On 5/28/2024 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up to
> 8 hours to get its patches up to date.

Which version of Windows?

What's your source?

On 2024-05-29 5:36 p.m., DFS wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
>> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up to
>> 8 hours to get its patches up to date.
>
> Which version of Windows?
>
> What's your source?

He would be correct if he were referring to Windows 7 or 8.1. However,
if a person downloads an ISO of Windows 10 or 11 directly from Microsoft
today, as they should, the installation and all recent updates will take
no more than an hour.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 5/28/2024 7:42 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:50:37 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2024 9:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 26 May 2024 23:26:04 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/2024 7:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Today, only Linux and the BSDs offer “workstation”-class
>>>>> functionality.
>>>>
>>>> [random crap]
>>
>> It is crap, but it's not random.
>
> But still not relevant to the issue of Linux being the king of the
> workstation market.

Of course it is, being "50x faster than Windows" and all (per Linuxiac)

Then there's the license cost savings of Linux: $1792 per computer (also
according to Linuxiac)

Plus Linux is literally "perfect for workstation deployment."
https://forums.techarena.in/operating-systems/1133871.htm

The miracle OS wins again!

On 5/28/2024 10:07 AM, Joel wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>
>> "On all pre-2007 computers, pClinuxOS and Mepis load in like 20 minutes,
>> run fantastic! Upto 50X faster than XP Pro!"
>
>
> 20 minutes? Is that high performance, somehow? I am lost.

That wasn't the best example, but his claim - that he posted ~20x to
cola - is that Linux was '50x' or 'up to 50x' faster than Windows.

For instance:

"[I] (have a dual PPro 200 server, on wheels, with SCSI here! With 8
SCSI drives, and 7 fans, it sounds like a jet revving up, when it runs!
On Linux, of course! upto 50X faster than NT!)"

very bottom of
<460bd264$0$1393$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>

Those were the days when many MS-hating kooks abounded on cola.

On 5/28/2024 11:49 PM, vallor wrote:
> On Tue, 28 May 2024 23:17:32 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
> <66569e4b$8$1258331$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>
>> On 5/28/2024 11:12 PM, vallor wrote:
>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:26:01 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>> <v363no$viqs$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2024 10:24 PM, vallor wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 21:17:06 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>>> <66568211$2$8094$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/28/2024 2:50 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't know there was such a thing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that mean Windows won't run on them?
>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to try to run Windows on this system, unless it was
>>>>> in a virt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>> First, I don't want Microsoft to get its greasy fingers on my EFI.
>>>
>>> Second, it probably doesn't have drivers for the custom daughterboard
>>> that runs the cooling, and I'm not willing to spend the time to chase
>>> down Windows drivers.
>>>
>>> Third...there's no need. The system is perfectly fine with what it
>>> has,
>>> and needs nothing that Windows has to offer. If that changed, maybe
>>> I'd rethink it.
>>
>>
>> What are the exact specs of the hardware?
> This is the 1.0 version, I have the 1.1 version:
>
> https://tech-docs.system76.com/models/thelio-mega-r1.0/README.html
>
> With a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. 256G of ECC memory.
>
> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
>
> If the daughterboard isn't supported on Windows, all the cooling
> fans will run full-speed, which would be annoying.

https://github.com/system76/thelio-io-windows

Now remove that Linux shit by slicking it with a Windows disk.

Enjoy good software and games for a change. Use WSL if you have a
compulsion for a bash shell. Embrace Notepad++ and MS Office and
AIDA64. Move out of the ghetto to the suburbs.

https://imgur.com/a/ZhwJJLz

Note: why did you buy such a powerful system?

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:15:16 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> On 2024-05-28, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 16:09:50 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>>
>>> Back when I got my Sinclair QL (mid 80s) a big thing was Mandelbrot
>>> Sets. I never could figure out why they were so special. I guess they
>>> somehow showed off the computer's graphic capabilities.
>>
>> Lissajous curves. Look at the cool patterns I can make with my $3000
>> Textronix scope!
>
> Completely over my head, but I think I get the point.

https://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/using-scope-display-lissajous-
patterns/

You don't even need a scope these days.

https://www.amazon.com/UCTRONICS-SSD1306-Self-Luminous-Display-Raspberry/
dp/B072Q2X2LL/

With that and a MicroPython O2C driver you can create your own. Same deal,
you're plotting x and y.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 5/28/2024 7:35 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
>> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up to
>> 8 hours to get its patches up to date.
>
>Which version of Windows?
>
>What's your source?

7 with SP1 integrated was notorious for this, because they never
released another service pack, not sure about XP with SP3, but
probably similar.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 15:17:28 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Acting like virtual desktops
> is some sort of primordial feature that will set the world on fire is
> ridiculous. It's been around for decades and the same way people didn't
> give a Snit then, they don't give a Snit now. Minimizing and alt-tab is
> quite fine with lots of people.

It certainly hasn't been around for decades on Windows. I'll agree that
lots of people don't actually do much with their computers.

On 29 May 2024 16:09:56 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> On Wed, 29 May 2024 05:49:58 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>>> On 2024-05-27 9:35 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... most of the dozens of people I do Linux support for are not
>>>> programmers/developers.
>>
>> Linux is far more popular with non-programmers/developers than with
>> programmers/developers.
>
> I don't know if that's an accurate way to judge. Programmers tend to fix
> their own problems.

That just means that Linux is more popular than my customer base would
indicate, not less.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:45:05 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> So, you're suggesting that the people who were using 7-era machines
> magically migrated to Linux ...

Whatever they did, they are not using Windows 7 any more, are they?

So my point still stands: they are in a tiny minority compared to Linux
users.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:35 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>
>> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
>> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up
>> to 8 hours to get its patches up to date.
>
> In download time or like setting it up completely?

From the blog post in question
<https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/achieve-better-patch-compliance-with-update-connectivity-data/ba-p/3073356>:

What we found is that devices that don't meet a certain amount of
connected time are very unlikely to successfully update.
Specifically, data shows that devices need a minimum of two
continuous connected hours, and six total connected hours after an
update is released to reliably update. This allows for a
successful download and background installations that are able to
restart or resume once a device is active and connected.

So that is just download time, not counting actual update time.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 17:36:53 -0400, DFS wrote:

> What's your source?

The link I gave.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:03:37 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> The point here is that switching desktops is a useless feature for most
> users.

Yes, it’s an advanced power-user feature. As I mentioned before, it was
introduced in OSF Motif/CDE in the early/mid 1990s sometime, and has been
commonplace in *nix systems ever since.

You know, the kind of systems that are “workstations”, not just
“desktops”.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 18:49:40 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<6657b101$0$1245638$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/28/2024 11:49 PM, vallor wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 23:17:32 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>> <66569e4b$8$1258331$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2024 11:12 PM, vallor wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 22:26:01 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>> <v363no$viqs$1@dont-email.me>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2024 10:24 PM, vallor wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 21:17:06 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
>>>>>> <66568211$2$8094$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2024 2:50 PM, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-28 9:34 a.m., DFS wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you bought a machine which was designed to run Linux,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't know there was such a thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean Windows won't run on them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wouldn't want to try to run Windows on this system, unless it was
>>>>>> in a virt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> First, I don't want Microsoft to get its greasy fingers on my EFI.
>>>>
>>>> Second, it probably doesn't have drivers for the custom daughterboard
>>>> that runs the cooling, and I'm not willing to spend the time to chase
>>>> down Windows drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Third...there's no need. The system is perfectly fine with what it
>>>> has,
>>>> and needs nothing that Windows has to offer. If that changed, maybe
>>>> I'd rethink it.
>>>
>>>
>>> What are the exact specs of the hardware?
>> This is the 1.0 version, I have the 1.1 version:
>>
>> https://tech-docs.system76.com/models/thelio-mega-r1.0/README.html
>>
>> With a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X. 256G of ECC memory.
>>
>> NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
>>
>> If the daughterboard isn't supported on Windows, all the cooling fans
>> will run full-speed, which would be annoying.
>
>
> https://github.com/system76/thelio-io-windows
>
> Now remove that Linux shit by slicking it with a Windows disk.

That would be a downgrade.

>
> Enjoy good software and games for a change.

The software I use is more Linux-oriented than Windows-oriented.

> Use WSL if you have a
> compulsion for a bash shell.

I would use Cygwin, if I wanted to downgrade.

> Embrace Notepad++ and MS Office and
> AIDA64. Move out of the ghetto to the suburbs.
>
> https://imgur.com/a/ZhwJJLz

LOL. "[TRIAL VERSION]". Talk about "ghetto".

>
> Note: why did you buy such a powerful system?

Because I didn't want my system to be weak. I wanted
a workstation, not just a desktop. (Even so, for a workstation,
it's actually a little on the low-end.)

For example, I can use the ramdisk for images for virts.

I can also unpack sources on my ramdisk for faster compilation, and
build them with "make -j 64".

I run games and stream them with obs-studio, which takes
serious horsepower. 4K video is like that. Also editing
the video benefits from the extra horsepower.

I also use Foocus for generative AI, text-to-image.

Did you watch the video that rbowman posted? Linus was surprised
at the Linux performance of his little Thelio. It beat MS Windows
in many ways.

--
-v

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>>> "On all pre-2007 computers, pClinuxOS and Mepis load in like 20 minutes,
>>> run fantastic! Upto 50X faster than XP Pro!"
>>
>> 20 minutes? Is that high performance, somehow? I am lost.
>
>That wasn't the best example, but his claim - that he posted ~20x to
>cola - is that Linux was '50x' or 'up to 50x' faster than Windows.
>
>For instance:
>
>"[I] (have a dual PPro 200 server, on wheels, with SCSI here! With 8
>SCSI drives, and 7 fans, it sounds like a jet revving up, when it runs!
>On Linux, of course! upto 50X faster than NT!)"
>
>very bottom of
><460bd264$0$1393$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>
>
>
>Those were the days when many MS-hating kooks abounded on cola.

Yeah, when I was here in 2009-10, JFC they were nutty. Just post
after post of moronic claims, and it was so unnecessary, just
"advocate", don't sound like you're smoking crack beforehand.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 30 May 2024 01:16:06 -0000 (UTC), vallor wrote:

> I would use Cygwin, if I wanted to downgrade.

https://github.com/bmatzelle/gow/wiki

The binaries are native so you don't need the cygwin runtime and they
don't have some of the quirky cygwin file system conventions. It's not
meant to be a cygwin/msys/ replacement, just a quick fix for my
frustration when I type 'ls' or similar. After all these years I still
can't use 'dir' effectively.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 01:05 this Thursday (GMT):
> On Wed, 29 May 2024 21:15:02 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:35 this Tuesday (GMT):
>>>
>>> Regardless of all that, according to Microsoft’s own research, a
>>> supposedly fully-service-packed Windows installation still requires up
>>> to 8 hours to get its patches up to date.
>>
>> In download time or like setting it up completely?
>
> From the blog post in question
><https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/windows-it-pro-blog/achieve-better-patch-compliance-with-update-connectivity-data/ba-p/3073356>:
>
> What we found is that devices that don't meet a certain amount of
> connected time are very unlikely to successfully update.
> Specifically, data shows that devices need a minimum of two
> continuous connected hours, and six total connected hours after an
> update is released to reliably update. This allows for a
> successful download and background installations that are able to
> restart or resume once a device is active and connected.
>
> So that is just download time, not counting actual update time.

Oh dang, that is kinda slow. At least the downloading is in the
background from what I remember.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Wed, 29 May 2024 18:22:32 -0400, DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in
<6657aaa5$0$1245634$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>:

> On 5/28/2024 7:42 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 May 2024 09:50:37 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:37 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 May 2024 23:26:04 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/26/2024 7:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Today, only Linux and the BSDs offer “workstation”-class
>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> [random crap]
>>>
>>> It is crap, but it's not random.
>>
>> But still not relevant to the issue of Linux being the king of the
>> workstation market.
>
>
> Of course it is, being "50x faster than Windows" and all (per Linuxiac)
>
> Then there's the license cost savings of Linux: $1792 per computer (also
> according to Linuxiac)
>
> Plus Linux is literally "perfect for workstation deployment."
> https://forums.techarena.in/operating-systems/1133871.htm
>
>
> The miracle OS wins again!

A 2009 post quoting a 2004 survey.

Why do you assume Linux users all subscribe to idiots' fallacies?

I've seen idiocy in the Windows groups -- should I paint you with
that brush?

--
-v

On Thu, 30 May 2024 02:25:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> At least the downloading is in the background from what I remember.

And then the updating itself renders your machine unusable, because
Windows cannot update files that are currently in use, like Linux can.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 07:50:09 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Moreover, the familiar one in 2000 released in 1999 _still_ looks better
> than what you'll get from a Linux distribution if aesthetics are that
> important to you.

You really wish that were true, don’t you? Comparing an inflexible UI
baked into a proprietary OS, with the range of customizable options
available in Open Source, and trying to say that some option from the
latter doesn’t look as good as you like, therefore none of them could be
good?

Go on, keep trying to find some standard of comparison, back and back and
back in the dim dark days of Windows, that is low enough to make XP look
good by comparison, why don’t you?

On 29 May 2024 23:04:06 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> https://www.testandmeasurementtips.com/using-scope-display-lissajous-patterns/
>
> You don't even need a scope these days.

There’s even more fun to be had from a scope than some might realize
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaTuFB5QXHo>.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 09:18:27 -0400, Joel wrote:

> I just don't like OOP ...

There are OOP languages, and there are OOP languages.

Java -- long-winded, and yet curiously lacking in some elementary
functionality (e.g. unsigned ints, typedefs).

Python -- remarkably small language core, yet great extensibility from the
well-chosen features in that core.

C++ -- very powerful, but way too complex in order to keep things
“efficient”.

PHP -- just sad.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:35:24 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Really?? Now you’re resorting to comparing it with even older, DOS-
>> based Windows to try to make it look good?
>
> WinNT 4 was the same UI as 95, 98 was about the same, 2000 was somewhat
> new, as was Me like it, and XP without the glued on BS too.
> It's just a progression.

How wonderful. When is it going to be something better than a slow
progression?

On Wed, 29 May 2024 08:02:14 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Spoken like someone who's never used Windows 2000. That version of
> Windows was spectacular ...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

The best looking, and functioning, GUIs of the 1990s were the Unix
workstations. That is the heritage that Linux comes from. Windows was a
toy by comparison.

For example, SGI were the pioneers of real-time 3D interfaces, back when
it took fiendishly expensive hardware to do such things. Again, today’s
real-time effects on *nix build on that heritage.

I already mentioned multiple desktops from the OSF crowd. Sun did tear-off
menus. Note also other innovations like focus-follows-mouse, taskbarless
desktops, cut/copy/paste in terminal windows, and the Compose key as a far
more mnemonic way of typing non-ASCII characters than the clumsy Windows
alt-character-code rigmarole.

On Wed, 29 May 2024 15:10:45 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Whether D'Oliveiro wants to admit it or not, Windows 2000 and XP both
> looked like professional operating systems when they were released ...

Go on, keep insisting that dumbed-down consumer OSes were meant to look
“professional”. Microsoft didn’t even know what the word meant.