Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89930 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-16 03:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-08-17 17:14 +0000 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 95 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 03:47 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-16 18:54 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-17 08:46 +1000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 23:46 -0400
Open web (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 09:42 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 23:44 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 03:54 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 01:24 -0400
Linux 7.2 (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-17 08:59 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 17:39 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:26 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:21 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 08:30 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:51 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-19 08:16 +1000
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:57 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:37 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 20:08 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:49 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 17:56 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:37 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:25 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Linux 7.2 Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-19 16:48 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-17 10:30 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:25 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 00:58 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 10:21 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:55 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:41 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 19:00 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-18 23:02 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 23:02 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 19:25 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 21:37 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 03:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 12:32 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 22:14 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 01:17 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:55 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:04 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:04 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 21:02 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 22:30 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 04:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 01:12 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-21 08:22 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 16:01 +0200
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:22 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 23:55 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 18:18 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-22 01:56 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 10:17 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 23:31 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-22 08:36 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:44 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-22 17:06 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-22 22:35 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 02:57 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:32 +0200
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:10 +0100
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:47 +0200
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:26 +0100
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 18:34 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-23 21:40 +0200
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 01:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 02:21 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:54 -0400
Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 06:20 -0700
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 14:31 +0100
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> - 2026-08-23 11:28 -0700
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 19:58 +0100
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 01:43 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 01:06 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 01:01 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-23 23:19 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:46 +0100
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-23 18:41 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:19 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-22 04:15 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-19 11:48 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 09:38 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 17:14 +0000
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Lars Poulsen <lars@beagle-ears.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 11:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) |
| Message-ID | <116fe4k$2530n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90396 |
On 2026-08-23 06:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 23/08/2026 14:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 2026-08-23 04:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>>>> "experienced." >>>>> >>>>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>>>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>>>> the support for them. >>>>> >>>>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>>>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>>>> about them any more. >>>> >>>> Sad, but quite correct. >>>> >>>> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >>>> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >>>> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >>>> >>>> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >>>> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >>> > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >>>> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >>>> until it literally bursts into flames - and >>>> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >>>> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >>>> saving SO much money, now ....... >>> >>> Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, >>> to interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade the >>> computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their expensive >>> software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be plugged >>> in, so they also need replacing; the new boards will probably not be >>> compatible with the expensive software. So finally they need to >>> recreate the software (hopefully the company that created it still >>> exists and has the source files). And maybe there are a bunch of >>> computers to replace. >>> >>> The price is no longer minor. >> >> What you have to do is make sure you have one or two backup hardware >> packages, because when the computer breaks, you won't be able to buy >> one that works. (Just try to find a motherboard with ISA slots today!) > > https://www.directindustry.com/industrial-manufacturer/isa- > motherboard-255106.html > >> And with custom plugin boards, it is kinda too late to have them >> fabbed when the system is already down. And fire it up once a year to >> make sure it still runs. >> >> That may not guarantee that you can recover, but it vastly increases >> your chances. >> >> And when you put the reserve system into service, it is time to >> expedite developing a replacement! >> >> For PC systems, the big hurdle is that old 16-bit systems allowed >> programs to do I/O to ISA bus peripherals without kernel programming, >> device drivers and OS hooks. When you "modernize" that ability is >> lost, and you have to rebuild with much more complicated programming. >> > That is a function of the operating system, not the chipset Good luck finding a motherboard with ISA bus slots. For a very long time, motherboards had ISA bus parallel ports and serial ports, where all you had to do to access them directly was to populate the footprint for the connector. I think those went away around 2018. I got a handful of machines with footprint for a legacy parallel port as refurbs after corporate desktop replacement rounds, and brought them to my PCB rework guy. I was very disappointed to learn that the PCB manufacturer had reduced the footprint from 2.5 mm pin spacing to 2 mm pin spacing, making the ribbon cables used for this application not fit. -- Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 19:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) |
| Message-ID | <116fft9$25kdt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90403 |
On 23/08/2026 19:28, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2026-08-23 06:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 23/08/2026 14:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 2026-08-23 04:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>>>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>>>>> "experienced." >>>>>> >>>>>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>>>>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>>>>> the support for them. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>>>>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>>>>> about them any more. >>>>> >>>>> Sad, but quite correct. >>>>> >>>>> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >>>>> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >>>>> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >>>>> >>>>> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >>>>> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >>>> > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >>>>> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >>>>> until it literally bursts into flames - and >>>>> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >>>>> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >>>>> saving SO much money, now ....... >>>> >>>> Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, >>>> to interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade >>>> the computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their >>>> expensive software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be >>>> plugged in, so they also need replacing; the new boards will >>>> probably not be compatible with the expensive software. So finally >>>> they need to recreate the software (hopefully the company that >>>> created it still exists and has the source files). And maybe there >>>> are a bunch of computers to replace. >>>> >>>> The price is no longer minor. >>> >>> What you have to do is make sure you have one or two backup hardware >>> packages, because when the computer breaks, you won't be able to buy >>> one that works. (Just try to find a motherboard with ISA slots today!) >> >> https://www.directindustry.com/industrial-manufacturer/isa- >> motherboard-255106.html >> >>> And with custom plugin boards, it is kinda too late to have them >>> fabbed when the system is already down. And fire it up once a year to >>> make sure it still runs. >>> >>> That may not guarantee that you can recover, but it vastly increases >>> your chances. >>> >>> And when you put the reserve system into service, it is time to >>> expedite developing a replacement! >>> >>> For PC systems, the big hurdle is that old 16-bit systems allowed >>> programs to do I/O to ISA bus peripherals without kernel programming, >>> device drivers and OS hooks. When you "modernize" that ability is >>> lost, and you have to rebuild with much more complicated programming. >>> >> That is a function of the operating system, not the chipset > > Good luck finding a motherboard with ISA bus slots. I already showed you a link to where a dozen or so are available For a very long > time, motherboards had ISA bus parallel ports and serial ports, where > all you had to do to access them directly was to populate the footprint > for the connector. I think those went away around 2018. > No, they became niche rather than mainstream, thats all -- I would rather have questions that cannot be answered... ...than to have answers that cannot be questioned Richard Feynman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 01:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) |
| Message-ID | <l9icnfrKBY3CRxb3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90403 |
On 8/23/26 14:28, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2026-08-23 06:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 23/08/2026 14:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: >>> On 2026-08-23 04:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>>>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>>>>> "experienced." >>>>>> >>>>>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>>>>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>>>>> the support for them. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>>>>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>>>>> about them any more. >>>>> >>>>> Sad, but quite correct. >>>>> >>>>> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >>>>> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >>>>> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >>>>> >>>>> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >>>>> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >>>> > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >>>>> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >>>>> until it literally bursts into flames - and >>>>> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >>>>> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >>>>> saving SO much money, now ....... >>>> >>>> Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, >>>> to interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade >>>> the computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their >>>> expensive software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be >>>> plugged in, so they also need replacing; the new boards will >>>> probably not be compatible with the expensive software. So finally >>>> they need to recreate the software (hopefully the company that >>>> created it still exists and has the source files). And maybe there >>>> are a bunch of computers to replace. >>>> >>>> The price is no longer minor. >>> >>> What you have to do is make sure you have one or two backup hardware >>> packages, because when the computer breaks, you won't be able to buy >>> one that works. (Just try to find a motherboard with ISA slots today!) >> >> https://www.directindustry.com/industrial-manufacturer/isa- >> motherboard-255106.html >> >>> And with custom plugin boards, it is kinda too late to have them >>> fabbed when the system is already down. And fire it up once a year to >>> make sure it still runs. >>> >>> That may not guarantee that you can recover, but it vastly increases >>> your chances. >>> >>> And when you put the reserve system into service, it is time to >>> expedite developing a replacement! >>> >>> For PC systems, the big hurdle is that old 16-bit systems allowed >>> programs to do I/O to ISA bus peripherals without kernel programming, >>> device drivers and OS hooks. When you "modernize" that ability is >>> lost, and you have to rebuild with much more complicated programming. >>> >> That is a function of the operating system, not the chipset > > Good luck finding a motherboard with ISA bus slots. > Yea ... threw out my last ISA-bus boards a long time ago. Everyone did. Maybe a bit short-sighted ........ > For a very long > time, motherboards had ISA bus parallel ports and serial ports, where > all you had to do to access them directly was to populate the footprint > for the connector. I think those went away around 2018. > > I got a handful of machines with footprint for a legacy parallel port as > refurbs after corporate desktop replacement rounds, and brought them to > my PCB rework guy. I was very disappointed to learn that the PCB > manufacturer had reduced the footprint from 2.5 mm pin spacing to 2 mm > pin spacing, making the ribbon cables used for this application not fit. You MIGHT be able to find add-on, maybe USB, adapters and drivers that WILL properly emulate parallel/serial ports from the old days. There ARE cheap dongles to fake 9-pin serial ports, but haven't seen any of late that'll do the older 25-pin ones. If you're next level you could MAKE them with microcontrollers and hand-made drivers (TOO old now to get that deep in again). The huge old "wide"-Centronics printer interface, good fuckin' luck. Too bad, had a great old Epson wide pin-printer with that interface - slow but insanely reliable, went through endless giant boxes of the green- stripe wide paper without a glitch. As for pin spacing .... built a bunch of devices on the old Rabbit-II boards. Rabbit-III boards went from 3mm spacing to 2mm spacing - too tiny for mere humans to work with conveniently with ordinary dremel-presses and soldering irons. Sad, the Rabbits were GOOD boards (STILL sold BTW) but had to drop 'em.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 01:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRdVJp6uTBb3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90396 |
On 8/23/26 09:31, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 23/08/2026 14:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: >> On 2026-08-23 04:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >>>> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>>>> "experienced." >>>>> >>>>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>>>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>>>> the support for them. >>>>> >>>>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>>>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>>>> about them any more. >>>> >>>> Sad, but quite correct. >>>> >>>> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >>>> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >>>> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >>>> >>>> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >>>> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >>> > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >>>> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >>>> until it literally bursts into flames - and >>>> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >>>> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >>>> saving SO much money, now ....... >>> >>> Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, >>> to interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade the >>> computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their expensive >>> software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be plugged >>> in, so they also need replacing; the new boards will probably not be >>> compatible with the expensive software. So finally they need to >>> recreate the software (hopefully the company that created it still >>> exists and has the source files). And maybe there are a bunch of >>> computers to replace. >>> >>> The price is no longer minor. >> >> What you have to do is make sure you have one or two backup hardware >> packages, because when the computer breaks, you won't be able to buy >> one that works. (Just try to find a motherboard with ISA slots today!) > > https://www.directindustry.com/industrial-manufacturer/isa- > motherboard-255106.html > >> And with custom plugin boards, it is kinda too late to have them >> fabbed when the system is already down. And fire it up once a year to >> make sure it still runs. >> >> That may not guarantee that you can recover, but it vastly increases >> your chances. >> >> And when you put the reserve system into service, it is time to >> expedite developing a replacement! >> >> For PC systems, the big hurdle is that old 16-bit systems allowed >> programs to do I/O to ISA bus peripherals without kernel programming, >> device drivers and OS hooks. When you "modernize" that ability is >> lost, and you have to rebuild with much more complicated programming. >> > That is a function of the operating system, not the chipset Correct. You don't HAVE to use Linux for such purposes. For really old stuff, a board that will run DOS may be quite adequate. There are also systems intentionally designed for the described purposes. OS-9 is still sold, for example, and is kinda-sorta "UNIX-ish".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 01:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRRVJp6-TRb3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90394 |
On 8/23/26 09:20, Lars Poulsen wrote: > On 2026-08-23 04:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>>> >>>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>>> "experienced." >>>> >>>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>>> the support for them. >>>> >>>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>>> about them any more. >>> >>> Sad, but quite correct. >>> >>> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >>> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >>> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >>> >>> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >>> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >> > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >>> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >>> until it literally bursts into flames - and >>> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >>> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >>> saving SO much money, now ....... >> >> Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, to >> interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade the >> computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their expensive >> software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be plugged in, >> so they also need replacing; the new boards will probably not be >> compatible with the expensive software. So finally they need to >> recreate the software (hopefully the company that created it still >> exists and has the source files). And maybe there are a bunch of >> computers to replace. >> >> The price is no longer minor. > > What you have to do is make sure you have one or two backup hardware > packages, because when the computer breaks, you won't be able to buy one > that works. (Just try to find a motherboard with ISA slots today!) > And with custom plugin boards, it is kinda too late to have them fabbed > when the system is already down. And fire it up once a year to make sure > it still runs. > > That may not guarantee that you can recover, but it vastly increases > your chances. Well, your supply of back-ups won't last forever ... and a lot of control-oriented boards are only made for a year or two. Did used to use PC-104 industrial boards to run machines. However the maker would either drop the series or go out of business in a year or two. > And when you put the reserve system into service, it is time to expedite > developing a replacement! > > For PC systems, the big hurdle is that old 16-bit systems allowed > programs to do I/O to ISA bus peripherals without kernel programming, > device drivers and OS hooks. When you "modernize" that ability is lost, > and you have to rebuild with much more complicated programming. Again, there may be good use for "AI" in translating old software to modern langs/systems. Humans don't want to bother, but the AIs don't care.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 23:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRtVJp66JRb3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90383 |
On 8/23/26 07:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-23 08:57, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>> >>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>> "experienced." >>> >>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>> the support for them. >>> >>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>> about them any more. >> >> Sad, but quite correct. >> >> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >> >> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. > > > However SOME won't because it might cost a >> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >> until it literally bursts into flames - and >> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >> saving SO much money, now ....... > > Industrial computers may have boards, like data acquisition boards, to > interface with motors and sensors (or cameras). If you upgrade the > computer, it comes with a new operating system, so their expensive > software does not run on it. The cards probably can not be plugged in, > so they also need replacing; the new boards will probably not be > compatible with the expensive software. So finally they need to recreate > the software (hopefully the company that created it still exists and has > the source files). And maybe there are a bunch of computers to replace. > > The price is no longer minor. Well, it's not the HARDWARE anymore. It's the SOFTWARE - and perhaps all the LEGAL protections/shields/contracts involved in modern biz ventures. As I suggested somewhere, porting old useful apps to more modern hardware/systems may be a good job for "AI". Humans don't care to do it, but AI just doesn't give shit. Used to have a PC-104 board, i386. It ran DOS. There was a toolkit. Used it to run/monitor a big machine. Nothing TOO complicated, some switches, a few sensors and timers, safety and hazard interlock stuff. Never really taxed the thing, just seemed a cool way to run the machine and it was a 'standard' industrial bus back then, so I did it. But what if 'the machine' was STILL being used for important stuff 25+ years later ? Just wait for the little board to self-destruct for a bunch of possible reasons, maybe be DEPRIVED of that highly profitable machine for a long time ? Even something cheap like an Ard2560 could probably do everything that old board did. A Pi or BBB with a cheap hat or two, fer sure. They are CHEAP hardware. But who will translate the SOFTWARE to them ? There is where the $$$ comes in. You'd think only one in a billion could translate some old BASIC-ish lang into Python or 'C' or some PCL - and you WILL get charged $$$$$$+ for that assumption. Heh heh ... long back one of our guys was a good STATS guy. He had a collection of old FORTRAN routines but no good/affordable way to port them to the original IBM-PC. A couple of us, mostly me, had to re-do them in IBM/M$ BASIC - and hand code, in DATA statements, the stuff to make the math processor do its thing. (the 8087 was like a CPU designed by autistic aliens) What a PAIN IN THE ASS ! Yea, a FORTRAN compiler DID come out pretty soon, but not quite THEN - and the company didn't wanna buy one anyhow. I'd still have been stuck porting HIS version of FORTRAN to the M$ compiler - always a lot of nuances. NOW I would not wanna do it ... easier/faster to write a whole NEW app instead. But those were the Do It Yourself days. So, an AI agent may be the better approach, leave the rip-off/bored humans out of the equation (I can say that since I'm retired now :-) Alt - find a way to hire/pay over-caffeinated 12 year olds to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 12:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <116emic$1sako$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90373 |
On 23/08/2026 07:57, c186282 wrote: > On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >> >>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>> "experienced." >> >> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >> the support for them. >> >> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >> about them any more. > > Sad, but quite correct. > > Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff > on a 386/486 these days. How many people > still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? > Not many. Some retro computer people keep them alive for interest, running the original OSs Some are in embedded applications still running DIS with turbopascal apps in them and no networking at all > MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control > systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. > If running well leave well alone. > However SOME won't because it might cost a > few dollars. They'll run the old hardware > until it literally bursts into flames - and > then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, > the bean-counters will TELL them they're > saving SO much money, now ....... > Any sane business is run on cost benefit lines. As kit gets older the cost of maintaining it starts to rise, but the cost of replacing it also starts to be considered. At a given point you start allocating budget for inevitable replacement, get someone in to replicate the old code, run the systems in parallel and then once everything is hunky dory (that's English for copacetic) you switch the old system off. You might then store it a couple of years in case the new one has issues. > There was a case a few years back, Paris airport. > Suddenly the entire ground-control system went > down hard. Soon found, it had been running on > a Win-98 box for MANY years. Since it worked > nobody bothered at looking to modernize. Not > spending $10,000 probably cost them $10,000,000 :-) > > Now here is a case where a properly tuned "AI" > just MIGHT be of good use. Calculate and do what > the humans don't want to do anymore. What IS > involved in making an old app work on a 20 year > newer board ? Humans CAN do it - but don't WANT > to do it. The "AI"s don't care about any of that > and WILL offer/script solutions. > Big companies stumble on from crisis to crisis. Crises that would break a smaller one. Because big companies get infested with gold diggers, status seekers, arse coverers and dead wood. The system carries them, until it doesn't -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 18:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <nf0t76F5rktU22@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90384 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 12:46:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Any sane business is run on cost benefit lines. As kit gets older the > cost of maintaining it starts to rise, but the cost of replacing it also > starts to be considered. At least in the area I'm familiar with Y2K was a watershed. IBM patched their current OS but it wouldn't run on the previous RS6000 systems. The sites looked at the cost of replacing the IBM gear versus PCs and rolled the dice. 911 (999) call centers aren't the best funded operations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 00:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRpVJp6CWxb3nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90384 |
On 8/23/26 07:46, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 23/08/2026 07:57, c186282 wrote: >> On 8/22/26 18:35, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote: >>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 08:36:42 -0400, TJ wrote: >>> >>>> It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good >>>> running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is >>>> "experienced." >>> >>> CPU generations (and entire architectures) get dropped from the Linux >>> kernel because they can’t find anybody to step forward and maintain >>> the support for them. >>> >>> That is how they tell that there are so few instances of those >>> particular kinds of hardware around, that essentially nobody cares >>> about them any more. >> >> Sad, but quite correct. >> >> Really not much call to run Linux-ish stuff >> on a 386/486 these days. How many people >> still USE those old boards for ANYTHING ? >> > Not many. Some retro computer people keep them alive for interest, > running the original OSs > Some are in embedded applications still running DIS with turbopascal > apps in them and no networking at all I made an old 386 PC-104 board run a semi-complex machine. In my case the machine became obsolete before the board died - but that won't always be true for everybody. Huge $$$ might be lost. Yep, the software COULD pretty easily be moved to some new/modern board/language. Python on a PI or BBB would have served. But who DOES that ? A 'perception of rarity' has been cultivated, like only on in a billion can translate the sense of an old process-control system to anything newer. Thus the PRICE of doing so becomes prohibitive. >> MAYBE a few "industrial" monitor/control >> systems ... but REALLY they oughtta upgrade. >> > If running well leave well alone. BUT ... if yer highly-profitable machine running on the old board STOPS WORKING because the ancient board has died then you LOSE $$$$$$ ! As such, there may indeed be a motive to upgrade periodically. Even an Ard2560 or BBB or PI, with a hat or two, could do everything that PC-104 was doing. The hardware is CHEAP. It's the effort to move the practical sensibility of the old software over to a new system/lang. You'll get RIPPED OFF for that now (unless you have an in-house geek). >> However SOME won't because it might cost a >> few dollars. They'll run the old hardware >> until it literally bursts into flames - and >> then be SCREWED for days/weeks/months. But, >> the bean-counters will TELL them they're >> saving SO much money, now ....... >> > Any sane business is run on cost benefit lines. As kit gets older the > cost of maintaining it starts to rise, but the cost of replacing it also > starts to be considered. Sounds so reasonable ... but, depending, such delays might cost you yer entire biz. If YOU suddenly can't make Polyvinyl Acetate then everybody will shift over to some OTHER maker - and probably stick with them. Bean-counters should NEVER run a business. > At a given point you start allocating budget for inevitable replacement, > get someone in to replicate the old code, run the systems in parallel > and then once everything is hunky dory (that's English for copacetic) > you switch the old system off. > > You might then store it a couple of years in case the new one has issues. > >> There was a case a few years back, Paris airport. >> Suddenly the entire ground-control system went >> down hard. Soon found, it had been running on >> a Win-98 box for MANY years. Since it worked >> nobody bothered at looking to modernize. Not >> spending $10,000 probably cost them $10,000,000 :-) >> >> Now here is a case where a properly tuned "AI" >> just MIGHT be of good use. Calculate and do what >> the humans don't want to do anymore. What IS >> involved in making an old app work on a 20 year >> newer board ? Humans CAN do it - but don't WANT >> to do it. The "AI"s don't care about any of that >> and WILL offer/script solutions. >> > Big companies stumble on from crisis to crisis. Crises that would break > a smaller one. Because big companies get infested with gold diggers, > status seekers, arse coverers and dead wood. > > The system carries them, until it doesn't Yep ... Until It Doesn't. Oh well, the high-ups get their golden parachutes and WHO CARES about anyone/anything else eh ? :-) According to Machiavelli, the 'golden parachute' idea was born in old Rome. By insulating the high-up generals and such from the consequences of failure such individuals could afford to be BOLD. Apparently this tended to pay off on average. But SHOULD it be applied to mere "business" ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 21:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Nd-dnZAOl66mnBT3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90271 |
On 8/21/26 08:22, TJ wrote: > On 2026-08-20 22:30, c186282 wrote: >> >> 32-bit versions of anything are RARE now alas ... > > Mageia 10, recently released, has an i686 version. It doesn't have > everything the 64-bit version has, because a lot of upstream support for > 32-bit has disappeared, but it IS supported. ANTIX has a 32-bit, but also warns that software that'll run on 32 is becoming more and more rare. I encounter 32-bit distros here and there, but it's gonna be the same problem. Still pissed Intel chips won't run by old 8/16 stuff anymore. Last one that'd do it was the Core2-Quad (have one :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 13:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1169g6o$9sqa$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90220 |
On 20/08/2026 18:04, c186282 wrote: > On 8/20/26 09:55, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever. >> >> Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes". > > Another guy with a red fedora on the rack :-) > > I'm gonna say there IS NO "perfect" distro. They > are all pretty good in the technical sense. The > diff is in how it syncs with YOUR brain, YOUR > intuitions. Deb, to me, "feels right". > I stick with Mint because after 15 years running Unix and Linux servers, I want a rest from fucking with computers. -- “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” – H. L. Mencken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 04:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116b7ov$qb29$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90220 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 8/20/26 09:55, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever. >> >> Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes". > > Another guy with a red fedora on the rack :-) Nope. Don't care for the red fedora distro. I've been exclusively an SLS (SoftLanding Systems -- you likely have no idea what that one was) or Slackware user since circa 1992 or 1993. > Deb, to me, "feels right". And, given what you complain about here on Usenet, within about twenty minutes you'll have found some reason why Deb is badly broken beyond repair based upon your unique theories about how the Unix/Linux world works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Softlanding_Linux_System
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 11:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1164j98$2p25r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90011 |
On 2026-08-17 22:25, c186282 wrote: > On 8/17/26 10:30, TJ wrote: >> On 2026-08-16 23:44, c186282 wrote: >>> On 8/16/26 14:54, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:47:41 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> WHO told them to do this ??? >>>>> >>>>> No, I'm NOT gonna comply. >>>>> >>>>> If the Pixie Girl or equivs appear I *instantly* >>>>> quit. >>>>> >>>>> Evil ! >>>> >>>> So a 2 second CAPTCHA 3 a website uses to protect against malicious >>>> attacks ruins your entire day? >>> >>> Yep. >>> >>> Over and out. >>> >>> Oh, and nobody STEALS Linux - it's FREE. >>> >> Don't bother with Mageia's Bugzilla, then. Before we added mitigation, >> there were times when it was completely unusable, due to bots >> overloading our servers. They still manage to sneak in every once in a >> while, somehow. >> >> So with or without mitigation, you would not be happy with us. >> >> TJ > > OK ... I'll ignore Mageia BugZilla. > > Actually, given the current environ, heading > into the BSD universe. If I want bullshit I'd > buy Winders ..... > Good. Don't let the door hit you in the nether regions on the way out... TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 09:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <115uhah$r3ib$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #89943 |
On 2026-08-16, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:47:41 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>
>> WHO told them to do this ???
>>
>> No, I'm NOT gonna comply.
>>
>> If the Pixie Girl or equivs appear I *instantly*
>> quit.
>>
>> Evil !
>
> So a 2 second CAPTCHA 3 a website uses to protect against malicious
> attacks ruins your entire day?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudflare#DDoS_mitigation
>
> I hate to tell you but I think your world is going to shrink. I didn't hit
> the verification with Brave on two different machines. I think that's
> because I'd been there before and they'd dropped a cookie.
If it is Cloudflare it is guaranteed to ruin some days. Cloudflare
doesn't support other than a few select browsers, at a few select
version ranges. Unless the site owner configures it to somehow let other
browsers bypass the "browser check"(*), you'll be left out of it even
with JS enabled. Anubis tends to be much better in this regard.
(*) Formerly "Browser Integrity Check" with proper fallbacks in place,
at least when Cloudflare's team didn't forget these were fallbacks
and shouldn't all require some newer feature like the Origin: header
being set, which is how they tried to make a self-DDoS in the past.
> OMG cookies!
Omnomnomnomnom :-P
--
Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-17 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <negtrbFpk4lU29@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #89961 |
On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:38:41 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote: > If it is Cloudflare it is guaranteed to ruin some days. Cloudflare > doesn't support other than a few select browsers, at a few select > version ranges. Unless the site owner configures it to somehow let other > browsers bypass the "browser check"(*), you'll be left out of it even > with JS enabled. Anubis tends to be much better in this regard. Using mxlinux.org as the test case, I can successfully connect after CloudFlare verification with Brave, Firefox, Tor, and Librewolf. Lynx reports: "Just a moment... REFRESH(360 sec): https://mxlinux.org/ Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue ' That's expected. No JavaScript, no proof of work. Of course if you use a browser without JavaScript in 2026 don't expect to do much on the web. What browser are you using that is reject with JS enabled?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web