Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #697338 > unrolled thread

Re: Favorite Font

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Favorite Font Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-09-19 19:16 -0300
    Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-20 00:33 +0000
      Re: Favorite Font Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-09-20 08:58 -0400
        Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:08 +0100
    Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 15:13 +0000
      Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:02 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-20 18:42 +0000
            Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-21 08:21 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 10:34 +0100
                Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:53 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 07:42 +0000
                    Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-22 22:53 +0000
                      Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-23 07:35 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 18:57 +0100
                  Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:53 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:52 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 07:32 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-22 17:22 +0000
                    Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 18:36 +0000
            Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-21 14:59 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 16:15 +0100
              Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-21 20:19 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-09-23 01:16 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 14:44 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2025-12-31 11:22 -0500
      Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:59 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 18:48 +0100
          Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:39 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-21 09:27 +1000
            Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:45 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:18 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:34 +0100
            Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 23:02 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:02 -0500
        Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 01:39 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 07:20 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 10:14 +0100
            Re: Favorite Font vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 22:31 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-22 13:34 +0100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#697432

>On 2025-09-22, Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 08:21:02 GMT, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even my old Polaroid pictures are OK :-)
>>>
>>> I would scan those. Having both physical originals + digital files is 
>>> better than only having the physical originals.
>>
>> Good suggestion!
>> Yes, scanner, I have one somewhere, not used in ages (driver for win3.1 :-) )
>> My Xiaomi smartphone has such a good camera that I just take a picture!
>
>And that way you can add in all the artifacts which seem to be becoming
>mandatory these days: shadows, keystoning, and the various distortions
>that result from a page that won't lie flat.
>
>If you care enough to overcome these things - and it can be done -
>then more power to you.  But most people don't give a damn when
>they trip the shutter.  It's the photographic equivalent of sloppy
>writing combined with lack of proofreading.

Well, I did a lot of photo stuff back then, had my own enlarger, developed my own
black and white enlarged pictures in those days, some were framed.

Actually I take the pics in HD mode with the xiaomi, and when looking back on the smartphone you can easily enlarge and details.
Or even make a movie if something needs it.
So I know how to take a picture, for my Canon camera I wrote some scripts.
But OK, cameras were part of my job for many years, was technician in the TV studios here.
Designed and build my first Vidicon portable camera in 1968.
For most stuff I make pictures of it is about documentation.,
the circuit diagrams I did draw with pencil on paper ARE already unreadable for some, so I have heard :-).

Not for me (yet), and that is why I keep it, still designing stuff.
Not so much for global show in musea ;-)
OTOH my website has much of that stuff (and Linux stuff to go back to the groups subject)
 https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
not only Linux, lost of Microchip PIC asm projects:
 https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/pic/index.html

Show us what you did for open source?


>Oh my, who pissed in my orange juice this morning?

Juice? I have been eating a complete small mandarin orange every night lately,
the vitamin C gives a real boost.
Beep

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697392

Le 20-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 20 Sep 2025 18:02:36 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I have tens of thousands of ebooks
>> 
>> Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
>> useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's
>> impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.
>> 
>
> I have read a lot of them,

I don't believe that. If you do nothing else with your life you could
probably manage to read one book a day. Which means, you don't compile
your kernel, you don't work, you don't spend time on usenet. In this
extreme case you would need 30 years to read 10000 books. So, if you
read more than tens of thousands of books it would require many
lifetimes. Which is impossible. So, maybe you are fooling yourself, but
you don't fool me.

> (and acquiring) more, but they are mostly for reference.

That I can believe. You download everything available doing nothing with
them is possible.

>> That's clear nonsense. Solar or wind sources have environmental costs.
>> Like nuclear sources. The costs are not the same, but they exist. Do you
>> really believe you can create a nuclear central without any
>> environmental cost? Or a wind turbine without any material? Or a sonar
>> panel without any material?
>
> The cost is SIGNIFICANTLY less that coal, oil, or gas fired plants.

Less cost doesn't mean no cost.

> Idiot.

That I already know. Please improve. Go get a brain and start expressing
the imagination part you pretend to have.

>> Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
>> will fade on the paper I used.
>
> Not so with images.

Ah, OK, my bad. When we were talking about books, I didn't guessed we
weren't speaking about the same thing. You are downloading Mickey Mouse
and Superman, of course. I should have known better how you can be sure
you have read tens of thousands of books.

>>> But e-material will stay fresh forever.
>> 
>> Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
>> Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year. The floppy disks had
>> an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
>> as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever.
>>
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!  What a dufus!
>
> The implication is that digital files will always be duplicated on a regular
> basis.  This practice will ensure extreme longevity.

By who? Why? As you said nothing you do get out of your house.

> Gutenberg is long dead.  Digital is now the new king.

Not the same purpose.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697394

On 21/09/2025 15:59, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> I don't believe that. If you do nothing else with your life you could
> probably manage to read one book a day.

I used to manage several a day when I had nothing better to do. Then it 
dropped to about one a day when I did.


-- 
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to 
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697405

On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> I don't believe that.
>

Then fuck you.  Retarded idiot.

You are just extremely jealous.  You recognize my total superiority
and you cannot accept it.

Well, too bad.  You will ignore reality at your own peril.

Remember:

I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.
You can only use what is given to you.  You are incapable of
being creative or constructive.

I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

Fuck you.


-- 
Gentoo: the only road to GNU/Linux perfection.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697435

On 2025-09-21, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> 
>> I don't believe that.
>>
>
> Then fuck you.  Retarded idiot.

LOL.
I'm reasonably certain that Stephane doesn't have any problem
finding partners.
Unlike you FF.


> You are just extremely jealous.  You recognize my total superiority
> and you cannot accept it.

Jealous of what?
The only thing you can claim to be the best at is making a fool of yourself.
I'll give you credit as you are one of the best at it.

> Well, too bad.  You will ignore reality at your own peril.

The reality is that you FF are a raving lunatic.
Are you a snit troll?
You seem to be.
Snit is as ignorant as you.
You 2 have a lot in common.

>
> Remember:

> I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

Lol!
You are a fool FF.

> Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.
> You can only use what is given to you.  You are incapable of
> being creative or constructive.

Linux users all around the world are using their Linux systems
to increase productivity and perform real world tasks.

You OTOH tinker with your system looking for that one compile flag
that might give you 0.0000000000001 msec improvement in some bizarre
application you are running.

You might try purchasing decent hardware next time instead of the
garbage you assembled not too long ago.





>
> Fuck you.

I doubt you are his type.
Try snit. He's a fairy. Maybe you like fairies?



-- 
pothead
"I have a lot of friends who are Democrats, and they’re idiots.
I always say they have big hearts and little brains.
Almost every single policy rolled out failed.”

-- Jamie Dimon CEO JPMorgan Chase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697508

[En-tête "Followup-To:" positionné à comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
Le 21-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 21 Sep 2025 14:59:32 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> 
>> I don't believe that.
>>
>
> Then fuck you.

No, I'm not interested. If you want sexual pleasure, you'll have to find
someone else.

> Retarded idiot.

That I already know. Can't you improve?

> You are just extremely jealous.

Of what? You hate everything around you. Your life looks awful and I
surely don't want to stand in your boots.

> You recognize my total superiority

Everything you showed here: I can do better. Maybe there is one thing in
which you are superior to me but you hide it fairly well.

> and you cannot accept it.

I can't accept what goes against common sense without good evidence. 

> Well, too bad.  You will ignore reality at your own peril.

What's the reality? The killers you sent months ago against me? I'm
still answering so you failed. And I'm right refusing your reality when
it goes against facts.

> Now get back to your distro-supplied systemd and wayland.

They are better than what cames before. The fact that you can't
understand what they can bring to you speak more about you than about
them.

> You can only use what is given to you.

This sentence proves you know nothing about ArchLinux.

> You are incapable of being creative or constructive.

The fact that you can't find other words than idiot to insult me proves
you don't know what creativity is. The fact that you can't help but be
at loss and insult everything which isn't going in your way proves you
know nothing about being constructive.

> I am the authority.  You are the lackey.
> I am the authority.  You are the lackey.
> I am the authority.  You are the lackey.

I know you are an American, so I can understand that Musk and Trump are
inspiring you. But unlike their beliefs, repeating something stupid
doesn't make it true.

> Fuck you.

I'm still not interested, you'll have to find someone else.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703833

On 9/20/2025 11:51 AM, Lameass Larry Piet (aka Farley Flud) wrote:


> I have tens of thousands of ebooks


How do you know?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697363

On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
> heavily on electricity.
> 
> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
> on nature as printing it.

A true ArtStudent™ statement.

With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on 
screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing 
it does.
So that statement "the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely 
heavily on electricity." is precisely meaningless.

Secondly, its hard to print an email out without using a printer, *after 
the email has been downloaded and read on screen anyway*

So printing it out *absolutely* uses more electricity and, indeed, paper.

In short, you are ignoring facts s to make an emotional argument stick, 
and are actually talking complete and utter bollocks.


-- 
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's"
Joew Walsh

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697365

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
>> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
>> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
>> heavily on electricity.
>> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
>> impact
>> on nature as printing it.
>
> A true ArtStudent™ statement.
>
> With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.
>
> First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
> screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
> it does.

I’d expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle
- though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

I remember a colleague whose approach to email was to print it out and
then wander across the office to talk to me about it. The switch to
in-person conversation was fair enough but the printout was really just
a prop...

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697369

Le 20-09-2025, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
>>> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
>>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
>>> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
>>> heavily on electricity.
>>> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
>>> impact
>>> on nature as printing it.
>>
>> A true ArtStudent™ statement.
>>
>> With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.
>>
>> First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
>> screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
>> it does.
>
> I’d expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle

Of course the storage consume some energy: the disks aren't store on the
floor when they aren't used to be plugged when the need arrise. The
disks are plugged on servers 24/7 to be ready when the need arise. And
the servers are checked from time to time to be sure it didn't failed
which consume electricity too. And the server running emits warm. In a
data center, a lot of servers emitting warm are in want of air
conditioning. And an email isn't stored on only one disk: nobody would
accept to lose an email, so there are backups.

> - though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

Of course, an email doesn't require a lot of energy by itself. But the
printing of an email isn't a really big issue neither. The printing
requiring energy only once to be printed. The email requiring energy
24/7 uselessly for years and a little bit more energy at the time it's
read is not that negligible.

Of course, videos are a bigger issue than emails.

> I remember a colleague whose approach to email was to print it out and
> then wander across the office to talk to me about it. The switch to
> in-person conversation was fair enough but the printout was really just
> a prop...

If he didn't delete his email after printing it and if he throw the
email in a basket after talking to you, environmentally speaking, it was
really bad.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697375

In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stephane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
>>> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
>>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
>>> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
>>> heavily on electricity.
>>> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same
>>> impact
>>> on nature as printing it.
>>
>> A true ArtStudent(TM) statement.
>>
>> With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.
>>
>> First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on
>> screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing
>> it does.
> 
> I'd expect online storage to consume at least some energy even when idle
> - though probably negligible for this particular discussion.

Surely negligible. The fact is that if each email used very much
electricity to store/process, it would be too expensive for
providers like Google to offer that service for free. Can you
imagine that happening if Google were obliged to print out every
email received in every GMail inbox?

Mind you I generally download my emails with POP, so they _don't_
stay in data centres permanently anyway. I very rarely print emails
out, but I do like doing that for longer documents since it's
easier to jump around a document in physical form, finding and
comparing different sections. I sometimes print out source code for
the same reason (as well as to allow for writing more flexible
notes and annotation).

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697386

On 21/09/2025 00:27, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Mind you I generally download my emails with POP, so they_don't_
> stay in data centres permanently anyway. I very rarely print emails
> out, but I do like doing that for longer documents since it's
> easier to jump around a document in physical form, finding and
> comparing different sections. I sometimes print out source code for
> the same reason (as well as to allow for writing more flexible
> notes and annotation).

Exactly so.

All my emails are stored on a server over there → which is on 24x7.

The 50W or so that it produces helps keep this room warm in winter. When 
spun down the hard drives only pull about 4-6 watts apiece. And mostly 
they are because data access is very very low.

Idle power on SSD is even less - about a watt typically.

Note that the storage is the lowest power consumption of anything. CPU 
is on a *86 likely to be at least 10W or more at idle.

Data centres use  power because they are running *code*.  Not because 
they are storing data.

The transition from departmental windows servers running on Pentiums to 
a few blade servers running dozens of virtualised Windows units totally 
slashed corporate data centre space and power requirements.

That AI and bitcoin mining is now demanding ever higher levels of 
computational speed is not the fault of the man wanting to read his emails.



-- 
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that 
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

    - Bertrand Russell

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697367

Le 20-09-2025, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> a écrit :
> On 20/09/2025 16:13, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
>> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
>> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
>> heavily on electricity.
>> 
>> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
>> on nature as printing it.
>
> A true ArtStudent™ statement.

Here comes the pseudo philosopher in pretence.

> With no QUANTITATIVE analysis to back it up.

The fact that I didn't display analysis didn't mean I never read
anything serious about that.

> First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on 
> screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing 
> it does.
> So that statement "the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely 
> heavily on electricity." is precisely meaningless.

You are a joke. Try to access a Data Center once in your life. It would
be an improvement on your knowledge.

> Secondly, its hard to print an email out without using a printer, *after 
> the email has been downloaded and read on screen anyway*

Yes, hard to read before it has been downloaded. Before it has been
read, not that hard. So what do you want to prove?

> In short, you are ignoring facts s to make an emotional argument stick, 

That's the pseudo philosopher in pretence who imagine emotional
arguments where there aren't any. For the facts, once again, go in a
Data Center once in your life. But I have to warn you: it will be a
shock against your lack of knowledge. Get ready to be surprised. Then,
once you know what is a Data Center, try to figure out how the email
comes from the Data Center to your computer.

> and are actually talking complete and utter bollocks.

You should try harder to convince me I'm wrong.

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697385

On 20/09/2025 19:18, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> You should try harder to convince me I'm wrong.
> 

" It is far easier to explain a complex thing to a man who has no 
knowledge of it, than to attempt to modify the opinions of someone who 
thinks he knows it all"
-- 
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over 
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that 
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697418

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 09:34:01 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> " It is far easier to explain a complex thing to a man who has no
> knowledge of it, than to attempt to modify the opinions of someone who
> thinks he knows it all"

The old science/engineering adage is, if you can’t explain something to 
someone, that suggests you don’t understand it yourself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697390

Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>That's the pseudo philosopher in pretence who imagine emotional
>arguments where there aren't any. For the facts, once again, go in a
>Data Center once in your life. But I have to warn you: it will be a
>shock against your lack of knowledge. Get ready to be surprised. Then,
>once you know what is a Data Center, try to figure out how the email
>comes from the Data Center to your computer.

I can't even figure out what your point is.  What would we learn, or
be surprised by, by going in to a Data Center?

I mean, we already know that a lot of data, for example emails, are
flying around...

-- 
"Guess which machine runs empty first, spiff."

   -highhorse, arguing that there should be a tampon machine in the
boys' bathroom, in case the machine in the girls bathroom runs out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697379

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> First off, the email is stored in a data centre whether you read it on 
> screen or print it out.  And storage does not consume watts. Accessing 
> it does.

In other news, just last month the UK Government was urging its citizens 
to save water. And one of the suggested measures was deleting old emails.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697381

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:

> storage does not consume watts

(reads statement)

(looks at humming NAS)

Oooookaaaaaay...

(My NAS is a Synology Diskstation.  The ones at the business
are NetApp Filers...less email would mean less filers online,
potentially with less spinning rust.  Just sayin'...)

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
   OS: Linux 6.16.8 D: Mint 22.2 DE: Xfce 4.18 
   NVIDIA: 580.82.09 Mem: 258G
   "The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m / sec^2."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697388

On 21/09/2025 08:20, vallor wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:
> 
>> storage does not consume watts
> 
> (reads statement)
> 
> (looks at humming NAS)
> 
Nut does not look at *actual* power consumption of said rust.
Nor go and look up the energy content of a piece of printed paper.

> Oooookaaaaaay...
> 
> (My NAS is a Synology Diskstation.  The ones at the business
> are NetApp Filers...less email would mean less filers online,
> potentially with less spinning rust.  Just sayin'...)
> 

Most spinning rust is full of obsolete garbage which people cant be 
bothered to throw away because once you need any storage at all, it is 
no more expensive in energy  to have shitloads.

The amount of space I save by not having any files for important 
paperwork, but instead storing them on a computer is worth far far more 
than the trivial cost of running a couple of terabyte drives per annum.

Let's Do Sums.

I have 102 directories of 'stuff' in my main storage hierarchy, each one 
with 5-10 subdirectories.

Everything is in there, medical records,instruction manuals , guarantees 
and service manuals

I have at most 10 box files of paper, not 300+.

Lets say that the two terabyte sized drives take 5W each on average,.

That is 87600 watt hours or 87.6 units of electricity per year. perhaps 
around £20 per annum. ($30 or near enough)

Energy I need to burn *anyway* to have *any* access to computer storage 
AT ALL.

A box file would cost £2.20 for the most basic.

so the cost of just the box files to store all that data would be in the 
£660 range. And in order to store them I would need shelves and shelves, 
like a lawyers office,all heated and kept dry at far far greater cost 
and expensive.

Now let's look at the paper. Each sheet cost about 0.5p which is broadly 
a proxy for the energy in manufacturing it and getting it to me.

The CHEAPEST cost quoted to print it out is 0.8 p and a colour printer 
cost at least 20p or more.

So each sheet of paper represents an outlay of at least 1,3p and maybe 
up to 20p if its color.

I receive 10 emails a day. so my cost is somewhere around 13-230p a day 
or  between £10  and £839 per year depending on the size of emails and 
their color content.

Now if I cost my physical storage out at something like £20 per square 
meter per year - a very reasonable price - and I need a room of about 5 
x 1.5 meter to store my boxfile shelving, then I need to spend around 
£150 a year to rent and maintain that...

And of course if I want off site backup, another office somewhere else....

NO WAY is keeping my files on a computer more energy intensive or 
expensive than storing it all as paper.

And yes, I was technical and financial director of several companies, 
and that's how we made a profit. Doing BoringSums.

And not acting like ArtStudents and making uneducated guesses and 
calling them facts.


-- 
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over 
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that 
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

  Frédéric Bastiat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697412

On Sun, 21 Sep 2025 10:14:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10aoflf$1jd5c$10@dont-email.me>:

> On 21/09/2025 08:20, vallor wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 16:59:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote in <10amj0m$160hk$9@dont-email.me>:
>> 
>>> storage does not consume watts
>> 
>> (reads statement)
>> 
>> (looks at humming NAS)
>> 
> Nut does not look at *actual* power consumption of said rust.
> Nor go and look up the energy content of a piece of printed paper.
> 
>> Oooookaaaaaay...
>> 
>> (My NAS is a Synology Diskstation.  The ones at the business are NetApp
>> Filers...less email would mean less filers online, potentially with
>> less spinning rust.  Just sayin'...)
>> 
>> 
> Most spinning rust is full of obsolete garbage which people cant be
> bothered to throw away because once you need any storage at all, it is
> no more expensive in energy  to have shitloads.
> 
> The amount of space I save by not having any files for important
> paperwork, but instead storing them on a computer is worth far far more
> than the trivial cost of running a couple of terabyte drives per annum.
> 
> Let's Do Sums.
> 
> I have 102 directories of 'stuff' in my main storage hierarchy, each one
> with 5-10 subdirectories.
> 
> Everything is in there, medical records,instruction manuals , guarantees
> and service manuals
> 
> I have at most 10 box files of paper, not 300+.
> 
> Lets say that the two terabyte sized drives take 5W each on average,.
> 
> That is 87600 watt hours or 87.6 units of electricity per year. perhaps
> around £20 per annum. ($30 or near enough)
> 
> Energy I need to burn *anyway* to have *any* access to computer storage
> AT ALL.
> 
> A box file would cost £2.20 for the most basic.
> 
> so the cost of just the box files to store all that data would be in the
> £660 range. And in order to store them I would need shelves and shelves,
> like a lawyers office,all heated and kept dry at far far greater cost
> and expensive.
> 
> Now let's look at the paper. Each sheet cost about 0.5p which is broadly
> a proxy for the energy in manufacturing it and getting it to me.
> 
> The CHEAPEST cost quoted to print it out is 0.8 p and a colour printer
> cost at least 20p or more.
> 
> So each sheet of paper represents an outlay of at least 1,3p and maybe
> up to 20p if its color.
> 
> I receive 10 emails a day. so my cost is somewhere around 13-230p a day
> or  between £10  and £839 per year depending on the size of emails and
> their color content.
> 
> Now if I cost my physical storage out at something like £20 per square
> meter per year - a very reasonable price - and I need a room of about 5
> x 1.5 meter to store my boxfile shelving, then I need to spend around
> £150 a year to rent and maintain that...
> 
> And of course if I want off site backup, another office somewhere
> else....
> 
> NO WAY is keeping my files on a computer more energy intensive or
> expensive than storing it all as paper.
> 
> And yes, I was technical and financial director of several companies,
> and that's how we made a profit. Doing BoringSums.
> 
> And not acting like ArtStudents and making uneducated guesses and
> calling them facts.

I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point, just the point
I quoted.

Offline storage is one thing, but online storage is going to have
a non-zero power cost.

Just making Usenet conversation, carry on. :)

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090Ti 24G
   OS: Linux 6.16.8 D: Mint 22.2 DE: Xfce 4.18 
   NVIDIA: 580.82.09 Mem: 258G
   "You can't have everything...where would you put it?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web