Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89930 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-16 03:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-08-17 17:14 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 64 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 03:47 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-16 18:54 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-17 08:46 +1000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 23:46 -0400
Open web (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-17 09:42 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-16 23:44 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 03:54 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 01:24 -0400
Linux 7.2 (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-08-17 08:59 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 (was: Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!!) rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-17 17:39 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:26 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:21 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 08:30 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:51 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-08-19 08:16 +1000
Re: Linux 7.2 c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 22:57 -0400
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:37 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 20:08 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:49 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:44 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 17:56 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 10:27 -0700
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 19:37 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:51 +0000
Re: Linux 7.2 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 13:25 +0100
Re: Linux 7.2 John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-08-19 08:45 -0700
Re: Linux 7.2 Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-19 16:48 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-17 10:30 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-17 22:25 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-18 03:05 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 00:58 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-18 10:21 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:55 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-08-18 21:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-19 14:41 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 19:00 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-18 13:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-18 23:02 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-18 23:02 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-19 12:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-19 19:25 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-19 21:37 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 03:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 12:32 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 20:53 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 22:14 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 04:29 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 01:17 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:55 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 13:04 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-08-20 18:04 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-20 21:02 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-20 22:30 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 04:24 +0000
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-21 01:12 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2026-08-21 08:22 -0400
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-21 16:01 +0200
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:22 +0100
Re: Oh Gawd - Now MX Linux "Security Verification" - NO !!! rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-21 18:18 +0000
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 !!! 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 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116490o$2l1f7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90089 |
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) 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 19:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neme93Fpub2U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90117 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-19 21:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7_CcnWrL6eO9xxv3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90117 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 03:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nenabhFpub2U24@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90181 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 12:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <WhudnezV5OuKsRr3nZ2dnZfqnPednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90187 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nep7qrFpub2U36@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90216 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 22:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H5WcnQqt5fREKRr3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90238 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 04:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neq2ghFpub2U49@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90252 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:14:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: > 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. https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/20/netbsd-11-lands-with- risc-v-support-and-lightning-fast-vm-boots/5289713 "NetBSD is a stable, somewhat minimalist, and relatively slow-moving project. If you're willing to put some work in, this arguably makes it a refreshing change from the ever-accelerating techbro world of Linux. " The article makes it sound more appealing than FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, or OpenBSD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 01:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H5WcnQet5fQAQhr3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90260 |
On 8/21/26 00:29, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:14:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> 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. > > https://www.theregister.com/os-platforms/2026/08/20/netbsd-11-lands-with- > risc-v-support-and-lightning-fast-vm-boots/5289713 > > "NetBSD is a stable, somewhat minimalist, and relatively slow-moving > project. If you're willing to put some work in, this arguably makes it a > refreshing change from the ever-accelerating techbro world of Linux. " > > The article makes it sound more appealing than FreeBSD, DragonflyBSD, or > OpenBSD. I have not put much time into NetBSD. Maybe I should. More focused on FreeBSD and derivs because they're "more popular". DO kinda like "Ghost"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <116711f$3hihn$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90181 |
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever. Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 13:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jLednbdwA9Qvrhr3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90209 |
On 8/20/26 09:55, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> ... I'd be happy with vanilla Deb forever. > > Only if "forever" is defined as: "about twenty minutes". Another guy with a red fedora on the rack :-) I'm gonna say there IS NO "perfect" distro. They are all pretty good in the technical sense. The diff is in how it syncs with YOUR brain, YOUR intuitions. Deb, to me, "feels right".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 18:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <4lHhS.41288$wI58.20247@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #90220 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 21:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nep8agFpub2U37@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90224 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-20 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <H5WcnQWt5fQOJRr3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90239 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 04:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <neq282Fpub2U48@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90253 |
On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:30:33 -0400, c186282 wrote: > 32-bit versions of anything are RARE now alas ... We had a few gotchas. The Esri C++ API was 32 bit up until their version 11 a few years ago. The necessary operations were in a dll wrapped in 'extern C' so they could be called from the legacy C code. While it's theorectically possible to call a 32 bit dll from 64 bit code it ain't pretty. We used Motif so another sticking point was some of the support libraries. The biggest problem was the Mrm (Motif Resource Manager) library. https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/motif/vol6a/Vol6a_html/ch22.html We used it extensively since UIL allowed us to customize the GUIs for each site. For a while you could jump thorough the hoops and get the libs and pass the compiler flags on 64 bit Ubuntu but with one release that stopped being feasible. Physical 32-bit machines were long gone but some applications got locked in for one reason or the other. > I think XFCE is a bit *excessive* - pref LXDE instead. The Xfce on the 32-bit Debian seemed quite bareboned. I was surprised by the default Xfce on MX. Much nicer. > However LXDE distros/installs are becoming more and more difficult to > find promptly - and LXQt sucks. Considering that the LXDE developers mostly jumped to LXQt I'm not surprised. I had a moment of senior confusing when the library project started looking at Mint. LMDE? WTF? You're kidding. Oh, wait a minute... > 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. So far Leap 16 is working out okay but it's the KDE/Plasm version which is a lot like the Fedora KDE/Plasma version which looks like EndeavourOS KDE/ Plasma, and I presume Debian KDE/Plasma. I do have to find PackageKit on Leap and drive a stake through its useless little heart. The Fedora box has Discover too but when I run 'sudo dnf update' it doesn't bitch about PackageKit being busy. zypper does.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 01:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <D9icnYBj4rULQxr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #90259 |
On 8/21/26 00:24, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:30:33 -0400, c186282 wrote: > > >> 32-bit versions of anything are RARE now alas ... > > We had a few gotchas. The Esri C++ API was 32 bit up until their version > 11 a few years ago. The necessary operations were in a dll wrapped in > 'extern C' so they could be called from the legacy C code. While it's > theorectically possible to call a 32 bit dll from 64 bit code it ain't > pretty. > > We used Motif so another sticking point was some of the support libraries. > The biggest problem was the Mrm (Motif Resource Manager) library. > > https://www.oreilly.com/openbook/motif/vol6a/Vol6a_html/ch22.html > > We used it extensively since UIL allowed us to customize the GUIs for each > site. For a while you could jump thorough the hoops and get the libs and > pass the compiler flags on 64 bit Ubuntu but with one release that stopped > being feasible. > > Physical 32-bit machines were long gone but some applications got locked > in for one reason or the other. > >> I think XFCE is a bit *excessive* - pref LXDE instead. > > The Xfce on the 32-bit Debian seemed quite bareboned. I was surprised by > the default Xfce on MX. Much nicer. > > >> However LXDE distros/installs are becoming more and more difficult to >> find promptly - and LXQt sucks. > > Considering that the LXDE developers mostly jumped to LXQt I'm not > surprised. I had a moment of senior confusing when the library project > started looking at Mint. LMDE? WTF? You're kidding. Oh, wait a minute... > >> 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. > > So far Leap 16 is working out okay but it's the KDE/Plasm version which is > a lot like the Fedora KDE/Plasma version which looks like EndeavourOS KDE/ > Plasma, and I presume Debian KDE/Plasma. > > I do have to find PackageKit on Leap and drive a stake through its useless > little heart. The Fedora box has Discover too but when I run 'sudo dnf > update' it doesn't bitch about PackageKit being busy. zypper does. XFCE is "acceptable" to me. Still PREF the LXDE perspective though. CAN add it in some distos however. Sorry, but kinda "minimalist" suits my psych, JUST enough GUI. Seems LXDE is kinda dying. There's LXQt but it isn't nearly as good - TOO many oddities. By now the experiences teaches that LXQt will NEVER be as good. So, all in all, STILL pref LXDE. Anyway, as said, JUST Enough GUI is MY preferred environment. No "eye candy" or "app environment" or anything more. Win2K is still a pattern for What I Like for a GUI. Dead practical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 08:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1169ftv$9uiu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90253 |
On 2026-08-20 22:30, c186282 wrote: > > 32-bit versions of anything are RARE now alas ... Mageia 10, recently released, has an i686 version. It doesn't have everything the 64-bit version has, because a lot of upstream support for 32-bit has disappeared, but it IS supported. TJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 16:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1169lo3$akfv$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #90271 |
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 -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-08-21 15:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1169muj$9sqa$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90287 |
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. 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... -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan
[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]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web