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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #90034 > unrolled thread

What's Wrong With LinuxMint ?

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

Contents

  What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 01:44 -0400
    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 01:59 -0400
    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 06:05 +0000
      Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-18 08:10 +0000
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-18 11:33 +0100
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:16 -0400
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:32 +0000
      Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:07 -0400
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:42 +0000
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:14 -0400

#90034 — What's Wrong With LinuxMint ?

Tried FFox and Chromium the past few
days. The site is ULTRA-slow, useless.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90038

On 8/18/26 01:44, c186282 wrote:
> Tried FFox and Chromium the past few
> days. The site is ULTRA-slow, useless.
> 

   Note : DID, finally, get it to work - but
   had to wait like 10 minutes for the download
   page to appear.

   No pixie girl - so downloaded.

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

#90039

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:44:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> Tried FFox and Chromium the past few days. The site is ULTRA-slow,
> useless.

Brave browser. Went to the site, paged through the instructions, went to 
the Cinnamon download, selected the Clarkson mirror, and the download 
started immediately. Canceled the download.

Like I've said before you have a lot more problems than the average bear.

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

#90045

At 18 Aug 2026 06:05:55 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:44:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
> > Tried FFox and Chromium the past few days. The site is ULTRA-slow,
> > useless.
> 
> Brave browser. Went to the site, paged through the instructions, went to 
> the Cinnamon download, selected the Clarkson mirror, and the download 
> started immediately. Canceled the download.
> 
> Like I've said before you have a lot more problems than the average bear.

Well, his clock is off -- probably not enough to effect TLS, but
figuring that out is above my current paygrade.

Dear Mr. c-cipher,

Please run:

$ ntpdate -q time.nist.gov

And post what you see.  Mine says:

2026-08-18 01:06:57.105142 (-0700) +0.000209 +/- 0.016759 time.nist.gov 132.163.96.6 s1 no-leap

-- 
-v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 Mem: 15.9G
   OS: Linux 7.0.0-28-generic D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 Mobile (6G) 595.84
   "Life is a series of very rude awakenings."

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

#90050

vallor wrote:

> Dear Mr. c-cipher

Cipher?  I assumed it was a velocity ...

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

#90085

On 8/18/26 04:10, vallor wrote:
> At 18 Aug 2026 06:05:55 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:44:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>> Tried FFox and Chromium the past few days. The site is ULTRA-slow,
>>> useless.
>>
>> Brave browser. Went to the site, paged through the instructions, went to
>> the Cinnamon download, selected the Clarkson mirror, and the download
>> started immediately. Canceled the download.
>>
>> Like I've said before you have a lot more problems than the average bear.
> 
> Well, his clock is off -- probably not enough to effect TLS, but
> figuring that out is above my current paygrade.
> 
> Dear Mr. c-cipher,
> 
> Please run:
> 
> $ ntpdate -q time.nist.gov
> 
> And post what you see.  Mine says:
> 
> 2026-08-18 01:06:57.105142 (-0700) +0.000209 +/- 0.016759 time.nist.gov 132.163.96.6 s1 no-leap


   Checked, MY clock is dead on.

   Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave
   me a 5G where the antenna is many miles away.
   Weak signal almost always, perhaps packet
   errors too.

   But why the Mint site so notably ???
   Weirdness spanned DAYS too.

   Anyway, LONG wait, it did finally come up and
   got my XFCE Mint.

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

#90091

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:16:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the antenna
>    is many miles away.
>    Weak signal almost always, perhaps packet errors too.

I had a Verizon MiFi for years and it served me well but I think the 
closest tower is 6 miles away. Youtube, streaming Netflix, and so forth 
wasn't a problem but I rarely saw 20 Mbis. StarLink is a reliable 100 Mbis 
and makes the world of difference for updates, downloading isos, and so 
forth. It's also $40 / month cheaper. 

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

#90083

On 8/18/26 02:05, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:44:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> Tried FFox and Chromium the past few days. The site is ULTRA-slow,
>> useless.
> 
> Brave browser. Went to the site, paged through the instructions, went to
> the Cinnamon download, selected the Clarkson mirror, and the download
> started immediately. Canceled the download.
> 
> Like I've said before you have a lot more problems than the average bear.

   It's true.

   In PART it's because I'm stuck with a
   somewhat balky 5G net connection. At
   times the signal strength goes to
   about naught, other times weird delays
   in transmission - packet errors ?

   It's why I was wondering about StarLink a
   little while back. Alas seems you need a
   pretty clear northeast 'view' from where
   I am - and I don't HAVE one ... big trees
   most everywhere. I'd have to run a 100'
   cable out under the yard to get a good
   clear point.

   StarLink MAY still be a viable "backup"
   however. Even a half-assed signal is
   better than none at all.

   Anyway, after a LONG wait, finally did get
   the download page to come up. Grabbed the
   latest XFCE version. Good enough.

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

#90092

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:07:20 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    It's why I was wondering about StarLink a little while back. Alas
>    seems you need a pretty clear northeast 'view' from where I am - and
>    I don't HAVE one ... big trees most everywhere. I'd have to run a
>    100' cable out under the yard to get a good clear point.

I was concerned about the tree but it's to the west and the receiver is 
oriented to 5 degrees. You can download the app for free to evaluate the 
site. You point the phone at the sky and rotate through 360. 

I was skeptical about the services using geosynchronous sats, the 
footprint, and how many subscribers would be in the beam. The Leos, and 
there are a lot of them, solve that problem.

I am a bit curious how it works. Back in the day the ham sats were store 
and forwards and the window was only a few minutes. Of course there was 
only the one and not over 1000. 

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

#90104

On 8/18/26 23:42, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:07:20 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     It's why I was wondering about StarLink a little while back. Alas
>>     seems you need a pretty clear northeast 'view' from where I am - and
>>     I don't HAVE one ... big trees most everywhere. I'd have to run a
>>     100' cable out under the yard to get a good clear point.
> 
> I was concerned about the tree but it's to the west and the receiver is
> oriented to 5 degrees. You can download the app for free to evaluate the
> site. You point the phone at the sky and rotate through 360.

   I don't have the kind of phone that'll run "apps".

> I was skeptical about the services using geosynchronous sats, the
> footprint, and how many subscribers would be in the beam. The Leos, and
> there are a lot of them, solve that problem.

   LONG back I put my office on geo-sync sat internet.

   It worked, and - sometimes - was faster than our
   old shotgunned dial-ups. Alas as web pages quickly
   became full of SHIT ... the signals bouncing 33,000
   miles up and back and up and back REALLY dragged
   down the connection. Then the phone offered DSL
   and we used that for a long time.

   Sorry, even the speed of light is NOT nearly fast
   enough these days.

   StarLink kinda CHEATS - very low orbits and clever
   data-routing tricks.

> I am a bit curious how it works. Back in the day the ham sats were store
> and forwards and the window was only a few minutes. Of course there was
> only the one and not over 1000.

   Well, StarLink is "in the works" even now. I think
   Musk still wants at least ten times as many sats,
   and the next-gen sats handle many more channels.
   A sort of extravagant system, but it's proven very
   useful and resistant to sabotage.

   ANYway, my geography is NOT so great for StarLink.
   It'd probably work but I'd never get the promised
   data speed. BIG trees everywhere.

   Also, their MOUNTING schemes ... searched Amazon
   and there was NOTHING really suitable for my house
   and likely weather conditions. I'd need to fab
   a hardwood frame and a 4-point mount to a concrete
   wall. Ordinary T-storm came through today ... gusts
   to maybe 60mph. It can get worse, much worse.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web