Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows.
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having Windows 7.
Task bar on the bottom with icons and
applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than Windows, the start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time
before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having
Windows 7.
Joel <[email protected]> wrote at 23:13 this Thursday (GMT):
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having
Windows 7.
Cinnamon is quite a nice DE, but I still prefer XFCE.
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:13:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a
nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having Windows 7.
Well, yeah. Linux Mint/Cinnamon was developed initially by people who
didn't like GNOME 3. I'm running Fedora KDE, which sort of looks like Windows. TBH, I like it that way. Task bar on the bottom with icons and applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than Windows, the start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time
before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
On 2025-07-25 01:11, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:13:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:Which DE?
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a >>>>>>> nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man >>>>> likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows. >>>>
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having Windows 7.
Well, yeah. Linux Mint/Cinnamon was developed initially by people who
didn't like GNOME 3. I'm running Fedora KDE, which sort of looks like
Windows. TBH, I like it that way. Task bar on the bottom with icons and
applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than Windows, the
start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time
before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes to updates.
On 7/25/25 9:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-25 01:11, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:13:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:Well, yeah. Linux Mint/Cinnamon was developed initially by people who
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:Which DE?
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a >>>>>>>> nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main man >>>>>> likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of Windows. >>>>>
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having Windows 7. >>>
didn't like GNOME 3. I'm running Fedora KDE, which sort of looks like
Windows. TBH, I like it that way. Task bar on the bottom with icons and
applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than Windows, the >>> start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time
before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes
to updates.
Just try MX with LXDE or XFCE. Simple, no BS, gets
it done very nicely.
On 2025-07-25 22:53, c186282 wrote:
On 7/25/25 9:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-25 01:11, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:13:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a >>>>>>>>> nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the main >>>>>>> man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of
Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having
Windows 7.
Well, yeah. Linux Mint/Cinnamon was developed initially by people who
didn't like GNOME 3. I'm running Fedora KDE, which sort of looks like
Windows. TBH, I like it that way. Task bar on the bottom with icons and >>>> applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than Windows,
the
start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time >>>> before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes
to updates.
Just try MX with LXDE or XFCE. Simple, no BS, gets
it done very nicely.
Nah, I'm good with Endeavour. I just set it up to use my storage's 2TB built-in encryption. All the security without the performance impact.
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes to updates.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes to
updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes to
updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
On 7/25/25 11:02 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-25 22:53, c186282 wrote:
On 7/25/25 9:53 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-25 01:11, rbowman wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 19:13:56 -0400, Joel wrote:
rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:04:32 -0400, Joel wrote:
pothead <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2025-07-24, Joel <[email protected]> wrote:
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:Excellent point Joel.
Most COLA "advocates" are distro lackeys
Dumbass, Linus Torvalds uses Fedora, get over yourself, you're a >>>>>>>>>> nutcase, not a pioneer.
I agree.
Fedora is a great distro. I could easily understand why the
main man
likes it. It's just that what I have is oddly resemblant of
Windows.
Which DE?
I'm using Cinnamon with Debian, it's effectively like having
Windows 7.
Well, yeah. Linux Mint/Cinnamon was developed initially by people who >>>>> didn't like GNOME 3. I'm running Fedora KDE, which sort of looks like >>>>> Windows. TBH, I like it that way. Task bar on the bottom with icons
and
applets that autohides, start menu on the left. Better than
Windows, the
start menu groups by category. iirc, Windows did that once upon a time >>>>> before they went to a flat list in alphabetical order.
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using
an NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it
comes to updates.
Just try MX with LXDE or XFCE. Simple, no BS, gets
it done very nicely.
Nah, I'm good with Endeavour. I just set it up to use my storage's 2TB
built-in encryption. All the security without the performance impact.
That'll work fine.
But 'security' isn't the whole equation. A usable, yet
aesthetically simple, desktop environment is where we
spend most of our time. Everything I've had in years
uses LXDE or XFCE. I'm very happy. Runs smooth even
on older PIs, super snappy on anything beyond those.
But if you just HAVE to have tons of eye-candy and
'integration', well, ok - but you'll pay for it.
On 7/26/25 2:11 AM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes to
updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
Fedora SEEMS nice, right off, but on some
levels it just isn't.
I'm gonna stick with MX. Seems the perfect
compromise.
The biggest issue with Fedora is that it is tied to IBM. In the end,
you're replacing one corporation for another and this one isn't any more ethical than the previous one.
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes
to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:14:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes
to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
iirc I started with 39 and the box is now at 42. There were no problems
with the upgrade process itself. There was a couple of weeks of
instability related to KDE/Plasma/Wayland/Qt. That is a problem with a
distro that has a fixed release cycle. Do you include packages that aren't quite ready for prime time, or wait for the next release?
I have to admit Ubuntu 25.10 to 26.04 went smoother than prior Ubuntu upgrades. It bitched about the existing dotnet 6.0 but installed dotnet 9.0.108. I manually got rid of 6.0. You can have multiple versions but it adds to the confusion. I wound up with multiple PostgreSQL versions and
that was confusing enough. Each successive version uses the next value for PGPORT.
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end up being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release over
a rolling one.
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:59:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end up
being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release over
a rolling one.
There are discussions of what Fedora actually is. One suggested difference
is in a rolling release major version updates that may have breaking
changes are released. Tumbleweed claims the new stuff is tested really
well and problems will be resolved quickly. Sid and Rawhide come with a
'use at your own risk' label.
Fedora sort of did that with one release and incorporated Qt/KDE/Plasma/ Wayland stuff that wasn't 100% baked. Do you roll the dice and add
packages that may have a release any day now, or stick with the current releases and not go with the new stuff for another six months or delay
your own release?
On 2025-07-26 23:59, rbowman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:14:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an >>>>> NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes >>>>> to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
iirc I started with 39 and the box is now at 42. There were no problems
with the upgrade process itself. There was a couple of weeks of
instability related to KDE/Plasma/Wayland/Qt. That is a problem with a
distro that has a fixed release cycle. Do you include packages that
aren't
quite ready for prime time, or wait for the next release?
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end up being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release over
a rolling one.
I have to admit Ubuntu 25.10 to 26.04 went smoother than prior Ubuntu
upgrades. It bitched about the existing dotnet 6.0 but installed dotnet
9.0.108. I manually got rid of 6.0. You can have multiple versions
but it
adds to the confusion. I wound up with multiple PostgreSQL versions and
that was confusing enough. Each successive version uses the next value
for
PGPORT.
I'd rather avoid significant upgrades altogether. Give me your updates
in small batches and I'm happy.
On 2025-07-27 13:47, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:59:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end up >>> being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release over >>> a rolling one.
There are discussions of what Fedora actually is. One suggested
difference
is in a rolling release major version updates that may have breaking
changes are released. Tumbleweed claims the new stuff is tested really
well and problems will be resolved quickly. Sid and Rawhide come with a
'use at your own risk' label.
Fedora sort of did that with one release and incorporated Qt/KDE/Plasma/
Wayland stuff that wasn't 100% baked. Do you roll the dice and add
packages that may have a release any day now, or stick with the current
releases and not go with the new stuff for another six months or delay
your own release?
I get them as they come. I use Endeavour which is based on Arch.
Tried a couple of "rolling" - TumbleWeed and Manjaro. VERY annoying
to see it download 2+ gigs rather than do a few little updates. The
good distros have fairly long-term updates at least two or three
versions back.
I'd rather use those. Even an out-of-date Linux distro is
better/safer than the newest Winders ......
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 22:31:23 -0400, c186282 wrote:With Linux/Unix especially, Most-Current-Updates
Tried a couple of "rolling" - TumbleWeed and Manjaro. VERY annoying
to see it download 2+ gigs rather than do a few little updates. The
good distros have fairly long-term updates at least two or three
versions back.
I'd rather use those. Even an out-of-date Linux distro is
better/safer than the newest Winders ......
That's another problem with rolling. They were talking about changing it
but KDE was doing major releases every four months rather than the six
month schedule of most of the distros that use it.
So, you're happily rolling along with Plasma 5 when Plasma 6 comes out and your rolling release installs the latest, greatest. Of course it needs Qt
6, Frameworks 6, and who knows how many packages they depend on. Open
wide!
The Fedora is up to 6.4.3. It's been pretty smooth since the initial move
to 6 although I see pieces in the updates frequently. 6.5 will be out this fall but I don't know if there is a 7 in the works.
On 7/27/25 8:59 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 23:59, rbowman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:14:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're using an >>>>>> NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes >>>>>> to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it >>>>> wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
iirc I started with 39 and the box is now at 42. There were no problems
with the upgrade process itself. There was a couple of weeks of
instability related to KDE/Plasma/Wayland/Qt. That is a problem with a
distro that has a fixed release cycle. Do you include packages that
aren't
quite ready for prime time, or wait for the next release?
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end
up being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release
over a rolling one.
Tried a couple of "rolling" - TumbleWeed and Manjaro.
VERY annoying to see it download 2+ gigs rather than
do a few little updates. The good distros have fairly
long-term updates at least two or three versions back.
I'd rather use those. Even an out-of-date Linux distro
is better/safer than the newest Winders ......
I have to admit Ubuntu 25.10 to 26.04 went smoother than prior Ubuntu
upgrades. It bitched about the existing dotnet 6.0 but installed dotnet
9.0.108. I manually got rid of 6.0. You can have multiple versions
but it
adds to the confusion. I wound up with multiple PostgreSQL versions and
that was confusing enough. Each successive version uses the next
value for
PGPORT.
Kept running into probs trying to version-update Ubuntu.
Had to keep like three terminals open to do manual updates
kinda in the middle of the 'official' update process. It
ALWAYS hit "can't get there from here" issues. Went to
straight Deb and stayed there.
I'd rather avoid significant upgrades altogether. Give me your updates
in small batches and I'm happy.
Works well.
"Rolling" was an interesting IDEA, but in practice it
can be very annoying. I was, and still am, a "low-
bandwidth" case.
With Linux/Unix especially, Most-Current-Updates
are not nearly as important as with Win/Apple.
The TumbleWeed model just ISN'T NEEDED.
BSD is nice in general, but I know that it has some performance
drawbacks compared to Linux.
On 2025-07-27 22:31, c186282 wrote:
On 7/27/25 8:59 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 23:59, rbowman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:14:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're
using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it comes >>>>>>> to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages. Today it >>>>>> wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
iirc I started with 39 and the box is now at 42. There were no problems >>>> with the upgrade process itself. There was a couple of weeks of
instability related to KDE/Plasma/Wayland/Qt. That is a problem with a >>>> distro that has a fixed release cycle. Do you include packages that
aren't
quite ready for prime time, or wait for the next release?
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time end
up being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since
I've never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed
release over a rolling one.
Tried a couple of "rolling" - TumbleWeed and Manjaro.
VERY annoying to see it download 2+ gigs rather than
do a few little updates. The good distros have fairly
long-term updates at least two or three versions back.
I'd rather use those. Even an out-of-date Linux distro
is better/safer than the newest Winders ......
I spend some time on Windows and constantly see people looking for help because Windows updated and, with Bitlocker, locked them out of their computer. The best one is when you're locked out of your computer
because your Internet doesn't work (as a result of having a garbage
MediaTek wifi chip) and you can't check your Microsoft account
credentials. It's just unacceptable. I would rather suffer with periodic problems with a Linux rolling distribution, knowing that fTPM is no
longer an issue and OPAL encryption works the way I want it to, than go
back to Windows because I might get 10 frames per second more in a game
but suddenly have to worry that my system files will corrupt on their
own and Bitlocker (or a bad wifi chip) might lock me out of my machine.
I have to admit Ubuntu 25.10 to 26.04 went smoother than prior Ubuntu
upgrades. It bitched about the existing dotnet 6.0 but installed dotnet >>>> 9.0.108. I manually got rid of 6.0. You can have multiple versions
but it
adds to the confusion. I wound up with multiple PostgreSQL versions and >>>> that was confusing enough. Each successive version uses the next
value for
PGPORT.
Kept running into probs trying to version-update Ubuntu.
Had to keep like three terminals open to do manual updates
kinda in the middle of the 'official' update process. It
ALWAYS hit "can't get there from here" issues. Went to
straight Deb and stayed there.
I'd rather avoid significant upgrades altogether. Give me your
updates in small batches and I'm happy.
Works well.
"Rolling" was an interesting IDEA, but in practice it
can be very annoying. I was, and still am, a "low-
bandwidth" case.
I don't see the huge updates you claim that rolling distributions
produce. Mine are usually no more than a few megabytes here and there. I imagine that LibreOffice can produce huge updates, but I stick to the
stable releases of it anyway.
On 2025-07-27 22:39, c186282 wrote:
On 7/27/25 7:12 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-27 13:47, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:59:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time
end up
being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent
update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since I've >>>>> never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed release
over
a rolling one.
There are discussions of what Fedora actually is. One suggested
difference
is in a rolling release major version updates that may have breaking
changes are released. Tumbleweed claims the new stuff is tested really >>>> well and problems will be resolved quickly. Sid and Rawhide come with a >>>> 'use at your own risk' label.
Fedora sort of did that with one release and incorporated
Qt/KDE/Plasma/
Wayland stuff that wasn't 100% baked. Do you roll the dice and add
packages that may have a release any day now, or stick with the current >>>> releases and not go with the new stuff for another six months or delay >>>> your own release?
I get them as they come. I use Endeavour which is based on Arch.
Endeavour is pretty nice.
Look into DragonFly-BSD too - an oddly similar
look & feel.
BSD is nice in general, but I know that it has some performance
drawbacks compared to Linux.
CrudeSausage wrote:
BSD is nice in general, but I know that it has some performance
drawbacks compared to Linux.
Ummmmm ... depends on what you mean.
BSDs are *solid*. Ideal for servers and CAN be
good for workstations too. However they are not
as "current" as Linux distros. May, or may not,
be an issue for YOU.
If you need the latest drivers then BSDs may
not be for you.
On 7/28/25 8:31 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-27 22:31, c186282 wrote:
On 7/27/25 8:59 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 23:59, rbowman wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 07:14:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-26 02:11, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2025 21:53:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I find Fedora to be quite nice, but it's excrement if you're
using an
NVIDIA GPU. It's also almost as annoying as Windows is when it >>>>>>>> comes
to updates.
Possibly worse than Windows. On 7/21 it updated 98 packages.
Today it
wants to update 46 including a new kernel.
And once there's a new release, I imagine that upgrade to it is a
headache by itself. I'm much happier with a rolling distribution.
iirc I started with 39 and the box is now at 42. There were no
problems
with the upgrade process itself. There was a couple of weeks of
instability related to KDE/Plasma/Wayland/Qt. That is a problem with a >>>>> distro that has a fixed release cycle. Do you include packages that
aren't
quite ready for prime time, or wait for the next release?
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time
end up being overwritten by versions that work properly on the
subsequent update. These things don't concern me that much,
especially since I've never seen any kind of reliability benefit to
using a fixed release over a rolling one.
Tried a couple of "rolling" - TumbleWeed and Manjaro.
VERY annoying to see it download 2+ gigs rather than
do a few little updates. The good distros have fairly
long-term updates at least two or three versions back.
I'd rather use those. Even an out-of-date Linux distro
is better/safer than the newest Winders ......
I spend some time on Windows and constantly see people looking for
help because Windows updated and, with Bitlocker, locked them out of
their computer. The best one is when you're locked out of your
computer because your Internet doesn't work (as a result of having a
garbage MediaTek wifi chip) and you can't check your Microsoft account
credentials. It's just unacceptable. I would rather suffer with
periodic problems with a Linux rolling distribution, knowing that fTPM
is no longer an issue and OPAL encryption works the way I want it to,
than go back to Windows because I might get 10 frames per second more
in a game but suddenly have to worry that my system files will corrupt
on their own and Bitlocker (or a bad wifi chip) might lock me out of
my machine.
I have to admit Ubuntu 25.10 to 26.04 went smoother than prior Ubuntu >>>>> upgrades. It bitched about the existing dotnet 6.0 but installed
dotnet
9.0.108. I manually got rid of 6.0. You can have multiple versions >>>>> but it
adds to the confusion. I wound up with multiple PostgreSQL versions
and
that was confusing enough. Each successive version uses the next
value for
PGPORT.
Kept running into probs trying to version-update Ubuntu.
Had to keep like three terminals open to do manual updates
kinda in the middle of the 'official' update process. It
ALWAYS hit "can't get there from here" issues. Went to
straight Deb and stayed there.
I'd rather avoid significant upgrades altogether. Give me your
updates in small batches and I'm happy.
Works well.
"Rolling" was an interesting IDEA, but in practice it
can be very annoying. I was, and still am, a "low-
bandwidth" case.
I don't see the huge updates you claim that rolling distributions
produce. Mine are usually no more than a few megabytes here and there.
I imagine that LibreOffice can produce huge updates, but I stick to
the stable releases of it anyway.
Just wait ... soon you will wanna update 'ffmpeg' or
something and it'll be a 3-gig thing.
I've used both Tumbleweed and Manjaro - this is
what I've experienced.
I don't NEED much bandwidth or a high-GB service
plan. As such huge updates are a strain on my
service model.
On 7/28/25 8:31 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-27 22:39, c186282 wrote:
On 7/27/25 7:12 PM, CrudeSausage wrote:
On 2025-07-27 13:47, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2025 08:59:28 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I imagine that even the packages that aren't ready for prime time
end up
being overwritten by versions that work properly on the subsequent >>>>>> update. These things don't concern me that much, especially since
I've
never seen any kind of reliability benefit to using a fixed
release over
a rolling one.
There are discussions of what Fedora actually is. One suggested
difference
is in a rolling release major version updates that may have breaking >>>>> changes are released. Tumbleweed claims the new stuff is tested really >>>>> well and problems will be resolved quickly. Sid and Rawhide come
with a
'use at your own risk' label.
Fedora sort of did that with one release and incorporated Qt/KDE/
Plasma/
Wayland stuff that wasn't 100% baked. Do you roll the dice and add
packages that may have a release any day now, or stick with the
current
releases and not go with the new stuff for another six months or delay >>>>> your own release?
I get them as they come. I use Endeavour which is based on Arch.
Endeavour is pretty nice.
Look into DragonFly-BSD too - an oddly similar
look & feel.
BSD is nice in general, but I know that it has some performance
drawbacks compared to Linux.
Ummmmm ... depends on what you mean.
BSDs are *solid*. Ideal for servers and CAN be
good for workstations too. However they are not
as "current" as Linux distros. May, or may not,
be an issue for YOU.
If you need the latest drivers then BSDs may
not be for you.
I messed with Dragonfly a couple of years ago and
found it to be a very nice BSD - with an especially
good GUI environment. It's a fork of an older
FreeBSD - minus the ALLEGED "improvements" in the
newer distros.
The performance, again, application specific.
Seems everybody wants something different from
their -IX distros.
General-purpose Linux ... I've moved kinda entirely
to MX over the years. Perfect mid-sized/all-capable.
LXDE/XFCE are exactly what *I* want in a GUI ... but
if you just NEED all the eye-candy/integration you
can install KDE instead.
I recall Phoronix or OSNews doing a benchmark of both Linux and BSD a
while back. To say the least, BSD performed quite miserably compared to Linux. I'm sure it's solid, but I don't want to further compromise my system's performance.
I'm wondering if there is a bsd advocacy group, where stupid, shitty
trolls relentlessly attacked bsd as a "failure" due to it's small market share.
I recall Phoronix or OSNews doing a benchmark of both Linux and BSD a
while back. To say the least, BSD performed quite miserably compared to Linux. I'm sure it's solid, but I don't want to further compromise my system's performance.
Well, if it turns out to be huge like that, I'll live with it. I don't
fancy the idea of having a working desktop and then having to worry that upgrading to a new release might completely ruin everything. I find the
risk of it doing so minimal if the updates come in a stream rather than
in one shot.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:17:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I recall Phoronix or OSNews doing a benchmark of both Linux and BSD a
while back. To say the least, BSD performed quite miserably compared to
Linux. I'm sure it's solid, but I don't want to further compromise my
system's performance.
Taking a quick glance at r/BSD the consensus is FreeBSD is miserable,
OpenBSD is worse, and NetBSD is for people who really don't expect to have
a working system. And that's from the fans...
In many ways I like the idea, but like others here, what I want is not a ideologically better solution, but a fucking desktop that *works* and an internet connection that *works*.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:16:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
Well, if it turns out to be huge like that, I'll live with it. I don't
fancy the idea of having a working desktop and then having to worry that
upgrading to a new release might completely ruin everything. I find the
risk of it doing so minimal if the updates come in a stream rather than
in one shot.
I've had good luck with upgrading to new releases with various distros.
Even my recent upgrade from Ubuntu 24.10 to 25.04 went smoothly.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:17:09 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
I recall Phoronix or OSNews doing a benchmark of both Linux and BSD a
while back. To say the least, BSD performed quite miserably compared to
Linux. I'm sure it's solid, but I don't want to further compromise my
system's performance.
Taking a quick glance at r/BSD the consensus is FreeBSD is miserable,
OpenBSD is worse, and NetBSD is for people who really don't expect to have
a working system. And that's from the fans...
Debian usually upgrades slick as a whistle for me. If not...
well, there's always that copy of the root partition that I take from
time to time (including just before any upgrade).
Re-format, restore the backup, and try again another day.
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 20:06:39 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
Debian usually upgrades slick as a whistle for me. If not...
well, there's always that copy of the root partition that I take from
time to time (including just before any upgrade).
Re-format, restore the backup, and try again another day.
I'd heard about a few problems with Bookworm when it was first released so
I never took my work Linux box up from Bullseye. The Raspberry Pi OS I'm running on a 5 and a 3+ is derived from Bookworm and is fine.
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:
What have you given back to the FOSS community that has given you
so much?
Using GNU/Linux is participation.
Joel <[email protected]> wrote at 22:26 this Tuesday (GMT):
Farley Flud <[email protected]> wrote:
What have you given back to the FOSS community that has given you so >>>much?
Using GNU/Linux is participation.
Right, I think that having "regular users" that just use the software is
also important, since it diversivies the userbase beyond just the techy people. Look at the steam deck, that helped pull in more of the gamer
side.
And for the record, I have contributed to a oss game before.
In applications running fixed applications, updates are simply
pointless. That is most embedded style systems.
On 29/07/2025 13:17, CrudeSausage wrote:
I recall Phoronix or OSNews doing a benchmark of both Linux and BSD a
while back. To say the least, BSD performed quite miserably compared to
Linux. I'm sure it's solid, but I don't want to further compromise my
system's performance.
I think it is a good server platform.
Every non-trivial piece of software (i.e. just about everything) keeps
having new security holes being discovered in it.
My personal workstation will never be compromised in spite of it.
Le 07-08-2025, Farley Flud <[email protected]> a écrit :
My personal workstation will never be compromised in spite of it.
You repeat that, but it's wrong. First, if it was compromised, you would never realize it.
Second, the only reason why it's possible it's not
compromised is: no one would want to compromise a brick.
On 09 Aug 2025 13:11:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 07-08-2025, Farley Flud <[email protected]> a écrit :
My personal workstation will never be compromised in spite of it.
You repeat that, but it's wrong. First, if it was compromised, you would
never realize it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The idiot clown proves himself again.
Second, the only reason why it's possible it's not
compromised is: no one would want to compromise a brick.
Congratulations. That assessment is somewhat correct but, for
you, it's only a very lucky guess.
My GNU/Linux systems are configured in such a way that no one
could ever attack them. No one. Ever.
This is in stark contrast to the standard distro configuration,
like your junk system, that is necessarily WIDE OPEN to everything.
Of course, to build such a functional "brick" system requires
a great deal of knowledge and creativity -- and those qualities
you will NEVER possess. NEVER. You are a technical idiot.
YOU are only a helpless distro lackey for life.
On 09 Aug 2025 13:11:33 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
Le 07-08-2025, Farley Flud <[email protected]> a écrit :
My personal workstation will never be compromised in spite of it.
You repeat that, but it's wrong. First, if it was compromised, you would
never realize it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! The idiot clown proves himself again.
Second, the only reason why it's possible it's not
compromised is: no one would want to compromise a brick.
Congratulations. That assessment is somewhat correct but, for
you, it's only a very lucky guess.
My GNU/Linux systems are configured in such a way that no one
could ever attack them. No one. Ever.
This is in stark contrast to the standard distro configuration,
like your junk system, that is necessarily WIDE OPEN to everything.
Of course, to build such a functional "brick" system requires
a great deal of knowledge
and creativity
YOU are only a helpless distro lackey for life.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:16:14 |
| Calls: | 12,106 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,180 |