Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #81967 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-02-12 05:45 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-02-12 17:34 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 85 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-12 05:45 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 02:05 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-12 09:08 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-12 19:05 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-12 21:09 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-13 06:08 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-13 02:19 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-13 18:30 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-14 23:01 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-15 06:18 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-15 08:01 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-15 19:40 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-15 20:43 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-15 23:12 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-15 21:30 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-16 07:39 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-17 10:14 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 10:22 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-17 14:16 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-26 09:25 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-15 21:09 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-16 10:28 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-16 19:21 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-16 12:14 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-16 08:51 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 10:15 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-17 11:45 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-17 14:17 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-17 15:00 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-18 00:28 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-18 02:32 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-18 03:14 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-19 19:27 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-17 11:38 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-17 14:17 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-17 15:03 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 14:10 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-18 00:33 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-02-28 20:48 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-01 02:25 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-03-01 07:50 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <goawy@montana.com> - 2026-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-03-02 07:22 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-02 18:58 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-03-02 15:05 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-03 02:12 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-03 18:58 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-03-06 00:17 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-03-07 08:05 +1000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-03-08 02:05 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-24 07:22 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-24 10:38 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-24 12:12 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2026-02-24 13:51 +0100
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-24 13:28 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-24 18:23 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-24 22:25 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 08:49 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 11:19 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-25 16:43 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 17:40 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-25 20:00 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 23:54 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-02-26 07:36 +1000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-24 15:29 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-24 12:10 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 10:21 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-25 20:00 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-02-25 13:26 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-26 11:24 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-02-26 17:29 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-25 22:25 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-17 11:35 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-02-16 20:36 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-16 18:43 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-16 18:42 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-02-16 07:37 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-15 19:16 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-15 11:59 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-02-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-02-15 15:56 -0800
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-02-15 22:28 -0500
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-16 10:44 +0000
Re: Linux Mint may make fewer releases a year Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-02-12 17:34 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-01 02:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0hmbsFg9egU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #82321 |
On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:48:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > While I was manually running a filter in alt.comp.os.windows-10, it went > to 6 gigns temporarily (and 100% cpu), for several minutes. Now I have > been doing email, not usenet, and it's gone down to 2.5 gigs. PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 465515 rbowman 20 0 3588388 340332 161492 S 2.3 2.2 49:53.57 thunderbird-bin A few things might be relevant. I don't use Thunderbird for news. Pan is using 9.6% or 1.4 G. This is the Ubuntu box and T-Bird is a snap. My inbox only has 4 items. Most are sorted to local folders on receipt and I delete junk aggressively.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-01 07:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10o1cm7$6r1t$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82322 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:48:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> While I was manually running a filter in alt.comp.os.windows-10, it went >> to 6 gigns temporarily (and 100% cpu), for several minutes. Now I have >> been doing email, not usenet, and it's gone down to 2.5 gigs. > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ > COMMAND > 465515 rbowman 20 0 3588388 340332 161492 S 2.3 2.2 49:53.57 > thunderbird-bin > > A few things might be relevant. I don't use Thunderbird for news. Pan is > using 9.6% or 1.4 G. This is the Ubuntu box and T-Bird is a snap. My > inbox only has 4 items. Most are sorted to local folders on receipt and I > delete junk aggressively. Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-) I remember when I upgraded my Atari ST to 1M. Didn't have access to ARPANET, but did log in to local Atari BBS's, where I was a "big shot" because I had an ST versus an 800XL :-D -- What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, I definitely overpaid for my carpet. -- Woody Allen, "Without Feathers"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <goawy@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-01 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0jf57Fon36U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #82324 |
On 2026-03-01, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
> Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-)
PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
8519 rbowman 20 0 242964 8936 5640 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.05 slrn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-02 07:22 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10o3vdu$13nbv$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82326 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: > On 2026-03-01, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >> >> Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-) > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 8519 rbowman 20 0 242964 8936 5640 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.05 slrn 2991674 shyster 20 0 30.8m 20.0m 6.1m S 0.0 0.1 0:01.68 slrn -- Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around -- nobody big, I mean -- except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff -- I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I'd do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye. I know it; I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be. I know it's crazy. -- J. D. Salinger, "Catcher in the Rye"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-02 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0m4uvF6gbeU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #82330 |
On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 07:22:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: > >> On 2026-03-01, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >>> >>> Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-) >> >> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> COMMAND >> 8519 rbowman 20 0 242964 8936 5640 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.05 >> slrn > > 2991674 shyster 20 0 30.8m 20.0m 6.1m S 0.0 0.1 0:01.68 > slrn Your user name is 'shyster'? Explains a lot. Are you related to Slippin' Jimmy?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-02 15:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10o4qiv$1ekgc$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82333 |
rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: > On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 07:22:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > >> rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: >> >>> On 2026-03-01, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-) >>> >>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >>> COMMAND >>> 8519 rbowman 20 0 242964 8936 5640 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.05 >>> slrn >> >> 2991674 shyster 20 0 30.8m 20.0m 6.1m S 0.0 0.1 0:01.68 >> slrn > > Your user name is 'shyster'? Explains a lot. Are you related to Slippin' > Jimmy? Nah, not shyster. The Devil made me do it. -- Woman: "You're pretty shy for a lawyer!" Groucho: "I'm a shyster lawyer."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-03 02:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bsScnZvzS8lTFDv0nZ2dnZfqn_qdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82334 |
On 3/2/26 15:05, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: > rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: > >> On Mon, 2 Mar 2026 07:22:22 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote: >> >>> rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS: >>> >>>> On 2026-03-01, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Slrn takes up a litte more than 30M :-) >>>> >>>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >>>> COMMAND >>>> 8519 rbowman 20 0 242964 8936 5640 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.05 >>>> slrn >>> >>> 2991674 shyster 20 0 30.8m 20.0m 6.1m S 0.0 0.1 0:01.68 >>> slrn >> >> Your user name is 'shyster'? Explains a lot. Are you related to Slippin' >> Jimmy? > > Nah, not shyster. The Devil made me do it. Heh heh ! :-) LM is smart to issue fewer 'updates'. Most rushed 'updates' are full of bugs, make things WORSE. Get it RIGHT - THEN update ! Linux security is still WAY above M$ ... so constant updates aren't needed except for special cases (usually FFox/Chromium). Mint is GOOD ... the only 'Buntu variant I'm willing to entertain. It's been near the top of the DistroWatch' for long time for a REASON. Works great with all hardware/environments. DID install a Mint recently - alas it did NOT solve my particular issue - crashing/hanging ffmpeg ops. All recent Deb-derived distros seem to have the same problem. The common denominator is Deb 'Trixie' - which I think was released Too Soon, just as Bullseye was. Deb - STOP IT ! Preserve yer rep for dead solid systems !!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-03 18:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0op9vFl6h4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #82339 |
On Tue, 3 Mar 2026 02:12:00 -0500, c186282 wrote: > Mint is GOOD ... the only 'Buntu variant I'm willing to entertain. > It's been near the top of the DistroWatch' for long time for a > REASON. > Works great with all hardware/environments. When I bought the mini my intention was to put Kubuntu on it. However I had problems with the iso and happened to have a standard Ubuntu one on hand and I've been too lazy to reinstall. Years ago I added KDE to a GNOME distro and it worked, sort of, although updates could be touchy. The netbook that is current Mint had Lubuntu, which is LXQt. Not bad. I will have to say Ubuntu tones down GNOME by default. The Leap version is strictly meant for a tablet. I think the 'dash on dock' GNOME extension is the one that makes it civilized.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-06 00:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10od6dt$8h7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82322 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:48:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> While I was manually running a filter in alt.comp.os.windows-10, it went >> to 6 gigns temporarily (and 100% cpu), for several minutes. Now I have >> been doing email, not usenet, and it's gone down to 2.5 gigs. > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ > COMMAND > 465515 rbowman 20 0 3588388 340332 161492 S 2.3 2.2 49:53.57 > thunderbird-bin > > > A few things might be relevant. I don't use Thunderbird for news. Pan is > using 9.6% or 1.4 G. This is the Ubuntu box and T-Bird is a snap. My > inbox only has 4 items. Most are sorted to local folders on receipt and I > delete junk aggressively. Meanwhile, tin is using a mere 77M of virtual, 45M of resident, zero swap to read news here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-07 08:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <69ab4faf@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #82440 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:48:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> While I was manually running a filter in alt.comp.os.windows-10, it went >>> to 6 gigns temporarily (and 100% cpu), for several minutes. Now I have >>> been doing email, not usenet, and it's gone down to 2.5 gigs. >> >> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >> COMMAND >> 465515 rbowman 20 0 3588388 340332 161492 S 2.3 2.2 49:53.57 >> thunderbird-bin >> >> A few things might be relevant. I don't use Thunderbird for news. Pan is >> using 9.6% or 1.4 G. This is the Ubuntu box and T-Bird is a snap. My >> inbox only has 4 items. Most are sorted to local folders on receipt and I >> delete junk aggressively. > > Meanwhile, tin is using a mere 77M of virtual, 45M of resident, zero > swap to read news here. Here on my PC with 80MB RAM total, Tin is using 4MB of virtual and 4MB of resident. But it's only set to show (and filter) the latest 500 messages in each group. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-08 02:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10oilgd$21k4g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82502 |
Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote: >> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:48:08 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> While I was manually running a filter in alt.comp.os.windows-10, it went >>>> to 6 gigns temporarily (and 100% cpu), for several minutes. Now I have >>>> been doing email, not usenet, and it's gone down to 2.5 gigs. >>> >>> PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ >>> COMMAND >>> 465515 rbowman 20 0 3588388 340332 161492 S 2.3 2.2 49:53.57 >>> thunderbird-bin >>> >>> A few things might be relevant. I don't use Thunderbird for news. Pan is >>> using 9.6% or 1.4 G. This is the Ubuntu box and T-Bird is a snap. My >>> inbox only has 4 items. Most are sorted to local folders on receipt and I >>> delete junk aggressively. >> >> Meanwhile, tin is using a mere 77M of virtual, 45M of resident, zero >> swap to read news here. > > Here on my PC with 80MB RAM total, Tin is using 4MB of virtual > and 4MB of resident. But it's only set to show (and filter) the > latest 500 messages in each group. tin here is 64-bit, which does expand the memory size a little (64-bit pointers are 2x the size of 32-bit ones) and I do not have it limited to only X messages per group. So both those account for some of the memory difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 07:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10njjjk$3kulp$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82065 |
On 2026-02-17, Marc Haber wrote: > Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>I haven't used desktop environments in a long time, I remember the days >>KDE was heavy enough to be a problem with, what was it, 64 MiB RAM? :-) >> >>(The problem might have been not the DE itself, but that it didn't leave >>much to run other not-so-light applications like OOo.) > > In these days the memory footprint of the DE stops counting when the > browser is started. And that's another thing that needs to be improved - how did it become so acceptable for some web pages to require so many resources, let alone browsers themselves. I remember the days when the desktop, which had just a bit more of that (384 MiB, perhaps?) could keep hundreds of tabs open (might have been in Firefox back then, in the time shortly afterwards Mozilla tried to give up on the suite (which is what I use nowadays)). I know some examples of websites that become so unusable because of how many content they load or because of CSS animations and effects, and that's not to mention the ones which don't work because some underlying framework requires a shiny new feature and is not backwards-compatible when it's not present. Also, at least one site has required webgl in order to work, which I find especially amusing... -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 10:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10njris$rk1a$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #82214 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On 2026-02-17, Marc Haber wrote: > >> Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>I haven't used desktop environments in a long time, I remember the days >>>KDE was heavy enough to be a problem with, what was it, 64 MiB RAM? :-) >>> >>>(The problem might have been not the DE itself, but that it didn't leave >>>much to run other not-so-light applications like OOo.) >> >> In these days the memory footprint of the DE stops counting when the >> browser is started. > >And that's another thing that needs to be improved - how did it become >so acceptable for some web pages to require so many resources, let alone >browsers themselves. Irrelevant. It's reality now, and noone is working on that "improvement". You're free to do so, but you're riding a head horse. >I remember the days when the desktop, which had >just a bit more of that (384 MiB, perhaps?) could keep hundreds of tabs >open (might have been in Firefox back then, I am not sure whether Firefox had tabs back in the times when we had less than 1 Gig of RAM. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 12:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10nk4io$3qvpn$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82219 |
On 24/02/2026 09:38, Marc Haber wrote: >> And that's another thing that needs to be improved - how did it become >> so acceptable for some web pages to require so many resources, let alone >> browsers themselves. > Irrelevant. It's reality now, and noone is working on that > "improvement". You're free to do so, but you're riding a head horse. > >> I remember the days when the desktop, which had >> just a bit more of that (384 MiB, perhaps?) could keep hundreds of tabs >> open (might have been in Firefox back then, > I am not sure whether Firefox had tabs back in the times when we had > less than 1 Gig of RAM. Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly improve its performance. -- "It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 13:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10nk6rk$slp6$1@news1.tnib.de> |
| In reply to | #82221 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >improve its performance. Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market five years ago than we had today. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 13:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10nk92c$3t2fp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82225 |
On 24/02/2026 12:51, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >> improve its performance. > > Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about > it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market > five years ago than we had today. > > Greetings > Marc Agree, sadly... -- I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it. Sir Roger Scruton
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n0mnR.105272$iej1.40191@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #82226 |
On 2026-02-24, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 24/02/2026 12:51, Marc Haber wrote: > >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >>> improve its performance. >> >> Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about >> it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market >> five years ago than we had today. > > Agree, sadly... But ooohhh, it's so _shiny!_ -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-24 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <EvOcnb8kNpgJ9gP0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #82225 |
On 2/24/26 07:51, Marc Haber wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >> improve its performance. > > Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about > it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market > five years ago than we had today. FFox/Chromium are Too Far In now ... the cost/pain of rewriting them makes it an impossible task. I don't expect any equiv new browsers either. Well, you can go Lynx :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-25 08:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wwv7bs1b424.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #82225 |
Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >>improve its performance. The most performance-critical part (i.e. JavaScript) has already been reimplemented multiple times, as compiler technology improves. > Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about > it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market > five years ago than we had today. Ground-up rewrites are usually a mistake. -- https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-25 11:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10nmlsk$n560$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #82245 |
On 25/02/2026 08:49, Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes: >> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>> Indeed. But I suspect a ground up rewrite of Firefox et al would vastly >>> improve its performance. > > The most performance-critical part (i.e. JavaScript) has already been > reimplemented multiple times, as compiler technology improves. > >> Maybe, but since noone is working on that, it's moot to think about >> it. The opposite is reality: We had more browser engines in the market >> five years ago than we had today. > > Ground-up rewrites are usually a mistake. > I have had to do them twice -- “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web