I just used rufus to make a USB install drive.
I just used rufus to make a USB install drive.
I just used rufus to make a USB install drive.
The std Ubuntu tries too hard to look like macOS, Xubuntu is nice and lightweight and Kubuntu is bit heavier but cleaner that ubuntu
On 6/28/25 11:52 AM, Joel wrote:
I chose Debian because of the description I found. That doesn't mean
it's better than a lot of lesser-known distros.
They are all really about the same. The major difference it their
package managers. dnf, apt,
etc..
On 6/28/25 12:37 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 23:03:19 -0700, T wrote:
Quickbooks has an online version, but every bookkeeper I have come
across hates it.
There are other choices. E.g. Xero.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder. It is still cloud based. Problem would be gettig bookkeepers to use it and account to accept it.
And breaks all their embedded Windows installations that run on i386's?
On 6/28/25 12:10 PM, Joel wrote:
It's not FUD, it's the truth, we have real questions about the
security of Tiny11 in production use with Internet.
No it is FUD.
https://www.auslogics.com/en/articles/what-is-tiny11-install-tiny-windows-11-to-lightweight-your-os/
Legitimate company
Legitimate description
Legitimate author
On 6/28/25 12:37 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 22:43:20 -0700, T wrote:
It is the official Windows iso ...
Yes?
... with things removed.
Ah ...
For those that can not switch to Linux and can not afford to toss
perfectly good hardware.
On 2025/6/27 23:57:48, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:53:13 -0400, WolfFan wrote:
1. You don’t have to junk Win 10 if you don’t want to. I have XP and 7 >>> machines running, MS bailed on them a long time ago but they still work, >>> I just have to be careful. ... because they run $150,000 imagesetters,
that’s why. The imagesetters are very picky about their drivers (not
really drivers, long story, but the imagesetters won’t work without
them) and still work, and management will NOT be replacing them as long
as they work.
Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
unsupported software?
To me, it's fairly obvious that he _is_ doing, with no disasters having happened yet ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
unsupported software?
This is a common scenario. Significant piece of kit requires a PC to
run it. The PC is simply required to host proprietary
command-and-control software which comes with a few years' of
support included. Kit manufacturer launches new version of software
which costs many thousands and has no benefit to the user over the
previous fully working one. Especially as the business has optimised
their workflows with it and don't want to have to do that all over
again.
On Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:20:21 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote:
I just used rufus to make a USB install drive.
Why not Ventoy rather than Rufus? USB sticks are so capacious now, you
might as well make full use of them.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:05:41 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
unsupported software?
This is a common scenario. Significant piece of kit requires a PC to
run it. The PC is simply required to host proprietary
command-and-control software which comes with a few years' of
support included. Kit manufacturer launches new version of software
which costs many thousands and has no benefit to the user over the
previous fully working one. Especially as the business has optimised
their workflows with it and don't want to have to do that all over
again.
Surely if the hardware was that expensive and that important, and that long-lived, the business would have been wise to lock in a support
contract for the expected useful life of the machine, that would
include any necessary software updates?
To do otherwise would not seem to be a recipe for long-term success
...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote on 6/28/2025 6:02 PM:
Lawrence, relax a few minutes.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:05:41 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
unsupported software?
This is a common scenario. Significant piece of kit requires a PC to
run it. The PC is simply required to host proprietary
command-and-control software which comes with a few years' of support
included. Kit manufacturer launches new version of software which
costs many thousands and has no benefit to the user over the previous
fully working one. Especially as the business has optimised their
workflows with it and don't want to have to do that all over again.
Surely if the hardware was that expensive and that important, and that
long-lived, the business would have been wise to lock in a support
contract for the expected useful life of the machine, that would
include any necessary software updates?
To do otherwise would not seem to be a recipe for long-term success ...
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 19:35:25 -0500, Hank Rogers wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote on 6/28/2025 6:02 PM:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 14:05:41 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:Lawrence, relax a few minutes.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
Would you entrust mission-critical business functions to obsolete,
unsupported software?
This is a common scenario. Significant piece of kit requires a PC to
run it. The PC is simply required to host proprietary
command-and-control software which comes with a few years' of support
included. Kit manufacturer launches new version of software which
costs many thousands and has no benefit to the user over the previous
fully working one. Especially as the business has optimised their
workflows with it and don't want to have to do that all over again.
Surely if the hardware was that expensive and that important, and that
long-lived, the business would have been wise to lock in a support
contract for the expected useful life of the machine, that would
include any necessary software updates?
To do otherwise would not seem to be a recipe for long-term success ...
Merely giving advice to those who seem to seem to make large purchasing >decisions without much thought for the future.
On 6/28/25 3:51 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 12:56:11 -0700, T wrote:
They are all really about the same. The major difference it their
package managers. dnf, apt,
etc..
There are other variations. E.g. build-everything-from-source, like
Gentoo. Not quite build-from-source, but still geek-oriented, like
Arch. Special-purpose ones, like SystemRescue, TAILS, Kali. SteamOS
for gaming (interestingly, derived from Arch).
The amount of choice available is Linux is dizzying.
I had a live of Kali for a long time. Wasn't all that impressed.
On 6/28/25 3:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Cloud-based means it gets you one step closer to retiring old Windows
machines. I’m sure they’re already widely accepted by accountants etc.
Accountants around these parts are Windows based Quickbooks or take a
hike.
On 6/28/25 3:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
No guarantees that those “things removed” will not break some crucial
piece of software that you need to run, though. Is it Open Source? Can
you submit patches to fix it?
I do not think you understand. It "is" Windows.
Would you ride in a car with your seat belt on that was one update away
from crashing and killing everyone in the car?
I do PCI (Payment card industry) consulting . Those customers are
required to have all critical patches installed within one month of announcement. All system have to be supported. It is almost a full
time job fixing things that were not broken in the first place.
This is a hot button for me. "Some" of my colleagues in the area will
not help a company in trouble until they let them upgrade all their
systems and software to current versions.
It is unethical make work. And it usually winds up in a horrible
disaster.
They usually have not idea what OS they are running. They only care if
their exact software runs on it.
Yes Windows is s*** or so they have heard (and experienced).
But if Linux will not run their stuff, "Here is 25 cent and go tell some
one cares".
Figure a way around it and I will pitch in to build you a massive
statue!
On 6/28/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
But if it is a legal requirement, then you have to make it work. Or
else.
True. It is the law in this state.
So I have a lot of experience with the problems associated with "keeping things up to date".
W10's end of support is actually a blessing in disguise.
more FUD
I use it a lot. It is just 23H2 debloated.
It's not FUD, it's the truth, we have real questions about the
security of Tiny11 in production use with Internet.
No it is FUD.
https://www.auslogics.com/en/articles/what-is-tiny11-install-tiny-windows-11-to-lightweight-your-os/
Legitimate company
Legitimate description
Legitimate author
You can open the ISO and look for yourself. There is
file M$ tells you how to alter that governs what
is installed. You just look at that. It is the
same file that Rufus alters to remove the stupid
hardware requirements and spyware account. And
M$ alters to install embedded Windows. Compare
it against the full, bloated M$ ISO. (Other have
done this out the wazoo.)
You should try it in a virtual machine. It
will amaze. Antivirus the hell out of it.
You can ever try some of those same test test
viruses on it.
Install a good AntiVirus. I like ESET, but others
are good too, just stay away from Norton and McAfee.
Install Brave Browser. It is "grandparent safe".
And do not, do not, do not do ANY on line banking
with Windows.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 21:16:13 -0700, T wrote:than-windows-11-ars-testing-finds/>
On 6/27/25 7:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:48:05 -0700, T wrote:
You want folks off Windows, you have to get all their exact software
they currently run to work on Linux. And not Wine. Wine is Alpha
code at best.
The Steam Deck would seem to prove otherwise ...
What do you mean?
Running Windows games better than Windows itself can manage.
<https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/06/games-run-faster-on-steamos-
2. It does NOT remove the need for activation.
On 6/28/25 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 18:23:16 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/28/25 3:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
No guarantees that those “things removed” will not break some crucial >>>> piece of software that you need to run, though. Is it Open Source?
Can you submit patches to fix it?
I do not think you understand. It "is" Windows.
No, you yourself said it is “Windows with things removed”.
Nothing is added.
A bunch of undesirable things have been removed. And
by following M$ own directions.
Everything is above board.
Do you have similar issue with Rufus which does some of the same things
in the same manner that Tiny 11 does?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 22:32:30 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/28/25 8:22 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 18:23:16 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/28/25 3:58 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
No guarantees that those “things removed” will not break some crucial >>>>> piece of software that you need to run, though. Is it Open Source?
Can you submit patches to fix it?
I do not think you understand. It "is" Windows.
No, you yourself said it is “Windows with things removed”.
Nothing is added.
You’re not refuting my point.
A bunch of undesirable things have been removed. And
by following M$ own directions.
Why is it you cannot get Windows already in that form from Microsoft
itself?
Everything is above board.
So you keep insisting, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.
Do you have similar issue with Rufus which does some of the same things
in the same manner that Tiny 11 does?
That’s happening in the privacy of the user’s own machine. If they were to
redistribute the mutated version of Windows that comes out of Rufus (or >whatever other unauthorized hacking tool), then that would take us back to >this point.
I just use Linux.didn't your dick get in the way
On 2025/6/30 0:53:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Why is it you cannot get Windows already in that form from Microsoft
itself?
According to earlier in this thread, it is done by following
instructions from Microsoft itself. So, in theory, you could - but that
would involve obtaining the full thing, then finding and following those instructions yourself.
On 2025/6/30 0:51:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:39:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
2. It does NOT remove the need for activation.
But it is redistributing Microsoft’s copyrighted software without
authorization from Microsoft.
That is an interesting point. Presdumably M$ are not _too_ bothered as
it seems to be done under the auspices of a proper company rather than
an individual, and they've not been sat on by M$.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 07:39:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/30 0:53:39, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Why is it you cannot get Windows already in that form from Microsoft
itself?
According to earlier in this thread, it is done by following
instructions from Microsoft itself. So, in theory, you could - but that
would involve obtaining the full thing, then finding and following those
instructions yourself.
In other words, you cannot get it in that form from Microsoft itself. Why not?
Windows is not an OS, it's a collection of around a thousand or so
packages.
And you can get embedded Windows 11, but yo u have to jump through some hoops. It is not generally available to the public.
On 6/29/25 11:42 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/6/30 0:51:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2025 11:39:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
2. It does NOT remove the need for activation.
But it is redistributing Microsoft’s copyrighted software without
authorization from Microsoft.
That is an interesting point. Presdumably M$ are not _too_ bothered as
it seems to be done under the auspices of a proper company rather than
an individual, and they've not been sat on by M$.
What copyright violation. Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership
of anyone else's property. They are just distributing M$
own ISO with some of the unwanted stuff missing. And they
are doing it following M$ own procedures. Rufus is
doing exactly the same things. M$ is fine with it. Gets
more people of the products. And it remains "their" (M$'s)
product.
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:10:19 -0700, T wrote:
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
Redistributing it without permission is a copyright violation.
On 6/30/25 5:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:10:19 -0700, T wrote:
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
Redistributing it without permission is a copyright violation.
it is public:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
On 6/30/25 10:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:52:03 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/30/25 5:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:10:19 -0700, T wrote:
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
Redistributing it without permission is a copyright violation.
it is public:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
Doesn’t matter. Them having it on their servers doesn’t permit you to
have it on yours.
What exactly to you think people do with the the ISO download?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 23:38:52 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/30/25 10:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:52:03 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/30/25 5:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:10:19 -0700, T wrote:
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
Redistributing it without permission is a copyright violation.
it is public:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
Doesn’t matter. Them having it on their servers doesn’t permit you to >>> have it on yours.
What exactly to you think people do with the the ISO download?
Use it in a non-copyright-infringing way, as per the EULA.
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 09:27:06 -0400, Paul wrote:
The topic of a Linux USB preparation will come up, someone will say
"Oh, just use XYZ", but the thing is, they haven't tested XYZ
themselves, and there is a bit of disappointment waiting for you.
I use dd. Yes, I have tested it for myself -- used it in production, in
fact -- many times. Yes, it takes care in use; it’s not nicknamed the “data destroyer” for nothing ...
On Sat, 28 Jun 2025 04:26:31 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <103nqtn$ltl1$2@dont-email.me>:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 21:16:13 -0700, T wrote:than-windows-11-ars-testing-finds/>
On 6/27/25 7:03 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jun 2025 18:48:05 -0700, T wrote:
You want folks off Windows, you have to get all their exact software >>>>> they currently run to work on Linux. And not Wine. Wine is Alpha
code at best.
The Steam Deck would seem to prove otherwise ...
What do you mean?
Running Windows games better than Windows itself can manage.
<https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2025/06/games-run-faster-on-steamos-
You can find game compatibility reports on ProtonDB:
https://www.protondb.com/
It's [Tiny11 is] not a copyright violation because Microsoft has made the
installation media public
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
Joel wrote:
T <T@invalid.invalid> wrote:do you burn them with your dick
It's [Tiny11 is] not a copyright violation because Microsoft has made the >>>> installation media public
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
It was like that long before they had a download on microsoft.com, I
installed Win7 without activating and later activated it with the copy
I ordered. And after the 7 service pack I burned a DVD-ROM of the
newer installer image.
I had a BD-RE drive in my old computers. Once I added the SATA SSD iti go to usenet and post
was a very sleek if aging Linux system. But in my 2021 build I
excluded having case drive bays at all. And I've sold my DVD-Audio-
capable player, since I view video as a streaming medium today.
Maybe someone will report all these violations to microsofts lawyers.
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 23:38:52 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/30/25 10:53 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 21:52:03 -0700, T wrote:
On 6/30/25 5:39 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2025 17:10:19 -0700, T wrote:
Tiny 11 is not taking any ownership of anyone else's property.
Redistributing it without permission is a copyright violation.
it is public:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows11
Doesn’t matter. Them having it on their servers doesn’t permit you to >>> have it on yours.
What exactly to you think people do with the the ISO download?
Use it in a non-copyright-infringing way, as per the EULA.
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 08:00:58 -0000 (UTC), Hank Rogers wrote:
Maybe someone will report all these violations to microsofts lawyers.
It does seem impossible, doesn?t it, to get through your working day with proprietary software without being dishonest.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jul 2025 08:00:58 -0000 (UTC), Hank Rogers wrote:
Maybe someone will report all these violations to microsofts lawyers.
It does seem impossible, doesn?t it, to get through your working day with >> proprietary software without being dishonest.
You're joking, right!?
All my proprietary software is totally legit and that of course
includes Windows itself. Ever since Windows 1.0 (Windows/386) till
Windows 11.
Most of my proprietary software is freeware, as in no cost. I also
have some FOSS.
I think that many (most?) personal/private/'home'/<whatever> use of
Windows systems can be done with mostly no-cost software. Maybe I'm a
special case, but from reading these newsgroups, we articles, etc.,
etc., I don't think I am.
Windows enables working efficiently and saves time. Linux devours time attempting to perform the same tasks Windows does.
Or in my case -- I've seen too much -- I do
all my banking at the bank.
On 7/1/25 6:19 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 6:10 am, T wrote:
<Snip>
And do not, do not, do not do ANY on line banking with Windows.
Why do you make this recommendation, T??
The things I see in happening to my customers.
The last customer I helped clean up after
a banking computerize got embezzlement
for over 40,000.00 U$D. She was using
Windows 10. And she was not the only
person I had to clean up after.
Keep in mind that it is up to the banks
discretion whether or not to make you
whole after you get embezzled. "But the
eMail seemed so real!"
Windows is too easy to compromise. It is
security Swiss cheese.
If you are going to do on-line banking
I recommend you use Fedora with SELinux
enabled.
Or in my case -- I've seen too much -- I do
all my banking at the bank.
On 7/3/25 12:13 AM, Paul wrote:
On Thu, 7/3/2025 2:48 AM, T wrote:
On 7/1/25 6:19 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 29/06/2025 6:10 am, T wrote:
<Snip>
And do not, do not, do not do ANY on line banking with Windows.
Why do you make this recommendation, T??
The things I see in happening to my customers.
The last customer I helped clean up after
a banking computerize got embezzlement
for over 40,000.00 U$D. She was using
Windows 10. And she was not the only
person I had to clean up after.
Keep in mind that it is up to the banks
discretion whether or not to make you
whole after you get embezzled. "But the
eMail seemed so real!"
Windows is too easy to compromise. It is
security Swiss cheese.
If you are going to do on-line banking
I recommend you use Fedora with SELinux
enabled.
Or in my case -- I've seen too much -- I do
all my banking at the bank.
When you ran the attachment on Virustotal, what
sort of detection did it yield ?
I only want this info as a source of an example
for the next time.
The detection won't tell you anything particularly,
except as a starting point for classification.
1) Was it patch-able (if patched in time) ?
2) Was it heuristically detectable (with sufficiently
good third-party AV) ?
Was it going to be as much of an issue for an unsupported
OS after October 2025, as for a supported OS after Oct 2025 ?
*******
I don't recommend you do online banking. Period.
The defenders are losing this battle. There are no winners.
Paul
I find out "after" the damage has been done and the
customer wants things put back together. I will
not reuse a previously infected windows machine
without doing a dd /dev/zero on the drive and
reinstalling from scratch. Anti viruses are
not perfect.
T wrote on 7/3/2025 5:52 PM:
I find out "after" the damage has been done and the
customer wants things put back together. I will
not reuse a previously infected windows machine
without doing a dd /dev/zero on the drive and
reinstalling from scratch. Anti viruses are
not perfect.
Sounds reasonable, but wouldn't it be best to physically destroy the drive and use a new, pristine replacement going forward? In fact, shouldn't any component capable of storing data be replaced?
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 05:09:33 +0200 (CEST), Dan wrote:
Windows enables working efficiently and saves time. Linux devours time
attempting to perform the same tasks Windows does.
What we find here is the opposite: Linux offers the tools to automate
common tasks, Windows forces you to jump through hoops. Open-source tools are designed to empower you, not hold you back, while proprietary software is designed to maximize the vendor’s revenue opportunity, by restricting features.
Look in particular at all the effort going into trying to figure out how
to run Windows 11 on hardware that Microsoft will not officially support.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:30 this Thursday (GMT):
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 05:09:33 +0200 (CEST), Dan wrote:
Windows enables working efficiently and saves time. Linux devours time
attempting to perform the same tasks Windows does.
What we find here is the opposite: Linux offers the tools to automate
common tasks, Windows forces you to jump through hoops. Open-source tools >> are designed to empower you, not hold you back, while proprietary software >> is designed to maximize the vendor’s revenue opportunity, by restricting >> features.
Look in particular at all the effort going into trying to figure out how
to run Windows 11 on hardware that Microsoft will not officially support.
It's always going to be impossible (or at least way way more difficult)
to automate a GUI.
candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:30 this Thursday (GMT):
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 05:09:33 +0200 (CEST), Dan wrote:It's always going to be impossible (or at least way way more difficult)
Windows enables working efficiently and saves time. Linux devours time >>>> attempting to perform the same tasks Windows does.
What we find here is the opposite: Linux offers the tools to automate
common tasks, Windows forces you to jump through hoops. Open-source tools >>> are designed to empower you, not hold you back, while proprietary software >>> is designed to maximize the vendor’s revenue opportunity, by restricting >>> features.
Look in particular at all the effort going into trying to figure out how >>> to run Windows 11 on hardware that Microsoft will not officially support. >>
to automate a GUI.
Microsoft, through the widespread use of Windows 11 with "Copilot+"
turned on, has made it as easy as ordering around Copilot to load the
apps one wants loaded - being an AI slave master, and not compliant
with ethics on use of AI.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 11 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 52:27:00 |
| Calls: | 166 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 77,754 |