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 | 14 on this page of 74 — 14 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 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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 18:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nerj2sFpub2U53@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90287 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:01:38 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> 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. > > I wonder what they'll do when the first kernel appears that can't be > compiled on x86 https://tinyurl.com/4w57s6uy https://www.techradar.com/pro/linux-pulls-support-for-ancient-cpu- unsurprisingly-linus-torvald-says-there-is-zero-real-reason-to-keep-a-37- year-old-intel-486-cpu-going "Ingo Molnar, a long-time Linux kernel developer, authored a patch that eliminates key configuration options related to the 486 CPU, including CONFIG_M486SX, CONFIG_M486, and CONFIG_MELAN. These changes, once merged, will prevent users from building kernel images that target the 486 architecture." It's been discussed for some time but the 7.1 kernel drops 486 and 586. I assume that means you couldn't compile 7.1 on a 486 with an older kernel.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 01:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116avkb$olsn$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90287 |
On Fri, 21 Aug 2026 16:01:38 +0200, Marc Haber wrote: > I wonder what they'll do when the first kernel appears that can't be > compiled on x86 Is that likely to happen, for as long as the kernel supports 32-bit addressing on so many non-x86 architectures? Looking at the current arch list <https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/arch>, there’s arm (not arm64), m68k, also (both 32/64 bits) mips, powerpc and sparc, just from the ones I can easily tell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvecfqtsz4.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #90312 |
Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes: > Marc Haber wrote: > >> I wonder what they'll do when the first kernel appears that can't be >> compiled on x86 > > Is that likely to happen, for as long as the kernel supports 32-bit > addressing on so many non-x86 architectures? > > Looking at the current arch list > <https://github.com/torvalds/linux/tree/master/arch>, there’s arm (not > arm64), m68k, also (both 32/64 bits) mips, powerpc and sparc, just > from the ones I can easily tell. 486 support was removed in April: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0972ba5605a0a0cd8a9e74558b97a9c9626adfb5 586-class CPUs remain supported but only if they have RDTSC (so AMD K5 is gone) https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git/commit/?h=x86/cpu&id=dbafa16ec2b6be40055db181c99f2529b20dd951 Pentium and later are still supported AFAIK. Looking at non-x86 platforms, armv7 support could in in the mid 2030s: https://lwn.net/Articles/1035727/ Couldn’t find anything definitive about other architectures. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 23:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Nd-dnZIOl659ihT3nZ2dnZfqnPsAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90287 |
On 8/21/26 10:01, Marc Haber wrote: > TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> 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. > > I wonder what they'll do when the first kernel appears that can't be > compiled on x86 Think we're about there now. Hell, Intel CPUs won't even run 8/16 code anymore. Still a lot of Pi-1/2s out there still doing their important little jobs, 32 bit. Likely it'll be Pi that has to maintain one compatible OS version for a few years more. But then ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 08:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <116c54q$14e8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90287 |
On 2026-08-21 10:01, Marc Haber wrote: > TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> 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. > > I wonder what they'll do when the first kernel appears that can't be > compiled on x86 > That'll be up to our developers. Support for i586 was dropped in favor of i686 mostly because i686 chips support sse2, but of course that's at best a stopgap in the overall 32-bit situation. I have a Dell Inspiron 5100 laptop that runs Mageia 10, though not all the available software. The limiting factor isn't usually the P4 cpu, but the old Radeon RV200 GPU that it has. It goes against the grain, for me at least, to send perfectly good running hardware off to the recycler, just because it is "experienced." TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <116c5je$143jr$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90337 |
On 22/08/2026 13:36, 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." Sadly that is the way of the world You don't see many horse drawn carriages around these days even though there are many in running condition in museums, Accept that if you want to run old hardware, it will be booting old software unless you and your chums are prepared to do a huge amount of work resurrecting old software. Check our Usagi Electric channel on you tube for the USAs oldest running valve computer, or a PDP/11 running a full tcp/ip suite But he is restoring these things for history, fun and museums. You cant expect to buy a PDP/11 and download and run Linux on it. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <116d318$1et8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90339 |
On 2026-08-22 08:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 22/08/2026 13:36, 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." > > Sadly that is the way of the world > > You don't see many horse drawn carriages around these days even though > there are many in running condition in museums, > > Accept that if you want to run old hardware, it will be booting old > software unless you and your chums are prepared to do a huge amount of > work resurrecting old software. > > Check our Usagi Electric channel on you tube for the USAs oldest running > valve computer, or a PDP/11 running a full tcp/ip suite > > But he is restoring these things for history, fun and museums. > > You cant expect to buy a PDP/11 and download and run Linux on it. > Every once in a while, if I'm in the mood, I'll dig out the old Atari 800, throw in a cartridge, and play a game of Star Raiders. And it's still fun. The 800 (not the 2600 game console!) was my first personal computer. Maybe I'm too sentimental, but it will have a home here as long as I do. TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-22 22:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <116d87u$1gcgq$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90337 |
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.
[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 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web