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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89055 > unrolled thread

Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2026-07-26 01:09 -0400
Last post2026-07-27 20:04 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 147 — 17 participants

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

Contents

  Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 01:09 -0400
    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-26 07:22 +0000
      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 20:37 -0400
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:16 +0000
    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John McCue <jmclnx@gmail.com.invalid> - 2026-07-26 20:00 +0000
      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-26 22:40 +0200
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:10 -0400
      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-26 21:24 +0000
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:02 +0000
          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 02:59 +0000
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 23:18 -0400
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Epherma <epherma@remort.app.invalid> - 2026-07-26 20:31 -0700
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 04:35 +0000
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 06:37 +0100
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:45 -0400
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:10 +0000
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 19:52 +0000
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 15:17 +0000
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 16:22 +0100
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-27 11:51 -0400
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:22 +0000
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-29 08:25 -0400
                      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 08:04 -0700
                        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 16:09 +0100
                          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:33 +0100
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:35 +0000
                        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:08 +0200
                          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 10:32 -0700
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:10 +0200
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:46 +0000
                              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 12:32 -0700
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:47 +0000
                              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:41 -0400
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-29 22:54 +0200
                          Re: Not Much Linux Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-29 23:30 +0000
                        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:42 +0000
                          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:38 -0400
                            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 04:04 +0000
                              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 12:33 +0200
                      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 16:07 +0100
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-27 04:42 +0000
                Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread (was: Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 08:48 +0100
                  Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 17:19 +0100
                    Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:40 +0000
                      Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 21:22 +0000
                        Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-27 14:44 -0700
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 23:37 +0000
                        Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 21:47 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 00:24 +0000
                            Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 04:23 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 23:46 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:07 +0100
                            Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-29 01:50 +0000
                              Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-07-29 07:58 -0700
                              Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 18:11 +0000
                                Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:16 +0100
                                Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 19:21 +0000
                                  Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 21:54 +0200
                                    Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:43 +0000
                                  Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 21:36 +0000
                                    Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 23:51 +0000
                            Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 02:32 +0000
                        Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-27 17:57 -0400
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 00:03 +0000
                        Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:11 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:38 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:19 +0000
                          Re: Another XLibre and/or Wayland subthread Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-07-29 08:19 -0400
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 16:11 +0000
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:27 +0100
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 04:46 +0000
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 15:47 +0000
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:45 -0400
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 18:03 +0000
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 06:35 +0100
          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-27 16:12 +0000
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 21:07 +0000
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:19 -0400
          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 03:08 +0000
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 23:19 -0400
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 03:30 +0000
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 15:07 +0200
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-27 15:48 +0000
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:27 +0100
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-28 01:02 +0000
                      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:10 +0100
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 00:01 -0400
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:19 +0100
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:37 +0200
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:43 +0000
          Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-27 16:22 +0200
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-27 23:07 +0000
            Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 00:10 -0400
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:20 +0000
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 04:40 +0000
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 23:00 -0400
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 09:37 +0100
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Farley Flud <ff@gnulinux.rocks> - 2026-07-29 18:24 +0000
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-28 10:48 +0200
                  Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-28 22:29 +0000
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 23:02 -0400
                    Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-29 08:36 +0200
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-28 22:57 -0400
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-28 10:24 +0200
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:24 +0100
                Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:22 +0000
              Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:16 +0000
      Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-26 22:51 +0000
        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-26 23:27 +0000
          Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:23 -0400
            Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 04:42 +0000
              Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:43 -0400
                Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:57 +0200
                  Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:06 +0100
                Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-28 15:22 +0000
                  Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:13 +0200
                    Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:17 +0100
                      Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:07 +0200
                        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:15 +0100
                        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:18 +0000
                        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-29 18:59 +0000
                          Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 21:59 +0200
                    Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:15 +0000
                      Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:20 +0100
                      Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:51 +0200
          Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 09:00 +0100
            Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-27 23:47 -0400
              Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 10:18 +0100
              Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:11 +0000
                Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 19:18 +0200
                  Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-29 18:23 +0000
                    Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-29 20:52 +0200
        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 01:10 +0000
        Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2026-07-27 15:45 +0200
          Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-27 16:16 +0000
          Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 18:24 +0100
            Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 19:55 +0200
              Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 09:59 +0100
                Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:59 +0200
                  Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-28 11:25 +0100
                    Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:07 +0000
                    Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-28 22:48 +0200
                  Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-28 17:00 +0000
      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-27 00:59 +0000
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-27 08:54 +0100
      Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-26 21:08 -0400
        Re: Not Much LINUX Stuff of Late "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-27 20:04 +0200

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#89177

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-28 23:02 -0400
Message-ID<XeKdnaCP75gL8PT3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89171
On 7/28/26 18:29, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:48:47 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> 
>> You are obviously talking about Windows here. The Linux world has
>> passed that time two decades ago.
> 
> I wonder how long it will be before Windows no longer gets taken
> seriously as a development platform? I’d say Microsoft is already
> fighting a rearguard action on that front; will the battle be over in,
> say, another 5 years?

   Wishful thinking. M$ is TOO BIG TO FAIL and
   will strong-arm serious competitors.

   Now, under the hood, Winders maybe IS evolving
   into Linux/Unix.

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

#89178

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-29 08:36 +0200
Message-ID<114c70j$1mn5l$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89171
Lawrence D´Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:48:47 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> You are obviously talking about Windows here. The Linux world has
>> passed that time two decades ago.
>
>I wonder how long it will be before Windows no longer gets taken
>seriously as a development platform? I’d say Microsoft is already
>fighting a rearguard action on that front; will the battle be over in,
>say, another 5 years?

Really new stuff is being developed for the web or as mobile app.
Things for installation on the Linux or Windows desktop are shipped as
Electron.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

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

#89175

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-28 22:57 -0400
Message-ID<XeKdnaaP75je8fT3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89138
On 7/28/26 00:20, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-07-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
>>     Actually, that it's SO difficult to install said
>>     stupid little utilities these days - doesn't give
>>     me a good feeling for the future.
> 
> I'm still a fan of static-linked binaries.  No DLL hell,
> no installer that has to know where to scatter a myriad
> of files, no breakages when a library gets updated.
> Just run the one file from anywhere and it Just Works.

   I think that mess is why we're seeing more and
   more Linux apps come as "App-Images" - all in
   one. Gets past a lot of distro/version issues,
   though the code is bigger. These days it may
   not matter so much if it's "bigger".

   Python is kinda nefarious for being version/subversion
   picky. So, you make an executable, containing everything,
   and it'll Just Work across a much broader range of
   systems.

   I've complained a lot about package and update
   dependency shit before - haven't changed my mind.
   Linux distros used to be 'simpler', less probs,
   but NOW ... yikes ! Rolling distros 'solve' the
   probs by completely replacing yer 2+ GB existing
   system with the latest image. Excessive !

   Anyway, if you want to distribute anything, DO
   think "app-image". It'll Just Work in far more
   places.

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

#89142

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-28 10:24 +0200
Message-ID<1149p06$1hbvs$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89136
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>On 7/27/26 10:22, Marc Haber wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>    Look at MX and a few others ... the start-up options
>>>    allow you to run a systemd or sysV version.
>> 
>> I am very interested in knowing who wastes weeks of their lifetime to
>> write initscripts for Debian packages. Those people must be real
>> fanatics.
>
>   Hey, we NEED those fanatics !
>
>   A good init script is worth its weight in gold.

A good systemd unit needs a tenth of the time and does more. I have
NEVER seen an init scrip that even tried to reach the security level
that is possible with 80 lines of systemd unit code. And that is not
even counting the time needed by building chroots and keeping them
current.

>   READ one sometime ... dozens, hundreds, of steps
>   and checks and tweaks just to install one stupid
>   little utility. The energy/skill to do ALL that
>   by hand from memory ... it barely exists.

And it has always been a waste of human time.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

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

#89149

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-28 10:24 +0100
Message-ID<1149sg6$3tkg5$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89136
On 28/07/2026 05:10, c186282 wrote:
> The enthusiasm for 'free' OS/software isn't what
>    it used to be - and there's more MONEY writing
>    evil JS spyware for browsers.

The enthusiasm for 'money' is also less prevalent than it used to be and 
is mainly a US centric meme.

All you need is enough to fund your chosen lifestyle.

"Money doesn't make you happy, but it does take the misery out of being 
poor"
-- 
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and 
all women"

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

#89162

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-07-28 17:22 +0000
Message-ID<ncs6qbFovvdU45@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89149
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:24:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 28/07/2026 05:10, c186282 wrote:
>> The enthusiasm for 'free' OS/software isn't what
>>    it used to be - and there's more MONEY writing evil JS spyware for
>>    browsers.
> 
> The enthusiasm for 'money' is also less prevalent than it used to be and
> is mainly a US centric meme.
> 
> All you need is enough to fund your chosen lifestyle.

I've always operated on that principle and my lifestyle is minimalist.  I 
don't think it's prevalent in the US. I certainly made more 'money' 
working on the east coast but some things just aren't worth it.

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

#89161

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-07-28 17:16 +0000
Message-ID<ncs6g3FovvdU44@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89136
On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 00:10:16 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    READ one sometime ... dozens, hundreds, of steps and checks and
>    tweaks just to install one stupid little utility. The energy/skill to
>    do ALL that by hand from memory ... it barely exists.

I'm not sure I could do it anymore. 'sudo systemctl enable 
mosquitto.service' has spoiled me. (yeah, there is such a thing. It's a 
MQTT broker.)

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

#89070 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-07-26 22:51 +0000
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<114631q$2ojqr$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89065
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:

> For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script,
> no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing
> with cloudflare.

“no java script” on the one hand, yet “can read any site” on the other.

Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without
refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that.

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

#89072 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromRobert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com>
Date2026-07-26 23:27 +0000
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<114655s$2pc38$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89070
At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> 
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
> 
> > For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script,
> > no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing
> > with cloudflare.
> 
> “no java script” on the one hand, yet “can read any site” on the other.
> 
> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without
> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that.

Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-)

>                 
> 

-- 
Robert Heller             -- Cell: 413-658-7953 GV: 978-633-5364
Deepwoods Software        -- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
heller@deepsoft.com       -- Webhosting Services

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

#89081 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-26 21:23 -0400
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<SBGdnWsy5-8cLvv3nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89072
On 7/26/26 19:27, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 26 Jul 2026 22:51:39 -0000 (UTC) Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:00:30 -0000 (UTC), John McCue wrote:
>>
>>> For example, users want a browser that blocks ads, no java script,
>>> no AI, fast and lite on memory and can read any site without dealing
>>> with cloudflare.
>>
>> “no java script” on the one hand, yet “can read any site” on the other.
>>
>> Why not wish for a car that you can drive for infinite miles without
>> refuelling? You might actually be more likely to get that.
> 
> Sure, an EV with a trolly pole or pantagraph. :-)

   Heh heh ... yea ... no such thing as infinite
   energy.

   They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when
   I was a little kid. Wonder what happened ?

   Did read about a few test roads where they bury
   magnetic coils - these, by inductive coupling,
   power the vehicle motor.

   Of course SOMEBODY has to pay for all that power ...
   ain't nothin' "free".

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

#89091 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-07-27 04:42 +0000
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<nco5u4FovvdU24@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89081
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>    Wonder what happened ?

Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on 
small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never 
happened.

I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were 
working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.

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

#89126 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-27 23:43 -0400
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<ViSdnXD3lb4XuPX3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89091
On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>     Wonder what happened ?
> 
> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
> happened.
> 
> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were
> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.

   Turbines aren't great for automobiles.

   We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are
   not very fuel efficient and take too long to
   wind up and down.

   So, no "Batmobiles".

   "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel
   as the recharge generator ... those can be
   very efficient.

   40s/50s, some of the 60s ... "atomic" everything
   was the big promise. Radiation ? No, no - "sunshine
   units" !  :-)

   Everything from yer wristwatch to yer flying car,
   PLUTONIUM POWERED !!! They'll pay YOU for using
   the excess power !!!

   Of course it was all just cover for the excessive
   atmospheric bomb-testing in the southwest. Ain't
   the Marlboro's that killed the cowboys, it was
   the FALLOUT.

   Found a map once - NOT a good picture.

   I'm old enough to have seen those old news and
   docu-series TV shows. Fuzzy TV with static.
   My fave was "Union Carbide's - The 21st Century -
   with Walter Cronkite". Walter really was a
   tech enthusiast. You were promised 'atomic'
   everything - including the flying cars - and
   you MIGHT be able to have a COMPUTER that'll
   just squeeze in yer hall closet with enough power
   to calc yer tax bill and remember some meat-loaf
   recipes !

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

#89151 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-28 11:57 +0200
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<ncrcoaF9t46U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89126
On 2026-07-28 05:43, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>     They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>>     Wonder what happened ?
>>
>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>> happened.
>>
>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There 
>> were
>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
> 
>    Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
> 
>    We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are
>    not very fuel efficient and take too long to
>    wind up and down.
> 
>    So, no "Batmobiles".
> 
>    "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel
>    as the recharge generator ... those can be
>    very efficient.

There was an hybrid with a turbine and a generator. Volvo? They made 
about a dozen of them, then disappeared, no talk about them.

ChatGPT just explained to me what happened. Basically small turbines, 
even at constant speed for a generator, are trouble.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#89153 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-28 11:06 +0100
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<1149uu8$3tkg5$15@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89151
On 28/07/2026 10:57, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> There was an hybrid with a turbine and a generator. Volvo? They made 
> about a dozen of them, then disappeared, no talk about them.
> 
> ChatGPT just explained to me what happened. Basically small turbines, 
> even at constant speed for a generator, are trouble.

Yes.  An open cycle gas turbine is only about 37% efficient and that 
relies on running at a constant temperature and speed and having 
excellent tolerances between fan blades and housings.
Percentage wise those tolerances cannot be maintained at smaller diameters.
And spool up times are measured in tens of seconds. Not fractions of seconds

Road use - especially urban use - suits electric cars perfectly if only 
we had the sort of batteries you find in Marvel comics. But not real life.

All these things have been tried, and discarded simply because they were 
not as good as what we had already.

We, as a society, are paying a high price for EVs.

-- 
“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]

#89156 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-07-28 15:22 +0000
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<114ahfb$5fav$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89126
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>>     Wonder what happened ?
>> 
>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>> happened.
>> 
>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were
>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
> 
>   Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
> 
>   We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel 
>   efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
> 
>   So, no "Batmobiles".
> 
>   "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge 
>   generator ...  those can be very efficient.

Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines".  Run them at 
constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity 
for battery recharge.

But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for 
a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion 
process.

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

#89188 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-29 19:13 +0200
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<ncuqmbFos63U2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89156
On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>      They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little kid.
>>>>      Wonder what happened ?
>>>
>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept based on
>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>> happened.
>>>
>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. There were
>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>
>>    Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>
>>    We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>>    efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>
>>    So, no "Batmobiles".
>>
>>    "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>>    generator ...  those can be very efficient.
> 
> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines".  Run them at
> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
> for battery recharge.
> 
> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
> process.
> 

In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the exhaust.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#89190 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-29 18:17 +0100
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<114dcj4$11l04$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89188
On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>      They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little 
>>>>> kid.
>>>>>      Wonder what happened ?
>>>>
>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept 
>>>> based on
>>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>>> happened.
>>>>
>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. 
>>>> There were
>>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>>
>>>    Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>>
>>>    We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>>>    efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>>
>>>    So, no "Batmobiles".
>>>
>>>    "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>>>    generator ...  those can be very efficient.
>>
>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines".  Run them at
>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
>> for battery recharge.
>>
>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
>> process.
>>
> 
> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the 
> exhaust.
> 
Its called a turbocharger.

-- 
“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]

#89193 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-29 20:07 +0200
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<ncutqlFos63U5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89190
On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>      They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a little 
>>>>>> kid.
>>>>>>      Wonder what happened ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept 
>>>>> based on
>>>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>>>> happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. 
>>>>> There were
>>>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>>>
>>>>    Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>>>
>>>>    We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>>>>    efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>>>
>>>>    So, no "Batmobiles".
>>>>
>>>>    "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>>>>    generator ...  those can be very efficient.
>>>
>>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines".  Run them at
>>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
>>> for battery recharge.
>>>
>>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
>>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
>>> process.
>>>
>>
>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the 
>> exhaust.
>>
> Its called a turbocharger.
> 

On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I 
don't know what they actually do.

I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the 
motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant.

What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more 
electricity instead.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#89196 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-07-29 19:15 +0100
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<114dfvb$12son$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89193
On 29/07/2026 19:07, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-29 19:17, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 29/07/2026 18:13, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-07-28 17:22, Rich wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/26 00:42, rbowman wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 21:23:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      They DID promise atomic-powered cars back when I was a 
>>>>>>> little kid.
>>>>>>>      Wonder what happened ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ford didn't make any promises with the Nucleon. It was a concept 
>>>>>> based on
>>>>>> small, lightweight reactors becoming available in the future. Never
>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do remember Chrysler's turbine car from the '64 World's Fair. 
>>>>>> There were
>>>>>> working prototypes but that didn't prove out either.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Turbines aren't great for automobiles.
>>>>>
>>>>>    We CAN make 'em cheap enough now - but they are not very fuel
>>>>>    efficient and take too long to wind up and down.
>>>>>
>>>>>    So, no "Batmobiles".
>>>>>
>>>>>    "Hybrids", using a small constant-speed diesel as the recharge
>>>>>    generator ...  those can be very efficient.
>>>>
>>>> Which is also a "usage point" for "turbines".  Run them at
>>>> constant-speed spinning a generator, then use the resulting electricity
>>>> for battery recharge.
>>>>
>>>> But you still have to deal with the "not terribly efficient" factor for
>>>> a car sized model, plus the heat generated by the turbine combustion
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In theory, you could run a second turbine on those hot gases of the 
>>> exhaust.
>>>
>> Its called a turbocharger.
>>
> 
> On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I 
> don't know what they actually do.
> 
A gas turbine *is* a turbocharger feeding a combustion chamber. And that 
is it
Shaft horswpeower is taken off the turbocharger spindle


> I understand a turbocharger generates compressed clean air to feed the 
> motor intake; this is not needed for a turbine car plant.
> 
LOL! It is precisely what a turbine engine runs on!
A turbocharger delivers compressed clean air to feed the  combustion 
chamber, and the exhaust gases spin that compressor


> What a car would do is use the exhaust hot gases to generate more 
> electricity instead.
> 

Well in CCGT power stations they strap a steam turbine on the back
Its a but clumsy for a car tho.

-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

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

#89199 — Re: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again

Fromrbowman <bowman@montana.com>
Date2026-07-29 18:18 +0000
SubjectRe: Open-Source Armchair Critics At It Again
Message-ID<ncuugeFoulgU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89193
On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 20:07:17 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> On piston motors, yes. I have never seen a turbine powered car, so I
> don't know what they actually do.

I have seen a turbine powered car -- but that was 1964. Chrysler built a 
few for real world testing but dropped the project. iirc firing up a 
turbine was as complicated as getting a Stanley Steamer underway.

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

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web