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 21:53 +0000
                    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-19 22:54 +0000
                      Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-20 10:31 -0300
                    Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? Anton Antimo <anton@safunu.org> - 2026-08-20 10:30 -0300
              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 ? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 22:07 +0000
          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> - 2026-08-19 22:24 -0400
      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
          Re: What's Wrong With LinuxMint ? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 22:21 -0400

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]

#90167

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:15:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 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'

The American Way is to socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

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

#90173

On 2026-08-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:15:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> 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'
>
> The American Way is to socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

We Canadians put a twist into it.  Justin Trudeau started a push
to bring high-speed internet to the frozen north, while conveniently
ignoring the fact that many of these communities don't even have
potable water yet.

Gotta have priorities, y'know...

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

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

#90212

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:

> On 2026-08-19, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:15:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> 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'
>>
>> The American Way is to socialize the costs, privatize the profits.
>
> We Canadians put a twist into it.  Justin Trudeau started a push
> to bring high-speed internet to the frozen north, while conveniently
> ignoring the fact that many of these communities don't even have
> potable water yet.
>
> Gotta have priorities, y'know...

<sarcasm>With Internet, they can all crowfund a solution.</sarcasm>

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

#90210

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:

> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:15:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> 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'
>
> The American Way is to socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

Unfortunately.  This brings the smart-systems to mind: if people develop
a love-relationship for them, someone might get the idea that
governments should buy them so that children and poor people are not in
disadvantage competing against the "privileged".  (That's always the
strategy for saving broken rich companies from total failure, the fate
of which would be so healthy to everyone.)

[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]

#90168

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 15:24:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> 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

That's another drawback to being rural. I could see that working for the 
quaint little village of Hedgehog Hills, population 400. This county is 
2,618 sq miles with about 120,000 people. The city has most of the people 
and all the infrastructure. There are a couple of Census Designated Places 
which means there's a 1000 or so people and they get their own post 
office. Mostly there is no there there.  The same problems that dissuade 
the existing ISPs apply to digging your own ditch to say nothing of 
administering a network.

[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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web