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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #678633 > unrolled thread

Two points

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

Contents

  Two points vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-11-29 14:52 +0000
    Re: Two points Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-11-29 11:00 -0500
    Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-11-29 21:54 +0000
      Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-01 14:29 -0500
        Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 00:43 +0000
          Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-01 21:47 -0500
            Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 05:44 +0000
              Re: Two points rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 06:14 +0000
                Re: Two points Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 01:47 -0500
              Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-02 08:01 -0500
                Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:25 +0000
                  Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-02 20:19 -0500
                    Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 02:19 +0000
                      Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 00:05 -0500
                        Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 06:15 +0000
                          Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-03 08:15 -0500
                            Re: Two points DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-04 23:13 -0500
                              Re: Two points -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2024-12-05 11:25 -0500
                  Re: Two points candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-03 03:50 +0000
                    Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-03 04:54 +0000
                      Re: Two points DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2024-12-03 09:23 -0500
                      Re: Two points candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2024-12-03 22:10 +0000
          Re: Two points Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2024-12-02 01:31 -0500
      Re: Two points vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2024-12-02 07:09 +0000
        Re: Two points rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2024-12-02 19:03 +0000
        Re: Two points Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2024-12-02 23:25 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#678633 — Two points

Two points:

1) It's surprisingly easy to get the Hurd running in a
virtual machine with kvm:

$ uname -a
GNU hurd 0.9 GNU-Mach 1.8+git20240714-up-amd64/Hurd-0.9 x86_64 GNU

2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They
were made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.

One of them came with 4GB of RAM, and ran like a dog.  Thankfully,
I could add more (notebook) RAM, bringing it up to 16GB.  Then
it ran acceptably, probably because it was caching the slow, slow
drive it came with.

So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
They aren't cheap, with a price on the order of magnitude of what
I paid for my Linux workstation.

Eyeballing the results, it looks like it renders Fooocus images about 1/4
the speed of my Linux workstation.  I thought it would be a lot
faster, but I guess pytorch doesn't support hw acceleration yet -- or
the hardware on the Mac is no match for an RTX 3090ti w/24G of memory.

You can say what you want, but I'd much rather use my Thelio
than the Mac Studio.  YMMV.

-- 
-v System76 Thelio Mega v1.1 x86_64 NVIDIA RTX 3090 Ti
   OS: Linux 6.11.10 Release: Mint 21.3 Mem: 258G
   "Mary had a little RAM -- only about a MEG or so."

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#678639

vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote:

>Two points:
>
>1) It's surprisingly easy to get the Hurd running in a
>virtual machine with kvm:
>
>$ uname -a
>GNU hurd 0.9 GNU-Mach 1.8+git20240714-up-amd64/Hurd-0.9 x86_64 GNU


Interesting.


>2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They
>were made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
>
>One of them came with 4GB of RAM, and ran like a dog.  Thankfully,
>I could add more (notebook) RAM, bringing it up to 16GB.  Then
>it ran acceptably, probably because it was caching the slow, slow
>drive it came with.
>
>So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
>They aren't cheap, with a price on the order of magnitude of what
>I paid for my Linux workstation.
>
>Eyeballing the results, it looks like it renders Fooocus images about 1/4
>the speed of my Linux workstation.  I thought it would be a lot
>faster, but I guess pytorch doesn't support hw acceleration yet -- or
>the hardware on the Mac is no match for an RTX 3090ti w/24G of memory.
>
>You can say what you want, but I'd much rather use my Thelio
>than the Mac Studio.  YMMV.


Fuck Apple.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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

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

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

#678658

On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:

> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were made
> from notebook equipment, and they are crap.

Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a 
glorified notebook anyway.

> So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.

Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If 
no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.

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

#678782

On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
> 
>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were made
>> from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
> 
> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a
> glorified notebook anyway.

Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20 
years to be as powerful as many desktops.  It would behoove you to check 
performance benchmarks prior to being so immediately dismissive.

Case in point, what's your own personal desktop PC's hardware specs 
today, and what numbers does it CPU post in the likes of Geekbench?

>> So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
> 
> Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If
> no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.

The moniker of "workstation" is a bit more nebulous these days, as more 
and more task workflows can be adequately performed by core hardware 
instead of needing specialized expansion cards.

And case in point, Joel was bragging about his i5-10400 CPU the other 
day, which in Geekbench posts roughly 1450 single-/5500 multi- scores.

<https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/intel-core-i5-10400>

I don't recall which generation of Mac Studio Scott has, but the lowest 
performing one ever sold (2022 M1 Max) Geekbench scores are 1780/12650, 
which are +23% and +130% greater than the above Intel desktop CPU.

<https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/14470909>

And FYI, if we move up to the latest Apple Notebook, the 2024 MacBook 
Pro with the M4 Max CPU, its 3900 / 25000 ... that's +170% and +350%.

Time for a paradigm shift, grandpa.

-hh

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

#678792

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
>> 
>>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were
>>> made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
>> 
>> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a
>> glorified notebook anyway.
> 
> Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20
> years to be as powerful as many desktops.

They are fundamentally compromised just from the form factor. As Scotty 
might have said, “Ya canna change the laws of physics, Cap’n!”. Push them 
too far for too long, and they get hot. Where does the heat go? And so 
they have to throttle back. Compared to a desktop with equivalent 
performance specs, they have no staying power.

>>> So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
>> 
>> Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If
>> no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.
>
> The moniker of "workstation" is a bit more nebulous these days, as more 
> and more task workflows can be adequately performed by core hardware 
> instead of needing specialized expansion cards.

In hardware terms, I think of it in terms of hardware that is configurable 
for different uses over its working life. You need upgradeable RAM and 
expansion slots for that. But Apple is doing away with those across its 
entire product line.

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

#678797

On 12/1/24 7:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
> 
>> On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were
>>>> made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
>>>
>>> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now a
>>> glorified notebook anyway.
>>
>> Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20
>> years to be as powerful as many desktops.
> 
> They are fundamentally compromised just from the form factor. 

Your opinion doesn't really matter, because Free Market decided a long 
time ago that notebooks had passed the 'Good Enough' test:  notebooks 
passed the 50% marketshare point vs desktops way back in 2008, and are 
at 80% today (not even counting tablets).


> As Scotty
> might have said, “Ya canna change the laws of physics, Cap’n!”. Push them
> too far for too long, and they get hot. Where does the heat go? And so
> they have to throttle back. Compared to a desktop with equivalent
> performance specs, they have no staying power.

First, it's not you, but the user's workflow which determines what the 
sustained load may be.  Without that use case need, the extra 
size/cost/etc of provisioning for an infinite duration 100% load isn't 
justified.

Second, got substantiation that your own PC doesn't ever throttle? 
Because one can invariably contrive a test which causes throttling, but 
that doesn't mean that the test is representative of any real world 
workflow.  For example, the Mac Studio can be made to throttle by 
forcing it to run a full load on both the CPU & GPU simultaneously: now 
what real life application actually ever does that?  Name names.

>>>> So we have a Mac Studio now, which is a low-end UNIX workstation.
>>>
>>> Is that ARM-based? Is it as expandable as the old x86-based Mac Pro? If
>>> no, then don’t call it a “workstation”.
>>
>> The moniker of "workstation" is a bit more nebulous these days, as more
>> and more task workflows can be adequately performed by core hardware
>> instead of needing specialized expansion cards.
> 
> In hardware terms, I think of it in terms of hardware that is configurable
> for different uses over its working life. You need upgradeable RAM and
> expansion slots for that. But Apple is doing away with those across its
> entire product line.

Which is merely how *you* personally think about the question, which is 
trying to disregard how much PCs have changed in the last 30 years. 
Sure, incremental upgrades were important when a new PC was being 
effectively obsoleted in 18 months ... but today, we have the Good 
Enough paradigm and the State of the Shelf has reliably stable and low 
prices, so we get long effective productive lifespans in service with 
minimal change.  That's why Enterprise typically replaces instead of 
upgrades, classically on a five year depreciation table. YMMV, but the 
last office IT project that I can recall working on that called for our 
organization to do upgrades was on a bunch of 386's back in the 1990s.


-hh

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

#678803

On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:47:59 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 12/1/24 7:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were
>>>>> made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
>>>>
>>>> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now
>>>> a glorified notebook anyway.
>>>
>>> Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20
>>> years to be as powerful as many desktops.
>> 
>> They are fundamentally compromised just from the form factor.
> 
> Your opinion doesn't really matter, because Free Market decided a long
> time ago that notebooks had passed the 'Good Enough' test ...

I’m sure the market likes them a lot, but the market cannot change the 
laws of physics either: I can always do more with the resources of a 
desktop than I can with an equivalently-specced laptop, if I don’t need 
the mobility of the latter.

> First, it's not you, but the user's workflow which determines what the
> sustained load may be.

I do content creation a fair bit. Sure, most users aren’t doing that. Most 
users don’t need workstations, either.

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

#678804

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> I’m sure the market likes them a lot, but the market cannot change the
> laws of physics either: I can always do more with the resources of a
> desktop than I can with an equivalently-specced laptop, if I don’t need
> the mobility of the latter.

Doesn't 'equivalently-specced' imply the same 'resources'?

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

#678806

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:44:38 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> I’m sure the market likes them a lot, but the market cannot change the
>> laws of physics either: I can always do more with the resources of a
>> desktop than I can with an equivalently-specced laptop, if I don’t need
>> the mobility of the latter.
>
>Doesn't 'equivalently-specced' imply the same 'resources'?


Certainly with Linux it would, a sleek, no-nonsense OS, where Mint
exceeds Win11 in ease and functionality, and can run on far less
hardware without sacrificing too much in performance.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

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

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

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

#678825

On 12/2/24 12:44 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:47:59 -0500, -hh wrote:
> 
>> On 12/1/24 7:43 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 14:29:48 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/24 4:54 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29 Nov 2024 14:52:53 GMT, vallor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) I own two Mac mini's, which are sitting in a drawer.  They were
>>>>>> made from notebook equipment, and they are crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since they switched to ARM, everything named “Mac” from Apple is now
>>>>> a glorified notebook anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Which makes it sound like notebooks haven't advanced in the past 20
>>>> years to be as powerful as many desktops.
>>>
>>> They are fundamentally compromised just from the form factor.
>>
>> Your opinion doesn't really matter, because Free Market decided a long
>> time ago that notebooks had passed the 'Good Enough' test ...
> 
> I’m sure the market likes them a lot, but the market cannot change the
> laws of physics either: I can always do more with the resources of a
> desktop than I can with an equivalently-specced laptop, if I don’t need
> the mobility of the latter.
> 
>> First, it's not you, but the user's workflow which determines what the
>> sustained load may be.
> 
> I do content creation a fair bit. 

Everyone does content creation, even if its just text for a USENET post. 
  That creation has been the same since a 1200 baud VT100 40 years ago.

So if you're going to posture that you need moar power, what's the 
content that's allegedly your stressor?  And what tools do you use to 
objectively evaluate and compare different hardware/software solutions 
to know that you're not sucking on snake oil?

For example, if your content is video, is it 1080p?  Or 4K?  Or 6K?  Or 
8K ProRes 422 HQ?  For benchmarking tools, are you using Cinebench, or 
the Blackmagic test Apps (disk speed, RAW speed)?  If not, why not 
because these are free downloads.

Case in point, some "notebook" CPUs:

<https://www.reddit.com/r/macbookpro/comments/17pge6k/m1m3_cpu_performance_chart_using_cinebench_r23/>


> Sure, most users aren’t doing that. Most
> users don’t need workstations, either.

Precisely why I noted that performance levels of even today's notebooks 
have passed the 'Good Enough' test...

... and just because you have some workflow which allegedly stresses 
State of the Shelf doesn't mean that you're representative of the 
mainstream: it means that you're a minority niche.

-hh

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

#678871

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:01:15 -0500, -hh wrote:

> So if you're going to posture that you need moar power, what's the
> content that's allegedly your stressor?

3D rendering and video encoding.

I have had renders of animations go on for days. Not something you would 
entrust to a notebook.

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

#678874

On 12/2/24 6:25 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:01:15 -0500, -hh wrote:
> 
>> So if you're going to posture that you need moar power, what's the
>> content that's allegedly your stressor?
> 
> 3D rendering and video encoding.
> 
> I have had renders of animations go on for days. Not something you would
> entrust to a notebook.

What's the longest 3D render you've had within the past, oh ~3 years? 
Reason is that I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the 
best PC workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days. 
Ended up dropping a few million for a mini cluster for that project.

Similarly, for video, there's many different formats; I've not done much 
4K or 6K yet (just got the camera gear) but Blackmagic's RAW benchmark 
says to expect 4K BRAW 8:1 to render at ~600 fps w/Metal, which means 
that an hour of p25 should take <3 minutes to render.  That's not even 
long enough to make a good cup of coffee.

-hh

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

#678876

On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:

> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the 
> best PC workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days. 

Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other *nix.

> Similarly, for video, there's many different formats; I've not done much 
> 4K or 6K yet (just got the camera gear) but Blackmagic's RAW benchmark 
> says to expect 4K BRAW 8:1 to render at ~600 fps w/Metal, which means 
> that an hour of p25 should take <3 minutes to render.  That's not even 
> long enough to make a good cup of coffee.

And that’s certainly not a format you would use for final content delivery.

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

#678881

On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
> 
>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the
>> best PC workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
> 
> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other *nix.

TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore, as the project had 
very rapid growth (1 to ~60 staff in 40 days).  For the M&S, the first 
PCs were maxxed-out Xeon workstations from "I don't know/I don't care": 
I said we needed the best we had on site & they showed up..with people. 
Similar with imaging gear:  needed a better camera; it ran $100K and was 
delivered in 72hrs.  An insane level of carte blanch.

>> Similarly, for video, there's many different formats; I've not done much
>> 4K or 6K yet (just got the camera gear) but Blackmagic's RAW benchmark
>> says to expect 4K BRAW 8:1 to render at ~600 fps w/Metal, which means
>> that an hour of p25 should take <3 minutes to render.  That's not even
>> long enough to make a good cup of coffee.
> 
> And that’s certainly not a format you would use for final content delivery.

Of course it will...but you were talking about content *creation*,
not the subsequent *consumption* of the finished product: different 
performance needs.


-hh

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

#678882

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:05:44 -0500, -hh wrote:

> On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
>> 
>>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the best PC
>>> workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
>> 
>> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other
>> *nix.
> 
> TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore ...

Funny, that. Given the era, I’m going to conclude that “I don’t remember” 
means “Microsoft Windows”.

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

#678889

On 12/3/24 1:15 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:05:44 -0500, -hh wrote:
> 
>> On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the best PC
>>>> workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
>>>
>>> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other
>>> *nix.
>>
>> TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore ...
> 
> Funny, that. Given the era, I’m going to conclude that “I don’t remember”
> means “Microsoft Windows”.

No, we had Linux in the office, so I can't be definitive.

Recall what I said: the 'stolen' workstations came with people.  I was 
happy to get more bodies and be able to delegate the ankle-biter stuff, 
rather than to have to add it to my already full plate.  There's only so 
long that one can work 100 hours/week before it takes a toll/ER visit.

-hh

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

#679018

On 12/3/2024 8:15 AM, -hh wrote:
> On 12/3/24 1:15 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:05:44 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the best PC
>>>>> workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
>>>>
>>>> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other
>>>> *nix.
>>>
>>> TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore ...
>>
>> Funny, that. Given the era, I’m going to conclude that “I don’t remember”
>> means “Microsoft Windows”.
> 
> No, we had Linux in the office, so I can't be definitive.
> 
> Recall what I said: the 'stolen' workstations came with people.  I was 
> happy to get more bodies and be able to delegate the ankle-biter stuff, 
> rather than to have to add it to my already full plate.  There's only so 
> long that one can work 100 hours/week before it takes a toll/ER visit.


Not a chance.  I never buy it when people claim they work 80+ hours per 
week.

100 hours?  Pure bullshit.  That's 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, plus 
another half-day.

Even a 60-hour workweek is a lot: 10-12 hours per day 5-6 days a week.

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

#679036

On 12/4/24 11:13 PM, DFS wrote:
> On 12/3/2024 8:15 AM, -hh wrote:
>> On 12/3/24 1:15 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:05:44 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/2/24 9:19 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:19:41 -0500, -hh wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... I can recall doing some 3D FEA work back in 2002 and the best PC
>>>>>> workstations we could get would hit the wall & crash at 4 days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Running what OS? Sounds like Windows rather than Linux or some other
>>>>> *nix.
>>>>
>>>> TBH, I don't really remember many details anymore ...
>>>
>>> Funny, that. Given the era, I’m going to conclude that “I don’t 
>>> remember” means “Microsoft Windows”.
>>
>> No, we had Linux in the office, so I can't be definitive.
>>
>> Recall what I said: the 'stolen' workstations came with people.  I was 
>> happy to get more bodies and be able to delegate the ankle-biter 
>> stuff, rather than to have to add it to my already full plate.  
>> There's only so long that one can work 100 hours/week before it takes 
>> a toll/ER visit.
> 
> Not a chance.  I never buy it when people claim they work 80+ hours per 
> week.
> 
> 100 hours?  Pure bullshit.  That's 16 hours a day, 6 days a week, plus 
> another half-day.

It was 7 days/week, roughly 6:30am-9pm daily.  I lasted about 3 weeks 
before the body broke down.

> Even a 60-hour workweek is a lot: 10-12 hours per day 5-6 days a week.

Certainly is.  That's what I was able to notch it down to after I got 
more staff (& after the Doc said "take 3 days off" - I took just 24hrs); 
it was stupid but necessary; I still have occasional flare-ups from it.


-hh

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

#678877

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 23:25 this Monday (GMT):
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:01:15 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
>> So if you're going to posture that you need moar power, what's the
>> content that's allegedly your stressor?
>
> 3D rendering and video encoding.
>
> I have had renders of animations go on for days. Not something you would 
> entrust to a notebook.


Oh cool, I do a tiny bit of 3D modelling. Trying to learn blender.. I
also do some drawing in krita/aseprite.
-- 
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

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

#678880

On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:50:03 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Trying to learn blender..

I’ve been missing about with it off and on for some years now. It’s a very 
versatile and powerful tool. Lots of tutes available on YouTube, covering 
various aspects of its functionality (there’s a lot to cover).

> I also do some drawing in krita/aseprite.

The more content-creation tools you know about, the better, I reckon. I 
have used Gimp and Inkscape most, I think. Also dabbled in Krita and 
MyPaint. Not sure about “aseprite”.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web