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

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

What's Wrong With LinuxMint ?

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

Contents

  What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 01:44 -0400
    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 01:59 -0400
    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 06:05 +0000
      Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-18 08:10 +0000
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-18 11:33 +0100
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:16 -0400
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:32 +0000
            Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:05 +0100
              Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 13:23 +0000
                Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:10 +0000
                Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 15:15 +0100
              Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:01 +0000
                Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 15:24 +0100
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:57 +0000
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:03 +0100
      Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:07 -0400
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 03:42 +0000
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 02:14 -0400
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:13 +0100
            Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 14:14 +0000
              Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 15:27 +0100
                Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-19 16:57 +0000
        Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:02 +0100
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 13:54 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#90034 — What's Wrong With LinuxMint ?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#90038

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

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

   No pixie girl - so downloaded.

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

#90039

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

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

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

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

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

#90045

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

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

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

Dear Mr. c-cipher,

Please run:

$ ntpdate -q time.nist.gov

And post what you see.  Mine says:

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

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

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

#90050

vallor wrote:

> Dear Mr. c-cipher

Cipher?  I assumed it was a velocity ...

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

#90085

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


   Checked, MY clock is dead on.

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

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

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

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

#90091

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

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

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

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

#90122

On 19/08/2026 04:32, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:16:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the antenna
>>     is many miles away.
>>     Weak signal almost always, perhaps packet errors too.
> 
> I had a Verizon MiFi for years and it served me well but I think the
> closest tower is 6 miles away. Youtube, streaming Netflix, and so forth
> wasn't a problem but I rarely saw 20 Mbis. StarLink is a reliable 100 Mbis
> and makes the world of difference for updates, downloading isos, and so
> forth. It's also $40 / month cheaper.

You actually have starlink?

Well I guess in rural USA fuck the rednecks is the average ISPs response.


-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90125

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/08/2026 04:32, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:16:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the 
>>>     antenna is many miles away.  Weak signal almost always, perhaps 
>>>     packet errors too.
>> 
>> I had a Verizon MiFi for years and it served me well but I think the 
>> closest tower is 6 miles away.  Youtube, streaming Netflix, and so 
>> forth wasn't a problem but I rarely saw 20 Mbis.  StarLink is a 
>> reliable 100 Mbis and makes the world of difference for updates, 
>> downloading isos, and so forth.  It's also $40 / month cheaper.
> 
> You actually have starlink?
> 
> Well I guess in rural USA fuck the rednecks is the average ISPs 
> response.

It very much is, just dressed up as "much too capital intensive for any 
reasonable ROI", but in the end the meaning is the same.

And it comes down to density.  Outside of the urban/surburban areas, 
the rural USA is *very* sparse.  The ISP might have to run eight miles 
(12.9km) of "cable" (be that fiber /or/ coax, whatever the link may be) 
before they reach the next, single, house to which they can sell an 
internet connection.

The monthly bill to repay the capital expense of hanging 12.9km of 
cable for "one house" would be such that no one would pay (or could 
afford to pay) the ISP bill.  So they simply don't wire up the rural 
areas.

Those same rural areas have electricity and POTS phone service (where 
it has not been retired) only because back in the 30's through 50's 
there were major government programs spending tax dollars to "wire up 
the USA" and so the capital cost of installing 12.9km of "wire" just to 
connect one home was borne by the govt., not the "ISP" (phone company 
or electric company back then).  When the service providers received 
the transport medium effectively free of capital expenditure they could 
then profit from their usual monthly fees, and were happy to oblige at 
that point.

But with the internet, while there have been half hearted pushes to get 
the corporate ISP's to "wire up rural areas" with some token tax money 
offers, there has been nothing of the scale of the push from the 30's 
through 50's and so much of 'rural' America has no internet besides, 
maybe, dialup or satellite.

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

#90139

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 13:23:06 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:


> Those same rural areas have electricity and POTS phone service (where it
> has not been retired) only because back in the 30's through 50's there
> were major government programs spending tax dollars to "wire up the USA"
> and so the capital cost of installing 12.9km of "wire" just to connect
> one home was borne by the govt., not the "ISP" (phone company or
> electric company back then).  When the service providers received the
> transport medium effectively free of capital expenditure they could then
> profit from their usual monthly fees, and were happy to oblige at that
> point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_Electrification_Act

I'm still in an electric co-op. It's never much, maybe $50 a year, but 
it's nice to get money back as a member. It was very nice when the company 
serving the city was privatized and rates jumped. There phone system is 
copper. No DSL or that other fancy stuff.

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

#90141

On 19/08/2026 14:23, Rich wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 19/08/2026 04:32, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:16:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the
>>>>      antenna is many miles away.  Weak signal almost always, perhaps
>>>>      packet errors too.
>>>
>>> I had a Verizon MiFi for years and it served me well but I think the
>>> closest tower is 6 miles away.  Youtube, streaming Netflix, and so
>>> forth wasn't a problem but I rarely saw 20 Mbis.  StarLink is a
>>> reliable 100 Mbis and makes the world of difference for updates,
>>> downloading isos, and so forth.  It's also $40 / month cheaper.
>>
>> You actually have starlink?
>>
>> Well I guess in rural USA fuck the rednecks is the average ISPs
>> response.
> 
> It very much is, just dressed up as "much too capital intensive for any
> reasonable ROI", but in the end the meaning is the same.
> 
> And it comes down to density.  Outside of the urban/surburban areas,
> the rural USA is *very* sparse.  The ISP might have to run eight miles
> (12.9km) of "cable" (be that fiber /or/ coax, whatever the link may be)
> before they reach the next, single, house to which they can sell an
> internet connection.
> 
> The monthly bill to repay the capital expense of hanging 12.9km of
> cable for "one house" would be such that no one would pay (or could
> afford to pay) the ISP bill.  So they simply don't wire up the rural
> areas.
> 
Which is an argument for some aspects of socialism. Socialise the cost.
The UK to an extent has done that allowing BT iopenreach to make 
reasonably obscene profits and I think get government grants to achieve 
'95% populations covered at 10Mbps or better'

Universal Service Obligation (USO) Rules

     The Right: Eligible homes and businesses can request a connection 
delivering a minimum download speed of 10 Mbps if their current speed 
falls below this.

Cost Cap: Openreach is required to build the connection unless the 
per-premises installation cost passes a statutory cap (currently set at 
£3,400). If it exceeds this cap, the customer or business can still fund 
the remaining balance to get connected.

New Builds: Recent building regulations mandate that all new home 
developments must include gigabit-ready physical telecoms infrastructure.

Essentially broadband is regadred here in te same way as roads - 
something that increaes the economic activity of the country and is 
therefore worth ensuring.

> Those same rural areas have electricity and POTS phone service (where
> it has not been retired) only because back in the 30's through 50's
> there were major government programs spending tax dollars to "wire up
> the USA" and so the capital cost of installing 12.9km of "wire" just to
> connect one home was borne by the govt., not the "ISP" (phone company
> or electric company back then).  When the service providers received
> the transport medium effectively free of capital expenditure they could
> then profit from their usual monthly fees, and were happy to oblige at
> that point.
> 
Yes. Something similar is arguably needed for broadband.

Actually stringing passive fibre is not that expensive in terms of the 
fibre, Its finding a safe place to string it.

In the UK its complicated by high population density and private and 
ownership: Most fibres have  to travel alongside roads - above or below.

> But with the internet, while there have been half hearted pushes to get
> the corporate ISP's to "wire up rural areas" with some token tax money
> offers, there has been nothing of the scale of the push from the 30's
> through 50's and so much of 'rural' America has no internet besides,
> maybe, dialup or satellite.
> 

Indeed. Its only when social mores decide that actually some form of 
socialised broadband and medical services are actually more a benefit to 
them than a cost, that stuff starts to happen.


-- 
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll 
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

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

#90137

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 14:05:24 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 19/08/2026 04:32, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:16:09 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the
>>>     antenna is many miles away.
>>>     Weak signal almost always, perhaps packet errors too.
>> 
>> I had a Verizon MiFi for years and it served me well but I think the
>> closest tower is 6 miles away. Youtube, streaming Netflix, and so forth
>> wasn't a problem but I rarely saw 20 Mbis. StarLink is a reliable 100
>> Mbis and makes the world of difference for updates, downloading isos,
>> and so forth. It's also $40 / month cheaper.
> 
> You actually have starlink?
> 
> Well I guess in rural USA fuck the rednecks is the average ISPs
> response.

I'm not too far from the center of town -- but it's a rural road with few 
houses although it's built up over the years. It was never worthwhile for 
the cable people to bother with. I don't expect to see fiber. Cell towers 
are also placed to serve population areas.

This state is 147,000 square miles with about 1 million people. Great 
Britain is 80.000 square miles with 67 million people. We're not exactly 
cheek by jowl.

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

#90143

On 19/08/2026 15:01, rbowman wrote:
> This state is 147,000 square miles with about 1 million people.
> Great Britain is 80.000 square miles with 67 million people.

...who bothered to record themselves on the census...


> We're not exactly cheek by jowl.

I know. One of the best things about Montana/Utah etc etc.

BUT If you have a bit of kit that can dig a ditch, and a reel of optical 
fibre, and friendly neighbours who might even kick in a few dollars, you 
can fibre  up your own area, and make a localised ISP that buts bulk 
broadband off a big carrier

Then when it shows profit sell it to the big ISP

-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90118

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 8/18/26 04:10, vallor wrote:
>> At 18 Aug 2026 06:05:55 GMT, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 01:44:51 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tried FFox and Chromium the past few days. The site is ULTRA-slow,
>>>> useless.
>>>
>>> Brave browser. Went to the site, paged through the instructions, went to
>>> the Cinnamon download, selected the Clarkson mirror, and the download
>>> started immediately. Canceled the download.
>>>
>>> Like I've said before you have a lot more problems than the average bear.
>> 
>> Well, his clock is off -- probably not enough to effect TLS, but
>> figuring that out is above my current paygrade.
>> 
>> Dear Mr. c-cipher,
>> 
>> Please run:
>> 
>> $ ntpdate -q time.nist.gov
>> 
>> And post what you see.  Mine says:
>> 
>> 2026-08-18 01:06:57.105142 (-0700) +0.000209 +/- 0.016759 time.nist.gov 132.163.96.6 s1 no-leap
> 
> 
>   Checked, MY clock is dead on.
> 
>   Anyway, they took away my hardwire and gave me a 5G where the 
>   antenna is many miles away.  Weak signal almost always, perhaps 
>   packet errors too.
> 
>   But why the Mint site so notably ???

Perhaps Mint's servers were put on the other side of another 5G 
gateway?

>   Weirdness spanned DAYS too.

Or, perhaps the AI bots were busying downloading, in parallel, every 
file offered on the Mint website, over-saturating Mint's outbound 
network link.

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

#90121

On 19/08/2026 03:16, c186282 wrote:
> Weak signal almost always, perhaps packet
>    errors too.
> 
>    But why the Mint site so notably ???
>    Weirdness spanned DAYS too.

Different mint servers have different loading at different times

Its often better for me to download from other than UK based ones

-- 
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

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

#90083

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

   It's true.

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

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

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

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

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

#90092

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

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

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

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

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

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

#90104

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#90123

On 19/08/2026 04:42, rbowman wrote:
> I am a bit curious how it works. Back in the day the ham sats were store
> and forwards and the window was only a few minutes. Of course there was
> only the one and not over 1000.

Well starlink is simply an extreme case of IP routing. Your link will 
pick the best signal and transmit a burst to that and your router will 
be advertised as available via that satellite.

Clearly there is something like OSPF running inside starlinks network at 
very high speed.

Ah.
Good old AI

"Starlink uses a custom, proprietary internal encapsulation and routing 
protocol in space rather than standard Internet Protocol (IP) suites. 
Standard routing protocols like OSPF or BGP cannot cope with thousands 
of hyper-velocity LEO nodes changing topology every second.

Core Internal Architecture
=================
     Encapsulation: Standard IPv4/IPv6 packets from user devices are 
intercepted at the user terminal or Point of Presence (PoP) and wrapped 
inside a lightweight, proprietary space-layer protocol.

Predictable Ephemera: Because orbital mechanics are mathematically 
rigid, satellite trajectories and inter-satellite laser link (OISL) 
handoffs are pre-computed on the ground rather than dynamically flooded 
via traditional link-state advertisements.

Minimal Overhead: The custom layer strips out heavy traditional packet 
headers to maximize data payload efficiency across space-to-ground radio 
links and laser crosslinks.

Decoupled Edge: At the ground gateway or network POP, space packets are 
de-encapsulated back into standard IPv4 (often via CGNAT 100.64.0.0/10) 
or native IPv6 before handing off to the terrestrial internet backbone. "

So there ya go.It knows which satellites are going to be where and 
routing is switched between them .

pretty cool tech. One thing's fer sure. The MusktRat never designed it 
himself


-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

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

#90140

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 14:13:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> pretty cool tech. One thing's fer sure. The MusktRat never designed it
> himself

Your point? I think William Boeing may have designed a plane once upon a 
time but he may have mostly copied the Martin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Model_1

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web