Subj : Re: Remmina RDP To : Barry Martin From : Ky Moffet Date : Wed May 15 2024 15:19:00 BARRY MARTIN wrote: > Hi Mike! > > KM> That should be true for any hardware that "requires" some > KM> downstream distro. Frex, if it wants Ubuntu, there's no reason it > KM> can't run Debian... so long as it's compiled for that CPU. > > I won't disagree with Ky as he has his set of needs-wants-desires that > differ from others. Not right, not wrong. LIS in an earlier message, I That wasn't what I said... To clarify for the distro impaired: If it runs Ubuntu, it should have NO trouble with Debian (PROVIDED it was compiled for that CPU, eg. Rasbian for ARM), because Ubuntu is Debian under the hood, but Debian is lighter-weight. Devuan is also basically Debian, but again not so heavy. So unless there's some very specific added function (Ubuntu has been known to, uh, customize the desktop beyond all recognition, or in your case Myth only knowing Ubuntu for the other end) they should be *functionally* interchangeable, tho Debian or Devuan may run better on an older system. And more extreme, given Mint is based on Ubuntu... Mint is only about a quarter as system-intensive as Ubuntu, and somewhat less than Debian too. So a system that runs Mint fine may be sloggy with Debian and struggle with Ubuntu, even tho under the hood they are all Debian. Again, Puppy is Ubuntu under the hood, so any system that runs Ubuntu should also run Puppy, tho Puppy is much lighter weight. There's a similar ecosystem surrounding Fedora and what used to be Mandrake. PCLOS is derived from Mandrake, so it's over here, and what runs Fedora or Mageia or Mandriva will generally run any of their kinfolk (tho some are much lighter than others). And there are other ancestral ecologies that are vertically mostly interchangeable in terms of "if it runs Big brother, it will run Parent or Little brother". The fact that I dislike Debian and loathe Ubuntu doesn't change any of that. > Is Ubuntu THE one? According to Ky no, and I'll agree with him up to a > point. I've had my share of well-this-is-stupid-why-isn't-it-fixed. > Ubuntu seems to be fairly well supported by having a wide variety of > optional utilities available (and at a super-low price!!), though that Oh, they've discovered the Store. Who could have predicted.... > statement is biased as I haven't really tried other OSs -- my main beef > is when only offered for Windows and then I sometimes whine (anyone > catch the homonym of 'whine' and 'WINE'?!). LOL. I've had zero luck with WINE. Gave up and use XP in a VM. Whine whine whine! > I think some of the 'complications' of whichever version of Linux one > selects is because Windows does things as a benevolent bully. Microsoft So does Red Hat in the linux world, and Ubuntu too because it's is the base for so many downstream distros (and that happened because both could PAY coders to work on it full time, something no one else did). You will do things our way or the highway. So we have systemd and Wayland proliferating throughout the distro world whether they're ready for prime time or not, because the major upstream distros most minor distros depend on switched, and if you don't like it, you're Devuan or PCLOS or some other one-man-band distro of no market significance. > has the money and manpower to figure out how to have the installer > programmes make the discovery of which CPU its looking at, etc. I'm It exists for most hardware, but if you're not a Mandrake descendant, you may not have it. Mandrake did things Differently... it actually went and did proper hardware detection long before anyone else even thought of it (that's why PCLOS is better at this, it started life as Mandrake). Well, at least we don't have to manually set up the X server anymore!! > thinking Linux can also, just maybe not worth the pages of code to do > it. I know one of the original concepts was to keep the installation > small enough to fit on a CD: 650 MB. That went away a loooong time ago. Not long after giving up the idea that it would be wholly a command-line OS. I remember the first time I saw some early version (1996) of GIMP in action... the image was in one window, and the parameters to be changed were displayed in another window, and you typed in the parameters to be altered at the CLI prompt. Interesting system for the time, but ... jury-rigged is polite. This is why it took GIMP so long to decide that maybe it was desirable to have the whole program in one window! > As for the bully part, it seems Microsoft has told compmuter component > manufactures "do it my way and don't play with anyone else". Probably > not in so many words as that's inviting legal problems, but sure seems > to me like there's a bit of fear going on. Uh, no. Microsoft's only function there is to install drivers, which come from the hardware manufacturer. If the mfgr doesn't want to provide Microsoft with a driver to include in Windows, then it'll scrape by on the default driver (if any, otherwise it just won't work) until you break down and install the mfgr's driver. NVidia did this, because they didn't want to provide the necessary source code. What Microsoft CAN do is set minimum system requirements, like Win11 needing a TPM chip or it won't install (without mucking about in the Registry). Or refuse to include a known-problem driver. þ RNET 2.10U: ILink: Techware BBS þ Hollywood, Ca þ www.techware2k.com --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .