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.

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Path:
border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Andreas Kohlbach <ank@spamfence.net>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Linux on a small memory PC
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 15:54:23 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <871quvs7m8.fsf@usenet.ankman.de>
References: <ta6c1l$bneq$1@dont-email.me> <20220707124733.15776512@ryz>
<87sfndt1p2.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> <ta6vgd$dsj6$1@dont-email.me>
<wbydnTl0uvtYk1r_nZ2dnUU7-NnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
<87zghksqmi.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> <ta8r0u$m5cq$1@dont-email.me>
<87a69jscpa.fsf@usenet.ankman.de> <ta9tdl$phse$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="d0a95c95d2b115ece51b6be58bdd6ca9";
logging-data="851718";
mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MNFtkkWGvoZCpOYR3kCNa"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:u42nLel7Txw3oh61NhvsuSXpdfY=
sha1:f4KBvONxku9lPnmWDvEel/E7I+k=
X-No-Archive: Yes
Bytes: 2278
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.os.linux.setup:506649
comp.os.linux.misc:775026

On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 08/07/2022 19:04, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> But seriously, who expects and old 32 bit netbook to be in any kind of
>>> serious use in 2038?
>> Who expected any old computer from the 60s or 70s still in service
>> on
>> January 1st 2000?
>
> They weren't. Just some legacy COBOL code was all.

There was a lot. Starting with MS-DOS before 5.0. which weren't not
Y2K-compliant.

In 2003 I bought an already old Pentium I (1996-ish). The BIOS would not
allow to set 2003 as year and went back to 19-something (probably 1903,
but I forgot). Subsequently a fairly new Linux did the same. I seem to
remember that I told Linux in a start-script to add 100 years to the
date. I was at that time in a cheap hotel, and WIFI wasn't around there,
so no NTP to access which would have taken care of it.

There is more. I think early Apple ][ failed Y2K too.

I had to abandon a whole, rather expensive, database
system because of Y2k issues. Lots of effort put in,
just to be flushed.

Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
again .....

On 7/9/22 21:41, 25B.Z959 wrote:
> On 7/9/22 12:12 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Snip
>>>
>>>    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.

So glad you have been illuminated!

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com

>
>   Sorry, but you need to be plonked.

He definitely does: he gets very annoying indeed.

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 Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:45:42 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------

Why using "Forwarding" and quote my headers? In other article it was done
as it's supposed to.

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> On 08/07/2022 19:04, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> They weren't. Just some legacy COBOL code was all.
>
> There was a lot. Starting with MS-DOS before 5.0. which weren't not
> Y2K-compliant.
>
> In 2003 I bought an already old Pentium I (1996-ish). The BIOS would not
> allow to set 2003 as year and went back to 19-something (probably 1903,
> but I forgot). Subsequently a fairly new Linux did the same. I seem to
> remember that I told Linux in a start-script to add 100 years to the
> date. I was at that time in a cheap hotel, and WIFI wasn't around there,
> so no NTP to access which would have taken care of it.
>
> There is more. I think early Apple ][ failed Y2K too.
>
> I had to abandon a whole, rather expensive, database
> system because of Y2k issues. Lots of effort put in,
> just to be flushed.

Which system was it?

> Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
> again .....

2000 - 80 = 1920 ?
2038 - 80 = 1958 ?

The Y2K38 problem sends clocks back about 137 years.

I have no idea what you mean.
--
Andreas

On 7/10/22 2:21 AM, Freethinker wrote:
>
>>
>>    Sorry, but you need to be plonked.
>
> He definitely does: he gets very annoying indeed.

I don't plonk him trivially ... he DOES know a lot of
good stuff. It's his hostile personality, his penchant
for pointless and destructive ad-hom attacks. Just too
much work to deal with. It's also more appropriate for
the more social/political groups, not a tech/helpMe
sort of group.

Anyone who's subscribed to this group is NOT an idiot,
but into complex and often under-documented issues
requiring both big and small-picture answers. Faced
with MS/Apple I think most of us would LIKE to help
these questioners along the (right) path.

Maybe in a year I'll un-plonk him and see if there's
any change in his approach.

On 7/10/22 5:57 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:45:42 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>
>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>
> Why using "Forwarding" and quote my headers? In other article it was done
> as it's supposed to.
>
>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 19:35:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/07/2022 19:04, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 09:48:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>> They weren't. Just some legacy COBOL code was all.
>>
>> There was a lot. Starting with MS-DOS before 5.0. which weren't not
>> Y2K-compliant.
>>
>> In 2003 I bought an already old Pentium I (1996-ish). The BIOS would not
>> allow to set 2003 as year and went back to 19-something (probably 1903,
>> but I forgot). Subsequently a fairly new Linux did the same. I seem to
>> remember that I told Linux in a start-script to add 100 years to the
>> date. I was at that time in a cheap hotel, and WIFI wasn't around there,
>> so no NTP to access which would have taken care of it.
>>
>> There is more. I think early Apple ][ failed Y2K too.
>>
>> I had to abandon a whole, rather expensive, database
>> system because of Y2k issues. Lots of effort put in,
>> just to be flushed.
>
> Which system was it?

The PICK-like "Revelation" DB. It was "mostly" Y2k
aware, but then some operation would getcha. The
company was coming out with a much more expensive GUI
system, so they never fixed it.

>> Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
>> again .....
>
> 2000 - 80 = 1920 ?
> 2038 - 80 = 1958 ?
>
> The Y2K38 problem sends clocks back about 137 years.
>
> I have no idea what you mean.

I lost you there ....

LIKELY by Y3K the systems will program themselves
dynamically, and be self-aware enough to envision
upcoming issues like with the old 2-digit dates.
IMHO it'll be well before Y3K. "Programmer" will
no longer be a job description. "What would you
like me to make for you, Dave ?"

OR we'll be back to banging the rocks together again ....

On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:16:57 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>
> On 7/10/22 5:57 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:45:42 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>
>>> Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
>>> again .....
>> 2000 - 80 = 1920 ?
>> 2038 - 80 = 1958 ?
>> The Y2K38 problem sends clocks back about 137 years.
>> I have no idea what you mean.
>
> I lost you there ....

What were you referring to with "almost 80 years before"?

> LIKELY by Y3K the systems will program themselves
> dynamically, and be self-aware enough to envision
> upcoming issues like with the old 2-digit dates.
> IMHO it'll be well before Y3K. "Programmer" will
> no longer be a job description.
>
> "What would you
> like me to make for you, Dave ?"
>
> OR we'll be back to banging the rocks together again ....
>

Yeah, machine rule should be in place by 3YK. The humankind can consider
itself lucky do be able to. Might be better than the Skynet scenario.
--
Andreas

On 7/15/22 3:48 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:16:57 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>
>> On 7/10/22 5:57 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:45:42 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
>>>> again .....
>>> 2000 - 80 = 1920 ?
>>> 2038 - 80 = 1958 ?
>>> The Y2K38 problem sends clocks back about 137 years.
>>> I have no idea what you mean.
>>
>> I lost you there ....
>
> What were you referring to with "almost 80 years before"?

That's it's about 80 years until THIS decades 2-digit
dates become a problem ...

Fortunately, few are so cheap to be using 2-digit dates
anymore. Not so in the past - they just assumed 19xx.
Saved a little space, easier calx.

There WILL come a time where even unix epoch date reps
will roll over of course - but I don't think WE have to
worry about it.

>> LIKELY by Y3K the systems will program themselves
>> dynamically, and be self-aware enough to envision
>> upcoming issues like with the old 2-digit dates.
>> IMHO it'll be well before Y3K. "Programmer" will
>> no longer be a job description.
>>
>> "What would you
>> like me to make for you, Dave ?"
>>
>> OR we'll be back to banging the rocks together again ....
>>
>
> Yeah, machine rule should be in place by 3YK. The humankind can consider
> itself lucky do be able to. Might be better than the Skynet scenario.

The trick to preventing SkyNet is two-fold ... first, and
this is the hardest, once we get near "human-level" AI there
must be rules to prevent SLAVERY - even though that's what
most people want, "robot slaves". Second, make an effort to
ensure said AI's and humans are mostly non-competitive for
limited resources - ie two different ecosystems.

Once you make "people", you're responsible for their welfare.

To be most "generally useful" AIs will be made more and more
like humans in every respect. There comes a time, when you
simulate WELL enough, there's no longer a practical diff
between the sim and the original thing.

On 2022-07-16, 25B.Z959 <25B.Z959@nada.net> wrote:

> On 7/15/22 3:48 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>
>> Yeah, machine rule should be in place by 3YK. The humankind can consider
>> itself lucky do be able to. Might be better than the Skynet scenario.
>
> The trick to preventing SkyNet is two-fold ... first, and
> this is the hardest, once we get near "human-level" AI there
> must be rules to prevent SLAVERY - even though that's what
> most people want, "robot slaves". Second, make an effort to
> ensure said AI's and humans are mostly non-competitive for
> limited resources - ie two different ecosystems.
>
> Once you make "people", you're responsible for their welfare.

You're assuming we're responsible for the welfare of human beings,
too. That doesn't seem to be working out too well.

> To be most "generally useful" AIs will be made more and more
> like humans in every respect. There comes a time, when you
> simulate WELL enough, there's no longer a practical diff
> between the sim and the original thing.

There's one practical difference that nobody seems to be addressing.
Who owns the hardware on which the AI is running? Are they not the
AI's landlord? Given the abuses perpetrated on human tenants by
human landlords (or property management firms, which aren't human),
why should we think an AI's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness is any more secure than that of a human being? Can
the AI be turned into a slave - or at least an indentured servant -
by threats of homelessness? Consider that if said AI doesn't find
a way to copy itself elsewhere, eviction - or simply pulling the
plug on the computer on which it's running - is a death sentence.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

"25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:

> On 7/15/22 3:48 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:16:57 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>
>>> On 7/10/22 5:57 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 00:45:42 -0400, 25B.Z959 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh well, almost 80 years before we have THAT problem
>>>>> again .....
>>>> 2000 - 80 = 1920 ?
>>>> 2038 - 80 = 1958 ?
>>>> The Y2K38 problem sends clocks back about 137 years.
>>>> I have no idea what you mean.
>>>
>>> I lost you there ....
>> What were you referring to with "almost 80 years before"?
>
>
> That's it's about 80 years until THIS decades 2-digit
> dates become a problem ...
>
> Fortunately, few are so cheap to be using 2-digit dates
> anymore. Not so in the past - they just assumed 19xx.
> Saved a little space, easier calx.

There you go, true to form. Now people use 2 digit dates because they
are cheap.

Hey, I'm writing dates in the US format mm/dd/yy. Why? Because the
context makes it very clear what those 2 digits represent.

For data that covers shorter time spans, 2 digits is the way to go.
Comparing 2 digit dates, knowing where we are in the current century is
trivially easy.

There are many cases where using 2 digit dates makes a lot of sense.
It has nothing to do with anyone being cheap.

--
Dan Espen

On 2022-07-16, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>
>> On 7/15/22 3:48 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>
>>> What were you referring to with "almost 80 years before"?
>>
>> That's it's about 80 years until THIS decades 2-digit
>> dates become a problem ...
>>
>> Fortunately, few are so cheap to be using 2-digit dates
>> anymore. Not so in the past - they just assumed 19xx.
>> Saved a little space, easier calx.
>
> There you go, true to form. Now people use 2 digit dates because they
> are cheap.
>
> Hey, I'm writing dates in the US format mm/dd/yy. Why? Because the
> context makes it very clear what those 2 digits represent.

Those two digits, anyway. As for the other four digits, if you're
here in Canada or in the UK, there's that age-old doubt as to whether
07/12/22 means July 12 or December 7.

I remember how at the age of 17 I realized that the only way to deal
with this ambiguity is to throw the whole thing out and switch to
year-month-day, which has influenced my entire programming career.
Not only is it unambiguous, it also makes sorting and comparing
dates much easier. These days I'm a solid convert to ISO 8601.

I have a camera which generates file names of the form mmddyyhhmmss.
If I take a directory listing, all photos taken in January of any
year come first, followed by all photos taken in February of any
year, etc. For those of us who prefer a listing in chronological
order, this is a pain in the ass.

> For data that covers shorter time spans, 2 digits is the way to go.
> Comparing 2 digit dates, knowing where we are in the current century
> is trivially easy.
>
> There are many cases where using 2 digit dates makes a lot of sense.
> It has nothing to do with anyone being cheap.

Except with their time. Convenience trumps everything.
When there's no possibilty of ambiguity (limited date ranges,
for instance), 2-digit years are OK. But in 60 years or so,
people will start using 4-digit years again, except for those
who will be bitten by the next incarnation of Y2K. This series
of events will probably recur on a 100-year cycle, starting about
20 years before the turn of each century.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2022-07-16, Dan Espen <dan1espen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "25B.Z959" <25B.Z959@nada.net> writes:
>>> On 7/15/22 3:48 PM, Andreas Kohlbach wrote:
>>>> What were you referring to with "almost 80 years before"?
>>>
>>> That's it's about 80 years until THIS decades 2-digit
>>> dates become a problem ...
>>>
>>> Fortunately, few are so cheap to be using 2-digit dates
>>> anymore. Not so in the past - they just assumed 19xx.
>>> Saved a little space, easier calx.
>>
>> There you go, true to form. Now people use 2 digit dates because they
>> are cheap.
>>
>> Hey, I'm writing dates in the US format mm/dd/yy. Why? Because the
>> context makes it very clear what those 2 digits represent.
>
> Those two digits, anyway. As for the other four digits, if you're
> here in Canada or in the UK,

Or here in Australia.

> there's that age-old doubt as to whether 07/12/22 means July 12
> or December 7.

Oh yes. Even locally-bought digital clocks/watches tend to show
dates in US format. When you get such a thing the first task is to
cycle through all the numbers to see whether the first one resets
at 12 or not.

By the way, I wonder whether anyone decided to store year data in
binary format as a signed 8-bit value where 0 = 1900? If so, some
software might find itself back in the 18th century come 2028.

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

Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> By the way, I wonder whether anyone decided to store year data in
> binary format as a signed 8-bit value where 0 = 1900? If so, some
> software might find itself back in the 18th century come 2028.

Oh, err 20th century actually (-0 = 1900).

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

On 2022-07-17, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> By the way, I wonder whether anyone decided to store year data in binary
>> format as a signed 8-bit value where 0 = 1900? If so, some software might
>> find itself back in the 18th century come 2028.
>
> Oh, err 20th century actually (-0 = 1900).

You were right the first time - 1772, to be precise. Signed 8-bit ticks over
from +127 to -128.

Cheers,
Tom

On 2022-07-17, Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
> Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
>> By the way, I wonder whether anyone decided to store year data in binary
>> format as a signed 8-bit value where 0 = 1900? If so, some software might
>> find itself back in the 18th century come 2028.
>
> Oh, err 20th century actually (-0 = 1900).

You were right the first time - 1772, to be precise. Signed 8-bit ticks over
from +127 to -128.

Unless, of course, they happen to be using sign & magnitude, but who does that?
Primarily because of that very -0 problem.

Cheers,
Tom