Sources:

https://www.securityweek.com/intel-cpus-...ope-attack

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/03/...n-attacks/

I've been using Windows for about 30 years now. Back then it wasn't much different from an 8-bit computer.
Finally settled with XP Pro and avoided any later OS from Microsoft because I'm not paying £££s for stuff that already does what I got.
But as you can imagine XP is getting more and more sluggish and unstable due to lack of support.

So, here are my initial comparisons between XP Pro SP3 and Linux Lite:

Comparison devices:
Windows Laptop - Toshiba Satellite, 2gb memory, 120gig hard drive, Core 2-Duo CPU (2 x 2GHz cores)
Linux Lite Laptop - Toshiba Satellite, 1gb memory, 150gig hard drive, Core 2-Duo CPU (2 x 1.73GHz cores)
So, you see LL is running on a slightly underpowered laptop compared to the XP laptop. Both are set up so I can compare them without having to rely on my own memory (which isn't 2gb lol).

Bootup speed:
Startup speed on my XP is hellish. It's over 5 minutes to boot up. Normally the solution when it gets this bad is to reinstall the OS but I've lost the CD and the CD drive is broken anyway.

Startup speed with LL was very quick. I'd have been happy with anything less than 1 minute. I know people want faster bootups (my father once said that 17 seconds was too long). I say to them, just use standby and you can get it down to almost zero. So now I drink less tea because I don't have time to make one while LL boots.

Application execution time:
XP laptop - reasonably quick except for modern bloatware like Firefox and Photoshop.

LL laptop - slower, but I don't mind this because I'm assuming that this is because LL is less heavy on precaching. That means less stuff bloating memory that doesn't always get used. So, I can live with this.
I am a bit confused by simple programs like gedit from the terminal takes as long to load as Firefox. But it's not something I use a lot.

Application installation time:
XP laptop - usually reasonably quick unless some integrated part of the OS is being changed (like .net framework, multiple restore points etc).

LL laptop - quite slow but the nice thing is I can expand the details and understand why as it's happening. With XP this information is often hidden or only flashed on a single line that you'd need to be Data to read.

Application availability:
Even though Firefox is bloatware and there are more efficient browsers I still use it because it's what I'm used to. So, I'm glad it works almost identically in LL as XP, but there are a few issues:

Firefox on my LL laptop doesn't use the default file manager when opening folders from the downloads dropdown. After a few days of research haven't found any solutions to this basic functionality.

The tabs don't share the CPU cores as effectively as XP does. This is even accounting for the weaker CPU. If I stream a video while opening another tab it can send the laptop into a cycle of chewing the hard drive that's difficult to get out of.

Processor usage:
On the LL laptop, just like the tabs, if multiple processes want servicing it can lock up the laptop with hard drive usage. I've even had to do a hard reset once to escape this. I've put this down to the small amount of available memory and the OS paging virtual RAM. But when this happens in XP it's easier to get out of and easier to avoid in the first place.

On the LL laptop I've noticed the CPU runs less hot and is significantly hotter on the XP laptop. XP is a lot more CPU and memory hungry imho than LL but the payoff is XP has slightly better stability with underpowered hardware.

The two laptops have identical hardware except for the memory and hard drive capacities, so it's significant that LL seems to handle streaming better than XP (as long as not too many other processes are running after which XP has the edge).

Usability:
I find LL to be surprisingly usable (considering the last time I used Unix was before Linux was invented). Searching from the start menu it's quite easy to find things based on common sense. System Info gives you system info, Terminal gives you the command line, Software & Updates and Lite Software are very easy to use. It all seems to be designed to be pretty idiot proof.

When looking for software I'm used to using in XP, I've found the alternatives quite easily for LL. I quickly discovered that a lot of what works for Ubuntu works in LL so don't always need to find an LL specified install. Linux installs seem to be quite efficient for overall filesize and Lite Tweaks nicely cleans up anything left behind.

VLC is pretty much the same on XP and LL. I've discovered Handbrake to downgrade videos to 720p and it works which is surprisingly difficult to do on XP. Worked first time in LL. In XP I've been trying to do this for years with mixed results. So, LL was more user friendly in that department.

I personally hate the modern Windows nonsense start screen that makes it harder to find the program you want to run, so, I'm glad LL doesn't do that.

The file structure on Linux is a bit of a learning curve. All these directories with abbreviated names that haven't changed much in 30 years from Unix. Most the time it's not an issue as it's not needed for the beginner user and I can learn as the needs arise. But it can seem a bit overwhelming when first experienced. I interpret this as because Linux is more of a programmer's OS and as such programmers need to have a more compartmentalised file structure to have more efficient control. It's a balance I suppose between low level control vs usability.

Laptop specific functions
The Toshiba Satellite has the ability to manually change the screen brightness and volume without having to use the mouse or touchpad.

XP laptop - quite reliable as long as user inputs haven't hung (which is hard to reproduce).

LL laptop - much more prone to other processes blocking access to the CPU. So, I can change the volume or screen brightness and not see the changes happen for many seconds. I've adapted the way I use the OS to mitigate this by limiting the number of applications and/or Firefox tabs open at the same time. It hasn't actually effected my usage so I'm not fussed, but it's only fair to mention it.


Overall
XP is past it. It's like some old crone with gums and wrinkles. That it still works at all is impressive. This is not so much the fault of the design of XP, but the inevitable changing of the world it operates in. It had a good run (a very good run), but it's time has passed. RIP.

LL is not perfect but where it does shine is in important areas. It has given life to a 1.73GHz laptop with only 1gig of memory in which would crumble to a halt with Windows. In the real world (i.e. not geek world) this means I save £££s not having to buy a newer laptop. If you save people £££s (even if they have no principles about Microsoft), that's a winner. You'll always win if you offer similar functionality for less cost.

LL struggles a bit more than XP when using multiple applications at the same time, but for the average (not heavy) user this isn't an issue. Considering how underpowered my laptop is it is quite impressive that it can still outperform an XP with slightly stronger hardware in some areas. Back to the real world, a cooler CPU is a happier CPU. Lasts longer. Crashes less often. Overheats less often. All real world (i.e. not geek world) important things.

The few areas LL is weaker can be overcome with mild changes to computer usage behaviour (and probably only apply to underpowered computers anyway). So, it's mitigatable.

Overall I'd give XP a 5/10 and LL a 6/10 for usage.
Where XP (and Windows fails) is the endless bloatware that drags down the CPU usage and chews up the memory.

Finally, I haven't installed a virus checker yet. Haven't needed to defrag the hard drive yet. XP needs more housekeeping to keep it working. So far LL is light on the work needed to keep it working smoothly. That for me is one of the biggest strengths Linux has over Windows.

It's a mixed bag but I'm staying with Linux Lite for now. Windows 10 - meh, forget it. It's basically a stealth tax for Bill Gates.

I'd read in several places that you're not supposed to edit ~/.bashrc but when I edited ~/.profile none of the changes worked, so using .bashrc for now until someone can explain why.

Here's some lines I appended to .bashrc after 1 day using LinuxLite:

Because I don't need to know the user or the host as these will never change. Don't need to know if Terminal is opened with root access as that is obvious to the person who opened the Terminal (who is only me). Also, I don't want to see ~ as the abbreviation for the home directory as this hides information I want to know.


Because I expect the computer to understand that when the directory isn't explicitly specified then it should default to the current working directory. That to me is just common sense.


I'm so used to typing / to go to the parent directory that it's ingrained in muscle memory even after decades of not doing this. It's a minor hassle to force myself to type cd .. which seems so clunky by comparison. When I tried to set this using alias it kept throwing an error, so resorted to using function.

Hi,

I installed linux lite on my system and everything worked fine but after updation. It is stuck on the login page. It wont let me get in even after entering the correct password.

Any  help would be appreciated.

Regards,
Kavin

Thank god for this! (imo)

https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2018/03/inte...scontinued

I tried the following at the Terminal:

But when I select the downloads icon in Firefox, then select a folder , nothing happens.

The folder exists and xdg-mime query confirms the mime type is set. Although Firefox lists all Applications used to open files by type in its Preferences, this does not include inode/directory. That was the first place I checked.

hi guys something weird is happening with me....
i have tried installing other oses alongside LL but something weird is happening in all of them except LL.. i can't access or find any wifi network....something with drivers i guess...but i have the same options in all my oses and only linux lite is working...(i use the dont use this driver option in all of them) and btw(by the way) i have to ethernet cable so my only way to acces internet is by opening LL os ... (my wifi driver is broadcom4311) and all my oses are ubuntu base (xububtu lubuntu etc ) that the weired thing....
any help would be appreciated...really
(solved and changed the title to best fit the thread .. the solution was to connect your android mobile to internet and choose bluetoth tethering (more info down there)

This tutorial is for those of you who:

• would like to have a solid backup clone of the whole drive (SSD or HDD) containing LL
  
• are familiar with at least some basic use of the terminal
  
• can use either gparted  (i.e. Partition Drives in Menu) or terminal, to check the drive designation, i.e. /dev/sda, /dev/sdb, /dev/sdc, etc
  

Reasons I use 'dd' for cloning and what I use it for.

It's a very simple tool for cloning LL, or any other distro, or  Windows OS, including any dual- or multi-booted systems.  The reason I started using 'dd' for cloning, is that I found other dedicated cloning software (e.g. clonezilla) too complicated to use:  the 'dd' command only takes up one line of code in the terminal.
I have LL installed on a 250GB drive. About once-a-week, I clone it to an identical drive (same size & make), via a USB port (the important thing here is that the backup drive has a  storage size that is either the same or bigger than the written space on the drive you want to clone from).  I do this as I have accumulated several virtual machines, important data, packages, symlinks, etc which, if lost, would cost me a huge amount of time and energy to reinstall - doesn't bear thinking about  :-[ .  Should LL on the internal drive on my laptop crash irretrievably (it has done at least a couple of times due to my tinkering around and the odd silly mistake), I just take the drive out of the PC, and replace it with the backup drive.  The backup drive is instantly recognised and works from the get-go.

How long will cloning it take?

Using setup 1 in my signature below as an example (an i7 laptop), where I'm cloning from a 250GB SSD  to an identical external SSD (via USB 3.0 connection)  it takes just under 3 hours, with a copy rate of around 23 to 27 MB/s. With older CPUs this will take longer, and it could be an activity you could just leave to run overnight.  Sometimes, I clone from a 250GB SSD to a 500GB SSD - the cloning time is the same - in this case what you end up with is 250GB of cloned space and 250GB of unallocated space. I have cloned to HHDs, but the copy rate is significantly slower, as you'd expect.  The backup drive doesn't need to be formatted for cloning - you can just leave it as unallocated space - cloning will overwrite it anyway. Also, don't forget to transfer any valuable data files on your backup drive before cloning to it, otherwise these will be lost !
Here's what you do to clone the whole drive:

• put the back-up drive into a USB caddy and plug into the USB port on your PC
  
• open gparted and make a note of the /dev/sdx designation of both drives, i.e.  the one you're copying from (inside your PC) , and the drive you're copying to (external backup drive), e.g. on my PC this  is /dev/sda (from), and /dev/sdc (to) - if you have only one drive bay in your PC then this might be /dev/sda (from) and /dev/sdb (to)
  
• close gparted, then open the terminal and type the following, substituting 'x' and 'y' for the  correct designation of your drives:
  

So, if you are cloning from /dev/sda to /dev/sdb, you would enter:

The term status=progress, means that you are given a live on-screen progress of cloning, i.e. the cumulative number of bytes transferred, the time passed from the start of cloning (seconds) and the transfer speed (MB/s). If you leave this term out, cloning will go ahead but without any indication of progress until cloning has completed.

After entering this you'll be asked for your password - type this then hit the ENTER key to start the cloning process. When cloning is completed, the output from the terminal will have the following format:

In the output shown above, the internal drive that has LL installed on it (the drive that's being copied from) has the designation /dev/sdb - I just want to make the point that the designation of the drive, containing the operating system, is not always going to be /dev/sda, though it usually is.


Here's what you do if you want to clone just a specific partition, not the whole driveThe method is the same - you just need to quote the specific partition you want to clone 'from' and 'to' in the dd command.For example, if Linux Lite is installed as root on the partition /dev/sda1 on your PC, and you want to clone this to a partition on another drive named /dev/sdc1, then the command is as follows:

A WORD OF CAUTION (don't say you haven't been warned)! 

Should you enter the wrong /dev/sdx designation, you could risk wiping your computer clean - this is probably the reason that 'dd' is sometimes nicknamed 'disk-destroyer'. So, my advice is don't do this if you're drinking beers, distracted, or overly tired, otherwise ..! That said, I've been using 'dd' for the last three years and haven't had a problem with it. Just make sure the USB connection of the backup drive is secure (as a precaution don't move the PC or external drive during cloning). If the USB disconnects during cloning, even just momentarily, you'll have to restart the cloning process.

I often need to refer to the current date and time when writing in forums so it would be useful if the taskbar would stay on top. Is there a way to do this?

Dear Sir,

I am unable to update the my Linux Lite installation. getting hash sum mismatch error. Firefox and Google Chrome is often crashing. Installed Team viewer  but it is not working. Horrible experience.
unable to do productive work in Linux Lite.

Please Help

Gauri Shankar Gound
9821902676