Port MX to sideload on Win10? Let the debate begin!!!

[MX<3]

It would be pointless, even Debian and Ubuntu is a bit superfluous although they have slightly different version of the tools... but you can find pretty much everything you need in either.

Is there any point for the regular user?

To run CLI tools in Windows, some people cannot run Linux at work or they need to be in Windows for some reasons, it's not a bad thing, like I said I already used xdelta in Debian, I can see myself using find, grep, sed and the rest of the tools since Windows CLI tools are clunky and never learned stuff like PowerShell.

Sounds like beyond 'regular user' stuff.

[Adrian]

Depends how you define "regular user", if a regular user is somebody who uses a browser then yes this would be useless for a regular user. If a regular user uses CLI tools then this is a great addition.

[rokytnji.1]

But Adrian.

The term

Windows Store

grates across my mind like fingernails across a chalkboard.

Kinda like going out on a date. Then finding out you are hugging a dude. Nothing wrong with that for some folks. But I am not built that way.

Edit: Unlike professional computer users. I own a Windows 10 laptop. It only goes online to aquire drm motorcycle tuning software. Then interfaces with the motorcycle modules that control fuel injection and timing. That is the only time that laptop is powered up. Everything else is done on my Linux gear.

So of course. My outlook is different.

2nd edit: I don't use VM in Linux for this reason. The software I use is very high dollar. Passed on to the dude whose bike I am tuning up. There is no room for mistakes on run once, drm software, that cast upwards of the 500 dollar limit, plus cost of interface cables and connectors.
http://www.mastertune.net/

[BitJam]

It's only CLI tools.

Excellent! I wonder if the suite of antiX cli tools would carry over at all? Or be useful?

OTOH, Microsoft could show they are not trying to bury Linux by using bloody UTC in the hardware clock like every friggin' other computer system in the world. They are either stupid or evil. Pick (at least) one.

[Adrian]

They are either stupid or evil. Pick (at least) one.

Considering that Windows comes from the time where there was no local users and no passwords and the time of the system was irrelevant because the computers were not networked I doubt the clock thingy it's part of an evil plan to ruin Linux, it's just the history burden on the system, that's what they've always been doing, it's hard to change stuff after decades of doing things in a specific way and not affect legacy systems.

[dreamer]

It's only CLI tools.

Excellent! I wonder if the suite of antiX cli tools would carry over at all? Or be useful?

OTOH, Microsoft could show they are not trying to bury Linux by using bloody UTC in the hardware clock like every friggin' other computer system in the world. They are either stupid or evil. Pick (at least) one.

Or MX Linux could be gentle like Windows 7 and not update the BIOS clock every boot. This is one of the modern features I don't like. I like the separation of hardware and software, BIOS and operating system. Sorry, but I had to bring this up in defense of Windows (7). It's easy to set Windows to UTC just like it is easy to switch in Linux and especially in MX Linux. Ubuntu started with mandatory clock update and I never found a way to disable it and I haven't found in MX Linux either. It hasn't caused me problems in MX-17, but the OS writing to integrated flash (the BIOS) every boot is not something I like.

I can see the purpose behind it, so I guess I was mostly triggered by the Windows UTC comment (easy to change).

[MX<3]

It's only CLI tools.

Excellent! I wonder if the suite of antiX cli tools would carry over at all? Or be useful?

OTOH, Microsoft could show they are not trying to bury Linux by using bloody UTC in the hardware clock like every friggin' other computer system in the world. They are either stupid or evil. Pick (at least) one.

Or MX Linux could be gentle like Windows 7 and not update the BIOS clock every boot. This is one of the modern features I don't like. I like the separation of hardware and software, BIOS and operating system. Sorry, but I had to bring this up in defense of Windows (7). It's easy to set Windows to UTC just like it is easy to switch in Linux and especially in MX Linux. Ubuntu started with mandatory clock update and I never found a way to disable it and I haven't found in MX Linux either. It hasn't caused me problems in MX-17, but the OS writing to integrated flash (the BIOS) every boot is not something I like.

I can see the purpose behind it, so I guess I was mostly triggered by the Windows UTC comment (easy to change).

Is it totally neccasary for Linux to do this? I'm not a huge fan of the BIOS clock being changed on shutdown either. Mostly because of the headaches it causes, for us (relatively) new users.

[Adrian]

When the OS is connected to the network it gets the correct time from the ntp servers, however when you reboot it has to rely on BIOS clock, if there's a difference between BIOS clock and the correct time you'll see all kind of strange behavior while booting (before connecting to the network to get the correct time) things like warning about files created in the future, problems with fsck trying to run too often, not knowing when to run cron scripts and so on.

[MX<3]

When the OS is connected to the network it gets the correct time from the ntp servers, however when you reboot it has to rely on BIOS clock, if there's a difference between BIOS clock and the correct time you'll see all kind of strange behavior while booting (before connecting to the network to get the correct time) things like warning about files created in the future, problems with fsck trying to run too often, not knowing when to run cron scripts and so on.

So it's necessary for Linux because a user may have the BIOS clock set to the wrong time. Gotcha.

[dreamer]

When the OS is connected to the network it gets the correct time from the ntp servers, however when you reboot it has to rely on BIOS clock, if there's a difference between BIOS clock and the correct time...

This sounds strange. If the OS relies on the BIOS clock alone then the BIOS clock is the correct and only time available. My feeling is that Debian/Ubuntu has made a mess of this. Since when became ntp involved in the boot process...

Not wanting to create an argument because I think some of the best people in the Linux sphere are behind MX Linux and it's a saner OS than pretty much everything else out there. Still I want to say that it wasn't always like this. Ubuntu shipped without ntp for a long time. I think the last Ubuntu LTS release without ntp installed by default was Ubuntu 12.04 (April 2012).

There weren't boot errors related to time (Upstart). What could happen (still can) is if your time is incorrect (more than an hour generally) your DHCP Internet connection will fail to renew. But a BIOS clock is just a normal battery operated clock. It will keep time until the battery dies. For dual-booters the general advice was to let Windows handle clock sync.

I can't remember that I changed Ubuntu to local time in those days, but maybe I did. I didn't change Windows. I prefer local time because when I look at the clock in the BIOS I can easily see if it is correct or not.

The recent obsession with time in Linux is something new. From a support perspective I can understand the advantage of knowing that users have correct time. Just like MX<3 writes I also worry about boot and shutdown BIOS modifications that can wear out integrated flash over time. If there is a reason to worry, I don't know.