How many have decided to install systemd for themselves?
How many have decided to install systemd for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on systemd
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
How many have decided to install Wayland for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on Wayland
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
The same pattern obtains for each and every change no matter
how big or how small.
The lusers on this group do not represent GNU/Linux USERS,
who study and and understand the system, but only GNU/Linux
MOOCHERS who can only accept what is shoved down their
ignorant throats.
Disagree?
All disagreements are just pathetic attempts to save face
against the very ugly truth.
A few Linux distros do give you a boot-up CHOICE
of SysV or systemd (MX notably).
Even PiOS installs systemd (and fuckin' WAYLAND
by default). You CAN change back to Xorg though,
but the systemd STAYS. This is for TINY boards.
Really beginning to pine for CP/M and DOS ...
if they'd just do WiFi/Net .......
Really beginning to pine for CP/M and DOS ...
if they'd just do WiFi/Net .......
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:47:36 -0400, c186282 wrote:
Really beginning to pine for CP/M and DOS ...
if they'd just do WiFi/Net .......
https://github.com/kevinboone/cpicom
There is an #ifdef in main.c where he calls cyw43_arch_init()), Now all
you have to figure out is how to do something with it.
On 8/3/2026 1:02 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:47:36 -0400, c186282 wrote:
-a-a-a Really beginning to pine for CP/M and DOS ...
-a-a-a if they'd just do WiFi/Net .......
https://github.com/kevinboone/cpicom
There is an #ifdef in main.c where he calls cyw43_arch_init()), Now all
you have to figure out is how to do something with it.
People have time for this bullshit?-a I have a simple mini PC running
Win11 well.-a In 2026.-a Why am I trying to go backward in time, to when computers were lame?
03.08.2026 22:12, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/3/2026 1:02 PM, rbowman wrote:Why you're still using Usenet and not these new-and-shiny Discourse-
On Sun, 2 Aug 2026 23:47:36 -0400, c186282 wrote:
-a-a-a Really beginning to pine for CP/M and DOS ...
-a-a-a if they'd just do WiFi/Net .......
https://github.com/kevinboone/cpicom
There is an #ifdef in main.c where he calls cyw43_arch_init()), Now all
you have to figure out is how to do something with it.
People have time for this bullshit?-a I have a simple mini PC running
Win11 well.-a In 2026.-a Why am I trying to go backward in time, to when
computers were lame?
powered forums?
I think same reason here.
Slackware doesn't use systemd. Let's not forget the OG of the Linux
world.
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find
Gentoo or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you
would want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
On 8/2/2026 6:12 PM, Leroy H wrote:
How many have decided to install systemd for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on systemd
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
How many have decided to install Wayland for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on Wayland
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
The same pattern obtains for each and every change no matter
how big or how small.
The lusers on this group do not represent GNU/Linux USERS,
who study and and understand the system, but only GNU/Linux
MOOCHERS who can only accept what is shoved down their
ignorant throats.
Disagree?
All disagreements are just pathetic attempts to save face
against the very ugly truth.
Wrong.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:34:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier
all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of
full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find
Gentoo or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you
would want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
We do thank you.
Linux isn't SMALL any more.
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:13:13 -0400, c186282 wrote:Oh, go jam it up yer tight ass with
Linux isn't SMALL any more.
Speak for yourself. Just because GNU/Linux boggles your
minuscule mind
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:34:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier
all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of
full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find
Gentoo or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you
would want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
We do thank you.
On Mon, 03 Aug 2026 11:29:40 -0400, jayjwa wrote:
Slackware doesn't use systemd. Let's not forget the OG of the Linux
world.
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find Gentoo
or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you would
want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
On 8/3/26 08:03, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 8/2/2026 6:12 PM, Leroy H wrote:
How many have decided to install systemd for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on systemd
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
How many have decided to install Wayland for themselves?
Answer: No one. Their disrtos made the decision on Wayland
and they could only helplessly follow suit.
The same pattern obtains for each and every change no matter
how big or how small.
The lusers on this group do not represent GNU/Linux USERS,
who study and and understand the system, but only GNU/Linux
MOOCHERS who can only accept what is shoved down their
ignorant throats.
Disagree?
All disagreements are just pathetic attempts to save face
against the very ugly truth.
Wrong.
-a The poster seems to HATE systemd - for no really
-a obvious reasons. As such, add the proverbial grain
-a of salt to his posts.
Leroy H is Farley Flud.
04.08.2026 06:25, Leroy H wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:34:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier
all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of
full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find
Gentoo or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you
would want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
We do thank you.
Leroy H is Farley Flud.
04.08.2026 06:25, Leroy H wrote:
On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 23:34:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Think of Slackware as kind of the rCLmissing linkrCY between an earlier
all-or-nothing installation like SLS, and the later appearance of
full-function package managers (Debian, Red Hat etc). ItrCOs an
interesting historical relic, and fun for wannabe geeks who find
Gentoo or Arch or LFS too much to cope with, but IrCOm not sure why you
would want to inflict it on ordinary people ...
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
We do thank you.
Le 04-08-2026, Stanislav N. aka pztrn <pztrn@oldproto.invalid> a |-crit-a:
Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Because the half wit who sent the message you are answering needs to
comfort himself in the belief that he's a Linux master. As he can't
learn anything, he can only despise and hate everything and everyone.
Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
Because the half wit who sent the message you are answering needs to
comfort himself in the belief that he's a Linux master. As he can't
learn anything, he can only despise and hate everything and everyone.
On 08 Aug 2026 10:54:50 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
Because the half wit who sent the message you are answering needs to
comfort himself in the belief that he's a Linux master. As he can't
learn anything, he can only despise and hate everything and everyone.
You are wrong again, as usual.
I do not "despise and hate everything." In fact, I love Gentoo
and I love LFS and I will do everything in my substantial power
to advocate them.
It is true that LFS abandoned their SysV build and now only
support that junk systemd, but the decision was due solely
to a manpower shortage and not because they judged systemd
to be superior.
GNU/Linux is largely volunteer driven and the better distros,
like Gentoo and LFS, have trouble attracting good people.
(That problem is universal across all human endeavors. People
are mostly drawn toward junk.)
On 08 Aug 2026 10:54:50 GMT, St|-phane CARPENTIER wrote:
Why Arch is a pile-of-garbage?
Do not ever include that pile-of-garbage ArchLinux with the
venerable Gentoo and LFS.
Because the half wit who sent the message you are answering needs to
comfort himself in the belief that he's a Linux master. As he can't
learn anything, he can only despise and hate everything and everyone.
You are wrong again, as usual.
I do not "despise and hate everything." In fact, I love Gentoo
and I love LFS and I will do everything in my substantial power
to advocate them.
It is true that LFS abandoned their SysV build and now only
support that junk systemd, but the decision was due solely
to a manpower shortage and not because they judged systemd
to be superior.
GNU/Linux is largely volunteer driven and the better distros,
like Gentoo and LFS, have trouble attracting good people.
(That problem is universal across all human endeavors. People
are mostly drawn toward junk.)
You just said that Arch is a pile of garbage. That means you hate it somehow.
I was using Gentoo for so long and love it too, despite on fact that
I either build GENERIC_DISTRO_NAME kernel by using all drivers as modules
OR compile drivers within kernel.
But after some time I realized that I have work to do, not to recompile
whole world because GCC upgrade.
Arch is great if you want vanilla software (almost, with MUCH FEWER patches applied than in any other distro) but do not want to hassle with compilation.
[snip gibberish]
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 07:00:35 +0500, Stanislav N. aka pztrn wrote:
You just said that Arch is a pile of garbage. That means you hate it somehow.
Arch is just another mainstream distro and ALL mainstream distros
are garbage.
Furthermore, "hate" is the inappropriate term. I have a professional
and rational detestation for such mainstream distros.
I was using Gentoo for so long and love it too, despite on fact that
I either build GENERIC_DISTRO_NAME kernel by using all drivers as modules
OR compile drivers within kernel.
You have the option to build the kernel yourself, independent of the
Gentoo tree and thereby avoid all such issues.
The fault is entirely YOURS, and not with Gentoo.
But after some time I realized that I have work to do, not to recompile
whole world because GCC upgrade.
???????????
There is no reason to recompile world due to a GCC update.
You are totally mistaken.
Arch is great if you want vanilla software (almost, with MUCH FEWER patches >> applied than in any other distro) but do not want to hassle with compilation.
Let us examine the distributed Arch "bash" program, which is located here:
<https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/bash/>
Let us use the "checksec" utility to examine how it was built in terms of "security" features:
<https://github.com/slimm609/checksec>
Here is the checksec output:
RELRO Stack Canary CFI NX PIE RPATH RUNPATH Symbols SafeStack Stack Clash W^X Seg Selfrando Sanitizers FORTIFY Lvl GLIBCXX Assert FORTIFY Fortified Fortifiable Name
Full RELRO Canary Found SHSTK & IBT NX enabled PIE Enabled No RPATH No RUNPATH No Symbols No SafeStack Found No Probes Enabled No Selfrando None Unknown Unknown Yes 12 17 ./bash
In stark contrast, here is the checksec output on my customized Gentoo
bash:
RELRO Stack Canary CFI NX PIE RPATH RUNPATH Symbols SafeStack Stack Clash W^X Seg Selfrando Sanitizers FORTIFY Lvl GLIBCXX Assert FORTIFY Fortified Fortifiable Name
No RELRO No Canary Found NO SHSTK & NO IBT NX enabled PIE Disabled No RPATH No RUNPATH No Symbols No SafeStack Found No Probes Enabled No Selfrando None Unknown Unknown No 0 12 /bin/bash
Notice the extreme difference. The "RELRO," "Stack Canary," "CFI,"
"PIE," and "Fortify" fields are enabled in Arch but disabled in my
custom Gentoo build. This is an extremely significant difference
and it indicates that Arch is garbage and junk.
And how many distros you have built from scratch and how many
of them are in use by users other than you?
There is nothing to "avoid", I built my kernel from Gentoo tree and it was running fine.
So libc update doesn't requiring world rebuild? Whoah, how did they managed it?
- RELRO is a relocation of critical things like GOT (Global Offset Table) to read-only memory so other processes cannot change it and inject own code into control flow.
- Stack Canary essentially is buffer overflow protection mechanism. Attacker will be unable to write something to memory outside of designated buffer and eventually won't hack you.
- CFI is "Control Flow Integrity", so attacker won't be able to inject bad things in it and overtake application's control flow.
- PIE is "Position-Independed Executables". These executables on startup will be loaded in random memory location to harden defense against attackers who tries to change memory bytes. Part of ASLR mechanism.
- Fortify is FORTIFY_SOURCES, a mechanism that tries to prevent buffer overflows and string format injections (and some other attack vectors).
Are you REALLY sure that YOUR bash binary is more secure than in Arch? It is more likely you've tried to get most from your system's performance and deliberately disabled some protection measures that kind-of eat it.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 08:39:57 +0500, Stanislav N. aka pztrn wrote:
And how many distros you have built from scratch and how many
of them are in use by users other than you?
That's the whole purpose of GNU/Linux. Is is not?
Every installation is different and unique to the individual
that builds it. GNU/Linux allows nearly infinite configuration
possibilities and can accommodate any need.
I deeply pity those poor fools that can only depend on a one-size-fits-all distro.
There is nothing to "avoid", I built my kernel from Gentoo tree and it was running fine.
Then don't complain.
So libc update doesn't requiring world rebuild? Whoah, how did they managed it?
No, it does not. I just built the newly released glibc-2.44 (it only requires
three minutes) and NOTHING needed to be rebuilt. NOTHING.
You are entirely mistaken.
The GLIBC folks do not ever break user space.
- RELRO is a relocation of critical things like GOT (Global Offset Table) to read-only memory so other processes cannot change it and inject own code into control flow.
- Stack Canary essentially is buffer overflow protection mechanism. Attacker will be unable to write something to memory outside of designated buffer and eventually won't hack you.
- CFI is "Control Flow Integrity", so attacker won't be able to inject bad things in it and overtake application's control flow.
- PIE is "Position-Independed Executables". These executables on startup will be loaded in random memory location to harden defense against attackers who tries to change memory bytes. Part of ASLR mechanism.
- Fortify is FORTIFY_SOURCES, a mechanism that tries to prevent buffer overflows and string format injections (and some other attack vectors).
Are you REALLY sure that YOUR bash binary is more secure than in Arch? It is more likely you've tried to get most from your system's performance and deliberately disabled some protection measures that kind-of eat it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
I operate a standalone desktop workstation and such "security" concerns
are totally irrelevant as well as being a serious detriment to performance.
I understand hardware from logic gates on up (but you don't) and such "security"
crap is ludicrous in the extreme.
Please do not respond further. It is obvious that your technical knowledge is highly deficient and I surely cannot waste my time attempting to explain digital fundamentals to someone like you.
So libc update doesn't requiring world rebuild? Whoah, how did they
managed it?
(of course I mean upgrading to new major version which will produce ABI-incompatible libraries and of course not stage4 rebuild but only
those packages that requires libc in that example, but you should
know that, right?)
And how many distros you have built from scratch and how manyThat's the whole purpose of GNU/Linux. Is is not?
of them are in use by users other than you?
I deeply pity those poor fools that can only depend on a one-size-fits-all >> distro.
It is great you have so much time for that.
Lets see what will you say when your data will be stolen via chained exploit when you enter your entertaining website.tld with "special" banner of javascript
injection. Or when you'll became a part of botnet. AIDE is working on your side,
right? Or you adopted something like ostree to make your system and important binaries/libraries immutable? You wrote BPF program that will reject suspicious
packets BEFORE they processed by kernel or network card module? Are you killing
unknown processes automatically?
I understand hardware from logic gates on up (but you don't) and such "security"
crap is ludicrous in the extreme.
Is your path "security by obscurity"? :)
And if you understand hardware logic - what next 5 vulnerabilities in Intel/AMD will be discovered?
Please do not respond further. It is obvious that your technical knowledge >> is highly deficient and I surely cannot waste my time attempting to explain >> digital fundamentals to someone like you.
Instead of being so offensive you should try to explain your POV without any offense. And maybe your words won't sound so stupid and selfish. It is unprofessional ->ro|_(paa)_ro+->.
On 09/08/2026 05:11, Leroy H wrote:
And how many distros you have built from scratch and how manyThat's the whole purpose of GNU/Linux. Is is not?
of them are in use by users other than you?
No, it isn't.
There is no 'point' to Linux. There is no DivinePlanrao.
If you want one of those, go and talk to a born again Xtian or a radical Muslim
Linux is a name for a collection of code that does some useful things.
What things those are depends on what your needs are.
If you just want something that works like you always hoped Windows
would with good support and broad penetration, you pick a linux
DISTRIBUTION that is well maintained and popular.
If you want to run a public facing web server you pick a distro that is conservative and stable and well patched against exploits
Only if you are an inadequate geek lacking in self esteem do you pick
some obscure distro you have to build from source just so you can brag
about it
If you got it, then flaunt it.Did you know that since I was last sitting responding to your posts I haven't thought about you, or anything you say for a single microsecond.
I just love to see the peons drool with envy.
In MY world you might as well not exist
It's not envy, its complete indifference
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 21:27:23 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
[snip gibberish]
If I had wanted some technical ignoramus imbecile to respond
to my post I would have pinned it to the bulletin board of the
nearest retard asylum.
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 20:31:27 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In MY world you might as well not exist
It's not envy, its complete indifference
Yet you were compelled to take the time from your otherwise
busy life in order to tell me that.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! I understand my slaves and I will treat
them accordingly.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 50:07:59 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,859 |