As I noted awhile ago, using "pacman -Syu" to do an update kept returning the
message "nothing to do".

Figured out that an Arch mirror might have "gone away".

So I back up the mirror list and run

# reflector --latest 12 --sort rate --save /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
# pacman -Syu

and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.

Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.

--
An honest tale speeds best being plainly told.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry VI"

On 2024-07-25 6:52 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> As I noted awhile ago, using "pacman -Syu" to do an update kept returning the
> message "nothing to do".
>
> Figured out that an Arch mirror might have "gone away".
>
> So I back up the mirror list and run
>
> # reflector --latest 12 --sort rate --save /etc/pacman.d/mirrorlist
> # pacman -Syu
>
> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>
> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.

Exciting stuff, Chris.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>
> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>
> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>

Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.

Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
to prove it.)

Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
F^2

Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>
>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>
>Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>
>Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
>to prove it.)
>
>Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

My computer doesn't suck. It could run Windows 11, if I wanted it to.
It can handle Mint, retard.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Farley Flud wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>
>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>
>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>>
>
> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>
> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
> to prove it.)
>
> Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Chortle on, Farquar.

--
He hath eaten me out of house and home.
-- William Shakespeare, "Henry IV"

On 2024-07-25 4:25 p.m., Joel wrote:
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>>
>>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>>
>> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>
>> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
>> to prove it.)
>>
>> Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>
> My computer doesn't suck. It could run Windows 11, if I wanted it to.
> It can handle Mint, retard.

I'll give you this much: Larry Pietraskiewicz is indeed mentally retarded.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 20:25 this Thursday (GMT):
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>>
>>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>>
>>Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>>and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>
>>Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
>>to prove it.)
>>
>>Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>>
>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>
> My computer doesn't suck. It could run Windows 11, if I wanted it to.

So it has a TPM chip? Or are you just talking about specs?

> It can handle Mint, retard.

A lot can.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:
>Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 20:25 this Thursday (GMT):
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>>>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>>>
>>>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>>>
>>>Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>>>and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>>
>>>Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
>>>to prove it.)
>>>
>>>Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>>>
>>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>> My computer doesn't suck. It could run Windows 11, if I wanted it to.
>
>So it has a TPM chip? Or are you just talking about specs?

Not a chip, but in the 10th gen Intel CPU, yes. I had Win11 before, I
flushed it for Mint Cinnamon, and haven't looked back. I gave my
Windows product key to DFS.

>> It can handle Mint, retard.
>
>A lot can.

Yup.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 25-07-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>
> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.

It's useless. On your computer the default optimizations done by the
distro maintainers are better than the one you could do. The only way you
could optimise something is with luck. It can happen once in your life,
maybe two but not much more.

> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty

Yes, exactly what I said, once you try to optimize something it becomes
slow.

> (I have the benchmarks to prove it.)

I don't believe that. You are unable to benchmark anything. You are
unable to understand the benchmarks done by someone else. You are only
able to provide imaginary numbers pretending whatever you want.

> Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.

You are the one who should provide excuses for your lies.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 19:13 this Friday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> wrote:
>>Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 20:25 this Thursday (GMT):
>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 25 Jul 2024 06:52:22 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> and find about 437 packages to be updated, a 1.5 Gb download, and about 4.0 Gb
>>>>> installed, with a net upgrade size of -250 Mb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Took a few minutes to do, not bad at all.
>>>>
>>>>Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>>>>and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>>>
>>>>Expect up to a 30% performance penalty (I have the benchmarks
>>>>to prove it.)
>>>>
>>>>Now cue the excuses and rationalizations.
>>>>
>>>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>>
>>> My computer doesn't suck. It could run Windows 11, if I wanted it to.
>>
>>So it has a TPM chip? Or are you just talking about specs?
>
>
> Not a chip, but in the 10th gen Intel CPU, yes. I had Win11 before, I
> flushed it for Mint Cinnamon, and haven't looked back. I gave my
> Windows product key to DFS.

That's good.

>>> It can handle Mint, retard.
>>
>>A lot can.
>
>
> Yup.

Mint is pretty good
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 7/26/2024 5:36 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 25-07-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>
>> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>
> It's useless. On your computer the default optimizations done by the
> distro maintainers are better than the one you could do. The only way you
> could optimise something is with luck. It can happen once in your life,
> maybe two but not much more.
>
>> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty
>
> Yes, exactly what I said, once you try to optimize something it becomes
> slow.
>
>> (I have the benchmarks to prove it.)
>
> I don't believe that.

He definitely does not have benchmarks (plural). He has one - and only
one - benchmark he's been tossing around here for years. It's the
single-threaded composite score from Scimark 4.

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>On 7/26/2024 5:36 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Le 25-07-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>>> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>
>> It's useless. On your computer the default optimizations done by the
>> distro maintainers are better than the one you could do. The only way you
>> could optimise something is with luck. It can happen once in your life,
>> maybe two but not much more.
>>
>>> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty
>>
>> Yes, exactly what I said, once you try to optimize something it becomes
>> slow.
>>
>>> (I have the benchmarks to prove it.)
>>
>> I don't believe that.
>
>He definitely does not have benchmarks (plural). He has one - and only
>one - benchmark he's been tossing around here for years. It's the
>single-threaded composite score from Scimark 4.

What's 30% of one second? It's so stupid, he is anal about
performance like that, I take precompiled code and run with it, my
computer is great and can handle it, JFC who cares about this Gentoo
Linux From Scratch bullshit.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 19:26 this Sunday (GMT):
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>On 7/26/2024 5:36 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Le 25-07-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Except that NONE of the packages are optimized for your hardware
>>>> and ALL are crippled with unnecessary "security" features.
>>>
>>> It's useless. On your computer the default optimizations done by the
>>> distro maintainers are better than the one you could do. The only way you
>>> could optimise something is with luck. It can happen once in your life,
>>> maybe two but not much more.
>>>
>>>> Expect up to a 30% performance penalty
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly what I said, once you try to optimize something it becomes
>>> slow.
>>>
>>>> (I have the benchmarks to prove it.)
>>>
>>> I don't believe that.
>>
>>He definitely does not have benchmarks (plural). He has one - and only
>>one - benchmark he's been tossing around here for years. It's the
>>single-threaded composite score from Scimark 4.
>
>
> What's 30% of one second? It's so stupid, he is anal about
> performance like that, I take precompiled code and run with it, my
> computer is great and can handle it, JFC who cares about this Gentoo
> Linux From Scratch bullshit.

300 milliseconds
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:10:04 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

>> What's 30% of one second? It's so stupid, he is anal about performance
>> like that, I take precompiled code and run with it, my computer is
>> great and can handle it, JFC who cares about this Gentoo Linux From
>> Scratch bullshit.
>
>
> 300 milliseconds

That's a long time :)

https://competitionelectronics.com/collections/shot-timers

The times measure the time between shots fired. I'm not very good at
competition but with a 9mm I can get aimed shots on target under 300
milliseconds. A .45 has more recoil so it takes longer for the sights to
return. You can actually see the front sight as it falls down into
alignment with the rear.

It's rather fascinating when you get a handle on everything that can
happen in that time frame, and how much you perceive and can do. Some of
the really good shooters like Jerry Miculek can fire 12 on target shoots
from a six shot revolver in 2.99 seconds. That includes the reload.

All that said when I'm editing code 300 msec doesn't matter.