topic title: antiX-16-b1-full available for testing
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#76
Re: High System Load
anticapitalista wrote:There is a new version of advert-block-antix in the repo. Maybe this blocks better.
Installed and filters updated, restarted Iceweasel. Symptoms remain unchanged.

As a further test uBlock-origin was subequently installed, which produced no noticeable change.

The screenshot is an attempt to help visualse the condition. It is a grab of the conky CPU monitor, which shows the cyclical behaviour.
Posts: 521
Shay
Joined: 20 Apr 2015
#77
Test environment
Booted live
persistence
upgrades applied
additional software installed - uBlock
Basically default boot

CPU spiked at 33%
May not done right, but that is the highest I have hit here.

EDIT:

Code: Select all

# ps -A
Does not even show that PID.
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#78
Standard Log In

When automatic log in is not selected during the installation routine, the slim log in screen automatically displays the user name at the end of boot up. It will be better left empty.
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#79
Error Messages Reported During Boot Up

Test environment
Booted live
No persistence
No upgrades applied
No additional software installed
Boot command

Code: Select all

cat /proc/cmdline
desktop=space-icewm vga=791 lang=en_GB quiet splash=off disable=lx
The system boots to GUI OK.
Switch to CTL+ALT+F1 to see last few boot messages shows the following:

Code: Select all

...
live-restore-services: restoring service links
network-manager: unrecognized service
network-manager: unrecognized service
[FAIL] startpar: service(s) returned failure: rc.local ... failed!
...
Posts: 148
chrispop99
Joined: 21 Apr 2011
#80
SamK wrote:Standard Log In

When automatic log in is not selected during the installation routine, the slim log in screen automatically displays the user name at the end of boot up. It will be better left empty.
That is very much a matter of personal opinion. I much prefer it as it is.

Chris
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#81
Re: Standard Log In
chrispop99 wrote:That is very much a matter of personal opinion. I much prefer it as it is
When viewed from the position of e.g. a system with a single user, it might be mistakenly seen as a matter of opinion. In locations with multiple systems, each having multiple user accounts, it is decidedly preferable.

In a single user system a user may opt for convenience ahead of security and adopt auto log in. In a multi-user system that is not practical.

In a single user system a user may opt for security ahead of convenience and choose to login manually while retaining some convenience i.e. having the user name automatically displayed in slim. In a multi-user system that is not practical and also weakens security.

The previous post is merely reverting to and continuing with, the standard behaviour of previous antiX releases.
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#82
Incorrect Permissions rc.local

Live

Code: Select all

ls -l / etc/rc.local
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 700 Apr 11 15:41 / etc/rc.local
Installed to Disk

Code: Select all

ls -l / etc/rc.local
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 427 Apr 11 08:58 / etc/rc.local
The executable bit has been removed during the install. Previous antiX releases install the file as executable.

antiX-16 should continue with conventional setting of executable for this file in both live and installed modes.
Posts: 148
chrispop99
Joined: 21 Apr 2011
#83
SamK wrote:Re: Standard Log In
chrispop99 wrote:That is very much a matter of personal opinion. I much prefer it as it is
When viewed from the position of e.g. a system with a single user, it might be mistakenly seen as a matter of opinion. In locations with multiple systems, each having multiple user accounts, it is decidedly preferable.

In a single user system a user may opt for convenience ahead of security and adopt auto log in. In a multi-user system that is not practical.

In a single user system a user may opt for security ahead of convenience and choose to login manually while retaining some convenience i.e. having the user name automatically displayed in slim. In a multi-user system that is not practical and also weakens security.

The previous post is merely reverting to and continuing with, the standard behaviour of previous antiX releases.
What would you think the average user base of antiX is? I'm willing to bet single/home user would account for more than 90%.

In either case it can be reasonably easily changed, but having the user name displayed as default would I am sure suit the majority of users.

Chris
Posts: 1,028
SamK
Joined: 21 Aug 2011
#84
chrispop99 wrote:What would you think the average user base of antiX is?
Just as you have done, I can only guess.

In my opinion there is a rising awareness of the practicality of extending the life of otherwise redundant kit. In a way, antiX is a good example of this at a software level, even though it also works remarkably well on newer kit.

In some cases repurposing older kit is the only realistic way to provide a computing experience.

In the past I have donated working PC's to a local prison as part of their programme to prepare inmates to re-enter society with employment skills when released. These are communal items used by many people.

Close by is a non profit making organisation that refurbishes old kit and makes it available to live again. It is extensively used by families that simply cannot afford to buy new kit, and cannot even afford to buy older kit on a one-per-person basis. Sharing the kit is commonplace.

Taking only these two localized examples happening in a relatively affluent region of a prosperous country, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are further similar examples across the country. On a Global scale there are likely to be many more, particularly in impoverished regions. Sharing kit is commonplace.

For those of us who are fortunate enough to have a relatively comfortable life, it is not always easy to remember there are others that do not.

The previous post is an attempt to continue the even handed consideration previous releases of antiX extended to all its users and potential users, those who have a wide range of choices, and those who have fewer.
Posts: 32
kozaki
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
#85
chrispop99 wrote:What would you think the average user base of antiX is?
I've got
========= SCRAPER REMOVED AN EMBEDDED LINK HERE ===========
url was:"antix.freeforu ms.org/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=6315"
linktext was:"antiX give a neighboring Mama her old PC back in life"
====================================
and performing well. Have simplified her choices (i.e. one app to do one thing well), not enough to my feeling. But she seemed happy of the OS' devs, active users and my work __{{emoticon}}__ Especially if you consider the number of freshly cooked material she's been bringing our team ever since she got her Pc back :p

Have also installed antiX on the P4 we built out of ashes to be used as a maintenance base at the Neighbors house here. MX version that I evaluated to be more user friendly (most of the other guys giving a hand there are pure Microsoft products). That's four users for now and two accounts.

This week I'll install Elementary then antiX (beta version) on another little box that already served twelve or thirteen years. That one will be for factual demonstration purpose: most of the employees, volunteers and neighbors there are persuaded you need a new box to run your"business" efficiently --have never looked beyond the pre-installed dominant OS. Will have two accounts and many real users (potentialy at least).

SamK your answer to chrispop question is nicely written.

Btw guys the antiX 16b1 torrent I created (it's on this thread's first page) was seeded twenty times __{{emoticon}}__