On 18/02/2023 05:25, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/16/23 6:39 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-16 11:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2023 06:38, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/23 7:07 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 15/02/2023 11:29, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> The GUI interface is an afterthought, and doesn't have all the
>>>>>> options. That's just a fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Horses for courses.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need a torque wrench to top up your oil.
>>>>
>>>>    But it doesn't hurt to have a graphic indicator
>>>>    of yer oil level on the dash so you KNOW it's time
>>>>    to top-up yer oil   :-)
>>>
>>> It was over a year before I discovered how to read the oil level in
>>> my car. There was no dipstick. And found it had been overfilled by
>>> the last owner.
>>
>> That can be a trick to hid defects (was in a distant past, at least),
>> and can cause damage to the engine.
>
>   I think ALL cars STILL have a dipstick - but sometimes
>   they HIDE it so well you need a Wiki to locate the
>   damned thing ! 99.9% are dependent on idiot lights
>   or something similar.
>
I can assure you that mine does not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qm3aKYtXw4

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:

>
>   Mostly true for the 99.999%
>
>   They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>   don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>   use the '/' partition for everything.
>
I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
place including a home server.

These are where the data is.
Ultimately it makes a desktop or laptop machine crash trivial to recover
from.

>   I don't CARE what a disks UUID might be - I want it,
>   or a replacement, to be found SIMPLY. I always go
>   back and edit 'fstab' to set by-label mounting.

I dont. No need to.

--
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

On 2023-02-18 07:04, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/16/23 1:11 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
>> On 2023-02-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>>

....

>> As to GUI's being quicker, well it depends. I don't think any GUI email
>> interface is as quick at dealing with mail as mutt or pine.
>
>   Nope, GUIs are quicker for the 99.999% ... All praise ThunderBird,
>   Gmail .......... (ok, I stay away from anything Goog ...)

Not when you tell Thunderbird to copy or move a thousand messages to
another folder. Alpine is way faster. I know, because I use both in the
same computers.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-18 06:56, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/16/23 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>> On 2/15/23 6:29 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-15 06:57, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>>> On 2/14/23 10:51 AM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>> 25B.R867 <25B.R867@noaaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/14/23 9:07 AM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>>> 25B.R867 <25B.R867@noaaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>     There are all sorts of fine tweaks you can pick - including
>>>>>>>>>     things like sector size
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sector size is fixed by the disk manufacturer when they create the
>>>>>>>> disk, and for mechanical drives is either 512 bytes or 4096 bytes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are likely referring to "cluster size" which is a different
>>>>>>>> concept, but is one in which you get to 'tweak' when making a given
>>>>>>>> filesystem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    Probably ... I was posting at 1am   :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    But just for fun bring up OpenSUSE somewhere and use YAST2 to
>>>>>>>    format a hdd ...  there are lots of fine options relating to the
>>>>>>>    disk and its relations with the OS you do NOT see elsewhere -
>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>    you maybe didn't even realize you could tweak for "special
>>>>>>> needs".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read the manual page for mkfs.xxxx for your favorite filesystem and
>>>>>> you'll find all those same "fine options" detailed for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Fuck mkfs ... gimme a GUI with checkboxes and lines that
>>>>>    help you pick the right set of params. Much more intuitive,
>>>>>    much less prone to error. You can SEE what you're doing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stick to the GUI crutches, and you only become aware of what the
>>>>>> author
>>>>>> of the GUI crutch allowed you to be aware of.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Don't knock GUIs. As said they (can) make all the little
>>>>>    nuances MUCH more transparent and error-free. A good GUI
>>>>>    adds the makers IQ to yours.
>>>>>
>>>>>    The YAST2 GUI (OpenSUSE also has a text-based "gui") is
>>>>>    really good in this respect. For most 'gparted' is highly
>>>>>    recommended and usually "good enough".
>>>>>
>>>>>    Sorry, this ain't 1995 anymore.
>>>>
>>>> And it ain't Windows, either.
>>>>
>>>> The GUI interface is an afterthought, and doesn't have all the
>>>> options. That's just a fact.
>>>
>>>    Well, I guess you're perfect and will NEVER screw up
>>>    the 97 params needed for a CL app ..........  :-)
>>>
>>>    Sorry, GUIs have a USEFUL PLACE these days. Quicker,
>>>    surer. Their limits are the authors - some are VERY
>>>    good, others not so much.
>>
>> Of course they have a place and are useful. I don't deny that. But
>> GUIs do not expose all the possibilities, either.
>
>   They can expose the MOST USEFUL possibilities that are
>   relevant to 99.999% of the users. Yea, the CL versions
>   may expose a few extras - but almost NOBODY will need them.
>   That's just not enough to rec the CL approaches.

I use them every week.

>
>> Me, when I do something repeatedly, including a repeat a year later,
>> simply write the recipe to a text file, and then copy paste back the
>> CLI commands to repeat the procedure.
>
>   Yep, me too.
>
>> If a GUI does that, I have to write a long text maybe with photos to
>> list every option that I have to click. That's a lot of effort.
>> Happened to me yesterday, as I had to partition, format and prepare an
>> old disk as encrypted storage. One of the step was the partition
>> table, for which I used gparted.
>
>   Screenshots work well ........

Try doing that in Usenet.

>
>   And, as I said, the 99.999% will NEVER need/want all those
>   micro-nuanced CL options.
>
>   I don't suggest disappearing the CL utilities, but for almost
>   ALL the GUIs are quicker, clearer, more intuitive and less
>   prone to errors.
>
>   Hey, I grew up on CL utils, was good with 'pip' and friends -
>   but there ARE generally better alternatives these days.
>
>   And if you're gonna make RAID arrays ... the OpenSUSE YAST
>   GUI makes it super super super EASY and clear. The CL utils
>   and config-file edits are a NIGHTMARE by comparison. A couple
>   of years ago I had to do it The Hard Way on Centos. NEVER
>   AGAIN BABY !!! Took a half a fuckin' DAY to get everything
>   in order and underway ! Steps, more steps and MORE fuckin'
>   steps asking obscure questions and needing obscure
>   syntax and nums ...............

Well, openSUSE is removing functionality from YaST. Recently they
removed the sound module. Next are the DNS, DHCP, and web server modules.

>
>   IMHO, these days, CL utils are mostly job-security for
>   sysadmins - maintaining the profitable 'magic'.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
> even need a transmission.

MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
engineer who designed it.

From what I've heard, swapping entire hardware modules around
isn't even straight forward, with different firmware and hardware
revisions involved.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>
>>
>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>
>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>
> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
> place including a home server.

A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
control.

I mostly use some little laptops at home - with
VERY little internal storage space. So, I got one
of those nice little 4-bay Sinology NAS and have
a pair of 12tb drives in it set up as RAID-1.
However it's using SMB, not NFS.

> These are where the data is.
> Ultimately it makes a desktop or laptop machine crash trivial to recover
> from.

You are less likely to "lose everything" fer sure.

I'm still hoping for a Linux version of something
like "Macrium Reflect" though - something that can
easily do a full image of a running machine on a
schedule. The current "well, just take down yer
box and boot CloneZilla from the CD/Stick to image
yer box" approach kinda sucks. Hey, lots of people
are usually USING those boxes ... downtime is BAD.

Yea, if you're a little creative you CAN craft some
scripts using 'dd' - but remember that it's NOT
gonna be 100% happy with the active partition
(mostly because of the various cache/temp-config/open
files that are changing all the time).

Oh wait ... I just figured out a neat-ish way to
do all that stuff .... that'll be my next project :-)
Gotta get a GitHub page .........

>>    I don't CARE what a disks UUID might be - I want it,
>>    or a replacement, to be found SIMPLY. I always go
>>    back and edit 'fstab' to set by-label mounting.
>
> I dont. No need to.

Meaning you haven't ENCOUNTERED the need - yet :-)

Disks - even SSDs - DO die. I've got a pile of
them (gotta strip 'em for the magnets and the
attractive platters sometime). The more 'drop
in' the replacement can be made the better.

On 2/18/23 6:37 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-18 07:04, 25B.R866 wrote:
>> On 2/16/23 1:11 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>>>
>
> ...
>
>>> As to GUI's being quicker, well it depends. I don't think any GUI email
>>> interface is as quick at dealing with mail as mutt or pine.
>>
>>    Nope, GUIs are quicker for the 99.999% ... All praise ThunderBird,
>>    Gmail .......... (ok, I stay away from anything Goog ...)
>
> Not when you tell Thunderbird to copy or move a thousand messages to
> another folder. Alpine is way faster. I know, because I use both in the
> same computers.

"Faster", yes - but what makes for "better" ? It's
not always speed ... 'ease' enters into the equation
as well. Drag-n-drop, or at least cut-n-paste, is
"better" IMHO because it's so simple and intuitive
and, yes, even Grandma can do it.

On 18/02/2023 23:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>> even need a transmission.
>
> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
> engineer who designed it.
>
> From what I've heard, swapping entire hardware modules around
> isn't even straight forward, with different firmware and hardware
> revisions involved.
>
Sadly that is true even for current IC engines.
I have had more than my fair share of Limp Home red lights.

So I bought a scanner dongle. Even that wasn't a complete solution as
the error code I got 'overheating generator' could apply to a hybrid car
generator overheating, or low coolant level or a US cooling fan in a
conventional engine.

I topped up the coolant that was a little low, despite everyone assuring
me that low coolant level would initiate a LOW COOLANT LEVEL warning,
and the problem has not reoccurred..

Sigh...

Fortunately in car electronics passed their period of random
unreliability some time in the 1970s, and its rare for a computer system
to fail completely.
And in reality there are probably *less* external sensors on an electric
system - current voltage temperature times tow or thee and that's it.
Compare a modern automatic turbodiesel like mine. Which has crank
sensor, possible valve timing sensor., MAF sensor, inlet temp sensor
coolant level sensor coolant temperature sensor, oil level sensor, fuel
level sensor, two turbo switch sensors and probably some CAT sensors and
EGR crap. And we haven't started on the transmission yet...or the ABS
brakes and cruise control, anti-skid traction control blah blah.

Todays IC car probably has 4-5 computers connected by CANBUS and all of
them interacting in such weird and wonderful ways you need a scan tool
and a multichannel oscilloscope to diagnose them.

I doubt an electric car is worse.

And all of that is vulnerable to corrosions and high underbonnet
temnepartures. And 'critters'.

It appears that 'critters' are a major source of electrical failure in
the USA.

Myself, I have only had them destroy house wiring.

--
Climate is what you expect but weather is what you get.
Mark Twain

On 19/02/2023 04:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>
>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>
>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>> place including a home server.
>
>   A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>   SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>   portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>   LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>   control.
>
I used to run SMB, but eliminated all non linux machines from my 'cloud'
which is essentially single user also does not need security, and I
preferred the more open mechanism of NFS.

I have a fixed public IP address which allows a very secure access to my
'public' machines via simple firewall rules. Home/office machines are
behind a NAT router which disallows all but specific inbound access.

>   I mostly use some little laptops at home - with
>   VERY little internal storage space. So, I got one
>   of those nice little 4-bay Sinology NAS and have
>   a pair of 12tb drives in it set up as RAID-1.
>   However it's using SMB, not NFS.
>
*shrug* I simply move yeteryears desktops to todays server. Load up te
towers with spinning rust..

>> These are where the data is.
>> Ultimately it makes a desktop or laptop machine crash trivial to
>> recover from.
>
>   You are less likely to "lose everything" fer sure.
>
Yes. Ok if the house catches fire, perhaps, but in terms of disk
failures I am very safe.

>   I'm still hoping for a Linux version of something
>   like "Macrium Reflect" though - something that can
>   easily do a full image of a running machine on a
>   schedule. The current "well, just take down yer
>   box and boot CloneZilla from the CD/Stick to image
>   yer box" approach kinda sucks. Hey, lots of people
>   are usually USING those boxes ... downtime is BAD.
>
The only real problem I have is backing up live Mysql databases.

>   Yea, if you're a little creative you CAN craft some
>   scripts using 'dd' - but remember that it's NOT
>   gonna be 100% happy with the active partition
>   (mostly because of the various cache/temp-config/open
>   files that are changing all the time).
>
I use rsync. It happilybacks up running disk data, but that is not
always enough

>   Oh wait ... I just figured out a neat-ish way to
>   do all that stuff .... that'll be my next project :-)
>   Gotta get a GitHub page .........
>
>>>    I don't CARE what a disks UUID might be - I want it,
>>>    or a replacement, to be found SIMPLY. I always go
>>>    back and edit 'fstab' to set by-label mounting.
>>
>> I dont. No need to.
>
>   Meaning you haven't ENCOUNTERED the need - yet  :-)
>
>   Disks - even SSDs - DO die. I've got a pile of
>   them (gotta strip 'em for the magnets and the
>   attractive platters sometime). The more 'drop
>   in' the replacement can be made the better.

In general a dead disk is at least a days work to install, and recreate
from backup, anyway. The trivial nature of discovering its UUID and
patching the fstab is really not an issue.

My time running commercial IT companies left me very 'cost benefit'
oriented. And very chary indeed of anything 'non standard' - the
further you stray from installation defaults the less likely are you to
find support on the net.
So the time spent on fine tuning a procedure you rarely do, that breaks
what 'everyone expects' is not worth it

I have built a system that works for me. For the tasks in hand. Linux is
a tool, not a hobby. Its a very good tool, and I learn enough to use it
fairly well, but I am not interested beyond that

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>> even need a transmission.
>
> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
> engineer who designed it.

Same with an ICE.

If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
the car till it is repaired or replaced.

>
> From what I've heard, swapping entire hardware modules around
> isn't even straight forward, with different firmware and hardware
> revisions involved.

Same with ICE.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-19 05:11, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 6:37 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-18 07:04, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>> On 2/16/23 1:11 PM, Jim Jackson wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-16, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> As to GUI's being quicker, well it depends. I don't think any GUI email
>>>> interface is as quick at dealing with mail as mutt or pine.
>>>
>>>    Nope, GUIs are quicker for the 99.999% ... All praise ThunderBird,
>>>    Gmail .......... (ok, I stay away from anything Goog ...)
>>
>> Not when you tell Thunderbird to copy or move a thousand messages to
>> another folder. Alpine is way faster. I know, because I use both in
>> the same computers.
>
>   "Faster", yes - but what makes for "better" ? It's
>   not always speed ... 'ease' enters into the equation
>   as well. Drag-n-drop, or at least cut-n-paste, is
>   "better" IMHO because it's so simple and intuitive
>   and, yes, even Grandma can do it.

I never said "better".

Alpine is better, that is, faster, on handling email movements,
specially on many emails. Thunderbird can be better, ie, easier, on
movements of few emails. Alpine is better at selecting mail in a folder
that match certain criteria, and then do some operation on it.
Thunderbird can be better on locating email that match certain criteria
the moment they arrive and moving it automatically to some other folder.

Thunderbird is better at displaying html email, or any graphical content.

Alpine is sometimes better at searching text on a folder. Thunderbird is
sometimes better at searching text on a folder.

Thunderbird can not handle at all mail with inline PGP signatures.

Alpine can not handle at all mail with attached PGP signatures.

Alpine is better for composing mail with screen text captures with long
command lines, because I can disable word wrap on per email basis.

I can not work with Alpine handling of nntp.

I use both, choosing the best one for whatever I do each moment.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-19 05:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>
>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>
>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>> place including a home server.
>
>   A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>   SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>   portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>   LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>   control.

Samba has no knowledge of Linux permissions and attributes. NFS does.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 19/02/2023 12:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-19 05:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>>
>>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>>
>>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>>> place including a home server.
>>
>>    A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>>    SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>>    portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>>    LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>>    control.
>
>
> Samba has no knowledge of Linux permissions and attributes. NFS does.
>
>
That was, in the end, the factor.

It is possible to edit root permission files on remote machine by
becoming root locally. If you expert with root_squash

Unless you have the dangerous habit of running an SMB user with root
permissions, in which case nothing is sacrosanct, you cant do that with SMB.
the convenience is that the local user on NFS has the same permissions
on the remote file system

--
“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 18/02/2023 23:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>> even need a transmission.
>>
>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>> engineer who designed it.
>>
>> From what I've heard, swapping entire hardware modules around
>> isn't even straight forward, with different firmware and hardware
>> revisions involved.
>>
> Sadly that is true even for current IC engines.
> I have had more than my fair share of Limp Home red lights.

Yes I agree, but electric overall isn't any simpler. _Maybe_
reliable enough that by the time the electronics start breaking
down the value of an old model isn't worth the big cost of
replacing a dead battery anyway, so it doesn't matter. But some
will/do break down early (maybe fewer than with IC though) and
fixing them won't be any _easier_ than with IC because the
overall design is still hideously complicated.

> So I bought a scanner dongle. Even that wasn't a complete solution as
> the error code I got 'overheating generator' could apply to a hybrid car
> generator overheating, or low coolant level or a US cooling fan in a
> conventional engine.
>
> I topped up the coolant that was a little low, despite everyone assuring
> me that low coolant level would initiate a LOW COOLANT LEVEL warning,
> and the problem has not reoccurred..
>
> Sigh...

Sounds about typical. All these electronics make a lot of money for
dealer servicing departments, I'm sure.

> Fortunately in car electronics passed their period of random
> unreliability some time in the 1970s, and its rare for a computer system
> to fail completely.
> And in reality there are probably *less* external sensors on an electric
> system - current voltage temperature times tow or thee and that's it.
> Compare a modern automatic turbodiesel like mine. Which has crank
> sensor, possible valve timing sensor., MAF sensor, inlet temp sensor
> coolant level sensor coolant temperature sensor, oil level sensor, fuel
> level sensor, two turbo switch sensors and probably some CAT sensors and
> EGR crap.

Yes but you've got lots of thermistors monitoring the temperature
all over the battery pack to try and tell when it's about to burst
into flames. Current sensors to make sure that it's not being
over-charged. Temperature sensors to make sure the electronics
aren't over-heating (some are also liquid-cooled). More sensors
to try and charge as quickly as possible without melting the charge
cable or the dodgy wiring in people's homes. I don't think there's
a great difference overall.

But here are some of the teardown videos that helped me form this
opinion. So seeing as you're into electronics too, judge for
yourself.

Inverter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drS3sEsxOO8

Battery charger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=argrHjADn8g

3rd party charger cable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O58KT117crs

> And we haven't started on the transmission yet...or the ABS
> brakes and cruise control, anti-skid traction control blah blah.

But all the sensors for the latter are still required for electric.

> And all of that is vulnerable to corrosions and high underbonnet
> temnepartures. And 'critters'.
>
> It appears that 'critters' are a major source of electrical failure in
> the USA.

Count Australia in too. Don't get me started...

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>> even need a transmission.
>>
>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>> engineer who designed it.
>
> Same with an ICE.
>
> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
> the car till it is repaired or replaced.

Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
remotely simple anymore.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>> even need a transmission.
>>>
>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>> engineer who designed it.
>>
>> Same with an ICE.
>>
>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>
> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
> remotely simple anymore.

Mechanically they are way simpler.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>> Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines
>>>>
>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler.
[snip pointless replies]
> Mechanically they are way simpler.

Jeeze.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 2/18/23 6:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-18 06:56, 25B.R866 wrote:
>> On 2/16/23 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/23 6:29 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-02-15 06:57, 25B.R867 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/14/23 10:51 AM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>> 25B.R867 <25B.R867@noaaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/14/23 9:07 AM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 25B.R867 <25B.R867@noaaada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>     There are all sorts of fine tweaks you can pick - including
>>>>>>>>>>     things like sector size
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sector size is fixed by the disk manufacturer when they create the
>>>>>>>>> disk, and for mechanical drives is either 512 bytes or 4096 bytes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are likely referring to "cluster size" which is a different
>>>>>>>>> concept, but is one in which you get to 'tweak' when making a
>>>>>>>>> given
>>>>>>>>> filesystem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    Probably ... I was posting at 1am   :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    But just for fun bring up OpenSUSE somewhere and use YAST2 to
>>>>>>>>    format a hdd ...  there are lots of fine options relating to the
>>>>>>>>    disk and its relations with the OS you do NOT see elsewhere -
>>>>>>>> stuff
>>>>>>>>    you maybe didn't even realize you could tweak for "special
>>>>>>>> needs".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read the manual page for mkfs.xxxx for your favorite filesystem and
>>>>>>> you'll find all those same "fine options" detailed for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Fuck mkfs ... gimme a GUI with checkboxes and lines that
>>>>>>    help you pick the right set of params. Much more intuitive,
>>>>>>    much less prone to error. You can SEE what you're doing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stick to the GUI crutches, and you only become aware of what the
>>>>>>> author
>>>>>>> of the GUI crutch allowed you to be aware of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Don't knock GUIs. As said they (can) make all the little
>>>>>>    nuances MUCH more transparent and error-free. A good GUI
>>>>>>    adds the makers IQ to yours.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    The YAST2 GUI (OpenSUSE also has a text-based "gui") is
>>>>>>    really good in this respect. For most 'gparted' is highly
>>>>>>    recommended and usually "good enough".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Sorry, this ain't 1995 anymore.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it ain't Windows, either.
>>>>>
>>>>> The GUI interface is an afterthought, and doesn't have all the
>>>>> options. That's just a fact.
>>>>
>>>>    Well, I guess you're perfect and will NEVER screw up
>>>>    the 97 params needed for a CL app ..........  :-)
>>>>
>>>>    Sorry, GUIs have a USEFUL PLACE these days. Quicker,
>>>>    surer. Their limits are the authors - some are VERY
>>>>    good, others not so much.
>>>
>>> Of course they have a place and are useful. I don't deny that. But
>>> GUIs do not expose all the possibilities, either.
>>
>>    They can expose the MOST USEFUL possibilities that are
>>    relevant to 99.999% of the users. Yea, the CL versions
>>    may expose a few extras - but almost NOBODY will need them.
>>    That's just not enough to rec the CL approaches.
>
> I use them every week.

Then you have "unusual needs". I never said to
take away the CL stuff, just that the vast
majority are better served by GUI versions,
please most of the people most of the time.

And there are a few things in Winders that can
only be done with CL stuff or registry tweaks -
except almost no Winders user even knows such
possibilities exist these days.

>>> Me, when I do something repeatedly, including a repeat a year later,
>>> simply write the recipe to a text file, and then copy paste back the
>>> CLI commands to repeat the procedure.
>>
>>    Yep, me too.
>>
>>> If a GUI does that, I have to write a long text maybe with photos to
>>> list every option that I have to click. That's a lot of effort.
>>> Happened to me yesterday, as I had to partition, format and prepare
>>> an old disk as encrypted storage. One of the step was the partition
>>> table, for which I used gparted.
>>
>>    Screenshots work well ........
>
> Try doing that in Usenet.

Usenet is not the whole universe.

(Or IS it ? maybe this is a "Truman Show" thing ???)

>>    And, as I said, the 99.999% will NEVER need/want all those
>>    micro-nuanced CL options.
>>
>>    I don't suggest disappearing the CL utilities, but for almost
>>    ALL the GUIs are quicker, clearer, more intuitive and less
>>    prone to errors.
>>
>>    Hey, I grew up on CL utils, was good with 'pip' and friends -
>>    but there ARE generally better alternatives these days.
>>
>>    And if you're gonna make RAID arrays ... the OpenSUSE YAST
>>    GUI makes it super super super EASY and clear. The CL utils
>>    and config-file edits are a NIGHTMARE by comparison. A couple
>>    of years ago I had to do it The Hard Way on Centos. NEVER
>>    AGAIN BABY !!! Took a half a fuckin' DAY to get everything
>>    in order and underway ! Steps, more steps and MORE fuckin'
>>    steps asking obscure questions and needing obscure
>>    syntax and nums ...............
>
> Well, openSUSE is removing functionality from YaST. Recently they
> removed the sound module. Next are the DNS, DHCP, and web server modules.

And someone was complaining when I started trashing OpenSUSE :-)

I'd say it reached its zenith about two years ago. Downhill
from there. More and more and more bits MIA ...

I used to rec it pretty heavily, called it a "Cadillac distro".

No more.

So sad.

Not sure if it's because of the RH/IBM thing or whether the
maintainers just got lazy.

>>    IMHO, these days, CL utils are mostly job-security for
>>    sysadmins - maintaining the profitable 'magic'.
>

On 2/19/23 6:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 19/02/2023 04:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>>
>>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>>
>>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>>> place including a home server.
>>
>>    A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>>    SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>>    portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>>    LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>>    control.
>>
> I used to run SMB, but eliminated all non linux machines from my 'cloud'
> which is essentially single user also does not need security, and I
> preferred the more open mechanism of NFS.
>
> I have a fixed public IP address which allows a very secure access to my
> 'public' machines via simple firewall rules.  Home/office machines are
> behind a NAT router which disallows all but specific inbound access.
>
>
>>    I mostly use some little laptops at home - with
>>    VERY little internal storage space. So, I got one
>>    of those nice little 4-bay Sinology NAS and have
>>    a pair of 12tb drives in it set up as RAID-1.
>>    However it's using SMB, not NFS.
>>
> *shrug* I simply move yeteryears  desktops to todays server. Load up te
> towers with spinning rust..
>
>>> These are where the data is.
>>> Ultimately it makes a desktop or laptop machine crash trivial to
>>> recover from.
>>
>>    You are less likely to "lose everything" fer sure.
>>
> Yes. Ok if the house catches fire, perhaps, but in terms of disk
> failures I am very safe.
>
>>    I'm still hoping for a Linux version of something
>>    like "Macrium Reflect" though - something that can
>>    easily do a full image of a running machine on a
>>    schedule. The current "well, just take down yer
>>    box and boot CloneZilla from the CD/Stick to image
>>    yer box" approach kinda sucks. Hey, lots of people
>>    are usually USING those boxes ... downtime is BAD.
>>
> The only real problem I have is backing up live Mysql databases.
>
>>    Yea, if you're a little creative you CAN craft some
>>    scripts using 'dd' - but remember that it's NOT
>>    gonna be 100% happy with the active partition
>>    (mostly because of the various cache/temp-config/open
>>    files that are changing all the time).
>>
> I use rsync. It happilybacks up running disk data, but that is not
> always enough

MySQL and chums are almost THE worst case. They are
constantly churning - re-indexing, moving stuff
around, and if there are users it means lots of
file/record locks that change by the minute.

This is a case of where you really should stop
the daemon and then use the correct utilities
to do the backup. It can all be scripted of course,
re-start as soon as practical. Preferably schedule
it all for 3:30am or something for minimal disruption.
MySQL and friends can stash files all over the
netiverse alas, so 'dd' just ISN'T gonna get it done.

RHEL boasts of setups where you can have 'mirror
servers' anywhere and if one goes down there's
automatic fall-over. I think this is a for-$$$
capability. Your backup from the offline unit
would never be 100% "current", but REAL damned
close. For smaller biz though .... nah .....

The "churning" aspect is why I still rec magnetic
drives for boxes hosting big databases. SSDs have
improved, but their real-world re-writes figure
still isn't as good. Depending, you can also run
the most churney bits of the DB in a RAM disk.
Some of the apps tuned for the rPI's have been
tweaked this way so you don't burn out the SD
card before its time. I wrote a couple of custom
rPi apps that way Just Because.

As for "the house burning down" - and yes I do take
such disasters into consideration - this is where
'cloud' space for backups comes in. Plain old
DropBox will work, esp one of the for-$$$ levels.
Commercial DBox even has 'undo' levels that go
back for about a year. There are a few others where
you can sFTP instead of having that dedicated local
folder as with DBox. ALWAYS pre-encrypt before
putting anything on The Cloud !!!

>>    Oh wait ... I just figured out a neat-ish way to
>>    do all that stuff .... that'll be my next project :-)
>>    Gotta get a GitHub page .........
>>
>>>>    I don't CARE what a disks UUID might be - I want it,
>>>>    or a replacement, to be found SIMPLY. I always go
>>>>    back and edit 'fstab' to set by-label mounting.
>>>
>>> I dont. No need to.
>>
>>    Meaning you haven't ENCOUNTERED the need - yet  :-)
>>
>>    Disks - even SSDs - DO die. I've got a pile of
>>    them (gotta strip 'em for the magnets and the
>>    attractive platters sometime). The more 'drop
>>    in' the replacement can be made the better.
>
> In general a dead disk is at least a days work to install, and recreate
> from backup, anyway. The trivial nature of discovering its UUID and
> patching the fstab is really not an issue.

Not a PROBLEM ... but ANNOYING - so I skip that bit.

> My time running commercial IT companies left me very 'cost benefit'
> oriented. And very chary indeed of anything 'non standard' -  the
> further you stray from installation defaults the less likely are you to
> find support on the net.

Agreed.

> So the time spent on fine tuning a procedure you rarely do, that breaks
> what 'everyone expects' is not worth it

Unless it's NECESSARY.

> I have built a system that works for me. For the tasks in hand. Linux is
> a tool, not a hobby. Its a very good tool, and I learn enough to use it
> fairly well, but I am not interested beyond that

I still keep a multi-server smaller biz going, so
cost/benefit is always in mind. However do to
certain regulatory requirements "the usual stuff"
doesn't always cut it. I'm on the 4th gen of a
custom general backup pgm, most in Python, that
can take one job and send the data off to a few
different places in appropriate formats. Alas
each one died of 'feature creep' that made the
code unmaintainable. The likely final version I
re-did in Pascal and left out most of those cool
'features' that I discovered were NEVER used.
It's all MUCH cleaner now.

Why Pascal ? Because lots of strings and string-parsing
is involved and I *hate* doing strings in 'C' :-)

Pascal is also a bit more "self documenting", quasi-
understandable names for things, less worry about
pointers-to and null-terminations and other such
landmines ..... and besides, there's an 'elegance'
to Pascal - I even loved the old multi-pass IBM/M$
compiler (and have it on a VM fer fun :-)

Have never found a Modula2/3 compiler that'll
reliably work in Linux alas ... a couple are
supposed to work - until you actually try to
compile anything ..........

Hmmmmmmm ... what ever happened to the "Short
Name For USB ?" :-)

On 2/19/23 7:04 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-19 05:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Mostly true for the 99.999%
>>>>
>>>>    They have ONE disk, they write files to it, they
>>>>    don't care if it's sda1 or sda2 or whatever - they
>>>>    use the '/' partition for everything.
>>>>
>>> I have one disk. I dont write files to it.
>>> It mounts no less than 18 remote NFS shares of machines all over the
>>> place including a home server.
>>
>>    A perfectly valid approach. Dunno about NFS though ...
>>    SAMBA is theoretically "better" these days and more
>>    portable insofar as Winders goes. SAMBA also has a
>>    LOT of fine-tuning tweaks and more access/security
>>    control.
>
>
> Samba has no knowledge of Linux permissions and attributes. NFS does.

Ummmm ... SAMBA makes/manages it's OWN permissions and
attributes by and large. I've never had a big prob in 25
years. I think it's "better" for a biz environment where
you have lots of Winders boxes and a few -ix servers,
esp in terms of visibility and finer-grained permissions.
If it's a HOME system, well, who cares, but I have outside
IT auditors who want to know who has access to every little
share and their view/read/rw abilities and why and how others
are excluded.

On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>     Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>     even need a transmission.
>>>>
>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>
>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>
>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>
>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>> remotely simple anymore.
>
>
> Mechanically they are way simpler.

That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
systems too.

Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
skip the pumpkin(s) too.

In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
'54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
to replace.

BATTERIES are the bane of electrics alas ... they need to
be a LOT better and I do *not* see anything on the near
horizon. Oh sure, lots of 'exciting research' reports -
but the prototypes are maybe a square millimeter and
they NEVER scale up to real, affordable, production.

25B.E866 <25B.E866@noaaba.net> wrote:
> On 2/19/23 8:55 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>> ??? Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>> ??? even need a transmission.
>>>>>
>>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>>
>>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>>
>>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>>
>>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>>> remotely simple anymore.
>>
>>
>> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>
> That was my main point ... consider ALL the moving parts
> in today's petrol engines. The things are VERY complicated.
> Yea, x-percent of the parts are just replicated, but still
> it's a LOT of parts and there are a few VITAL support
> systems too.
>
> Electrics = stator+rotor and a couple bearings and you don't
> even need a tranny. Feed the wheels directly and you can
> skip the pumpkin(s) too.
>
> In BOTH kinds of motors, these days, there's a complicated
> computerized control unit. They won't run without it. Yer
> '54 Chevy would, but not anything made today. On the plus
> side, such units are basically plug-ins - quick (but $$$)
> to replace.

Actually the complicated control unit made the mechanical parts
less complicated in IC engines (no distributor, carburettor,
etc.). The mechanical complexity went down, but the overall
complexity went up. What I think you're trying to say is that
_reliability_ is better with electric cars (provided they get the
design right, I suppose), and in principle I agree with that.

The thing is that I'd quite like electric cars to be simple overall
because then both the electronics and the mechanics would be within
the grasp of a backyard mechanic again. In practice they make it
all too complicated, and even figuring out how to replace a module
without the main computer spitting out rude error messages might be
beyond someone without the manufacturer's documentation at hand.
That's after you shell out a fortune for the replacement module and
wait a couple of months for it to travel across the globe.

> BATTERIES are the bane of electrics alas ... they need to
> be a LOT better and I do *not* see anything on the near
> horizon. Oh sure, lots of 'exciting research' reports -
> but the prototypes are maybe a square millimeter and
> they NEVER scale up to real, affordable, production.

Yep, I agree on that.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 20/02/2023 01:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-19 23:46, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-02-19 00:23, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> 25B.R866 <25B.R866@noaaba.net> wrote:
>>>>>     Electrics are VASTLY simpler machines - usually you don't
>>>>>     even need a transmission.
>>>>
>>>> MECHANICALLY simpler. If you're driving along and your motor
>>>> controller lets out the smoke, you're not exactly going to be able
>>>> to rig up a fix on the road side. Probably not even if you're the
>>>> engineer who designed it.
>>>
>>> Same with an ICE.
>>>
>>> If the motor computer in my gasoline car breaks, I can not start or run
>>> the car till it is repaired or replaced.
>>
>> Yes but electric isn't making that situation any better, which is
>> what I read from 25B.R866's "Electrics are VASTLY simpler
>> machines". In fact if a current model of either breaks down it's
>> probably an equal headache to fix because neither technology is
>> remotely simple anymore.
>
>
> Mechanically they are way simpler.
>

Yes, but that is in fact what has happened with IC too, less mechanicals
more computer.

Apart from variable valve timing and turbochargers, motors have LOST
complexity.

Gone are
Contact breakers, with mechanical and vacuum advance
Distributors
Carburettors.

Everything is now sensored and computer controlled.
And boy the electronics is way more reliable than the mechanicals ever were.
The only problem is that you need to understand how the electronics
works before you can fix the stuff.

I recommend 'Diagnose Dan' on you tube for some of the more vicious
quirks a computer controlled car can get up to. As well as a general
education in what all those sensors actually do.

--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 2023-02-20 03:28, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/18/23 6:40 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2023-02-18 06:56, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>> On 2/16/23 6:45 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2023-02-16 07:36, 25B.R867 wrote:

>>>    And if you're gonna make RAID arrays ... the OpenSUSE YAST
>>>    GUI makes it super super super EASY and clear. The CL utils
>>>    and config-file edits are a NIGHTMARE by comparison. A couple
>>>    of years ago I had to do it The Hard Way on Centos. NEVER
>>>    AGAIN BABY !!! Took a half a fuckin' DAY to get everything
>>>    in order and underway ! Steps, more steps and MORE fuckin'
>>>    steps asking obscure questions and needing obscure
>>>    syntax and nums ...............
>>
>> Well, openSUSE is removing functionality from YaST. Recently they
>> removed the sound module. Next are the DNS, DHCP, and web server modules.
>
>
>   And someone was complaining when I started trashing OpenSUSE :-)

I only complain when the trashing is incorrect.

>
>   I'd say it reached its zenith about two years ago. Downhill
>   from there. More and more and more bits MIA ...
>
>   I used to rec it pretty heavily, called it a "Cadillac distro".
>
>   No more.
>
>   So sad.
>
>   Not sure if it's because of the RH/IBM thing or whether the
>   maintainers just got lazy.

Enterprise decisions.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 2023-02-20 05:11, 25B.E866 wrote:
> On 2/19/23 6:53 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 19/02/2023 04:08, 25B.R866 wrote:
>>> On 2/18/23 5:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 18/02/2023 06:50, 25B.R866 wrote:

....

>   I still keep a multi-server smaller biz going, so
>   cost/benefit is always in mind. However do to
>   certain regulatory requirements "the usual stuff"
>   doesn't always cut it. I'm on the 4th gen of a
>   custom general backup pgm, most in Python, that
>   can take one job and send the data off to a few
>   different places in appropriate formats. Alas
>   each one died of 'feature creep' that made the
>   code unmaintainable. The likely final version I
>   re-did in Pascal and left out most of those cool
>   'features' that I discovered were NEVER used.
>   It's all MUCH cleaner now.
>
>   Why Pascal ? Because lots of strings and string-parsing
>   is involved and I *hate* doing strings in 'C'  :-)

I'm also a Pascal fan. In the Lazarus style.

>
>   Pascal is also a bit more "self documenting", quasi-
>   understandable names for things, less worry about
>   pointers-to and null-terminations and other such
>   landmines ..... and besides, there's an 'elegance'
>   to Pascal - I even loved the old multi-pass IBM/M$
>   compiler (and have it on a VM fer fun :-)
>
>   Have never found a Modula2/3 compiler that'll
>   reliably work in Linux alas ... a couple are
>   supposed to work - until you actually try to
>   compile anything ..........
>
>   Hmmmmmmm ... what ever happened to the "Short
>   Name For USB ?"  :-)

:-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.