Someone has removed my bug report from the bug tracker based on a personal conflict, and shadow-banned me from the developers mailing list, he doesn't even care about hundreds of users who will boot to face a blocked networking, the time and effort and the fact that they might leave instead of attempting a solution. This distro is a joke.

https://bugs.devuan.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=606

I'm not the first developer to rant about poor decisions but @golinux can't act like grown-ups

https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/message/2 … a1.en.html

Someone please delete my account plus all my posts, I've already changed my email into a non-existent email.

I'm hoping @andyprough can give use his thoughts on s6 v runit speed.

My 2 cents:  Devuan + runit is very fast to boot up on an Xfce desktop installation.  Artix + s6 was faster on the same PC.  I would guess (relying on my memory of when I had Artix installed, 1.5 years ago) that Artix + s6 felt like an order of magnitude faster, but both are so quick that we're only really talking about a difference of  a few seconds.  Might be a different story, in favour of s6, for a server installation?

PLEASE keep this thread focused on the possibility of running wicd in Chimaera.  Does it  work for you?  What issues if any?  Is it secure? Report your experiences here.

dvnUsr wrote:

Laurent Bercot now has a sponsor ...

Update: the project has found a sponsor! Expect more news in this space in the months to come.
...
My estimate is that it needs about one year of work...

(https://skarnet.com/projects/service-manager.html)

That's some great news right there.

Begs the question - let's say Bercot finishes the work in the next year, and s6 really does turn into the "ideal service manager". What then for Devuan? Start offering it as an alternative init? Making it the default init would seem the appropriate response if it does all that he claims it will.

And what will happen with Debian and any distros that thumb their nose at their users and continue to push a technology with increasingly inferior performance on them? At some point the wrath of the users will become palpable.

Full disclosure - I used s6 for a lengthy test run of a couple months, and yes what you heard is true - it's so fast it should be illegal.

take into account that all the post that said somethig hard but true.. is banned as "are you tyrolling" .. interesting from Devuan forum administrations..

the problem is not Debian .. the problem is the position of the Devuan conclave.. it must work aside with Debian cos it depends of debian ..

antix team is a good aproach.. +1 for.. but i guess is more an idea of anitx/mxlinux team rather an idea of devuan teams.. that's the point

CAN YOU GUYS CHANGE THEIR MIND, well i back to work.. i must talk with tdenetwork packagers.. i found some details in the php packages.. and i remade many of them fixed for Devuan

chris2be8 wrote:

What make and model of system is it? CPU, motherboard, manufacturer, etc? Are you booting from a USB drive or a DVD? In either case what model?
Do any messages come out during the boot process?
If you have more than one system does it respond to pings from another system? If so can you log on to it over the network?
Exactly what message came out about the "live-boot" package when booting the minimal install? Can you take a photo of the screen and post it somewhere?

Chris

Specs,

Mobo: Asrock Z77 Extreme 4
CPU: i7-3770k
GPU: Radeon RX 570

Here's an imgur link with a pic: https://imgur.com/a/cvIm9RZ

Hello:

Altoid wrote:

... filed a question here for the tabs drop down issue: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1344723

Maybe it is now a moot point.
Seeing that Pale Moon did not suffer from this and other innovations, I asked at the Pale Moon forum.

ron_1 wrote:

Pale Moon is a hard fork of Firefox. There isn't any new mozilla code that will find its way into PM. It's been this way for quite a while now.

I did not know that.

It seems a good reason to stay with Pale Moon, LibreWolf does not follow the same path.
As always, YMMV.     

Best,

A.

this is debian related question..

ceres/sid has 5.10 in. so no luck with unstable repos atm...
only 3rd party repos currently offer 5.13 kernel packages for debian based distros (eg. https://xanmod.org/) or,
you can build a kernel debian package yourself from sources.. : https://kernel-team.pages.debian.net/ke … tasks.html

debian kernel probably can give more info : https://wiki.debian.org/DebianKernel

Altoid wrote:

Hello:

andyprough wrote:

... project called "ruffle" that seeks to be a flash emulator.
... used by the Internet Archive ...

Thanks for the suggestion, but Palemoon does not support WebExtensions.

Best,

A.

Did you try the Palemoon forum? I'll bet moonchild and Tobin would just LOVE to argue with you over whether their browser should support pirated flash videos.

Let me know when you have that argument with them, I'll bring the popcorn and be a spectator.

zapper wrote:

Secure boot is a misnomer, I prefer hazardous boot personally.

Yes, the microsoft loves linux thing is yet another deception that should have been obvious to most people, even linus torvaldo should see through the bs. 

Also, yes capitalism is a poison, clarifying to say out of balance.  Denialism is also a problem, which seems to prevent people from dealing with issues, including climate change. 

I roll my eyes at all the people who think capitalism is awesome and pure and perfect...

No balance, no hope.

Aka, no system by itself works, including capitalism...

The problem here is that microsoft is an effective monopoly. Capitalism works well if you have a choice of product to buy, eg cars. But most people have to buy the OS with most software written for it, and most software is written for the OS with most users. So just because microsoft got there first they won control of the desktop. Ditto Intel nearly control the hardware market, though AMD do provide some competition.

WSL is intended to help them keep control by allowing people who need software only available on Linux to stay on windoze.

Nothing but US government intervention could break microsoft's monopoly (eg by requiring that the source code for any OS be made publicly available). And don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

It's a similar story with facebook (most people use it because most of their friends use it). And google etc.

Chris

zapper wrote:

Although if all else fails, try dosbox-x maybe? idk...

The idea here in this post is to get results using real hardware so there is an accurate baseline for performance characteristics.

I do have results from various emulators, but these results show that the emulators aren't entirely accurate (PCem Pentium 233MMX is 30% faster than my real Pentium 233MMX machine), so I'd like to get some accurate results from real hardware. Incidentally, DOSBox and DOSBox-X performance is identical when set to the same cycles, regardless of any core/cpu related setting available in DOSBox-x, so it's not worth the hassle of compiling/using DOSBox-x for this use case.

steve_v wrote:

No 386 unfortunately, the oldest operational machine I have is an IBM PC 330 100-DX4 (AKA 6571-W5L).
Intel 486 DX4-100, 256k L2 (WT), 48MB 70ns FPM RAM, CL-GD5430 video (via VLB-PCI bridge).
I have a DX2-66 CPU I could drop in it for some extra slowness, and I could probably try underclocking it, if the IBM CrippleBIOS(TM) will let me of course.

It's running the latest FreeDOS, which I'm not overly keen to uproot, and the drive is a) FAT32 formatted, and b) a complete bastard to get at, so if you want such a data point you'll have to point me at a source for this QBasic whatsit. I was a Pascal nerd back when, so I never had need or desire to go near it.

That's a nice machine! Technically my first PC was a hand-me-down 486DX4 100 clone that I used for a bit in 1998. Getting it running taught me how to remove a Master Boot Sector virus, shortly after learning what a boot sector was!

If you're able to down clock you 486 to 33MHz that would be great, but the results at 66MHz or 100MHz would be excellent as well, because I could compare them to my results from emulated systems (using PCem version 17). Also, from what I have seen through emulated system, a 486DX2/66 ends up being exactly twice as fast in the benchmark as a 486DX33, so halving the results on a real 486DX2/66 should be an accurate representation of a 486DX33.

As far as running the software goes, Qbasic is included in the DOS 6.22 boot disk available here,

https://www.allbootdisks.com/download/dos.html

So it's possible to you write that image to a floppy and boot your computer using it rather than FreeDOS. If you copy my BENCHES.BAS file onto the floppy disk, you can run it like so

qbasic /run benches.bas

The results can be saved to a text file, results.text. To exit Qbasic, press Alt to open the menu, then arrow down the File menu and select Exit.

Alternately, you could download QBasic 1.1 from qbasic.net here,

https://www.qbasic.net/en/qbasic-downlo … preter.htm

and add it to your FreeDOS installation, as it's 100% compatible with FreeDOS.

I sincerely appreciate your time and consideration! Please don't feel obligated to help, especially if it means futzing with your hardware to do so. My burning curiosity is not that important.

Moderators, feel free to delete all the posts I've made including the replies to them. I will be stepping out gracefully from this forum. Cheers.