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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #78550 > unrolled thread

Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released

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

Contents

  Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-12-09 11:18 +0000
    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-09 23:30 +0000
      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-09 23:58 +0000
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-12-10 10:30 +0100
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 05:16 -0500
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:23 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-10 12:18 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-10 22:34 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fsquared@fsquared.linux> - 2025-12-11 12:13 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 03:17 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:06 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 22:22 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-12-12 09:59 -0500
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:21 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-12-10 11:35 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:35 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-12-10 08:58 -0800
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 17:17 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:03 -0500
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 09:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> - 2025-12-11 12:15 +0100
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 12:44 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 22:50 -0500
                  Freighters "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-12 12:15 +0100
                    Re: Freighters rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 19:33 +0000
                      Re: Freighters "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 13:24 +0100
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-12-13 15:17 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released bonkmaykr <bonkyboo@canithesis.org> - 2025-12-13 09:30 -0600
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Joel W. Crump" <joelcrump@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 10:46 -0500
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-12-13 16:02 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 16:08 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-13 12:27 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-13 23:46 +0100
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-14 02:05 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-12-14 11:33 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-14 20:25 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 01:31 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2025-12-15 10:43 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-15 01:06 +0100
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 03:41 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Brock McNuggets <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 03:49 +0000
                      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-15 04:05 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-12-17 23:46 +0100
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-14 22:14 -0500
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released CtrlAltDel <Altie@BHam.com> - 2025-12-10 23:58 +0000
      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-10 11:19 +0000
        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-12-10 10:45 -0600
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-11 04:06 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 01:25 -0500
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-11 09:38 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-11 22:36 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 23:41 -0500
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 08:15 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-12 22:36 -0500
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-12-12 11:45 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-12-12 19:59 +0000
            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:28 +0000
              Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 00:41 +0000
                Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 00:45 +0000
                  Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 01:14 +0000
                    Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 02:59 +0000
                      Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-15 03:41 +0000
                        Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-15 04:46 +0000
                          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-12-16 04:17 +0000
                            Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-12-16 21:52 +0000
          Re: Kewl. Common Desktop Environment 2.5.3 Released c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-12-11 00:07 -0500

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#78796

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Then along came the railroads, and there was rapid development from 
>Stephenson's Rocket to the Mallard. There it stopped mostly.

I dont have a clue about stream locos that goes beyond having played
Railroad Tycoon 30 years ago, but did the Mallard actually haul 400
meter trains with 800 seats at 320 kph?

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]

#78811

On 11/12/2025 11:15, Marc Haber wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Then along came the railroads, and there was rapid development from
>> Stephenson's Rocket to the Mallard. There it stopped mostly.
> 
> I dont have a clue about stream locos that goes beyond having played
> Railroad Tycoon 30 years ago, but did the Mallard actually haul 400
> meter trains with 800 seats at 320 kph?
> 
No, that needed electrical power. I assumed you knew we are talking 
'steam' technolog


> Greetings
> Marc

-- 
“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]

#78862

On 12/11/25 04:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 11/12/2025 06:03, c186282 wrote:
>> They're STILL managing to cheat Dr. Moore ... but
>>    not by nearly as much as in previous decades. The
>>    processors, using conventional tech, are really
>>    about as tiny as they can get. 'Quantum' might beat
>>    that but it's not real-world tech for the masses
>>    even after all this time.
>>
>>    When we DO hit the proverbial wall ... yea, that's
>>    going to be VERY interesting  🙂
>>
>>    Parallelism won't save us.
> 
> Once upon a time there was rapid development, From ox cart to stage 
> coach and pony express.
> 
> Then along came the railroads, and there was rapid development from 
> Stephenson's Rocket to the Mallard. There it stopped mostly.
> 
> And so on.
> It a natural process - emerging technology starts crude and then 
> develops to as good as it gets and then either sticks around without 
> much change - a Roman charioteer would understand today's wheels - or is 
> replaced by something else that does the same job better.
> 
> Where are the transatlantic luxury liners today? Boeing Boeing Bong!

   There's nothing wrong with taking a boat across The Pond.
   Most are fairly speedy these days.

   The problem is PEOPLE ... forever in an extreme hurry.
   All destination, no journey.

   It is still possible to book passage on a freighter.
   Some do have space for several paying passengers.
   The price is fairly LOW ... the 'hospitality' is
   whatever the crew gets. Speed maybe 15 knots. When I
   was a little younger I seriously contemplated a few
   such journeys but was Too Busy.

   Maybe someday they'll be able to 'beam' you to
   Mars Base UK in one second... and then some people
   will bitch because it's not HALF a second  :-)

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

#78905 — Freighters

On 2025-12-12 04:50, c186282 wrote:
> On 12/11/25 04:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 11/12/2025 06:03, c186282 wrote:
>>> They're STILL managing to cheat Dr. Moore ... but
>>>    not by nearly as much as in previous decades. The
>>>    processors, using conventional tech, are really
>>>    about as tiny as they can get. 'Quantum' might beat
>>>    that but it's not real-world tech for the masses
>>>    even after all this time.
>>>
>>>    When we DO hit the proverbial wall ... yea, that's
>>>    going to be VERY interesting  🙂
>>>
>>>    Parallelism won't save us.
>>
>> Once upon a time there was rapid development, From ox cart to stage 
>> coach and pony express.
>>
>> Then along came the railroads, and there was rapid development from 
>> Stephenson's Rocket to the Mallard. There it stopped mostly.
>>
>> And so on.
>> It a natural process - emerging technology starts crude and then 
>> develops to as good as it gets and then either sticks around without 
>> much change - a Roman charioteer would understand today's wheels - or 
>> is replaced by something else that does the same job better.
>>
>> Where are the transatlantic luxury liners today? Boeing Boeing Bong!
> 
>    There's nothing wrong with taking a boat across The Pond.
>    Most are fairly speedy these days.
> 
>    The problem is PEOPLE ... forever in an extreme hurry.
>    All destination, no journey.
> 
>    It is still possible to book passage on a freighter.
>    Some do have space for several paying passengers.
>    The price is fairly LOW ... the 'hospitality' is
>    whatever the crew gets. Speed maybe 15 knots. When I
>    was a little younger I seriously contemplated a few
>    such journeys but was Too Busy.
> 
>    Maybe someday they'll be able to 'beam' you to
>    Mars Base UK in one second... and then some people
>    will bitch because it's not HALF a second  :-)

There is a new sail freighter which has a few passenger cabins, but 
luxury and expensive. The Neoliner.

<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/19/shipping-carbon-emissions-neoliner-origin-cargo-age-of-sail>

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#78945 — Re: Freighters

On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 12:15:37 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> There is a new sail freighter which has a few passenger cabins, but
> luxury and expensive. The Neoliner.
> 
> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/19/shipping-carbon-
emissions-neoliner-origin-cargo-age-of-sail>

Does it have the Thunberg stamp of approval?

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

#78988 — Re: Freighters

On 2025-12-12 20:33, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2025 12:15:37 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> There is a new sail freighter which has a few passenger cabins, but
>> luxury and expensive. The Neoliner.
>>
>> <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/nov/19/shipping-carbon-
> emissions-neoliner-origin-cargo-age-of-sail>
> 
> Does it have the Thunberg stamp of approval?

Why would it need to? It is business.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#78992

Le 11-12-2025, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> a écrit :
>    They're STILL managing to cheat Dr. Moore ...

No. Dr. Moore was right, and nothing can make him wrong. He predicted
stuff only for 10 years. And he was right. Others took his name to a
give it to a law. But if the law at his name can stop to be right at
some time, it won't make him wrong.

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

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

#79008

On 13 Dec 2025 12:43:06 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> No. Dr. Moore was right, and nothing can make him wrong. He predicted
> stuff only for 10 years. And he was right. Others took his name to a
> give it to a law. But if the law at his name can stop to be right at
> some time, it won't make him wrong.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Idiot.  Moore's Law is long dead and buried.

But the brilliant engineers at Intel have kept the progress alive
with the concepts of instruction pipelining and branch prediction.

These are fantastic ideas.  They are so good that they have destroyed
the measure of an instruction cycle.  It used to be possible to explicitly
state that instruction X required Y clock cycles and to even time
an entire instruction chain.  But not any more.

However, some bad actors have learned to exploit such processor
magic for nefarious ends.  Ever hear of "Spectre?"

But such nefarious exploits apply only to public facing servers
and are totally irrelevant on standalone desktop workstations.

That does not stop the mainstream distros from crippling their
kernels with useless mitigations.

Brother, if you are not using Gentoo then please, please, run
to the nearest psycho ward.

We do thank you.





-- 

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

#79010

Farley Flud wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2025 12:43:06 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>>
>> No. Dr. Moore was right, and nothing can make him wrong. He predicted
>> stuff only for 10 years. And he was right. Others took his name to a
>> give it to a law. But if the law at his name can stop to be right at
>> some time, it won't make him wrong.
>>
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 
> Idiot.  Moore's Law is long dead and buried.
> 
> But the brilliant engineers at Intel have kept the progress alive
> with the concepts of instruction pipelining and branch prediction.
> 
> These are fantastic ideas.  They are so good that they have destroyed
> the measure of an instruction cycle.  It used to be possible to explicitly
> state that instruction X required Y clock cycles and to even time
> an entire instruction chain.  But not any more.
> 
> However, some bad actors have learned to exploit such processor
> magic for nefarious ends.  Ever hear of "Spectre?"
> 
> But such nefarious exploits apply only to public facing servers
> and are totally irrelevant on standalone desktop workstations.
> 
> That does not stop the mainstream distros from crippling their
> kernels with useless mitigations.
> 
> Brother, if you are not using Gentoo then please, please, run
> to the nearest psycho ward.
> 
> We do thank you.
> 

I would rather have worse cache efficiency by default than have the 
majority of computers in the world be vulnerable to privilege bypass 
exploits capable of throwing literally all security out the window in 
the presence of unaudited software, even sandboxed software 
(automatically loaded javascript). Most people will not notice or care 
about the minor performance degradation except maybe gamers and data 
scientists, and those people are upgrading to the newest hardware anyway 
with less vulnerabilities.

Don't underestimate the inability for system administrators at risk to 
set up good security defaults. And don't think your data isn't valuable.

Yes, as the typical end user your threat model will look nothing like a 
large company holding confidential customer data, but that does not mean 
crippling an attack surface by making it unlikely to work is not a net 
positive for everyone.

If you REALLY don't care, turn those mitigations off, and then thank 
everyone else who, knowingly or not, keeps them turned on for making the 
internet usable with yours disabled.

You've got that last part backwards. Gentoo users belong in psych wards. :)

-- 
*bonkmaykr*
Director, Programming Lead
<https://canithesis.org/>

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

#79011

On 12/13/25 10:30 AM, bonkmaykr wrote:
> Farley Flud wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2025 12:43:06 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>> No. Dr. Moore was right, and nothing can make him wrong. He predicted
>>> stuff only for 10 years. And he was right. Others took his name to a
>>> give it to a law. But if the law at his name can stop to be right at
>>> some time, it won't make him wrong.
>>
>> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>> Idiot.  Moore's Law is long dead and buried.
>>
>> But the brilliant engineers at Intel have kept the progress alive
>> with the concepts of instruction pipelining and branch prediction.
>>
>> These are fantastic ideas.  They are so good that they have destroyed
>> the measure of an instruction cycle.  It used to be possible to 
>> explicitly
>> state that instruction X required Y clock cycles and to even time
>> an entire instruction chain.  But not any more.
>>
>> However, some bad actors have learned to exploit such processor
>> magic for nefarious ends.  Ever hear of "Spectre?"
>>
>> But such nefarious exploits apply only to public facing servers
>> and are totally irrelevant on standalone desktop workstations.
>>
>> That does not stop the mainstream distros from crippling their
>> kernels with useless mitigations.
>>
>> Brother, if you are not using Gentoo then please, please, run
>> to the nearest psycho ward.
>>
>> We do thank you.
> 
> I would rather have worse cache efficiency by default than have the 
> majority of computers in the world be vulnerable to privilege bypass 
> exploits capable of throwing literally all security out the window in 
> the presence of unaudited software, even sandboxed software 
> (automatically loaded javascript). Most people will not notice or care 
> about the minor performance degradation except maybe gamers and data 
> scientists, and those people are upgrading to the newest hardware anyway 
> with less vulnerabilities.
> 
> Don't underestimate the inability for system administrators at risk to 
> set up good security defaults. And don't think your data isn't valuable.
> 
> Yes, as the typical end user your threat model will look nothing like a 
> large company holding confidential customer data, but that does not mean 
> crippling an attack surface by making it unlikely to work is not a net 
> positive for everyone.
> 
> If you REALLY don't care, turn those mitigations off, and then thank 
> everyone else who, knowingly or not, keeps them turned on for making the 
> internet usable with yours disabled.
> 
> You've got that last part backwards. Gentoo users belong in psych wards. :)


But Larry's not a phony like me!  I'm just some geek using Debian to 
play games all day.  But seriously, his computer is a piece of work.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

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

#79017

On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 09:30:54 -0600, bonkmaykr wrote:

> 
> If you REALLY don't care, turn those mitigations off, and then thank 
> everyone else who, knowingly or not, keeps them turned on for making the 
> internet usable with yours disabled.
> 

For me, they have ALWAYS been turned off.

The kernel developers provide the "off switch" because they know
damned well that there is a serious performance penalty that accompanies
such "security."





-- 

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

#79018

Le 13-12-2025, Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> a écrit :
> On 13 Dec 2025 12:43:06 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> 
>> No. Dr. Moore was right, and nothing can make him wrong. He predicted
>> stuff only for 10 years. And he was right. Others took his name to a
>> give it to a law. But if the law at his name can stop to be right at
>> some time, it won't make him wrong.
>
> Idiot.  

Yes, I already know that. Can't you improve? Can't you tell me something
I don't know? Are you that limited?

> Moore's Law is long dead and buried.

No. A lot of times people in charge where afraid to be the one telling
others that under their management Moore law broke. But every time
something happened that moved the limit away.

> But the brilliant engineers at Intel have kept the progress alive

Yes. So Moore law didn't broke and that doesn't change anything about
what I said: breaking Moore's law won't make Moore wrong. He was right.

> with the concepts of instruction pipelining and branch prediction.

The way they moved the limit is irrelevant here: Moore was right.

> However, some bad actors have learned to exploit such processor
> magic for nefarious ends.  

It's not only the processor. It's at the same time the processor and the
way the kernel is using it.

> Ever hear of "Spectre?"

What? Are you speaking about a James Bond movie? I believed You never
watched movies.

> But such nefarious exploits apply only to public facing servers
> and are totally irrelevant on standalone desktop workstations.

So, why are you speaking about that?

> Brother, if you are not using Gentoo 

I'm not your brother. I'm not using Gentoo. I'm not ready to follow any
advice comming from you.

> then please, please, run to the nearest psycho ward.

What for? To meet you? I don't want that. And as I'm not leaving in the
same country, if you do that, I  won't meet you.

> We do thank you.

Who is "we"? I know you aren't alone in your head, but you don't have to
put it that bluntly here.

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

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

#78989

Le 10-12-2025, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> a écrit :
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>Because the "tools" are totally unnecessary.
>
> Who are you to tell others what they should be using and what they
> find useful?

He's a no life, so he needs to control others lives to make him feel
alive. That doesn't work but it's all that drives him. You can't argue
with him. Either you have fun or you ignore him.

>>What "tools" can a DE offer that cannot be provided by
>>various CLI or other software?
>
> I use KDE and I like for example that I can click on URLs in text
> windows and then get a popup whether I want to open that one in the
> browser. I like that I have a graphical frontend to choose networks
> and bring up and down my various VPN links. And I like that most of my
> software looks similar to each other and that I have some settings
> that have the same effect on the majority of my programs.

You aren't answering his question. He's asking if KDE provides a tool
that grand you some control impossible to replicate with the CLI. Not if
it's easier or nicer to do. Only if it's possible.

>>Answer: None.
>
> That's your opinion. Mark it as such.

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Either a real one or a false one. If
you can't come with an example, he's right. I really don't see examples
of graphical tools which can't be done with CLI to manage your computer.
Now, if you are asking him to draw a picture with the command line, it's
a different story.

Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer is
another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or days
to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of stuff
which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for someone who
doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he would need to
learn the right commands first.

And if that can comfort you: he is relying heavily on the graphical
tools to administer his computer. His videos proved it a lot of times.
He pretend he manages the CLI but he clearly doesn't. His way is the
worst of both worlds. He's relying on graphical tools when he could be
more efficient with a command line to switch to the command line when
it's useless, only to pretend he can use it.

>>Also, the DE requires an integrated software environment
>>that adds both bloat and insecurity.  To link all the
>>DE applications together requires constantly running
>>"services" and that, IMO, is not a good idea and a complete
>>waste of computing resources.
>
> Thankfully we nowadays have computers that are so vastly powerful that
> it doesn't matter how "fat" our desktops are.

OK, you are an American guy? You change your computer every six months?
If so, you can't understand his point. In the other cases, if one wants
to keep his computer for a few years, his point stands.

> And, once a current browser is running, the memory footprint of KDE
> compared with "frugal" desktops as lxfe or xfce doesn't matter any
> more anyway.

Once again, on a new computer you are right. Not on an old computer. I
saw a lot of old computers too slow to run Windows which were given a
second life with Linux and a light desktop to agree with you. If the old
computer is running fine, why change it?

> You are an anonymous person who is still stuck in the 1990ies.

Yes. But even if he's a late angry boy, some of his points can be right.
He doesn't have any valid point on purpose, mind you. It's called
statistical ways but they exist anyway. As he says a lot of things
sometimes he's got lucky and says a sensible thing. He doesn't do it on
purpose, but he's ding it anyway.

> That's
> your prerogative but you should not be running around shouting "YOU'RE
> ALL WRONG AND MY WAY IS THE ONLY RIGHT ONE", that's ridiculous.

Yes again.

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

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

#79028

On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 10-12-2025, Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> a écrit :
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>> Because the "tools" are totally unnecessary.
>>
>> Who are you to tell others what they should be using and what they
>> find useful?
> 
> He's a no life, so he needs to control others lives to make him feel
> alive. That doesn't work but it's all that drives him. You can't argue
> with him. Either you have fun or you ignore him.
> 
>>> What "tools" can a DE offer that cannot be provided by
>>> various CLI or other software?
>>
>> I use KDE and I like for example that I can click on URLs in text
>> windows and then get a popup whether I want to open that one in the
>> browser. I like that I have a graphical frontend to choose networks
>> and bring up and down my various VPN links. And I like that most of my
>> software looks similar to each other and that I have some settings
>> that have the same effect on the majority of my programs.
> 
> You aren't answering his question. He's asking if KDE provides a tool
> that grand you some control impossible to replicate with the CLI. Not if
> it's easier or nicer to do. Only if it's possible.
> 
>>> Answer: None.
>>
>> That's your opinion. Mark it as such.
> 
> It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Either a real one or a false one. If
> you can't come with an example, he's right. I really don't see examples
> of graphical tools which can't be done with CLI to manage your computer.
> Now, if you are asking him to draw a picture with the command line, it's
> a different story.
> 
> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer is
> another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or days
> to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of stuff
> which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for someone who
> doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he would need to
> learn the right commands first.

It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the 
console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#79041

On Sat, 13 Dec 2025 23:46:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.

'vim config' works for me. I used to prefer gvim but sway/i3 makes vim 
preferable since it doesn't create a new tile. I did have to search and 
find

let &t_SI = "\e[6 q"
let &t_SR = "\e[4 q"
let &t_EI = "\e[2 q"

to get the cursor to change to a vertical bar in the insert mode from the 
black rectangle. That works well with xterm, foot, and other terminal 
emulators that handle the escape sequences.

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

#79067

Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer is
>> another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or days
>> to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of stuff
>> which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for someone who
>> doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he would need to
>> learn the right commands first.
>
> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the 
> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.

For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.

Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
not discovering it. 

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

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

#79097

On 14 Dec 2025 11:33:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Of course, I'm launching my terminals in GUI. And as a text editor,
> I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully inside a graphical
> environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.

You use a GUI terminal emulator, but not a GUI text editor?

Emacs does GUI with multiwindowing. It can even include non-text
objects in its text buffers!

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

#79116

On Dec 14, 2025 at 1:25:53 PM MST, "Lawrence D´Oliveiro" wrote
<10hn6gh$1csuj$3@dont-email.me>:

> On 14 Dec 2025 11:33:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>> Of course, I'm launching my terminals in GUI. And as a text editor,
>> I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully inside a graphical
>> environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
> 
> You use a GUI terminal emulator, but not a GUI text editor?
> 
> Emacs does GUI with multiwindowing. It can even include non-text
> objects in its text buffers!

Aren’t they non-text buffers then? :)

-- 
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with you.

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

#79148

At Sun, 14 Dec 2025 20:25:53 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On 14 Dec 2025 11:33:28 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
> > Of course, I'm launching my terminals in GUI. And as a text editor,
> > I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully inside a graphical
> > environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
> 
> You use a GUI terminal emulator, but not a GUI text editor?
> 
> Emacs does GUI with multiwindowing. It can even include non-text
> objects in its text buffers!

Have used joe(1) since 1992.  It's very "Wordstar-like", and
my finger-macros "just work".

-- 
-v ASUS TUF DASH F15 x86_64 Mem: 16G 
   OS: Linux 6.14.0-36-generic D: Mint 22.2
   NVIDIA RTX 3060 Mobile 6G (510.47.03) DE: Xfce 4.18 (X11)
   "Help! I've got a cat in my lap and I can't get up!"

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

#79105

On 2025-12-14 12:33, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 13-12-2025, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> a écrit :
>> On 2025-12-13 13:27, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>> Now, considering the easiest way to do stuff to manage your computer is
>>> another question. I've used successfully the command line to make
>>> changes on thousands of files which would have required me hours or days
>>> to take care with a graphical tool with. I have no example of stuff
>>> which would have been easier with a graphical tool. But for someone who
>>> doesn't know the CLI it wouldn't be so easy because he would need to
>>> learn the right commands first.
>>
>> It is easier to edit scripts in the GUI desktop than it is in the
>> console. Renouncing to the GUI desktop is ridiculous.
> 
> For me, the difference between the GUI and the CLI is the use of the
> keyboard or the use of the mouse. Of course, I'm launching my terminals
> in GUI. And as a text editor, I'm using neovim. So, I'm always fully
> inside a graphical environment but, I'm using CLI as much as possible.
> Of course, I won't browse websites with links but I'm using qutebrowser
> to be able to use my keyboard on well designed website.
> 
> Of course, I'm not telling others to do the same. I'm only telling, for
> managing my computer, I see no graphical tool that can do something I
> can't do on the CLI. Discovering the CLI is more difficult than
> discovering the GUI, but well, I'm using Linux from more than thirty
> years now and back in those days, the CLI was almost mandatory so I'm
> not discovering it.

But you are doing the thing I say to do. You are not contradicting me. 
You are running terminals in a GUI. Using CLI editors or GUI editors 
doesn't matter. I also use CLI editors, and the command line a lot.

What I refuse to do is use the console unless I need to. Console, not 
terminal. Different thing. Console is the text mode display.

I saw someone at uni using a GUI desktop to edit files in 1987 or 
thereabouts. One window for the editor, and another for the program he 
was testing. Another terminal for something else. At the time, I only 
had MsDOS. I was astonished.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web