From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/4/2026 9:33 PM, rbowman wrote:

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/florida-woman-imprisoned- for-massive-microsoft-license-fraud-scheme/

I wonder if that will impact the Win 11 Pro installs on cheap Chinese computers?

My view is that Microsoft has to support it*. What happened with me is
one thing. The truth there is that I had a commitment to honor. On
paper it's $200 to MS, but it's not really about the money, it's about
the kind of respect I would show to them. If I thought about how
Windows 12 is a declined offer, and how I've already shown strong
preference with Linux, what this really shows is only that i still think highly of the organization that created Windows, Office and Xbox, but
after Win11 has run its course of support, Linux would be the choice and
could even have supplanted Windows of by-then old in running Windows,
people have suggested it, put Microsoft's stuff on a Linux foundation.

* The big windfall with this is the MAK activations**, like I had on my
device at first. When I reinstalled with clean media for 25H2, it was
fine but I did find that paying for an individual license made a
difference because I'm telling the owner that their work does matter in
the world even if I promoted their alternative in FOSS.

** These keys can activate numerous machines, which get digitally
licensed. But the one I had would've been expected to be used
temporarily, and instead MS would see my own and others with the cloned
SSD being resold licenses from a supplier not meeting the required
partnership status to be called a Microsoft "OEM", and yet in my case
clearly delivering a bootable Win11 PC, scanned with third-party
software and zero threats found. The only reason it matters is because
I could support something one more time, in my situation it's always the
OS itself, since I want it legal but not with Office or games.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 3:26 AM, RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 02:26:31 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to heck >>> with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a lot of
people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now require new
hardware?)

I didn't have any success with Fedora Media Writer. I would up using rufus >> on Windows and didn't have any problems with the install.

This is just strange. I wonder when this started? I think the last version I installed was 38. No problem with that one at all.

I used Debian's ISO writer to make USB media for Win11. It booted to
install Win11. This was not my current installation, though, but on my
old computer.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 6:11 AM, Joel W. Crump wrote:

I want [and wanted] [Windows OSes] legal but not with Office or games.

I had Office though until we reached the 2000 upgrade (installing it on
two computers didn't seem to concern them at the time). In 2003 I was
turned on to "OpenOffice" and never looked back. LO now is a
substantial favorite in things that Win12 can't likely support.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/5/26 19:56, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 7:07 PM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad >>>>>>>> temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to
date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability), but
that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern computer
(that's capacity). How that difference manifests itself is important.
For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the
OS and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.

Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as
frequently as you've done, as it has utility over several years.
That's why the IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a business
is five (5) years.

The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments.  I very well
might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux,
obviously).

Yet apparently no longer in service for some conveniently vague reason.

You claim you aren't interested in why that is - so SHUT YOUR PIEHOLE,
NERD.

Your defensiveness implies that it was a very embarrassing event.

I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying >>>>>>> the motherboard.  I may make use of the leftover parts, in the >>>>>>> future.

Sweat?  Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s  Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the >>>>>> occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it
has garnered some other notoriety comments.

If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what I >>>>> said happened.

Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.

Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole.  This
is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.

But I'm not guessing:  I've said flat-out that your life is beneath my
attention threshold.

You did guess, ...

Nah, you volunteered "sweat" (still listed above) and since I've never
heard of anyone killing a desktop from perspiration, I simply expressed
my doubts. If you prefer, I'll flat-out say that I think you lied.

... and if you don't shut the fuck up, you better give me > your full name

and address, or you're an anonymously baiting pussy

*COWARD*.

Oh, cupcake: both have been freely available online for _decades_.

But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually
everything.

"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power.
The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest
gear has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks
without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low
expectations/ standards.

Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.

Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is
true when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.

Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because
he was using mIRC 4.x.  I never even downloaded that in my youth, 5.x
was current by then.  He would've been most likely literally been
running Windows 95, in the 2020s.

So?  If it works still for him, good for him.  After all, he wasn't
trying to claim that it was a performance peer to current products,
was he?

Uh, running mIRC 4.x would have numerous security holes unpatched, in
mIRC itself and in the OS, dating back so far at the time I saw him on
IRC that it was just *unreal* (he was using dial-up Internet, for one thing).  You're trolling, therefore, kid.

The statement was merely one of principles, not geek minutia: "If it
works still for him, good for him."

And regarding your geek minutia, did he ever claim he was just as
secure? Because if he didn't claim "peer" then it doesn't apply.


-hh

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old head,
"highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern computer
(that's capacity).  How that difference manifests itself is important.
For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could is a pretty good machine.

And you're trying to count the cost of the old computer, when the >>>>>> OS and parts were paid by stimulus payments during the pandemic.

Because a personal computer doesn't need to be replaced as
frequently as you've done, as it has utility over several years.
That's why the IRS allowed depreciation rate for a PC for a
business is five (5) years.

The 2021 PC *existed* because of the stimulus payments.  I very well >>>> might be using the 2010 PC today if not for that (with Linux,
obviously).

Yet apparently no longer in service for some conveniently vague reason.

You claim you aren't interested in why that is - so SHUT YOUR PIEHOLE,
NERD.

Your defensiveness implies that it was a very embarrassing event.

If I were harshly judging my preparation, yes, there were two obvious
things I could've done. I could've tied my long hair back behind me,
and I could've taken off my shirt(s).

I have talked about how I sweated onto the hardware, destroying >>>>>>>> the motherboard.  I may make use of the leftover parts, in the >>>>>>>> future.

Sweat?  Or did it actually get splashed while you were on the
toilet? /s  Frankly, I pay little attention to your life, less the >>>>>>> occasional "I bought more junk!" brag attempt, usually after it >>>>>>> has garnered some other notoriety comments.

If you were interested in what happened, you would have read what >>>>>> I said happened.

Nah, it has contained far too much chaff to make it worthwhile.

Then don't start *guessing* stupid bullshit in public, asshole.
This is why people don't like you, I'm trying to be tolerant.

But I'm not guessing:  I've said flat-out that your life is beneath
my attention threshold.

You did guess, ...

Nah, you volunteered "sweat" (still listed above) and since I've never
heard of anyone killing a desktop from perspiration, I simply expressed
my doubts.  If you prefer, I'll flat-out say that I think you lied.

Nope.

But mini PCs are a hot commodity, since they do virtually
everything.

"Everything"...which doesn't require modern computational power. >>>>>>> The good news for your market segment is that even the cheapest >>>>>>> gear has become "good enough" for the level of very basic tasks >>>>>>> without undue UI dwell - - especially for those with very low
expectations/ standards.

Heh, the old quad-core with four threads still works.

Because "working" is a capability, not a capacity, so the same is
true when connected to the Internet 30 years ago on a 56kbps modem.

Hell, I saw a guy with a PC so old on IRC, I figured it out because
he was using mIRC 4.x.  I never even downloaded that in my youth,
5.x was current by then.  He would've been most likely literally
been running Windows 95, in the 2020s.

So?  If it works still for him, good for him.  After all, he wasn't
trying to claim that it was a performance peer to current products,
was he?

Uh, running mIRC 4.x would have numerous security holes unpatched, in
mIRC itself and in the OS, dating back so far at the time I saw him on
IRC that it was just *unreal* (he was using dial-up Internet, for one
thing).  You're trolling, therefore, kid.

The statement was merely one of principles, not geek minutia:  "If it
works still for him, good for him."

And regarding your geek minutia, did he ever claim he was just as
secure?  Because if he didn't claim "peer" then it doesn't apply.

The thing to know about this person, is that his money was spent on cannabis/MJ. He was taking breaks from his Win95 in 202x to "hit the
bong". So buying a newer computer would apparently be a trans-decade thing.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I >>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance? >>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it >>>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>>

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity).  How that difference manifests itself is
important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could is a pretty good machine.

You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.

But that's no surprise.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I >>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>>>> current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That >>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would >>>>>> happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of
things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity).  How that difference manifests itself is
important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could is
a pretty good machine.

You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.

But that's no surprise.

Oh really? It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that
is less than a year old.

Heh.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 10:59, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I >>>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there >>>>>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it >>>>>>>> clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>>>>> current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That >>>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would >>>>>>> happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of >>>>> things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old
head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's capability),
but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as a modern
computer (that's capacity).  How that difference manifests itself is >>>> important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to result in a
decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could
is a pretty good machine.

You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.

But that's no surprise.

Oh really?

Yes. Very much "really".

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that
is less than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 3:03 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 10:59, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I >>>>>>>>>>>>>> was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>> to date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>>

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 >>>>>>>>> there were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so
since it clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, >>>>>>>>> what is your current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That >>>>>>>> it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed
would happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds of >>>>>> things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little old >>>>>> head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's
capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as
a modern computer (that's capacity).  How that difference manifests >>>>> itself is important. For example, lags in UI response time tend to
result in a decline in productivity equal to the square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13, and
then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could
is a pretty good machine.

You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.

But that's no surprise.

Oh really?

Yes. Very much "really".

Who's judging the performance of my device, you or me?

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU
models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 08:24:59 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as
the others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest Fedora and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really
want to use Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I'm running it on an old Dell with a 4th gen Intel CPU. I think I bought
it in 2014. I did upgrade the processor and went to a SSD but nothing
else changed.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 08:26:17 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 02:26:31 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to
heck with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a
lot of people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now
require new hardware?)

I didn't have any success with Fedora Media Writer. I would up using
rufus on Windows and didn't have any problems with the install.

This is just strange. I wonder when this started? I think the last
version I installed was 38. No problem with that one at all.

I started with 41.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 12:17, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 3:03 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 10:59, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 1:41 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-06 07:39, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 9:04 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bad temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini >>>>>>>>>>>> to date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>>>>>>

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 >>>>>>>>>> there were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so >>>>>>>>>> since it clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, >>>>>>>>>> what is your current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work. >>>>>>>>> That it can run Win11 decently now is really more than I
assumed would happen.

Again: capability isn't capacity.

You really are a retard.  I'm using my machine to do many kinds >>>>>>> of things.  Your nerdy nitpicking is all in your deluded little >>>>>>> old head, "highhorse".

One can use an old computer to do "many things" (that's
capability), but that doesn't mean that it does them as quickly as >>>>>> a modern computer (that's capacity).  How that difference
manifests itself is important. For example, lags in UI response
time tend to result in a decline in productivity equal to the
square of the lag.

My computer is so "old" that it had Win11 24H2, 25H2, Debian 13,
and then Win11 25H2 again.

You and Alan, both, fail to see that my little quad-core that could >>>>> is a pretty good machine.

You've completely failed to grasp what you've been just read.

But that's no surprise.

Oh really?

Yes. Very much "really".

Who's judging the performance of my device, you or me?

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a
capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY
to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU models far faster than mine.  The Mac mini was a greater concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.

I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...

...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-05 14:22, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 5:12 PM, Alan wrote:

Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...

...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.

Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂

HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for
a laptop.

At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the question. >>>

You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting a
mini PC from HP, today.  The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and more
to overtake the real specs of what I have.

Dude...give it up.

You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...

Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer.  That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.

Face it, my points stand.

Face it: you bought a POS.

...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".

I didn't claim equivalence.  I claimed better value.

Far less performance for far less cost ISN'T "better value".

Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.

It isn't.

It really is.

But I'm game for running benchmarks on my M3 MacBook Air against your
machine.

And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...

...you completely caved.

What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?

It's the nature of the supplier with yours.

It's fly-by-night manufacturing from China with no real chance to get it serviced under warranty.

That puts it in a very different class than machines from OEMs such as
Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS.

Find a machine from one of the companies that is actually in the same
business as Apple that gives the performance of a Mac Mini for "far less".

The fact that Apple doesn't choose to sell cheap, low-end junk doesn't
make the value of their systems less.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad >>>>>>>> temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to
date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.

Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it isn't
actually usable for Windows 11.

Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak.  It's roughly as good as Linux.

On the machine with the N150 processor?

Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?

How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.

Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>

And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is less
than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated a
capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a CAPACITY
to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU
models far faster than mine.  The Mac mini was a greater concept when
it cornered the market for the form factor.

I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...

...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.

Bzzt, Alan. You shouldn't make it that easy for me. My mini is cuter
than Apple's and has more storage for the value.

I win.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 3:43 PM, Alan wrote:

Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM...

...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.

Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂

HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought for >>>>>> a laptop.

At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the
question.

You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting
a mini PC from HP, today.  The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and more
to overtake the real specs of what I have.

Dude...give it up.

You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...

Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer.  That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and
other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.

Face it, my points stand.

Face it: you bought a POS.

Definitely not.

...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".

I didn't claim equivalence.  I claimed better value.

Far less performance for far less cost ISN'T "better value".

It's not far less performance.

Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.

It isn't.

It really is.

But I'm game for running benchmarks on my M3 MacBook Air against your machine.

I'm game for comparing what I do to the entire world's community of
devices, not just Apple's trophyware.

And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...

...you completely caved.

What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?

It's the nature of the supplier with yours.

It's fly-by-night manufacturing from China with no real chance to get it serviced under warranty.

That puts it in a very different class than machines from OEMs such as Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS.

Find a machine from one of the companies that is actually in the same business as Apple that gives the performance of a Mac Mini for "far less".

The fact that Apple doesn't choose to sell cheap, low-end junk doesn't
make the value of their systems less.

My CPU is low end. But it works better than you think.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 12:53, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated
a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-
CPU models far faster than mine.  The Mac mini was a greater concept
when it cornered the market for the form factor.

I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...

...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.

Bzzt, Alan.  You shouldn't make it that easy for me.  My mini is cuter than Apple's and has more storage for the value.

I win.

"more storage for the value" doesn't make any sense in this context, Joel.

"value" in the context we've been discussing means "what you GET versus
what you PAID"

What you meant to say was "has more storage for the COST".

And now you're reduced to crowing about more storage, so you're
basically admitting the CPU is a POS.

:-)
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 12:56, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 3:43 PM, Alan wrote:

Exactly. To get Mac Mini performance from an established OEM... >>>>>>>>
...you need to pay Mac Mini prices.

Thank you for being at least this honest. 🙂

HP is irrelevant to anything, and yet it is the brand I bought
for a laptop.

At least she had the balls (Ironic, isn't it?) to address the
question.

You're seriously trippin', Alan, it's a joke to think about getting >>>>> a mini PC from HP, today.  The form factor isn't even really
comparable. The basic point I made is sound, if you aren't
hallucinating massive advantage from CPU alone (this point really
*is* sometimes comparable to OEM PCs, which is what Apple is
competing with on *price*), the Apple is going to cost more and
more to overtake the real specs of what I have.

Dude...give it up.

You bought components and assembled a crappy POS mini PC...

Um, no, it was assembled in China by a non-OEM manufacturer.  That's
part of the whole point of this, assembling PCs is for gamers and
other high-demand uses, your precious Apple hardware requires $1000+
investment to get anything of the kind.

Face it, my points stand.

Face it: you bought a POS.

Definitely not.

...and then by implication claimed that it was equivalent to a Mac
Mini, but cost "far less".

I didn't claim equivalence.  I claimed better value.

Far less performance for far less cost ISN'T "better value".

It's not far less performance.

Let's run some benchmarks and test that claim.

Truth is: it costs "far less" because it IS far less.

It isn't.

It really is.

But I'm game for running benchmarks on my M3 MacBook Air against your
machine.

I'm game for comparing what I do to the entire world's community of
devices, not just Apple's trophyware.

Anything that prevents you from having to be pinned down to facts.

Let's run some benchmarks.

:-)

And when challenged to show a mini PC you can just buy from an OEM
ready-to-use...

...you completely caved.

What wasn't "ready-to-use" about mine?

It's the nature of the supplier with yours.

It's fly-by-night manufacturing from China with no real chance to get
it serviced under warranty.

That puts it in a very different class than machines from OEMs such as
Apple, HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer, ASUS.

Find a machine from one of the companies that is actually in the same
business as Apple that gives the performance of a Mac Mini for "far
less".

The fact that Apple doesn't choose to sell cheap, low-end junk doesn't
make the value of their systems less.

My CPU is low end.  But it works better than you think.

Let's run some benchmarks.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 12:53, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there
were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it
can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen.

Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.

Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak.  It's roughly as good as Linux.

On the machine with the N150 processor?

Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?

How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.

Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>

And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.

Apologies, I meant "Black Magic DISK Speed Test".
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated
a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up
AMD-CPU models far faster than mine.  The Mac mini was a greater
concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.

I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...

...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.

Bzzt, Alan.  You shouldn't make it that easy for me.  My mini is cuter than Apple's and has more storage for the value.

I win.

do you put the sudafed in first
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 4:12 PM, % wrote:

Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/6/2026 3:35 PM, Alan wrote:

It seems that I read that I was using an "old" computer that is
less than a year old.

The specific thing you're not getting is that you once again stated >>>>> a capability (the ability the run Windows 11) as if it were a
CAPACITY to actually do so WELL.

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-
CPU models far faster than mine.  The Mac mini was a greater concept >>>> when it cornered the market for the form factor.

I suggest you refrain from posting until the drugs wear off...

...or alternately, if you've already been diagnosed, until they kick in.

Bzzt, Alan.  You shouldn't make it that easy for me.  My mini is cuter
than Apple's and has more storage for the value.

I win.

do you put the sudafed in first

I tried crank in the late 1990s. But I did ice later on.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 3/6/2026 3:53 PM, Alan wrote:

Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.

Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak.  It's roughly as good as Linux.

On the machine with the N150 processor?

Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?

How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.

Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>

And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.

You have to see that 25H2 is trying to make 10 seem old. My machine
isn't old.
--
Joel W. Crump
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

At Fri, 6 Mar 2026 13:00:19 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-06 12:53, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad >>>>>>>>> temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021.

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there >>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your
current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it >>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>

Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.

Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak.  It's roughly as good as Linux.

On the machine with the N150 processor?

Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?

How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.

Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>

And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.

Apologies, I meant "Black Magic DISK Speed Test".

Where do you find that?
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
OS: Linux 7.0.0-rc2 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (580.126.18)
"One man's constant is another man's variable. - Perlis"
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

At Sat, 07 Mar 2026 00:28:29 +0000, vallor <[email protected]> wrote:

At Fri, 6 Mar 2026 13:00:19 -0800, Alan <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-06 12:53, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 14:23, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 5:14 PM, Alan wrote:

On 2026-03-05 12:34, Joel W. Crump wrote:

On 3/5/2026 7:34 AM, -hh wrote:

I had to replace certain things unexpectedly.  The value I was >>>>>>>>>> getting on the self-assembled PC had been exceptional.

Because ... cheap stuff fails more readily?  No insurance?  Bad
temper?

None of my parts were "cheap".

Indeed:  you've paid roughly 2x the cost of a base Mac mini to >>>>>>> date...

I was aiming to build a powerful Windows 11-ready box, in 2021. >>>>>

Which was defined then as what?  Because even back in 2021 there >>>>> were more powerful CPUs than what you have today, so since it
clearly isn't to have another 'powerful' PC today, what is your >>>>> current objective?

I was "current"ly trying to get something that would work.  That it >>>> can run Win11 decently now is really more than I assumed would happen. >>>

Saying "that it CAN run Win11" is basically an admission that it
isn't actually usable for Windows 11.

Bullshit, I'm using it as we speak.  It's roughly as good as Linux.

On the machine with the N150 processor?

Let's run some benchmarks, shall we?

How about we start with an easy one: disk speed.

Go here: <https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/event/blackmagicrawinstaller>

And run Blackmagic Raw Speed Test on the machine you're using right now.

Apologies, I meant "Black Magic DISK Speed Test".

Where do you find that?

NM -- you picked a benchmark that isn't available for Linux.

I could run the Windows one, but where's the sport in that?

So I'm climbing over the slight learning curve for the Phronix
Test Suite.

https://github.com/phoronix-test-suite/phoronix-test-suite/

It's easier than I thought to get it up and running, just an
interesting exercize in getting it to run benchmarks...until
one learns about the "interactive" option...

https://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
--
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 Mem: 258G
OS: Linux 7.0.0-rc2 D: Mint 22.3 DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090Ti (24G) (580.126.18)
"Useless Invention: Fireproof cigarettes."
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 08:24:59 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as
the others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest
Fedora and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really
want to use Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I'm running it on an old Dell with a 4th gen Intel CPU. I think I bought
it in 2014. I did upgrade the processor and went to a SSD but nothing
else changed.

That's what I was trying to install Fedora 43 on. A Dell Latitude E7440
which uses a 4th generation (i5-4300U), dual-core (four thread) CPU. It's
one of their "Ultrabooks." I like machines that don't get hot. So, usually, lower power.
--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 21.3
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Fri, 6 Mar 2026 15:17:31 -0500, Joel W. Crump wrote:

Apple has competition, my PC is Intel, and then I've looked up AMD-CPU
models far faster than mine. The Mac mini was a greater concept when it cornered the market for the form factor.

The company bought a Mini to compile the app for an ill-fated iPhone
attempt. All the programmers and testers were there for the unboxing. We
poked at it and someone asked if anybody knew what to do with it. I don't think anybody but the build guy ever used it but the form factor
fascinated me. The original Intel NUCs were overpriced but then everyone
got into the game.

I don't know whatever happened to the Mac. Probably on a shelf somewhere.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 02:39:19 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

That's what I was trying to install Fedora 43 on. A Dell Latitude E7440
which uses a 4th generation (i5-4300U), dual-core (four thread) CPU.
It's one of their "Ultrabooks." I like machines that don't get hot. So, usually,
lower power.

Mine is a Dell tower with an i5-4590S, 4 cores, 4 threads at 3.0 GHz. I
forget what the original CPU was. It's around here someplace. It wasn't
bad but I went as hot as I could with the original power supply.

That shouldn't impact a Linux install and there doesn't seem to be any red flags.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dell_Latitude_E7440

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-06 3:24 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, pothead <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-05, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-03, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 23:34:26 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I learned that, even though Codium is open source, it uses the same
extensions as Code, so you really don't escape M$. It may not load as >>>>> much AI by default, however. So that might be a plus.

I installed it on Fedora. It seems to work so far with the Pico SDK.

I've been trying to test Trelby on Fedora (both the KDE and Gnome versions) >>> and the Live USB just doesn't boot. Tried KDE twice and Gnome twice with >>> different USBs. Some errors about size or just skipped right on to the ssd >>> boot. They say that, if it doesn't work, try using the Fedora Media Writer. >>> If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to heck >>> with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a lot of
people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now require new
hardware?)

At any rate, I'm downloading the Cinnamon Spin now. I'll see if that works. >>> I was trying to use "real" Fedora for the test.

Interesting. Personally I have had mixed results with Fedora and Ubuntu as well.
Pure Debian Cinnamon and LinuxMint Cinnamon have always worked well for me. >> Also MX Linux as well.

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as the others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest Fedora and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really want to use Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I've had a number of distributions not boot on me. That's part of why I
don't mind trying Linux Mint whenever I have a spare machine: their ISO
will always work. I'm surprised Fedora would fail though. Like Ubuntu,
their images usually work right.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-07, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Sat, 7 Mar 2026 02:39:19 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

That's what I was trying to install Fedora 43 on. A Dell Latitude E7440
which uses a 4th generation (i5-4300U), dual-core (four thread) CPU.
It's one of their "Ultrabooks." I like machines that don't get hot. So,
usually,
lower power.

Mine is a Dell tower with an i5-4590S, 4 cores, 4 threads at 3.0 GHz. I forget what the original CPU was. It's around here someplace. It wasn't
bad but I went as hot as I could with the original power supply.

That shouldn't impact a Linux install and there doesn't seem to be any red flags.

https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dell_Latitude_E7440

The Latitude E7440 works fine on every Linux distribution I've thrown at it, except for Fedora 43. Fedora 38 installed on it without issue. I don't know what Fedora changed between 38 and 43, but I've tried five times with three different "flavors" of Fedora Live USBs (two different thumb drives) without any luck.

Both thumb drives work with other live Linux distributions (one of them is a Ventoy USB and can run several different Linux distributions).
--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 21.3
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-08, CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-06 3:24 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, pothead <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-05, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-03, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 23:34:26 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I learned that, even though Codium is open source, it uses the same >>>>>> extensions as Code, so you really don't escape M$. It may not load as >>>>>> much AI by default, however. So that might be a plus.

I installed it on Fedora. It seems to work so far with the Pico SDK.

I've been trying to test Trelby on Fedora (both the KDE and Gnome versions)
and the Live USB just doesn't boot. Tried KDE twice and Gnome twice with >>>> different USBs. Some errors about size or just skipped right on to the ssd >>>> boot. They say that, if it doesn't work, try using the Fedora Media Writer.
If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to heck >>>> with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a lot of >>>> people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now require new
hardware?)

At any rate, I'm downloading the Cinnamon Spin now. I'll see if that works.
I was trying to use "real" Fedora for the test.

Interesting. Personally I have had mixed results with Fedora and Ubuntu as well.
Pure Debian Cinnamon and LinuxMint Cinnamon have always worked well for me. >>> Also MX Linux as well.

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as the >> others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest Fedora >> and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really want to use >> Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I've had a number of distributions not boot on me. That's part of why I don't mind trying Linux Mint whenever I have a spare machine: their ISO
will always work. I'm surprised Fedora would fail though. Like Ubuntu,
their images usually work right.

They've always worked fine for me also... up until now. There have been a
few posts about this on Reddit, so I'm not the only one with this issue.
--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 21.3
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-08 6:04 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-08, CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-06 3:24 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, pothead <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-05, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-03, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 23:34:26 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I learned that, even though Codium is open source, it uses the same >>>>>>> extensions as Code, so you really don't escape M$. It may not load as >>>>>>> much AI by default, however. So that might be a plus.

I installed it on Fedora. It seems to work so far with the Pico SDK. >>>>>

I've been trying to test Trelby on Fedora (both the KDE and Gnome versions)
and the Live USB just doesn't boot. Tried KDE twice and Gnome twice with >>>>> different USBs. Some errors about size or just skipped right on to the ssd
boot. They say that, if it doesn't work, try using the Fedora Media Writer.
If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to heck >>>>> with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a lot of >>>>> people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now require new >>>>> hardware?)

At any rate, I'm downloading the Cinnamon Spin now. I'll see if that works.
I was trying to use "real" Fedora for the test.

Interesting. Personally I have had mixed results with Fedora and Ubuntu as well.
Pure Debian Cinnamon and LinuxMint Cinnamon have always worked well for me.
Also MX Linux as well.

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as the
others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest Fedora >>> and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really want to use >>> Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I've had a number of distributions not boot on me. That's part of why I
don't mind trying Linux Mint whenever I have a spare machine: their ISO
will always work. I'm surprised Fedora would fail though. Like Ubuntu,
their images usually work right.

They've always worked fine for me also... up until now. There have been a
few posts about this on Reddit, so I'm not the only one with this issue.

Unfortunately, things not working right is something Linux supporters
have to get used to. I'm willing to disregard a few problems here and
there, but once the program I use most is broken with no possibility of repair, I give up.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-08, CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-08 6:04 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-08, CrudeSausage <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-06 3:24 a.m., RonB wrote:

On 2026-03-05, pothead <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-05, RonB <[email protected]> wrote:

On 2026-03-03, rbowman <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 23:34:26 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I learned that, even though Codium is open source, it uses the same >>>>>>>> extensions as Code, so you really don't escape M$. It may not load as >>>>>>>> much AI by default, however. So that might be a plus.

I installed it on Fedora. It seems to work so far with the Pico SDK. >>>>>>

I've been trying to test Trelby on Fedora (both the KDE and Gnome versions)
and the Live USB just doesn't boot. Tried KDE twice and Gnome twice with >>>>>> different USBs. Some errors about size or just skipped right on to the ssd
boot. They say that, if it doesn't work, try using the Fedora Media Writer.
If I have to use the Fedora Media Writer to get it to work, then to heck >>>>>> with Fedora. Are they turning into a Microsoft? (It seems like a lot of >>>>>> people are complaining about this issue. Does Fedora now require new >>>>>> hardware?)

At any rate, I'm downloading the Cinnamon Spin now. I'll see if that works.
I was trying to use "real" Fedora for the test.

Interesting. Personally I have had mixed results with Fedora and Ubuntu as well.
Pure Debian Cinnamon and LinuxMint Cinnamon have always worked well for me.
Also MX Linux as well.

I tried the Cinnamon spin of Fedora 43. Simply will not boot — same as the
others. Makes me wonder if my computer is too old to run the newest Fedora >>>> and if so, how "un-Linux" of them. That's okay, I don't really want to use >>>> Fedora anyhow, just wanted to test one application.

I've had a number of distributions not boot on me. That's part of why I
don't mind trying Linux Mint whenever I have a spare machine: their ISO
will always work. I'm surprised Fedora would fail though. Like Ubuntu,
their images usually work right.

They've always worked fine for me also... up until now. There have been a
few posts about this on Reddit, so I'm not the only one with this issue.

Unfortunately, things not working right is something Linux supporters
have to get used to. I'm willing to disregard a few problems here and
there, but once the program I use most is broken with no possibility of repair, I give up.

I don't really want to use Fedora anyhow. I installed version 38 and worked with it a little, but I wasn't that impressed. I just wanted to test Fedora
43 to see if the AppImage of Trelby would work in it, because Fedora people were complaining that Trelby wasn't currently working with the native or FlatPak versions in Fedora 43.
--
Linux Mint Cinnamon 21.3
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 05:54:08 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I don't really want to use Fedora anyhow. I installed version 38 and
worked with it a little, but I wasn't that impressed. I just wanted to
test Fedora 43 to see if the AppImage of Trelby would work in it,
because Fedora people were complaining that Trelby wasn't currently
working with the native or FlatPak versions in Fedora 43.

Red Hat pissed me off around 2000 so I was curious what Fedora 41 had to offer. I did KDE, which was still a spin at the time. It's been
acceptable. Lot of updates but none of the drama of Ubuntu updates. One of these days that box isn't going to come back up.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On 2026-03-09 5:16 a.m., rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 05:54:08 -0000 (UTC), RonB wrote:

I don't really want to use Fedora anyhow. I installed version 38 and
worked with it a little, but I wasn't that impressed. I just wanted to
test Fedora 43 to see if the AppImage of Trelby would work in it,
because Fedora people were complaining that Trelby wasn't currently
working with the native or FlatPak versions in Fedora 43.

Red Hat pissed me off around 2000 so I was curious what Fedora 41 had to offer. I did KDE, which was still a spin at the time. It's been
acceptable. Lot of updates but none of the drama of Ubuntu updates. One of these days that box isn't going to come back up.

None of the drama? When I tried Fedora, it broke my NVIDIA driver with
every update. Not only that, but the update process was no different
than the ridiculous crap we got used to with Windows.
--
CrudeSausage
John 14:6
Isaiah 48:16
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.advocacy

On Mon, 9 Mar 2026 21:17:05 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

None of the drama? When I tried Fedora, it broke my NVIDIA driver with
every update. Not only that, but the update process was no different
than the ridiculous crap we got used to with Windows.

No drama but there isn't an Nvidia chip in the house. There are a lot of updates, almost as many as the Arch box which is a true rolling release.
At the moment Arch is ahead with a 6.19.6 kernel while Fedora lags with 6.18.16.

Both are KDE so they got hit with the plasma upgrades. Nothing changed
that I noticed.


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2