On 2022-07-08, The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> wrote:
> Sounds to me Chrome is a big hog!

It is, but it runs on this nearly 2 decades old laptop that has only 2GB
memory, and it looks like it could even be usedon a 1Gb machine.

Of course I hail from a time when we talked about kilobytes and even a
departmental PDP-11 or VAX might have just a few megs (the PDP with 64K
per-process address space), so yeah, it's a pig. I think my first home
computer, an Interact, came with a whopping 8K memory which was pretty
generous for the time.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>
>>> Please.
>>>
>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>
>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>> as well.
>>
> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU power.

A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
boot time.

>>> The task was to take a now dead child's machine and make it fit for a
>>> new purpose. Mostly as a word processor.
>>>
>>> To that end, as I may have to support it, my choice was for the distro I
>>> am most familiar with. Not because am a genius for using it, but because
>>> around ten years ago it happened to be the first satisfactory debian
>>> based distro I stumbled on. Why Debian? People I knew were developing
>>> and supporting it.
>>
>> So the topic is "Mint on a small memory PC", not Linux, because
>> that's all you're looking at.
>>
>
> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.

No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.

As such the performance of Mint on that computer is primarily a
comment on the design of Mint itself rather than anything to do
with the Linux kernel. That same Linux kernel is used in other
distros who'se developers do target low-spec computers, so only
after looking at a few good examples of those can your comments
apply to Linux overall.

> Not only is it linux, its extremely representative of all the sorts of
> desktop linices that one would want to install to upgrade old hardware.

On that point we're just in disagreement - I'd never install Mint
on old hardware and I don't see it as remotely representative of
distros targeting old computers. Unless 'old' just means anything
not still on sale, which isn't my interpretation. Mint 20 doesn't
even support 32bit processors.

In fact:
"What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?

* 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
https://linuxmint.com/faq.php

Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
official minimum RAM specs.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>
>>>> Please.
>>>>
>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>
>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>> as well.
>>>
>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU power.
>
> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
> boot time.

Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".

OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.

>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>
> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.

Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.

It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.

Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
you need.

Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
things quite nicely even after all these years.

> In fact:
> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>
> * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>
> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
> official minimum RAM specs.

Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
that may still do it for ya though. First good step
down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
seem a lot better.

"Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.

(DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
come with Antix though - it's apparently written by
dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)

Am 09.07.22 um 07:30 schrieb 25B.Z959:
> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>
>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU power.
>>
>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>> boot time.
>
> Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".

Name shifting Troll!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 09/07/2022 06:30, 25B.Z959 wrote:
> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would
>>>>> have
>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>
>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU
>>> power.
>>
>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>> boot time.
>
>   Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>
>   OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
>   It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
>   demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
>   for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
>   needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.
>
>
>
>>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>>
>> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
>> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
>> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
>> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
>> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.
>
>   Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
>   made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
>   that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
>   Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
>   DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.
>
>   It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.
>
>   Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
>   Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
>   Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
>   machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
>   probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
>   But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
>   you need.
>
>   Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
>   complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
>   terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
>   as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
>   to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
>   I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
>   at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
>   Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
>   things quite nicely even after all these years.
>
>
>> In fact:
>> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>>
>>   * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
>> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>>
>> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
>> official minimum RAM specs.
>
>   Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
>   heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
>   that may still do it for ya though. First good step
>   down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
>   MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
>   for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
>   this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
>   seem a lot better.
>
>   "Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
>   you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.
>
>   (DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
>   come with Antix though  - it's apparently written by
>   dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
>   It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
>   will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)

I should have known better than to try an inject useful real world
information into a nest of egotistical cultists.

No wonder Usenet is dying

--
“It is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.”
Sir Roger Scruton

On 7/9/22 3:09 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 09.07.22 um 07:30 schrieb 25B.Z959:
>> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager would have
>>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU power.
>>>
>>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>>> boot time.
>>
>> Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>
> Name shifting Troll!

Shift regularly - that's my advice.

I do note you didn't contribute to the subject.

So the question AGAIN - what's a good balance between
a slower-booting 'heavier' distro and a faster-booting
"light" distro ? Some things may be worth waiting that
extra few seconds ... or not, depending. IMHO there's
no "perfect" distro/desktop as "perfection" hinges
on the exact hardware/mission involved.

On 7/9/22 5:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 06:30, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager
>>>>>> would have
>>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU
>>>> power.
>>>
>>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>>> boot time.
>>
>>    Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>>
>>    OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
>>    It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
>>    demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
>>    for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
>>    needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>>>
>>> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
>>> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
>>> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
>>> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
>>> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.
>>
>>    Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
>>    made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
>>    that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
>>    Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
>>    DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.
>>
>>    It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.
>>
>>    Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
>>    Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
>>    Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
>>    machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
>>    probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
>>    But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
>>    you need.
>>
>>    Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
>>    complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
>>    terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
>>    as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
>>    to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
>>    I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
>>    at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
>>    Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
>>    things quite nicely even after all these years.
>>
>>
>>> In fact:
>>> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>>>
>>>   * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
>>> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>>>
>>> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
>>> official minimum RAM specs.
>>
>>    Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
>>    heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
>>    that may still do it for ya though. First good step
>>    down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
>>    MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
>>    for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
>>    this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
>>    seem a lot better.
>>
>>    "Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
>>    you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.
>>
>>    (DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
>>    come with Antix though  - it's apparently written by
>>    dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
>>    It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
>>    will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)
>
> I should have known better than to try an inject useful real world
> information into a nest of egotistical cultists.
>
> No wonder Usenet is dying

Everything I wrote is "useful real world information",
especially the philosophical angle about how no distro
or desktop is "perfect" for everything. Even the warning
about the depressing Antix spash screens :-). Yet you
always want to pick fights with people and cast stones.

No wonder Usenet is dying.

On 09/07/2022 16:54, 25B.Z959 wrote:
> On 7/9/22 5:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2022 06:30, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager
>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU
>>>>> power.
>>>>
>>>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>>>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>>>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>>>> boot time.
>>>
>>>    Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>>>
>>>    OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
>>>    It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
>>>    demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
>>>    for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
>>>    needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>>>>
>>>> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
>>>> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
>>>> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
>>>> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
>>>> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.
>>>
>>>    Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
>>>    made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
>>>    that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
>>>    Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
>>>    DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.
>>>
>>>    It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.
>>>
>>>    Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
>>>    Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
>>>    Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
>>>    machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
>>>    probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
>>>    But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
>>>    you need.
>>>
>>>    Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
>>>    complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
>>>    terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
>>>    as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
>>>    to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
>>>    I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
>>>    at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
>>>    Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
>>>    things quite nicely even after all these years.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In fact:
>>>> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>>>>
>>>>   * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
>>>> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>>>>
>>>> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
>>>> official minimum RAM specs.
>>>
>>>    Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
>>>    heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
>>>    that may still do it for ya though. First good step
>>>    down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
>>>    MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
>>>    for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
>>>    this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
>>>    seem a lot better.
>>>
>>>    "Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
>>>    you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.
>>>
>>>    (DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
>>>    come with Antix though  - it's apparently written by
>>>    dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
>>>    It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
>>>    will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)
>>
>> I should have known better than to try an inject useful real world
>> information into a nest of egotistical cultists.
>>
>> No wonder Usenet is dying
>
>
>   Everything I wrote is "useful real world information",
>   especially the philosophical angle about how no distro
>   or desktop is "perfect" for everything. Even the warning
>   about the depressing Antix spash screens :-). Yet you
>   always want to pick fights with people and cast stones.
>
>   No wonder Usenet is dying.

A bad case of projection.

--
For in reason, all government without the consent of the governed is the
very definition of slavery.

Jonathan Swift

On 7/9/22 12:12 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 09/07/2022 16:54, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>> On 7/9/22 5:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 09/07/2022 06:30, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager
>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent CPU
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>
>>>>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>>>>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>>>>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>>>>> boot time.
>>>>
>>>>    Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>>>>
>>>>    OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
>>>>    It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
>>>>    demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
>>>>    for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
>>>>    needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>>>>>
>>>>> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
>>>>> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
>>>>> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
>>>>> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
>>>>> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.
>>>>
>>>>    Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
>>>>    made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
>>>>    that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
>>>>    Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
>>>>    DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.
>>>>
>>>>    It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.
>>>>
>>>>    Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
>>>>    Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
>>>>    Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
>>>>    machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
>>>>    probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
>>>>    But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
>>>>    you need.
>>>>
>>>>    Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
>>>>    complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
>>>>    terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
>>>>    as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
>>>>    to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
>>>>    I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
>>>>    at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
>>>>    Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
>>>>    things quite nicely even after all these years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In fact:
>>>>> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>>>>>
>>>>>   * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
>>>>> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>>>>>
>>>>> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
>>>>> official minimum RAM specs.
>>>>
>>>>    Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
>>>>    heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
>>>>    that may still do it for ya though. First good step
>>>>    down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
>>>>    MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
>>>>    for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
>>>>    this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
>>>>    seem a lot better.
>>>>
>>>>    "Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
>>>>    you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.
>>>>
>>>>    (DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
>>>>    come with Antix though  - it's apparently written by
>>>>    dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
>>>>    It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
>>>>    will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)
>>>
>>> I should have known better than to try an inject useful real world
>>> information into a nest of egotistical cultists.
>>>
>>> No wonder Usenet is dying
>>
>>
>>    Everything I wrote is "useful real world information",
>>    especially the philosophical angle about how no distro
>>    or desktop is "perfect" for everything. Even the warning
>>    about the depressing Antix spash screens :-). Yet you
>>    always want to pick fights with people and cast stones.
>>
>>    No wonder Usenet is dying.
>
> A bad case of projection.

Sorry, but I go for the "friendly/cooperative" model
for Usenet pretty much. Save the confrontation and
name-calling for social/political groups.

You ain't it.

Sorry, but you need to be plonked.

On 10/07/2022 05:41, 25B.Z959 wrote:
> On 7/9/22 12:12 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 09/07/2022 16:54, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>> On 7/9/22 5:00 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 09/07/2022 06:30, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/8/22 7:41 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/07/2022 00:15, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>>> In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher
>>>>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/07/2022 12:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Xfce would have been even lighter on the machine.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am sick to death at hearing how this or that window manager
>>>>>>>>> would have
>>>>>>>>> used a megabyte of RAM less.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your main complaint was about boot time, that's one of the things
>>>>>>>> that slows up boot time. If you were interested you'd try a
>>>>>>>> lightweight WM yourself and see how less processing required for
>>>>>>>> window/menu operations makes performance after start-up seem better
>>>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, what slows up boot time is disk IO. And to a lesser extent
>>>>>>> CPU power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A circular argument if ever I saw one. Were those not limiting
>>>>>> factors, the WM in use would indeed not matter. As it is, it's
>>>>>> data to be read off disk and code to be processed, more = longer
>>>>>> boot time.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Correct. The QUESTION is "How MUCH longer, real-world ?".
>>>>>
>>>>>    OpenBox or ICEwm or LXDE are indeed lighter, snappier.
>>>>>    It all depends on how much eye-candy individuals
>>>>>    demand. Some want a LOT - and they're gonna PAY
>>>>>    for it. No way around this. More is More - and it
>>>>>    needs a lot more memory/cpu. Linux is NOT magic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mint *is* linux. oh dear. The 'argumentum ad semanticum'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No Mint is not Linux. Linux is the core OS component of Mint, upon
>>>>>> which all sorts of other software (Systemd/init-something, WM,
>>>>>> X/Wayland, ALSA+PulseAudio, CUPS, etc. etc. etc.) is layered atop
>>>>>> in order to create a distro which in Mint's case is _not_ primarily
>>>>>> designed for running optimally on low-spec computers.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Again correct. "Linux" is actually quite SMALL - it can be
>>>>>    made EXTREMELY small - look at Slitaz for example - and
>>>>>    that has a sort of GUI. No GUI and Linux can be TINY TINY.
>>>>>    Impressively so. Indeed it's not much heavier than olde-tyme
>>>>>    DOS yet outperforms it in several useful dimensions.
>>>>>
>>>>>    It's all the stuff they put on TOP of Linux that's the drag.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Mint puts a LOT of stuff on top of Linux. Mint+LXDE less,
>>>>>    Mint+ICEwm even less ... and you can go on down the list.
>>>>>    Mint IS a pretty good compromise - I use it on my office
>>>>>    machines - but it DOES use LXDE. For MOST people Mint is
>>>>>    probably the "best compromise" (and I'll also include MX).
>>>>>    But it all depends on what you demand, what you think
>>>>>    you need.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Now frankly I *like* GUIs. They CAN speed up lots of
>>>>>    complex/vexing tasks and are "just nicer" than a
>>>>>    terminal prompt. The terminal always IS there however,
>>>>>    as needed. LXDE is my reference point, just enough
>>>>>    to be nice without sucking the system dry. Even thus
>>>>>    I have a few low-powered useful boards - mostly PIs
>>>>>    at this point - with nothing but terminal. Two are
>>>>>    Pi v1-Bs (not +) and they do their little dedicated
>>>>>    things quite nicely even after all these years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact:
>>>>>> "What are the system requirements to run Linux Mint?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * 2GB RAM (4GB recommended for a comfortable usage)."
>>>>>> https://linuxmint.com/faq.php
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most good distros designed for low-spec computers have much lower
>>>>>> official minimum RAM specs.
>>>>>
>>>>>    Yes, Mint is actually kinda "heavy". It's a nice pretty
>>>>>    heavy, but still heavy. There are many "lesser" choices
>>>>>    that may still do it for ya though. First good step
>>>>>    down is MX ... install LXDE or OpenBox or IceWM though.
>>>>>    MX has been near or at the top of the DistroWatch list
>>>>>    for a very LONG time - and for good reason. I'm writing
>>>>>    this on an MX laptop. Makes the cheepo low-power cpu
>>>>>    seem a lot better.
>>>>>
>>>>>    "Below" that, PLENTY. Try Antix, It all depends on what
>>>>>    you demand. A distro (or ten) for all.
>>>>>
>>>>>    (DO replace those ultra-DEPRESSING splash screens that
>>>>>    come with Antix though  - it's apparently written by
>>>>>    dispondent Greek commies. Something HAPPY instead.
>>>>>    It's a pretty good distro under the (black) hood and
>>>>>    will run on even seriously low-power old boxes. :-)
>>>>
>>>> I should have known better than to try an inject useful real world
>>>> information into a nest of egotistical cultists.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder Usenet is dying
>>>
>>>
>>>    Everything I wrote is "useful real world information",
>>>    especially the philosophical angle about how no distro
>>>    or desktop is "perfect" for everything. Even the warning
>>>    about the depressing Antix spash screens :-). Yet you
>>>    always want to pick fights with people and cast stones.
>>>
>>>    No wonder Usenet is dying.
>>
>> A bad case of projection.
>
>   Sorry, but I go for the "friendly/cooperative" model
>   for Usenet pretty much. Save the confrontation and
>   name-calling for social/political groups.
>
>   You ain't it.
>
>   Sorry, but you need to be plonked.

ROFLMAO.

Pick a fight, be confrontational and then call your opponent that.
As I said, projection

*plonk*

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

On 7/8/22 5:27 AM, Pancho wrote:
> On 07/07/2022 16:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Especially on January 19th, 2038 after 03:14:07 UTC, when another
>>> problem arises.
>>
>> I doubt that any of the people involved will be alive by then
>>
>> Do any of you guys live in the real world?
>>
>
> In the real world, professionally, I remember this causing a significant
> production bug circa 1994. Date rules used to be the inane trivia we
> needed to know intimately as programmers. Back then, we were using the
> RougeWave library (before c++ STL).
>
> I was chatting with a mate the other day about how programming had
> become easier. Standard libraries, tools, and Google search removing
> lots of the problems we used to have. But we decided the usual idiot
> complexifiers had just spread an additional layer of crap on top, making
> it just as difficult as ever.

Modern code libraries are spectacular.

I really don't know the nuts-and-bolts nuances of how
servers work - but cut-n-paste a demo, enhance it with
a few lines, and it Just Works ... thanks to all those
libraries that hide mountains of clever code. You can
write a basic web server in Python in about ten lines
now - I did recently, a few tweaks and it now has
several pages of useful info about my whole system.

TCP/UDP ... not much more complicated. Wrote a little
UDP client/server combo a couple of weeks ago just
for the hell of it - either side can send data async
at any time and all clients see what's being sent and
received by all others, sort of a 'chatroom' setup.
About 50 core lines of code thanks to those <*.h> files.
This week it's a pre-threaded TCP client/server that
can do about the same (but more reliably and can ID
individual clients). It'll replace the forking server
I assembled a couple of years ago. I'll find other ways
to use them. (I don't care for forks/pipes, threads
offer global vars/structs all threads can easily use
(but some will require mutex)).

I can tell you the basics of how an Otto automobile
engine is made - but I don't know the metallurgy or
casting/machining details that make it real. Yer doc
can order-up an X-Ray, but ask how to build an
actual X-Ray machine or the film/sensors that record
the images. This has become the Usual Thing these days.
We USE it, but don't REALLY know all about how it
actually works. As "AI" gets ever more involved at
every stage ... we're REALLY lost. It's sort of a
house of cards ... abstractions built upon abstractions
until nobody's sure what holds it all up.