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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89930 > unrolled thread

Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!

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

Contents

  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 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 !!! 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 !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-19 11:48 -0400
      Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 09:38 +0100
        Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 17:14 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#90155

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 12:53:44 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

> Unlike with Linux where Ubuntu uses ext4 and Redhat uses exactly the
> same ext4 and Mint uses exactly the same ext4, so you can jump from one
> to the other without having to reformat your ext4 filesystems as part of
> the jumps.

quibble:SUSE Leap, Fedoran, and iirc Arch default to btrfs. I ran into 
problems with SUSE 13.2 that defaulted to btrfs. At least at that time 
grub didn't do btrfs. I reinstalled with ext4.  My preference had been 
ReiserFS but it was out of favor by then. I don't think strangling your 
wife should be considered in technical decisions. 

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

#90181

On 8/19/26 08:53, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 8/18/26 19:02, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 16:30:03 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2026-08-18, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 22:25:46 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, given the current environ, heading into the BSD
>>>>>>> universe. If I want bullshit I'd buy Winders .....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That will be a short trip. Every Linux distro you've touched
>>>>>> pissed you off for one reason or the other. There aren't that many
>>>>>> BSD flavors.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but the BSD variants are incompatible with each other.
>>> Not necessarily in glaringly obvious ways, but in subtle ones like
>>> differences in filesystem implementation. To the point where if you
>>> tried to mount a volume created with one variant on another, you could
>>> be setting yourself up for filesystem corruption and data loss, and
>>> basically much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
>>>
>>> Long story short, “distro-hopping” is a thing in the Linux world,
>>> don’t try it in the BSD world.
>>
>>    I tend to agree. However, at least using somewhat
>>    higher-level langs, the file-system issues kind
>>    of fade a bit.
> 
> The filesystem issue mentioned has **nothing** to do with higher level
> languages.  The point made (which you obviously missed, as usual)

   We bow to your all-knowing superiority  :-)

   Anyway, I'm aware each branch of the BSDs
   don't make any 'standard' filesystem QUITE
   the same. So, PICK one and stick with it.

   The BSDs are more distinct 'branches' than
   slight variations on the same like Linux.

> is if
> you start by installing OpenBSD, and format your disk with the OpenBSD
> FFS.  And then decide, hmm, I'm going to give FreeBSD a try now, and
> just install FreeBSD, but *do not reformat* the disk using FreeBSD's
> variant of FFS, it will *appear* to work, but subtle issues will arise
> that end up making a big mess as they grow.
> 
> Unlike with Linux where Ubuntu uses ext4 and Redhat uses exactly the
> same ext4 and Mint uses exactly the same ext4, so you can jump from one
> to the other without having to reformat your ext4 filesystems as part
> of the jumps.

   The BSDs these days will mount/read/write EXT4.
   NOT sure if the main system disk can be EXT4
   however. However I do seem to remember that FBSD
   is no good with EXT3/4 journaling - which kind
   of defeats the purpose. FBSD also supports NTFS
   via FUSE and ZFS. Haven't fooled with ZFS across
   the BSD spectrum however, so there MAY be some
   little incompatibilities.

   Distro-hopping in Linux is good fun, but it's
   not necessary. I'd be happy with vanilla Deb
   forever.

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

#90187

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 21:37:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Distro-hopping in Linux is good fun, but it's not necessary. I'd be
>    happy with vanilla Deb forever.

No you wouldn't...  

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

#90216

On 8/19/26 23:24, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 21:37:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Distro-hopping in Linux is good fun, but it's not necessary. I'd be
>>     happy with vanilla Deb forever.
> 
> No you wouldn't...

   Yes, I would.

   Sorry, not everyone has a red fedora hanging
   on the rack  :-)

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

#90238

On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 12:32:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 8/19/26 23:24, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 21:37:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>> 
>>>     Distro-hopping in Linux is good fun, but it's not necessary. I'd
>>>     be happy with vanilla Deb forever.
>> 
>> No you wouldn't...
> 
>    Yes, I would.
> 
>    Sorry, not everyone has a red fedora hanging on the rack  :-)

I'm not going spelunking through usenet history but iirc you were pissed 
at Debian when you discovered you can no longer load a random Python 
module into the system site-packages. Or was that the one with VirtualBox 
problems? There have been so many that failed to live up to your 
expectations...

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

#90252

On 8/20/26 16:53, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 12:32:57 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 8/19/26 23:24, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 21:37:06 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>>      Distro-hopping in Linux is good fun, but it's not necessary. I'd
>>>>      be happy with vanilla Deb forever.
>>>
>>> No you wouldn't...
>>
>>     Yes, I would.
>>
>>     Sorry, not everyone has a red fedora hanging on the rack  :-)
> 
> I'm not going spelunking through usenet history but iirc you were pissed
> at Debian when you discovered you can no longer load a random Python
> module into the system site-packages. Or was that the one with VirtualBox
> problems? There have been so many that failed to live up to your
> expectations...

   Deb can have a few issues - but so can the
   other Linux branches. Six of one ....

   By sticking pretty strongly to Deb and derivs
   I can find solutions that WORK and make good
   use of them for a long time down the road.

   Fedora and friends, they have their OWN little
   fixes which you can learn and apply down the road.

   In short I'm too old now to learn EVERY trick and
   tweak and obscure fix for EVERY Linux variant.
   Gotta specialize a bit.

   Also, Deb "thinks" more like I think - we're
   sympatico. Maybe something else for you.

   Some groove on Fedora, some on Arch, some on
   GenToo or even Slack. Plenty to choose from -
   so go with the one YOU grok best.

   Now if you're 15 ... TRY to learn 'em all and
   then focus down later.

   Still hoping for a Linux SUCCESSOR ... the best
   ideas from all the existing ones plus Solaris
   and BSDs and .... even the old DEC systems and
   Plan-9 and OS-9 had interesting stuff to offer.
   There's a Best Picture in there somewhere.

   The MAIN thing though is 'consistency and focus' -
   not a "shotgun" or "kitchen sink" mega-mess. If
   you want a mega-mess, well, Winder$ ........

   THINK I saw red fedora's on Amazon ... cool
   regardless  :-)

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

#90209

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>   ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever.

Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes".

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

#90220

On 8/20/26 09:55, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>    ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever.
> 
> Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes".

   Another guy with a red fedora on the rack  :-)

   I'm gonna say there IS NO "perfect" distro. They
   are all pretty good in the technical sense. The
   diff is in how it syncs with YOUR brain, YOUR
   intuitions. Deb, to me, "feels right".

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

#90224

On 2026-08-20, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

> On 8/20/26 09:55, Rich wrote:
>
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>
>>>    ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever.
>> 
>> Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes".
>
>    Another guy with a red fedora on the rack  :-)
>
>    I'm gonna say there IS NO "perfect" distro. They
>    are all pretty good in the technical sense. The
>    diff is in how it syncs with YOUR brain, YOUR
>    intuitions. Deb, to me, "feels right".

+1

As for the definition of "forever", I learned early in my career
that "never" (as in "Oh, don't worry about it - it'll never happen")
is usually about six months.  Still, I've been happy with Debian
for... oh, must be quite a while now; I remember going to a testing
version of Jessie to get some drivers that Squeeze didn't have.

-- 
/~\  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]

#90239

On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 18:04:48 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> As for the definition of "forever", I learned early in my career that
> "never" (as in "Oh, don't worry about it - it'll never happen")
> is usually about six months.  Still, I've been happy with Debian for...
> oh, must be quite a while now; I remember going to a testing version of
> Jessie to get some drivers that Squeeze didn't have.

I had Debian on my work Linux box for two reasons. I didn't want a cutting 
edge distro on a production machine and Debian still had a 32-bit version. 
While you can build 32-bit programs on a 63-bit machine some of the 
libraries we used in conjunction with Motif and other third party stuff 
became increasingly difficult to add to a 64-bit distro.

It was adequate. I don't customize and I thought Xfce out of the box was a 
little primitive. I was surprised how nice it can be when I brought up 
MX.Xfce in a VM.

Other than the Trixie based RPi OS I didn't have a compelling reason to 
put Debian on my home machines. 

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

#90253

On 8/20/26 17:02, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 18:04:48 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> As for the definition of "forever", I learned early in my career that
>> "never" (as in "Oh, don't worry about it - it'll never happen")
>> is usually about six months.  Still, I've been happy with Debian for...
>> oh, must be quite a while now; I remember going to a testing version of
>> Jessie to get some drivers that Squeeze didn't have.
> 
> I had Debian on my work Linux box for two reasons. I didn't want a cutting
> edge distro on a production machine and Debian still had a 32-bit version.
> While you can build 32-bit programs on a 63-bit machine some of the
> libraries we used in conjunction with Motif and other third party stuff
> became increasingly difficult to add to a 64-bit distro.

   32-bit versions of anything are RARE now alas ...

   Saw ANTIX still has a 32-bit version - but there
   is a WARNING about how not all code/drivers might
   work with it.

   But not many 32-bit CHIPS anymore either.

   DO own an Intel "Core-2 Quad" board (noisy fan).
   I think those were the last chips that would run
   8/16/32/64 regardless. It's got both sizes of
   floppies on it and a 100mb ZIP, so I can at least
   view my really old stuff. A keeper. It's also
   a lot zippier than you'd think.

   Anyway, if you want 8/16 you'll likely have to use
   emulators.

> It was adequate. I don't customize and I thought Xfce out of the box was a
> little primitive. I was surprised how nice it can be when I brought up
> MX.Xfce in a VM.

   I think XFCE is a bit *excessive* - pref LXDE instead.

   However LXDE distros/installs are becoming more and
   more difficult to find promptly - and LXQt sucks.

> Other than the Trixie based RPi OS I didn't have a compelling reason to
> put Debian on my home machines.

   "Compelling", maybe not. "Good/Practical/Documented/Functional"
   however .........  :-)

   Anyway, to each their own. I grok Deb. Others grok
   Fedora/Slack/Arch/etc better. They can ALL "Get It
   Done".

   Spent a LONG time using SUSE/OpenSUSE for my servers
   and personal boxes ... but eventually it got a bit
   too weird and 'fat' and I moved to Deb. *I* like
   it better. YOU may pref something else. As said
   there's no really "best" distro branch, just "best"
   for YOU.

   Or should I be a religious fanatic here ?

   Too much effort and no enthusiasm.

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

#90146

On 2026-08-17 22:25, c186282 wrote:
> On 8/17/26 10:30, TJ wrote:
>> On 2026-08-16 23:44, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 8/16/26 14:54, rbowman wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:47:41 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> WHO told them to do this ???
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I'm NOT gonna comply.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Pixie Girl or equivs appear I *instantly*
>>>>> quit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Evil !
>>>>
>>>> So a 2 second CAPTCHA 3 a website uses to protect against malicious
>>>> attacks ruins your entire day?
>>>
>>>    Yep.
>>>
>>>    Over and out.
>>>
>>>    Oh, and nobody STEALS Linux - it's FREE.
>>>
>> Don't bother with Mageia's Bugzilla, then. Before we added mitigation, 
>> there were times when it was completely unusable, due to bots 
>> overloading our servers. They still manage to sneak in every once in a 
>> while, somehow.
>>
>> So with or without mitigation, you would not be happy with us.
>>
>> TJ
> 
>    OK ... I'll ignore Mageia BugZilla.
> 
>    Actually, given the current environ, heading
>    into the BSD universe. If I want bullshit I'd
>    buy Winders .....
> 
Good. Don't let the door hit you in the nether regions on the way out...

TJ

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

#89961

On 2026-08-16, rbowman wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 03:47:41 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>
>> WHO told them to do this ???
>> 
>> No, I'm NOT gonna comply.
>> 
>> If the Pixie Girl or equivs appear I *instantly*
>> quit.
>> 
>> Evil !
>
> So a 2 second CAPTCHA 3 a website uses to protect against malicious 
> attacks ruins your entire day? 
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudflare#DDoS_mitigation
>
> I hate to tell you but I think your world is going to shrink. I didn't hit 
> the verification with Brave on two different machines. I think that's 
> because I'd been there before and they'd dropped a cookie.

If it is Cloudflare it is guaranteed to ruin some days. Cloudflare
doesn't support other than a few select browsers, at a few select
version ranges. Unless the site owner configures it to somehow let other
browsers bypass the "browser check"(*), you'll be left out of it even
with JS enabled. Anubis tends to be much better in this regard.

(*) Formerly "Browser Integrity Check" with proper fallbacks in place,
    at least when Cloudflare's team didn't forget these were fallbacks
    and shouldn't all require some newer feature like the Origin: header
    being set, which is how they tried to make a self-DDoS in the past.

>  OMG cookies!

Omnomnomnomnom :-P

-- 
Nuno Silva

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

#89973

On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:38:41 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> If it is Cloudflare it is guaranteed to ruin some days. Cloudflare
> doesn't support other than a few select browsers, at a few select
> version ranges. Unless the site owner configures it to somehow let other
> browsers bypass the "browser check"(*), you'll be left out of it even
> with JS enabled. Anubis tends to be much better in this regard.

Using mxlinux.org as the test case, I can successfully connect after 
CloudFlare verification with Brave, Firefox, Tor, and Librewolf.  Lynx 
reports:

"Just a moment...
   REFRESH(360 sec): https://mxlinux.org/
   Enable JavaScript and cookies to continue
'

That's expected. No JavaScript, no proof of work. Of course if you use a 
browser without JavaScript in 2026 don't expect to do much on the web. 
What browser are you using that is reject with JS enabled?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

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

csiph-web