#686302

On Thu, 2/20/2025 9:29 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Paul to Anton Shepelev:
> 
>>> Paul:
>>>
>>>> I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell
>>>
>>> Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
>>
>> Possible.
>>
>> The "bash shell", so called, has a graphics stack called
>> WSLg.
> 
> I fear you misunderstand the terminology.  In Microsoft's
> "bash shell" is just a text shell, not an environment for
> GUI programs.  WSLg is not part of the shell.

I fear you misunderstand the terminology.

As a rolling release, the product has evolved over time.

The original offering was "bash shell". It had no graphics.
Yet, within about three days of initial delivery, some people
on The Internet, had used XMing as a separate X11 server, and then ran Firefox
from the loaded distro in the Bash Shell product, using XMing for graphics.

I did not reproduce that effort immediately. I waited a bit
before I set up mine. The initial offering was on the Insider,
which is why this material is still sitting on the Insider drive
today. I have newer versions of the setup in other places.
But this was the first setup for me. I never upgraded or updated
this initial effort. It was left for the purpose we see today,
namely, taking a picture. That's why it is still there.

   [Picture]

    https://i.postimg.cc/8cDBDsVV/WSL1-Insider.gif

The progression goes like this.

   WSL1           - Just Bash

   WSL1 + XMing   - Now, you can run graphical packages from the installed distro

   WSL2           - Containerized version (.vhd), resident Linux kernel

   WSL2 + WSLg    - Now, you no longer need XMing.

This is what you see in Bash today. A DISPLAY variable is already set today.

> bash
$ echo $DISPLAY
:0
$ firefox &        <=== Firefox immediately appears, rootless, on the Windows Desktop
                        Graphics are rendered by the WSLg stack (Terminal Services at
                        the top of the stack, as glue to the Windows desktop).

I can run Synaptic Package Manager, install additional packages in Bash Shell
without using Apt if I want. I can run Nautilus. And, I can run XEyes (just
because it bothers someone here...) .

   Paul

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

#686305

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:

>    WSL2 + WSLg    - Now, you no longer need XMing.

I don't have a lot of reference points but this appears to depend on which 
Linux you installed. With OpenSUSE Leap WSLg and systemd are not available 
by default. I had to run

zypper in -t pattern wsl_gui

before gVim would work. 

https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:WSL


 When I tested the Fedora 42 tarball Monday, a specific install wasn't 
necessary to run Firefox, one of the GUI tests. I assume the default 
Ubuntu also comes fully loaded.

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

#686310

On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:

> The original offering was "bash shell".

“Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the 
“bourne-again shell shell”.

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

#686342

On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
> 
>> The original offering was "bash shell".
> 
> “Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the 
> “bourne-again shell shell”.
> 

I didn't pick the name for this thing.

I'm forced to use terminology that other
people in the group might recognize.

That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.

There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
The audience here isn't really interested.

But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.

     [Picture]

     https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif

   Paul

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

#686348

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:53:10 -0500
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
> > 
> >> The original offering was "bash shell".
> > 
> > “Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the 
> > “bourne-again shell shell”.
> > 
> 
> I didn't pick the name for this thing.
> 
> I'm forced to use terminology that other
> people in the group might recognize.
> 
> That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
> The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.
> 
> There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
> The audience here isn't really interested.
> 
> But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.
> 
>      [Picture]
> 
>      https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif
> 
As Anton has said, that's not a picture, it's a web page with stuff that
might show you a picture.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#686385

On Fri, 2/21/2025 1:10 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:53:10 -0500
> Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> The original offering was "bash shell".
>>>
>>> “Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the 
>>> “bourne-again shell shell”.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't pick the name for this thing.
>>
>> I'm forced to use terminology that other
>> people in the group might recognize.
>>
>> That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
>> The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.
>>
>> There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
>> The audience here isn't really interested.
>>
>> But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.
>>
>>      [Picture]
>>
>>      https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif
>>
> As Anton has said, that's not a picture, it's a web page with stuff that
> might show you a picture.
> 

Do you know why that caption is there ?

It's for a blind person!!!!!!!

Blind people use web browsers too. They use a screen reader.
If there is text on the web page, they can partake of whatever
is being discussed.

When I would post a picture, I was kindly asked if I might caption
the item, so it could be avoided entirely if the content was
just an image and no other information a blind person could
use was present.

THAT is why the caption is there.

   Paul

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

#686701

On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 19:24:41 -0500
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 2/21/2025 1:10 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:53:10 -0500
> > Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 2/20/2025 4:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 12:27:56 -0500, Paul wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The original offering was "bash shell".
> >>>
> >>> “Bash” stands for “Bourne-Again SHell”. So what you have there is the 
> >>> “bourne-again shell shell”.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I didn't pick the name for this thing.
> >>
> >> I'm forced to use terminology that other
> >> people in the group might recognize.
> >>
> >> That's the shorthand for the "we don't know why they are doing Linux" project.
> >> The original justification for doing it, was pretty lame.
> >>
> >> There is probably only one other person than myself using it.
> >> The audience here isn't really interested.
> >>
> >> But if you want to have XEyes on your Windows desktop, you can.
> >>
> >>      [Picture]
> >>
> >>      https://i.postimg.cc/s2sSnJS9/xeyes-are-watching.gif
> >>
> > As Anton has said, that's not a picture, it's a web page with stuff that
> > might show you a picture.
> > 
> 
> Do you know why that caption is there ?
> 
> It's for a blind person!!!!!!!
> 
> Blind people use web browsers too. They use a screen reader.
> If there is text on the web page, they can partake of whatever
> is being discussed.
> 
> When I would post a picture, I was kindly asked if I might caption
> the item, so it could be avoided entirely if the content was
> just an image and no other information a blind person could
> use was present.
> 
> THAT is why the caption is there.
> 

That wasn't my objection; it's this:
The link isn't a direct url to a picture, the hosting company wraps it
in some unnecessary scripting.

-- 
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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

#686323

On 21/02/2025 1:00 am, Paul wrote:

<Snip>

>     Paul
> 
> 
>     Paul
> 
> 
>     Paul
> 
Bad stutter you've got there, Paul!! ;-P
-- 
Daniel70

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

#686299

On 20/02/2025 12:19, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Paul:
> 
>> I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
>> of cats sleeping with dogs.
> 
> Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
> 

WSL2 supports GUI programs now.

-- 
Brian Gregory (in England).

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

#686301

Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> wrote:
>On 20/02/2025 12:19, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> Paul:
>> 
>>> I run Okular in both Windows and bash shell, as an example
>>> of cats sleeping with dogs.
>> 
>> Impossible: Okural is a GUI program, not a terminal one.
>
>WSL2 supports GUI programs now.


Yup, I tested WSL 2 by running GIMP, just to get a screenshot of a GUI
Linux app under Win11*, it does work.  Kind of gimmicky, in terms of
its usefulness (like having the link to Windows from an Android phone,
it exists but is a drag on the device).

* https://i.imgur.com/KtdiikW.png

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

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

#686106

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 06:04:52 -0500, Joel wrote:

> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-
support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
> 
> 
> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.

I guess that means there is no hope for the 4th gen i5 powering my Fedora 
box?

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

#686154

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-official-
>support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>> 
>> 
>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>
>I guess that means there is no hope for the 4th gen i5 powering my Fedora 
>box?


Just stick with Fedora. :)

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent.  States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

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

#686172

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 10:24:25 -0500, Joel wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> 
>>> https://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-removes-windows-11-24h2-
official-
>>support-on-8th-9th-10th-gen-intel-cpus/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> So, I can still boot Win11 on my box, because it's grandfathered in,
>>> from 2021.  OK.  Great.  Nah, I'll stick with Linux, thanks.
>>
>>I guess that means there is no hope for the 4th gen i5 powering my
>>Fedora box?
> 
> 
> Just stick with Fedora. :)

I plan to. I may even participate in the test day.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2025-02-17_WSL

The interesting part is a new WSL feature:

wsl --install --from-file .\path\to\Fedora.tar.xz

Previously the Linux versions came from the Microsoft Store. Now you can 
install from a tarball. 

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

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

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

csiph-web