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 | 2026-08-27 03:52 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 118 — 18 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 Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2026-08-29 16:05 +0000
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 !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 21:05 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-24 00:54 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:18 +0200
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-24 21:13 +0000
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:01 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-25 11:38 +0100
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 22:55 -0400
Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:08 +0200
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 ...) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-24 09:21 +0200
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-25 00:33 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-25 14:11 +0200
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-26 03:02 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-26 17:53 +0000
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 02:57 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-27 15:08 +0000
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 ...) Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> - 2026-08-26 13:59 +0300
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 13:53 +0100
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 01:28 -0400
Re: Legacy computer in embedded industial systems (Re: Oh Gods ...) "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-27 08:32 +0200
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
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-26 11:29 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-26 18:08 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-26 11:18 -0700
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-27 03:52 -0400
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 23:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <36ucneRaq_oegBT3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90288 |
On 8/21/26 10:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/08/2026 15:01, 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 >> > Nobody runs linux on an 8088. They run DOS. DOS, to a point CP/M-86, really IS better for an 8088. Tiny and functional. > You don't expect to run up to date shit on old hardware, unless its > retro and hobby. > I see that RSX-11 with TCP/IP is still available and maintained for a > PDP-11 > > https://groups.google.com/g/pidp-11/c/ow5A0h4CuNw > > If you want to run linux on 32 bit, install a legacy image., If you are > concerned about security buy a 64 bit machine, cheapskate! > > Linux is way better than MS or MAC OS/X in allowing old hardware to be > supported, but there is a limit... As chips, and environments and needs, develop expect all 8/16 bit stuff to quietly go away - followed by 32-bit. It's been a 64-bit world for a long time now. No 128-bit CPUs however. Guess there's no POINT in them for now. Long long back I was shopping in a computer store (remember those ?) and the guy wondered why anybody would want 16-bit chips. I said "graphics". Quite correct, but that was soon just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Ah but those Commodores/Atari's/CoCo's were FUN ! Also simple enough so you could UNDERSTAND what was going on and why. A good computer course should start with PICs/Ards or related and then on to like a VIC-20 or C64. THEN the newer/better. Hmm ... teach 'em to operate a virtual giant telescope with an 8-bit chip running FORTH. Have a relative who is GREAT at FORTH, was key to a lot of science back in the day. Dead-slow serial access/re-programming of things on remote mountaintops or in space. Like 110 baud (or less) connections - I think 50 baud is still a 'standard', slower than yer TV remote. Not sure, do the Voyagers run on FORTH ??? Yes, HAVE used 110 baud for old devices. Really easy to read text live as it comes in :-) I always install a version still - habit - but haven't actually used it in a long time. Maybe I should get my hand back in a little. Makes Python look rolly-polly FAT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| 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 | 2026-08-23 02:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <j72cnbdzwuctBBf3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90359 |
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 ....... 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 13:32 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <4b2rlmx9i1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90373 |
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. > > 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. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 13:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <116envi$1sako$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90383 |
On 23/08/2026 12:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: > 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. Exactly. Today you would use a Raspberry PI probably running Linux and create custom PC boards to attach to it. Back then you designed ISA cards ran DOS and programmed the thing in C or turbo pascal . My first job as a freelance programmer was writing code for exactly that - a high speed serial interface connected to a massive grid of lightbulbs to form a display for sports venues. Huge fun -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 14:47 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <8o6rlmxbih.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90391 |
On 2026-08-23 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 23/08/2026 12:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> 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. > > Exactly. > > Today you would use a Raspberry PI probably running Linux and create > custom PC boards to attach to it. > > Back then you designed ISA cards ran DOS and programmed the thing in C > or turbo pascal . > > My first job as a freelance programmer was writing code for exactly that > - a high speed serial interface connected to a massive grid of > lightbulbs to form a display for sports venues. > > Huge fun I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. Like one to test car brakes. Think a big electric motor moving an axis with several big iron wheels, to simulate inertia, and at the end a car brake system, complete (one wheel only, of course). Then speed it up, apply brakes, at several different speeds and hydraulic pressures. Also supply "wind". Measure temperatures, torques, speeds. Or maintain speed with the motor while the brake is applied, measure things. Find out at what temperature a brake fades and how (is there warning to the driver, or does the brake fade completely?) Huge fun, miserable pay. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 14:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <116eses$1uqt1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90393 |
On 23/08/2026 13:47, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-23 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 23/08/2026 12:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Exactly. >> >> Today you would use a Raspberry PI probably running Linux and create >> custom PC boards to attach to it. >> >> Back then you designed ISA cards ran DOS and programmed the thing in C >> or turbo pascal . >> >> My first job as a freelance programmer was writing code for exactly >> that - a high speed serial interface connected to a massive grid of >> lightbulbs to form a display for sports venues. >> >> Huge fun > > I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. > Like one to test car brakes. > > Think a big electric motor moving an axis with several big iron wheels, > to simulate inertia, and at the end a car brake system, complete (one > wheel only, of course). Then speed it up, apply brakes, at several > different speeds and hydraulic pressures. Also supply "wind". Measure > temperatures, torques, speeds. Or maintain speed with the motor while > the brake is applied, measure things. Find out at what temperature a > brake fades and how (is there warning to the driver, or does the brake > fade completely?) > > Huge fun, miserable pay. > That tends to be a common pairing -- New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in someone else's pocket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 18:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <nf0spdF5rktU21@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90393 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 14:47:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. > Like one to test car brakes. I worked on a system to control test chambers for copier power supplies. Each test rig was controlled by an XT, with an AT acting as the supervisor. State of the art c.1985.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-23 21:40 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <6uurlmxvmv.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #90404 |
On 2026-08-23 20:34, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 14:47:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. >> Like one to test car brakes. > > I worked on a system to control test chambers for copier power supplies. > Each test rig was controlled by an XT, with an AT acting as the > supervisor. State of the art c.1985. Mine was a decade later; we used a pentium, msdos, C, and for this project, labwindows. Later we also used Labview on Win 95. Old projects used compiled basic. We owed a lot to Basic, because it was what was used by engineers of several types that were not programmers, but had ideas about how to do things with computers in their respective fields. Or simply, they invented things that could be done with computers. I have a lot of respect for Basic and those pioneers. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 01:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <nf1kpuF5rktU27@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90411 |
On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 21:40:22 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: > We owed a lot to Basic, because it was what was used by engineers of > several types that were not programmers, but had ideas about how to do > things with computers in their respective fields. Or simply, they > invented things that could be done with computers. The XTs that were wired to the environmental chambers used BASIC. I worked on the AT that was the central controller for the 12 stations and used C. About a year after I'd finished the project GE contacted me. They wanted revisions to the XT end and the original programmer was long gone. That's one of the few times I did much with BASIC. The other was the IBM 5120 that offered a choice of BASIC or APL. That was an easy decision. I did do a minor update to a GIS utility that was in BASIC after swearing the GIS guy to secrecy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 02:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <ViCdnRBVJp5bfxb3nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90411 |
On 8/23/26 15:40, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-23 20:34, rbowman wrote: >> On Sun, 23 Aug 2026 14:47:36 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. >>> Like one to test car brakes. >> >> I worked on a system to control test chambers for copier power supplies. >> Each test rig was controlled by an XT, with an AT acting as the >> supervisor. State of the art c.1985. > > Mine was a decade later; we used a pentium, msdos, C, and for this > project, labwindows. Later we also used Labview on Win 95. Old projects > used compiled basic. > > We owed a lot to Basic, because it was what was used by engineers of > several types that were not programmers, but had ideas about how to do > things with computers in their respective fields. Or simply, they > invented things that could be done with computers. > > I have a lot of respect for Basic and those pioneers. BASIC was perfectly OK. It was expanded quickly from what you got on the original IBM-PCs and COULD handle anything - though some things in a kinda clunky manner. With BASCOM yer BASIC would run REALLY fast. But moved to Turbo Pascal as soon as it came out. Don't know why people are SO eager to shit on BASIC however ......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 21:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <nf3q0pF5rktU38@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90435 |
On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 02:21:28 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Don't know why people are SO eager to shit on BASIC however ...... My bone to pick has to do with its influence on COM rather than the language itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variant_type_(COM)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-24 00:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Oh Gods - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! |
| Message-ID | <l9icnfvKBY14Uxb3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90393 |
On 8/23/26 08:47, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-08-23 14:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 23/08/2026 12:32, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> 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. >> >> Exactly. >> >> Today you would use a Raspberry PI probably running Linux and create >> custom PC boards to attach to it. >> >> Back then you designed ISA cards ran DOS and programmed the thing in C >> or turbo pascal . >> >> My first job as a freelance programmer was writing code for exactly >> that - a high speed serial interface connected to a massive grid of >> lightbulbs to form a display for sports venues. >> >> Huge fun > > I programmed industrial test bed machines. Machines to test machines. > Like one to test car brakes. > > Think a big electric motor moving an axis with several big iron wheels, > to simulate inertia, and at the end a car brake system, complete (one > wheel only, of course). Then speed it up, apply brakes, at several > different speeds and hydraulic pressures. Also supply "wind". Measure > temperatures, torques, speeds. Or maintain speed with the motor while > the brake is applied, measure things. Find out at what temperature a > brake fades and how (is there warning to the driver, or does the brake > fade completely?) > > Huge fun, miserable pay. Indeed, huge fun ! And, long long back, that was as important as the lousy paycheck :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web