Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating
Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but
I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which
gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to
day use important.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and
simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect.
The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet
kind of fits well with the way I like to do things.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of
doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my
assumptions may be wrong.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems peop prefer to us.
Let's say I install Fedora (my personal distro of choice), and then I want t install Skype. This is not in the software center application until I instal some other repo (Flatpack, for example). Why isn't that enabled from the sta
I am of the opinion that installing untrusted binary blobs in a mostly FOSS Operating System. Anyway, Fedora is well supported and afaik there are rpm
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
Linux can't really compete with MacOS. It's like making sure copy-paste actually work everywhere, having software and software distribution that actually works. As of now, we have several ways of installing software, tons of different distributions, several graphical user interfaces
(Gnome, KDE, etc) which is a force to be reckoned with but also present
a lot of problems for the end users.
Maybe Linux would benifit from a package installer like ones available
on MacOS and Windows - download a file and click on it to install it.
I spend a lot of time in the terminal, logged into several Linux servers where I'm a sysadmin ($dayjob) and I like to do it via MacOS where I
have a Unix foundation, a great and beautiful UI and great apps.
They are all kind of frustrating when I think about it. Windows is annoying as hell. MacOS depends on Apple hardware (I used my PC as a Hackintosh, but I guess it's too old now for a recent MacOS). In Linux there are too many distributions (with their own incomplete or partially outdated repositories). Ubuntu was great and went to shit. Gnome was
great and is now pissing on every desktop environments that use GTK as a foundation and doesn't want to be Gnome 4. The stuff that makes your
Linux booting and running is getting more and more bloated, more complicated and featureful and is forever changing, just because they
can ... I haven't tried one of the BSDs on the desktop.
Other alternative OSes (old or new) are missing important software, like
a decent browser. Maybe decent is the wrong word. I mean a browser that can cope with the shitty web of the 2020s. And hardware support is also often a problem.
Let's wait another 20 years until HaikuOS will be released or Plan 9 usable or OS/2 open sourced an revived or ...
The problem is that instead of people learning how to use existing solutions properly, they invent another! So people decide that RPM's or DEB's are no good, and create Snap, Flatpak and AppImage. Now we have three more ways!
having it controlled by a central power. For those who wants that polished unified, I'm happy for them to choose MacOS instead.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which gives
you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to day use important.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect. The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet kind of fits
well with the way I like to do things.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my assumptions may be wrong.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/11/06 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
Yeah, Linux is more complex now than it was 20 years ago when I started. I miss simplicity, when you could comprehend all that
was going on. Browsers are too complex for humans to work on now. Part of the reason I like BBS's, because writing a telnet
client is still within the realm of possibilities for most coders and small groups.
Mewcenary wrote to boraxman <=-
Linux: Server stuff. Still painful to use for anything on the
desktop in comparison to the other systems.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to day use important.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect. The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet kind of fits well with the way I like to do things.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my assumptions may be wrong.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/11/06 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems peop prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but I wond whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to day use important.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating
Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but
I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which
gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to
day use important.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and
simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect.
The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet
kind of fits well with the way I like to do things.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of
doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my
assumptions may be wrong.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating
Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but
I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which
gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to
day use important.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and
simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect.
The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet
kind of fits well with the way I like to do things.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of
doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my
assumptions may be wrong.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
boraxman wrote to All <=-
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
guess it's too old now for a recent MacOS). In Linux there are too many distributions (with their own incomplete or partially outdated repositories) Ubuntu was great and went to shit. Gnome was great and is now pissing on eve desktop environments that use GTK as a foundation and doesn't want to be Gno 4. The stuff that makes your Linux booting and running is getting more and m bloated, more complicated and featureful and is forever changing, just becau they can ... I haven't tried one of the BSDs on the desktop.
Maybe, but then I think that Linux wouldn't be Linux if it became Windows/Ma OS. I used to think it was important that Linux become more appealing, but anymore. I'd rather keep it as a 'hobby OS'. That is its distinction, that you make the system your own, rather than having it controlled by a central power. For those who wants that polished unified, I'm happy for them to cho MacOS instead.
Yeah, Linux is more complex now than it was 20 years ago when I started. I miss simplicity, when you could comprehend all that was going on. Browsers too complex for humans to work on now. Part of the reason I like BBS's, because writing a telnet client is still within the realm of possibilities f most coders and small groups.
If you head down the *nix rabbit hole you've got everything from the cheap SOBs, to the hardcore privacy activists, to folks who make a religion over w open source license you use, to the ones paranoid about government tracking. Your PopOS or Mint user is very different from the OpenBSD user.
See, I disagree with anyone who says MacOS is more polished. I've lived wit it as my work computer for the past three years and it's a bloody disaster. *Nothing* works as it should, and the updates system is worse than Microsoft
I use IPadOS because I'm an iPad user.
All of them, in this room. I learned a long time ago that there was no bene to me personally to become some kind of OS partisan; in my situation, there deficiencies in all OSes.
Depending on how granular you want to get, there are a few more options you might want to include in your polling (or you might want to have a follow-up), and I think the reasons will be telling.
For example, I know lots of Mac people who are very competent devops
types that like having a supported *nix-like base, where everything (allegedly) "just works" on pretty hardware. Those folks chose Mac for
a very different reason than the folks that don't want to worry about little details like where the power button is.
I also know folks that like and run Linux because they're cheap and it runs better on low-end hardware. They'd rather run Windows, but there's no way they're shelling out that kind of money.
If you head down the *nix rabbit hole you've got everything from the
cheap SOBs, to the hardcore privacy activists, to folks who make a religion over what open source license you use, to the ones paranoid
about government tracking. Your PopOS or Mint user is very different
from the OpenBSD user.
To answer your initial inquiry: I use Linux when I have a choice. Qubes is my daily driver since I'm in the "privacy activist" and "paranoid
about the gov't" camps. :)
See, I disagree with anyone who says MacOS is more polished. I've lived with it as my work computer for the past three years and it's a bloody disaster. *Nothing* works as it should, and the updates system is worse than Microsoft.
If Microsoft would quit adding trackers, ads, forced Microsoft accounts, and unnecessary features to Windows it would actually be quite
compelling. Outside of those items, the last several versions of Win10 have been pretty solid. If I needed to use a proprietary OS, I'd slap Windows Server 2019 on my laptop and call it a day.
All of them, in this room. I learned a long time ago that there was no benefit to me personally to become some kind of OS partisan; in my situation, there are deficiencies in all OSes.
I do like FreeBSD. In fact I find it more organized and somehow more
tidy than Linux. However, it has deficiencies (can't watch Netflix for example, owing to stupid DRM stuff not available on Netflix) that I
can't currently bridge.
This seems really long-winded. I now inflict it on the lot of you.
Sorry in advance.
I am not satisfyed with the current state of Linux, but I don't think it is that bad either.
The fact there are so many distributions and environments is quite good, IMO. It increases the chance that you may find something you like or put together something you like. A lot of people thinks that a big number of options makes it hard for begginers to pick one and get started with Linux, but when you are starting and you do some research, you quickly realize there are not that many options being talked about in the wild. You check your average listicle for Linux distributions to try and you
get recommended Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian... not to mention a lot of
options are "false" options because many distributions are just a
Debian, Arch or Fedora reskin.
I agree that some core components going crazy is not good. The whole
Linux deal was made sane because there used to be the assumption that things such as GTK or Glibc or SysInit would remain stable enough so
third party developers could count on them not changing wildly from a distribution to another. NOwadays that is no longer the case. No wonder some BSD just pick a version of the libraries they like and freeze them, upgrading them only for bug fixes, in an effort to skip the rat race.
Good point, I assumed people would explain their choice. It is the reasonin I find more interesting than the choice itself. Why people follow a mainstr choice isn't interesting, it is why people go for alternatives that is. I figured people that use BBS's are those seeking something different. I brie looked at Qubes, and it seems interesting, though I don't think I fully grok yet.
Maybe you should check the structure of Tiny Core Linux or KISS Linux. KISS Linux is kind of special because it intends to be the most minimal, simple system on which you can strap your own ports system and build arbitrary packages to your liking. It has many knockoffs because its structure is so simple it is very easy to create your custom version of the thing.
The idea behind Qubes is that, internally, it keeps everything separated.
For example, you may have a virtual environment for your job, in which
you keep all your job files, your job web browser and your job
accounting sostfware. Then you may have another virtual environment you use for watching My Little Pony cartoons and which is full of My Little Pony videos, van art and whatever. ANd then you may have a different environment you use for your online banking.
The idea is that if you download a My Little Pony video with malware, the damage will be contained in your My Little Pony environment and won't damage anything outside of the My Little Pony box.
What makes Qubes special is that all of this separation is made transparently to the user. Applications are color coded, so when you launch the "blue firefox" you need it is the "banking firefox", whereas the "green filebrowser" is the "MLP file browser".
Also, if your grandpa asks you for help with his computer, if his
computer is running something wildly different than what you are used
to, it is going to take you 5 extra minutes while you remember how his
OS is managed. Now imagine if you set a lonely FreeBSD appliance and you never touch it in 6 months until something cracks and you have to troubleshoot it. YOu are going to waste a quarter an hour relearning the OS only. Maybe it would have served you better to install the same thing you are running everywhere else, even if it is worse for that task, if just because you are guaranteed to have the know-how for it.
I'm a Linux user myself, preferring control over my machine, and
simpler 'text based' ways to do things. Freedom is another aspect.
The simple text-based, responsive UI nature of posting here on fsxNet
kind of fits well with the way I like to do things.
Cool. My concern is more tracking, "Big Tech", being locked to platforms an solutions (Apple/Android duopoly on phones). Security is important but I'm more focused on my footprint, traceability etc. Not much point having your secured up the wazoo, if those political discussions you have on FidoNet bec web-searchable with your real name.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
My first contact with Qubes was precisely because I was looking for a convenient way of keeping identities separate.
Say you have a darknet identity for talking about My Little Pony, a darknet identity for talking about software development, and a darknet identity for downloading warez non-stop. The secure way of managing them in a "standard" environment would be to boot a Live DVD each time you wanted to use a given identity, and reboot everytime you wanted to
switch identity (because you need to rebuild your darknet circuits, and you don't want to use a darknet circuit you have been using as PinkPony for doing something you want to do as WarezDownloader2000).
Qubes makes it more convenient because you can keep every identity confined to its own virtual environment and you don't need to be
rebooting and reloading circuits every time you want to switch
identities. Or that is the theory.
In the end of the day I didn't do much with Qubes because the hardware requisites are beyond what I can muster right now.
I used to use MacOS, I've owned a PowerBook G4 and an iMac (2010), but then the flat design b*llsh*t came along and Apple decided to dumb-
down everything to iOS standards, so my Apple Pages stuff did not work any longer - and so I decided to exit the golden cage and moved back
to Linux.
I've also used OS/2 in the mid/late 90s and loved it, also I'm a fan
of Novell NetWare, which I'm also currently running in a VM :)
I'm also running CP/M 3 on two kit computers (RC2014 and SC126) and
have an Amiga 1200 :)
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
* [tons of other cool OS's]
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
Whoa. I've never heard anyone actually use it!! I might give that a
whirl some time. Any reason you use it for your network? What do you
does it manage?
* [tons of other cool OS's]
I really need to get to know you! :D
Maybe, but then I think that Linux wouldn't be Linux if it became Windows/Mac OS. I used to think it was important that Linux become more appealing, but not anymore. I'd rather keep it as a 'hobby OS'. That
is its distinction, that you make the system your own, rather than
having it controlled by a central power. For those who wants that polished unified, I'm happy for them to choose MacOS instead.
Re: Computer operating system of choice?
By: Arelor to Joacim Melin on Mon Feb 07 2022 03:24 am
I am of the opinion that installing untrusted binary blobs in a mostly FOSS
Operating System. Anyway, Fedora is well supported and afaik there are rpm
What happened to that sentence?
What I meant is that installing untrusted binary blobs in a mostly
FOSS
Operating System is ruining it a little.
--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
I will likely build a really powerful PC to replace it and dual boot Windows and Linux, with Linux as my daily driver, and Windows there as a second OS to run specific apps I want to run, when I need to run them.
Still doing research about disabling Intel mobo spyware.
Android is awful and will give you madcow disease too, but as I always say, if your phone is gonna suck, it is better if it sucks for 100 USD than for 600+.
something different. I briefly looked at Qubes, and it seems
interesting, though I don't think I fully grok it yet.
The idea behind Qubes is that, internally, it keeps everything separated.
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
Whoa. I've never heard anyone actually use it!! I might give that a whirl some time
Any reason you use it for your network? What do you does it manage?
On 07 Feb 2022, Arelor said the following...
Android is awful and will give you madcow disease too, but as I always say, if
your phone is gonna suck, it is better if it sucks for 100 USD than for 600+.
Oh yes, I agree with your "$100 vs $600" line 100%. If you don't need the Google
Services Framework, a Pixel 3XL or 4 running GrapheneOS is a compelling option.
GreenLFC â•‘ e> greenleaderfanclub@protonmail.com
Infosec / Ham / Retro â•‘ masto> greenleaderfanclub@distrotoot
Avoids Politics on BBS â•‘ gem> gemini.greenleader.xyz
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
Whoa. I've never heard anyone actually use it!! I might give that a whirl some time.
Interesting question. Systems I use regularly at home:
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
tenser wrote (2022-02-08):
* Plan 9 (runs most of my network infrastructure; I also
regularly use a physical plan9 terminal)
*physical* plan9 terminal?
I think distro choice matters less than people think. You can make the distro "Your own" regardless of starting point.
I didn't really
distrohop, I just used what I first got and stuck with it.
https://pspodcasting.net/dan/blog/2019/plan9_desktop.html
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my assumptions may be wrong.
Even if this were the case, which as others have pointed out it is
not, with any modern system (particularly the x86 types) Linux really
only gives you the illusion that you're in control of the system.
There is so much stuff that happens even before the x86 cores come
out of reset, mostly using closed-source binary blobs that you have
no control over whatsoever, that it's mind-boggling. And the x86 cores themselves run many billions of instructions of firmware code that,
again, most users have no control over (and has seriously dubious provenance) before the boatloader even starts. Everything from power sequencing to DRAM training is under the control of some chunk of
software that comes from somewhere. Then once the system is running
you still have the EC, maybe a BMC, plus SMM, ACPI flows, TrustZone
on ARM, etc.
Not to mention all the little processor cores running on various peripherals using their own firmware.
If one were to count up the total number of CPUs in a single
modern system, even treating multicore CPUs as a single unit, it
would easily sum into the double or triple digits. Linux (or,
really, any OS) runs on a tiny fraction of those with absolutely
no insight into what most of them are doing, or even what the cores
it "runs" are fully doing.
I run the full network setup: auth, CPU, file server, and terminal
all on separate physical machines.
I also understand its internals really well, having made major
changes to the kernel and userspace over the years. I'm still
on the technical advisory group.
That said, I wouldn't really recommend that people try and do the...
sort of stuff I'm doing with it; it is flaky. For example, the
pretty reliably and is a great way to kick the tires. It is fun
to mess around with, and will stretch your brain in interesting
ways.
http://pub.gajendra.net/2016/05/plan9part1 is an introduction I
wrote a few years ago that may prove interesting.
This is another nice introduction to Plan 9:
https://pspodcasting.net/dan/blog/2019/plan9_desktop.html
(written by another Dan)
I was a die-hard OS/2 fan over a decade... it ran my BBS like clockwork,
and I was soooooooo stubborn I kept running it well into 2001, until one fateful evening at a friends apartment I was shown Windows 2000 Server and what could be done with it. The future was painfully clear... and I hated Windows 3.1, 95, 98 etc... but the time of NT and 2000 it was obvious to
me it was more solid and mature. When XP came out I bought one of the
first copies and my BBS remains on that today.
On 02-07-22 19:31, boraxman wrote to All <=-
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of
doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my assumptions may be wrong.
On 08 Feb 2022, boraxman said the following...
The problem is that instead of people learning how to use existing
solutions properly, they invent another! So people decide that RPM's or
DEB's are no good, and create Snap, Flatpak and AppImage. Now we have
three more ways!
Cue the obligatory https://xkcd.com/927/
having it controlled by a central power. For those who wants that
polished unified, I'm happy for them to choose MacOS instead.
See, I disagree with anyone who says MacOS is more polished. I've
lived with it as my work computer for the past three years and it's a bloody disaster. *Nothing* works as it should, and the updates system
is worse than Microsoft.
If Microsoft would quit adding trackers, ads, forced Microsoft
accounts, and unnecessary features to Windows it would actually be
quite compelling. Outside of those items, the last several versions of Win10 have been pretty solid. If I needed to use a proprietary OS,
I'd slap Windows Server 2019 on my laptop and call it a day.
On 07 Feb 2022, Arelor said the following...
Android is awful and will give you madcow disease too, but as I always
say, if your phone is gonna suck, it is better if it sucks for 100 USD
than for 600+.
Oh yes, I agree with your "$100 vs $600" line 100%. If you don't need
the Google Services Framework, a Pixel 3XL or 4 running GrapheneOS is
a compelling option.
On 08 Feb 2022 at 06:46p, Oli pondered and said...
https://pspodcasting.net/dan/blog/2019/plan9_desktop.html
I skimmed it, and that looks like a very nice introduction to
the 9front fork. It's slightly dated (they've switched to git
from mercurial, for instance).
That said, I wouldn't really recommend that people try and do the sort of stuff I'm doing with it; it is flaky. For example, the...
pretty reliably and is a great way to kick the tires. It is fun
to mess around with, and will stretch your brain in interesting
ways.
A few of us dabbled with it at work (I worked for AT&T Labs for a bit). I didn't get too much into it, at the time (~2000) I was a bit more
obsessed with BeOS.
For example, I can choose my graphical environment of choice, configure daemons as I see fit, choose to use the CLI over the GUI, or not use a
GUI at all. FVWM is still highly configurable and I can change aspects
of the startup, and the kernel if need be.
We never really did have control at the CPU level. What has changed is that where we used to be able to program the CPU at a fundamental level, we are now dealing with an abstraction. The machine may be doing things we don't realise it is doing.
The external appearance is the same, but what is happening "under the surface" as increased.
Any recommendation for a good 3-button mice (or trackball) with a proper middle button? I don't like using the scroll wheel as the middle button.
I have the old serial Logitech from the 80s and some newer 3-button Logitechs (90s?), but AFAIK they are all mechanical.
If that's what you're into, go for it. I used to be very into
configuring my environment, having for instance, lengthly X11
startup scripts and resource files, elaborate shell configuration,
etc. Now, I mostly don't want to have to care: the interesting
thing for me is what I get to do _with_ the computer, not what I
do _to_ the computer.
If by, "we never really did have control at the CPU level" you mean
that you were constrained by the ISA, then I guess that's true, though FPGAs have been available for a long while now. Most machines you've
used have probably been microcoded as long as you've used them.
Indeed it has. So much so that the "operating system" is actually in charge of a pretty constrained slice of the machine. Timothy Roscoe's OSDI'21 keynote nicely illustrated this very nicely.
Ah, cool. Which location were you at? I know a number of folks who
went to AT&T labs.
Technically out of Middletown NJ, but I worked remotely from CT.
Hmm, what BU? I wonder if we know anyone in common.
Probably a banal question, but I'm curious as to what Operating Systems people prefer to us.
I'm guessing that most people here are BBS hobbyists of sometime, but I wonder whether this correlates with a preference for an OS which gives you more power/flexibility, or is just practicality of day to day use important.
I'm kind of thinking that people who like the Windows/Mac OS way of doing things would prefer a more graphical approach, but my assumptions may be wrong.
I use MacOS because I like it when shit works. I don't like Windows, and I
Let's say I install Fedora (my personal distro of choice), and then I want to install Skype. This is not in the software center application until I install some other repo (Flatpack, for example). Why isn't that enabled from the start?
Maybe Linux would benifit from a package installer like ones available on MacOS and Windows - download a file and click on it to install it.
I've been a long-time Windows user (and DOS before that), so much of the software I currently like to use is for Windows. I've remained using Windows for now, and generally haven't had many problems.
I have considered switching to Linux as my daily OS. I just still feel like pretty much all the software I like to use (including the
occasional PC game) is available for Windows, so in a way it makes sense to stay in Windows. If I did switch to Linux, I'd then have to reboot into Windows to play an occasional game, or use Windows in a VM to use some software that isn't available for Linux. I feel like it's
generally less hassle to just stay in Windows right now.
I used to only dual boot for games, but since I've stopped playing some games, and found that almost all of them work with Proton or have Linux ports, Windows barely gets touched now.
OCATS (formerlly ATS).
| Sysop: | CyberNix |
|---|---|
| Location: | London, UK |
| Users: | 22 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 06:55:38 |
| Calls: | 892 |
| Files: | 4,436 |
| Messages: | 669,179 |