Hello:

OK.

OK.

OK.

It's all rather over my head/pay grade.
Eventually, I guess ...

I computed them in a teminal so it would be hard to make a typo and checked the values twice.

A coincidence?
 
This isolinux.bin only came up because of my checking the installation media with the install's verification routine.
The *.iso file was intact after download and was correctly written to media.

But as you pointed out, the issue did not come up in the 2.0.0 *.isos because isolinux.bin was not in the respective md5sum.txt file. 
It was not scanned, ergo no error was computed.   =-)

Agreed ...
As I mentioned in my email, due to a USB stick with not enough space.

I suppose then that all is well?

Thanks for taking the time to look into this.

Best,

A.

Hello:

OK.

But if the isolinux.bin files are not (fsmithred says, I wouldn't know) arch specific, why is the 2.1_amd64 version different from the 2.1_i386?
ie: I'm assuming that they are different because they produce different md5sums but maybe functionally they are the same.

To top it off, neither of the md5sums they produce are the same md5sum in the md5sum.txt file.
Makes no sense ...

Sure ...
But I'd pull them from the servers asap to do some forensics on those two files to see just what happened.
Cannot be too careful.

No need.
You are the guys moving the Dev1 project along.

Cheers,

A.

Hello:

Thank you.

Yes, that's what seems (to me) odd.
I was expecting this to be just a bad download, but no.

Here's what I have.
I mounted the *.iso files with AcetoneISO and checked the respective isolinux.bin files.

---
devuan_ascii_2.1_amd64_netinst.iso - 21-Oct-2019 08:35 - 319.8 MB (319815680 bytes)
From https://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr … aller-iso/
---

groucho@devuan:~/virtual-drives/1/isolinux$ md5sum isolinux.bin
bdad948d65c1dea713e1698d04a4e75d  isolinux.bin
groucho@devuan:~/virtual-drives/1/isolinux$

But the respective md5sum.txt says otherwise:

81d876d6234d3ca002390e7cb361bb61  ./isolinux/isolinux.bin

---
devuan_ascii_2.1_i386_netinst.iso - 22-Oct-2019 02:47 366.0 MB (365953024 bytes)
From: https://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/os/Linux/distr … aller-iso/
---

groucho@devuan:~/virtual-drives/1/isolinux$ md5sum isolinux.bin
3b36f20bc14cf4ad0f046962c4414221  isolinux.bin
groucho@devuan:~/virtual-drives/1/isolinux$

But the respective md5sum.txt says otherwise:

81d876d6234d3ca002390e7cb361bb61  ./isolinux/isolinux.bin

Since the *.iso files are intact and the isolinux.bin files are not arch specific what I think we are seeing in the sample I am posting about is that there are (at least) two versions but none of them with the correct md5sum  ie:  81d876d6234d3ca002390e7cb361bb61  ./isolinux/isolinux.bin

I have not checked other sources as I expect they are mirrored.
Let me know if I can help out in any way.

Thanks in advance.

A.

Hello:

Wine can be rather a PITA.
Have you tried the alternative of setting up VirtualBox?

You run all your MS applications in a VM.
XPSP3, for example.

Cheers,

A.

Hello:

Thanks for the heads up.  =-)
I will check anyhow.

I finally found an applicable case.  See: https://superuser.com/questions/363337/ … -processes
It solves a similar case with a Conky variable I had overlooked: top_io.  See: http://conky.sourceforge.net/variables.html

${top_io name 1} ${top_io io_perc 1} ${top_io cpu 1} ${top_io mem 1}

top_io takes arguments in the form: top_io (name) (number).

Processes are sorted by the amount of I/O the process has done during the update interval, which is what (number) represents.
The types are: "name", "pid", "cpu", "mem", "mem_res", "mem_vsize", "time", "uid", "user", "io_perc", "io_read" and "io_write".
There can be a max of 10 processes listed.

I used it with just NAME, CPU and MEM, which is just the information I needed.
Four processes is probably too many for my use and I'll trim it eventually:

Disk I/O
${hr 2}
NAME${alignr}CPU  MEM
${top_io name 1}${alignr}${top_io cpu 1} ${top_io mem 1}
${top_io name 2}${alignr}${top_io cpu 2} ${top_io mem 2}
${top_io name 3}${alignr}${top_io cpu 3} ${top_io mem 3}
${top_io name 4}${alignr}${top_io cpu 4} ${top_io mem 4}

Cheers,

A.

Thanks.
I'll have a look.

But logging IOTOP is sort of after the fact.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Yes, that's the first thing I thought of.
No luck.

No, I haven't found anyone with a solution.

Thanks but I'll pass on that one.  =-)

It's incredible that this very useful feature has not been implemented in every FM out there, it's not that it has not been asked for quite a bit as that long thread shows.
Another feature, sorely needed in XFCE as icons have an atavistic tendency to position themselves as they please on the desktop is the Right Click -> Arrange Icons By -> Align to Grid for the desktop.

For years it has been been asked for but been systematically ignored. 
All sorts of complicated/complex workarounds have been suggested but they ended up being a difficult/awkward solution to implement to solve what seems to be a simple problem.

Yes, I thought of that.

Thanks for the heads up.

I'll have a look at that.
Thanks.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Indeed ...

While users generally don’t expect much privacy from browsers like Google Chrome, the Brave browser promised to do better. By whitelisting the domains of some of the biggest data collectors on the internet, they have lost the trust of a large number of users and will need to work hard to get it back.

For compensation of lost revenue for websites, Brave uses Brave Payments. Users can sell an amount of money to the Brave browser in Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum. The Brave browser’s Bitcoin funding is transferred into its native cryptocurrency called Basic Attention Tokens (BAT), which can be distributed to websites visited by the user.

Thank you very much for the heads-up.
This is one browser that I won't be using.

Cheers,

A.

Hello:

OK, thanks for the tip.  =-)

Yes, I do too.
I've come to see sudo as a rather dangerous thing if used (or rather set up) lightly.
It's something I picked up at the PCLinux OS forum.

I only use sudo along with specific user_xxxx files in sudoers.d which are set up just for for me to do routine things which need admin rights.
eg: dmesg, updatedb, shutdown/reboot, linsssd and such.   

Yes, I was about to ask with respect to marking files as manually installed and the effect is had.

Thanks a lot for your input.

Best,

A.

Hello:

Indeed ...  =-D !

I did think of that too.
But ...

At some time or another ie: a week, a month or even a year later, I surely will have to use apt-get autoremove for something or other.
eg: general spring clean-up.

And that's when things will go south very quickly.
Isn't this so?

Thanks for your input.

A.