So upgraded the Mac Studio to Sequoia:

$ uname -a
Darwin Mac 24.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.2.0:
Fri Dec 6 18:56:34 PST 2024; root:xnu-11215.61.5~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64

After the initial upgrade from Sonoma, it still had updates
to apply. This took a while, and included the need for
another reboot -- all to update some xcode crap.

It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS. Why
it would be such a pain for MacOS to do a simple update, I can
only guess at.

(I suspect it may be that MacOS doesn't have a facility
with the simplicity of Linux's ldconfig(8) for updating
shared libraries.)

Also:

_[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
$ make use_pathconf
cc -g -O2 -std=c90 -Wall -Werror -pedantic use_pathconf.c -o use_pathconf
_[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
$ ./use_pathconf
1024

It's still 1/4 that of Linux.

Although, I did run a find(1) on my fileserver for long pathnames, and
found that the longest was 359 characters...so MacOS would be fine with
that. Windows? Not so sure.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Friends come and go, enemies accumulate."

On 13 Dec 2024 15:40:28 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in
<ls32rcFprp3U1@mid.individual.net>:

> So upgraded the Mac Studio to Sequoia:
>
> $ uname -a
> Darwin Mac 24.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.2.0:
> Fri Dec 6 18:56:34 PST 2024; root:xnu-11215.61.5~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64
>
> After the initial upgrade from Sonoma, it still had updates
> to apply. This took a while, and included the need for
> another reboot -- all to update some xcode crap.
>
> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS. Why
> it would be such a pain for MacOS to do a simple update, I can
> only guess at.
>
> (I suspect it may be that MacOS doesn't have a facility
> with the simplicity of Linux's ldconfig(8) for updating
> shared libraries.)
>
> Also:
>
> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
> $ make use_pathconf
> cc -g -O2 -std=c90 -Wall -Werror -pedantic use_pathconf.c -o use_pathconf
> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
> $ ./use_pathconf
> 1024
>
> It's still 1/4 that of Linux.
>
> Although, I did run a find(1) on my fileserver for long pathnames, and
> found that the longest was 359 characters...so MacOS would be fine with
> that. Windows? Not so sure.

Went to add a static route to another segment of my network, and
couldn't find a way to do it while keeping the dhcp setup. In order
to add a persistent route, I had to drop to the command line and
run networksetup(8) with the proper incantation. Now I can ping
my file server.

Next, I tried to add a time machine backup destination, but there's
no way to add one by IP address from the gui. Was going to try
to set one up with tmutil(8), but realized I should instead set
up an MDNS reflector on the router. After that, the Mac Studio saw
the file server in the time machine tool, and everything followed from
that.

The file server runs Linux:

Linux DT 3.10.108 #42962 SMP Mon Aug 19 15:14:28 CST 2024
armv7l GNU/Linux synology_alpine_ds2015xs

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance."

On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:

> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.

Maybe, maybe not.

The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks. Absolutely no
other user input was required.

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:

> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.

Over how many hours?

On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>
>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks. Absolutely no
> other user input was required.

There is a GUI but I prefer command line.

>sudo dnf update --refreah

gets the job done. I do have to enter my password. It then tells me which
packages will be updated and their sizes and asks me if I want to
continue.

I did update two machines to 24H2 this week. I got to play several games
of Mahjong solitaire while checking back 'Downloading 3%', Downloading
13%' and so forth, and then several mare with 'Installing 5%' etc. At the
end I had to restart. More games, 'Updating you computer..' Finally I was
able to log in. 'Hi! Getting things ready for you'

I have no idea what was updated although I probably could hunt down the
KB. The good news is it doesn't seem to have broken anything. I did a work
machine that I hardly ever use anymore and a laptop which is solely used
for accessing the corporate VPN so it wasn't a real stress test.

I suppose some day I'll move to Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 24.2 but if it ain't
broken...

On 12/13/24 4:56 PM, vallor wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2024 15:40:28 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in
> <ls32rcFprp3U1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> So upgraded the Mac Studio to Sequoia:
>>
>> $ uname -a
>> Darwin Mac 24.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.2.0:
>> Fri Dec 6 18:56:34 PST 2024; root:xnu-11215.61.5~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64
>>
>> After the initial upgrade from Sonoma, it still had updates
>> to apply. This took a while, and included the need for
>> another reboot -- all to update some xcode crap.
>>
>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS. Why
>> it would be such a pain for MacOS to do a simple update, I can
>> only guess at.

Perhaps because you're DIYing it from the command line instead of using
the GUI?

For the latter, system can auto-update, whereupon you just get a
notification of "do it tonight, or install now?" whereupon the click
will take you to a license agreement to click and off it goes.

Of course, one will need to remember to not have open/unsaved files
which will automatically prevent data loss by pausing any reboots
if/when merited.

>> (I suspect it may be that MacOS doesn't have a facility
>> with the simplicity of Linux's ldconfig(8) for updating
>> shared libraries.)

Of course, when stuff gets updated in the background overnight, why
should it bother one if an update takes an extra 15 minutes?

>> Also:
>>
>> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
>> $ make use_pathconf
>> cc -g -O2 -std=c90 -Wall -Werror -pedantic use_pathconf.c -o use_pathconf
>> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
>> $ ./use_pathconf
>> 1024
>>
>> It's still 1/4 that of Linux.
>>
>> Although, I did run a find(1) on my fileserver for long pathnames, and
>> found that the longest was 359 characters...so MacOS would be fine with
>> that. Windows? Not so sure.
>
> Went to add a static route to another segment of my network, and
> couldn't find a way to do it while keeping the dhcp setup. In order
> to add a persistent route, I had to drop to the command line and
> run networksetup(8) with the proper incantation. Now I can ping
> my file server.

Sounds odd; I can assign static IPs on my router to individual devices
as I want. Of course, that's different from what comes next:

> Next, I tried to add a time machine backup destination, but there's
> no way to add one by IP address from the gui.

Sure, because the GUI is the mainstream solution, and it leverages a 20
year old zeroconf technology (eg. Bonjour). That facilitates using DHCP
instead of needing to plug in Static IP assignments. Of course, you're
free to do things the old fashioned & harder way if you so desire.

> Was going to try
> to set one up with tmutil(8), but realized I should instead set
> up an MDNS reflector on the router. After that, the Mac Studio saw
> the file server in the time machine tool, and everything followed from
> that.

Sounds like some subdomain/VPN isolations were doing what they were
supposed to do, so adding the MDNS reflector was to circumvent?

> The file server runs Linux:
>
> Linux DT 3.10.108 #42962 SMP Mon Aug 19 15:14:28 CST 2024
> armv7l GNU/Linux synology_alpine_ds2015xs

IIRC, same.

-hh

On 12/14/2024 12:39 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>
> Over how many hours?

1/2 of 1.

On 2024-12-14, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>
> Over how many hours?

An apt question. I've never seen a Windows update that worked better than a
Linux update.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-12-14 à 00:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro a écrit :
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>>
>> Over how many hours?
>
> It was probably much longer, but here is a fact you can't deny: when
> Microsoft or Apple offer a large update like 24H2, they essentially
> reinstall the operating system, make sure that existing software and
> settings are properly transferred over and clean up whatever garbage the
> previous installation had to provide a decent out-of-the-box experience.
> When Linux does a big update, like an update after two weeks of not
> using your computer, it basically just overwrites whatever is there and
> hopes for the best. It might check a few things along the way to make
> sure that it all works alright, but you often end up with broken
> dependencies or configurations which require you to fix the system in
> one way or another. Taking this into consideration, any smart human
> being that's used both operating systems would rather the cleanup of
> either Microsoft or Apple than the potential breakdown of Linux.

The biggest difference between Linux and Windows' updates is that the
Linux updates work but there's always a chance that the Windows' update will
cause a BSOD. I've used Linux for about 18 years. Never once has an update
caused a system failure — and I've had old computers that I didn't update
for over a year.

To me the huge update (instead of a number of small ones, like Linux uses)
is just asking for trouble. And after two weeks, Linux doesn't have "huge"
updates. As mentioned above, I've gone much longer than two weeks and
updates still take less than a couple minutes. Linux is definitely superior
in how it updates. Not even close for Windows. This is one of the main
reasons I like Linux.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-12-14 à 00:43, rbowman a écrit :
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks. Absolutely no
>>> other user input was required.
>>
>> There is a GUI but I prefer command line.
>>
>>> sudo dnf update --refreah
>>
>> gets the job done. I do have to enter my password. It then tells me which
>> packages will be updated and their sizes and asks me if I want to
>> continue.
>>
>> I did update two machines to 24H2 this week. I got to play several games
>> of Mahjong solitaire while checking back 'Downloading 3%', Downloading
>> 13%' and so forth, and then several mare with 'Installing 5%' etc. At the
>> end I had to restart. More games, 'Updating you computer..' Finally I was
>> able to log in. 'Hi! Getting things ready for you'
>>
>> I have no idea what was updated although I probably could hunt down the
>> KB. The good news is it doesn't seem to have broken anything. I did a work
>> machine that I hardly ever use anymore and a laptop which is solely used
>> for accessing the corporate VPN so it wasn't a real stress test.
>>
>> I suppose some day I'll move to Fedora 41 and Ubuntu 24.2 but if it ain't
>> broken...
>
> Like I just wrote in my previous post, the reason Windows did all that
> is because it essentially installed a new copy of the operating system
> on your computer and left the previous version on the disk in case there
> is a problem so you can revert to it. Linux overwrites, Windows installs
> anew. If I ran the operating system on a hard disk and had a slow
> Internet connection, I'd absolutely hate Windows for doing that. Since I
> don't, I appreciate the new installation which preserves all of my
> programs and settings yet cleans out any crap I might have amassed on
> the previous install.

There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe some
day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's reasons why
Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't. Windows is an inferior
OS.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> Le 2024-12-13 à 22:07, DFS a écrit :
>> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>
>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>>
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
>> other user input was required.
>
> Actually, I would challenge Scotty the Hutt's accessment there. If you
> update daily, Linux is vastly superior to Windows in that area. However,
> if you're like my wife and reject updates months at a time, there is a
> great chance that you will damage your operating system the moment you
> decide to go through with them on the Linux side. Windows is generally
> better with seldom-used machines.

I'll challenge that statement. I know better. I've updated many Linux
machines after months of not turning them on. Even "ancient" computers from
pre-2010 update quickly and cleanly when using Linux and fast Internet.

As I've mentioned before (several times) this assumes you're using a
business machine with an Intel GPU. I have read about (not personally
experienced) issues with Nvidia GPUs and Linux upgrades. But I've also seen
upgrades cause BSODs in my wife's laptop that used a Nvidia (I always just
disabled the Nvidia GPU, since it also had an Intel GPU) — so I'm putting
some of that on Nvidia.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-14, RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2024-12-14, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> Le 2024-12-13 à 22:07, DFS a écrit :
>>> On 12/13/2024 10:40 AM, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.  Absolutely no
>>> other user input was required.
>>
>> Actually, I would challenge Scotty the Hutt's accessment there. If you
>> update daily, Linux is vastly superior to Windows in that area. However,
>> if you're like my wife and reject updates months at a time, there is a
>> great chance that you will damage your operating system the moment you
>> decide to go through with them on the Linux side. Windows is generally
>> better with seldom-used machines.
>
> I'll challenge that statement. I know better. I've updated many Linux
> machines after months of not turning them on. Even "ancient" computers from
> pre-2010 update quickly and cleanly when using Linux and fast Internet.
>
> As I've mentioned before (several times) this assumes you're using a
> business machine with an Intel GPU. I have read about (not personally
> experienced) issues with Nvidia GPUs and Linux upgrades. But I've also seen
> upgrades cause BSODs in my wife's laptop that used a Nvidia (I always just
> disabled the Nvidia GPU, since it also had an Intel GPU) — so I'm putting
> some of that on Nvidia.

Should have mentioned that my wife's laptop used Windows 10.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 05:39:50 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>
> Over how many hours?

A little over half an hour for my work machine with a wired connection to
a big pipe. It took a little longer at home with a wireless connection. It
did go smoothly. I've had updates fail in the past and have had to do the
kill the update service, delete the SotftwareUpdate directory cha-cha.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
> Windows is an inferior OS.

In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was
downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I
doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to
reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:01:12 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Actually, I would challenge Scotty the Hutt's accessment there. If you
> update daily, Linux is vastly superior to Windows in that area. However,
> if you're like my wife and reject updates months at a time, there is a
> great chance that you will damage your operating system the moment you
> decide to go through with them on the Linux side. Windows is generally
> better with seldom-used machines.

True. I usually update the Windows laptop after Patch Tuesday, the Fedora
box every couple of days or there is a huge backlog. Ubuntu is much less
intense and is the production Debian.

otoh we have clients using Windows Server that are very upset by downtime
so they never patch. Then comes the fatal day when they ultimately have
to. Five nines is a joke with Windows Server.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
>> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
>> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
>> Windows is an inferior OS.
>
>In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was
>downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I
>doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to
>reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.

I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till
I feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom. It's a minor
concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
best distro, and Debian seems to be it.

--
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 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 08:10:54 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> When Linux does a big update, like an update after two weeks of not
> using your computer, it basically just overwrites whatever is there and
> hopes for the best.

Remember that Linux distros like Debian have integrated package
management. That means there is no “hope for the best” -- it knows exactly
what is currently there, what needs to be removed, what needs to be
updated, and what needs to be added.

This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
simply stop and start the affected services.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:31:45 -0500, DFS wrote:

> On 12/14/2024 12:39 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:07:11 -0500, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> The massive update to Win11 24H2 was a few mouse clicks.
>>
>> Over how many hours?
>
> 1/2 of 1.

Did that include the minimum of eight hours connected to the Internet
before it could determine what to update?

<https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/02/01/2056211>

Le 14-12-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
>
> Remember that Linux distros like Debian have integrated package
> management. That means there is no “hope for the best” -- it knows exactly
> what is currently there, what needs to be removed, what needs to be
> updated, and what needs to be added.

Tell that to LP/FR/NV/whatever who can't update a simple tool like
Midnight Commander without breaking it.

> This is why you don’t even need to do a reboot if it is sufficient to
> simply stop and start the affected services.

It's not that right. I don't reboot after most of my updates, but when
the kernel is updated, without a reboot, some things, like plugging an
usb device, don't work. Maybe I would be able to fix it without a reboot,
but the reboot is faster than any time I would need to investigate. So
for me, the best way is to refuse updates, if they include the kernel
updates, before shutting down my computer.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 15:06:50 -0500, Joel wrote:

> I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till I
> feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom. It's a minor
> concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
> best distro, and Debian seems to be it.

I'm still running 32-bit Bullseye on that machine and it doesn't get much
love. I don't think Bookworm even has a 32-bit option. Long story but I
had to do 32-bit builds and that became increasingly painful on 64-bit
distros.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 10:31:16 -0500, -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <vjk8c4$6us$3@dont-email.me>:

> On 12/13/24 4:56 PM, vallor wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2024 15:40:28 GMT, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote in
>> <ls32rcFprp3U1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> So upgraded the Mac Studio to Sequoia:
>>>
>>> $ uname -a
>>> Darwin Mac 24.2.0 Darwin Kernel Version 24.2.0:
>>> Fri Dec 6 18:56:34 PST 2024; root:xnu-11215.61.5~2/RELEASE_ARM64_T6020 arm64
>>>
>>> After the initial upgrade from Sonoma, it still had updates
>>> to apply. This took a while, and included the need for
>>> another reboot -- all to update some xcode crap.
>>>
>>> It's a lot easier to update Linux than Windows or MacOS. Why
>>> it would be such a pain for MacOS to do a simple update, I can
>>> only guess at.
>
> Perhaps because you're DIYing it from the command line instead of using
> the GUI?

Nope, did that all from the gui.

>
> For the latter, system can auto-update, whereupon you just get a
> notification of "do it tonight, or install now?" whereupon the click
> will take you to a license agreement to click and off it goes.
>
> Of course, one will need to remember to not have open/unsaved files
> which will automatically prevent data loss by pausing any reboots
> if/when merited.

What I'd like is for it to download the updates and have them ready
for such an action. But it _still_ took an inordinate amount of time
to update. (I didn't complain about the update from Sonoma to Sequoia
because I would expect that to take a while -- it's the extra update
afterwards that I was complaining about.)

>
>>> (I suspect it may be that MacOS doesn't have a facility
>>> with the simplicity of Linux's ldconfig(8) for updating
>>> shared libraries.)
>
> Of course, when stuff gets updated in the background overnight, why
> should it bother one if an update takes an extra 15 minutes?
>
>>> Also:
>>>
>>> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
>>> $ make use_pathconf
>>> cc -g -O2 -std=c90 -Wall -Werror -pedantic use_pathconf.c -o use_pathconf
>>> _[/Users/scott/path_max]_(scott@Mac)🍏_
>>> $ ./use_pathconf
>>> 1024
>>>
>>> It's still 1/4 that of Linux.
>>>
>>> Although, I did run a find(1) on my fileserver for long pathnames, and
>>> found that the longest was 359 characters...so MacOS would be fine with
>>> that. Windows? Not so sure.
>>
>> Went to add a static route to another segment of my network, and
>> couldn't find a way to do it while keeping the dhcp setup. In order
>> to add a persistent route, I had to drop to the command line and
>> run networksetup(8) with the proper incantation. Now I can ping
>> my file server.
>
> Sounds odd; I can assign static IPs on my router to individual devices
> as I want.

Not related. The SAN segment is a 10G wired network behind my Linux
workstation -- different /24 network. The most straightforward way
to tell the Mac Studio about how to get to that network is a static
route. If the dhcp server were more configurable, there is a dhcp
option to add a route -- but I'm not that lucky to have a smarter
dhcp server.

> Of course, that's different from what comes next:
>
>> Next, I tried to add a time machine backup destination, but there's
>> no way to add one by IP address from the gui.
>
> Sure, because the GUI is the mainstream solution, and it leverages a 20
> year old zeroconf technology (eg. Bonjour). That facilitates using DHCP
> instead of needing to plug in Static IP assignments. Of course, you're
> free to do things the old fashioned & harder way if you so desire.

The reflector is tying together both broadcast domains. That _is_ the
easy way to do it -- the "hard" way would be to try to set up the destination
with tmutil(8) from the command line. On the Linux workstation, all I had
to do is modify avahi-daemon.conf with "enable-reflector=yes" and restart
the service -- after that, the Studio could see the Time Machine broacast[*].

>
>
>> Was going to try
>> to set one up with tmutil(8), but realized I should instead set
>> up an MDNS reflector on the router. After that, the Mac Studio saw
>> the file server in the time machine tool, and everything followed from
>> that.
>
> Sounds like some subdomain/VPN isolations were doing what they were
> supposed to do, so adding the MDNS reflector was to circumvent?

Two different broadcast[*] domains, so the Mac Studio side wasn't seeing
the Time Machine broadcasts until I enabled the reflection.

[*] Actually, it's multicast, but same idea.

>> The file server runs Linux:
>>
>> Linux DT 3.10.108 #42962 SMP Mon Aug 19 15:14:28 CST 2024
>> armv7l GNU/Linux synology_alpine_ds2015xs
>
> IIRC, same.

--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
OS: Linux 6.12.4 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
"Put on your seatbelt. I'm gonna try something new."

On 2024-12-14, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 16:14:43 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:
>
>> There's no real comparison. The way Windows updates simply sucks. Maybe
>> some day Microsoft will figure out how to do it right. But there's
>> reasons why Linux can update WITHOUT rebooting and Windows can't.
>> Windows is an inferior OS.
>
> In all fairness my Fedora box is using an older kernel that what was
> downloaded because I haven't rebooted in a month. The good part is since I
> doubt there is any advantage for me with the new kernel I don't have to
> reboot and the other applications are updated correctly.

Yeah. I like the way Fedora does that better than Ubuntu/Linux Mint. With
them you get a "reboot required" message with some updates — even though you
can ignore the message if you want to.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-12-15, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2024 15:06:50 -0500, Joel wrote:
>
>> I have to reboot for most updates with Debian, I just put it off till I
>> feel like doing it, then do it, boot up again, boom. It's a minor
>> concern, really, I'm not going for uptime as much as I am having the
>> best distro, and Debian seems to be it.
>
> I'm still running 32-bit Bullseye on that machine and it doesn't get much
> love. I don't think Bookworm even has a 32-bit option. Long story but I
> had to do 32-bit builds and that became increasingly painful on 64-bit
> distros.

32-bit Bookworm is available. A couple weeks ago I updated a 2006 Dell
Latitude D420 (Core Solo, 32-bit) Debian machine to Bookworm. No particular
reason, I did it just to see if it could be done.

https://www.debian.org/distrib/

You used to be able to find 32-bit live USB .ISOs more easily. I think
they're still available but not "officially."

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 07:29:11 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

> Yeah. I like the way Fedora does that better than Ubuntu/Linux Mint.
> With them you get a "reboot required" message with some updates — even
> though you can ignore the message if you want to.

I haven't gotten one of those on the Ubuntu box in a long time which means
I can expect one tomorrow.

On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 08:43:43 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

> As inconvenient as updating is, people have no choice but to go ahead
> and do it for the good of all. I can imagine it being a problem to
> update at 8pm when you have the highest amount of traffic, but 3AM
> should be reserved for such things.

Yeah, nobody ever dials 911 at 3AM.