Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux-hating Dimdows concern trolls, listen up
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 09:00:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <vk3ta8$310ii$2@dont-email.me>
References: <lscfcaFrg08U1@mid.individual.net> <vjr3qj$1it5e$1@dont-email.me>
 <lscjh2Frg08U3@mid.individual.net>
 <Ck2dnSLtXetyAPz6nZ2dnZfqn_sAAAAA@giganews.com>
 <lsdmrsFrg08U5@mid.individual.net> <qVh8P.26722$ZAue.10199@fx12.iad>
 <vjspft$1sthq$7@dont-email.me> <3zn8P.42294$%aWb.40195@fx18.iad>
 <vjubmp$28obp$7@dont-email.me> <tVA8P.3449$mi11.1501@fx48.iad>
 <vjuvcv$2cgfv$1@dont-email.me> <vjv4dq$2devp$4@dont-email.me>
 <vjve4e$2f7c6$1@dont-email.me> <vk154o$2s3g7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:00:40 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="2ec6cbd8fb3c0637dcdce08c39d99855";
	logging-data="3179090"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+Wlikl2IipuQK4qRXcVUNYf7G4JXSZyXw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:AgvG0qNSflQLMt3dmtXIxD+6loo=
In-Reply-To: <vk154o$2s3g7$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 4683

On 12/19/24 7:55 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> On 12/18/24 1:31 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> -hh wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>
>>>> On 12/18/24 9:23 AM, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <who cares?>
>>>>
>>>> Linux's lightweight OS characteristics make it quite suitable for any
>>>> old hardware which it can run on, particularly when the user
>>>> expectations are basic (eg, web surfing, email, newsgroups).
>>>
>>> You left out audio/video/photo editing, screen-casting, software development,
>>> painting, MIDI, pen-testing, servers of all kinds, ...
>>
>> Sure, because most users leave those out too, as the primary use case
>> that this is about are hand-me-downs.
>>
>>> Much of with is manageable on old hardware, as well.
>>
>> Contingent on just what level of task which one is asking to do:  old
>> hadware can render 640 by 480 video without being too slow in the UI,
>> but to do 4K editing within the same day is beyond the hardware's
>> capability, regardless of OS.  Sure, one may get to "but it will run!"
>> but the workflow is a {fix a frame & let it run overnight} crawl.
>>
>>> Years ago I installed Linux on a single-core Acer laptop. I could run
>>> SolidWorks on it in a VM on that little shit-box. It was my main laptop before
>>> the Corporation started handing out decent hardware.
>>
>> A Single core CPU would be more like "decades ago", as I can recall
>> having a dual core CPU back in 2006.
> 
> I bought the single-core because it was cheap, especially with the Office Depot
> discount.

Nothing wrong with being frugal; its just that our expectations grow 
over time:  who's deliberately buying a 300 baud modem this decade?


>> And its not merely that some software could be made to run:  the
>> question was how long to render the project, and for the likes of
>> Solidworks, doing how many discrete points in the mesh.
>>
>> As I'd mentioned a week or two back, I had a FEA team working on a hot
>> project where the workstations would crash every ~4 days of runtime.
> 
> Bully for you.

The point is that lots of stuff can be made to "run", but it doesn't do 
so in a timescale which is productive:  one tends to only do such things 
when there's no better alternative.

I've been guilty of doing some of this myself ... I can recall doing 
some photography work with a 35mm film scanner that the dpi was up there 
and the subsequent TIFF file size was ~1GB.  On the PC that did that 
nearly two decades ago, it of course took minutes & minutes to crunch 
anything while working on that file - - and the final outcome turned out 
to be no better than a much lower resolution scan.  But it "did work".

And a bit of s search later...I found these old files:

1,208,386,573 bytes - created Sunday, July 11, 2004 at 9:48 PM
Dimensions: 17433 x 11551 -- that would be ~200 megapixels.

Today, it took ~3 sec to open the file within the App.
And the much smaller 8673 x 5776 (50 MP) takes just ~1 sec.

Yet it still was a "can be done" 20 years ago ... the workflow just was 
minutes per step then, instead of seconds today.


-hh