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

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #74586 > unrolled thread

Re: Favorite Font

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

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

Contents

  Re: Favorite Font Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> - 2025-09-19 19:16 -0300
    Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-20 00:33 +0000
      Re: Favorite Font Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2025-09-20 08:58 -0400
        Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:08 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:10 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:25 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-20 17:46 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 09:09 -0700
            Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-22 17:22 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-22 19:39 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 00:07 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 10:00 +0200
                    Re: Favorite Font rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 18:45 +0000
                      Re: Favorite Font "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:10 +0200
                Re: Favorite Font Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2025-09-23 03:36 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 18:42 +0000
            Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:31 +0100
    Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 15:13 +0000
      Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:02 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-20 18:42 +0000
            Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-21 08:21 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 10:34 +0100
                Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:53 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 07:42 +0000
                    Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-22 22:53 +0000
                      Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-23 07:35 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-21 15:26 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 18:57 +0100
                  Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:53 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 22:52 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 07:32 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-22 17:22 +0000
                    Re: Favorite Font Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> - 2025-09-22 18:36 +0000
            Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-21 14:59 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 16:15 +0100
              Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-09-21 20:19 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> - 2025-09-23 01:16 +0000
                Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-27 14:44 +0000
                  Re: Favorite Font Farley Flud <fflud@gnu.rocks> - 2025-09-27 15:22 +0000
                    Re: Favorite Font Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 11:15 +0100
                      Re: Favorite Font Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-28 14:03 -0700
                        Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-28 22:51 +0000
                          Re: Favorite Font candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid> - 2025-09-30 18:30 +0000
                            Re: Favorite Font Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-30 11:45 -0700
                              Re: Favorite Font rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 20:04 +0000
                            Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-30 22:46 +0000
                        Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-10-04 09:31 +0000
                          Re: Favorite Font Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-04 10:08 -0700
                            Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-10-04 21:10 +0000
                      Re: Favorite Font John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 09:11 -0700
                        Re: Favorite Font Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-29 16:45 +0000
                          Date formatting. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:07 +0200
                            Re: Date formatting. Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-29 18:30 +0100
                              Re: Date formatting. Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-29 19:40 +0000
                                Re: Date formatting. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 21:52 +0200
                              Re: Date formatting. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-29 21:45 +0200
                              Re: Date formatting. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-30 02:08 +0000
                            Re: Date formatting. c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2025-09-29 23:15 -0400
                          Re: Favorite Font rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-29 18:55 +0000
      Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 16:59 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-20 18:48 +0100
          Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:39 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-21 09:27 +1000
            Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:45 +0100
        Re: Favorite Font Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-09-20 18:18 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:34 +0100
            Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 23:02 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:02 -0500
        Re: Favorite Font Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-09-21 01:39 +0000
        Re: Favorite Font vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 07:20 +0000
          Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-21 10:14 +0100
            Re: Favorite Font vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 22:31 +0000
              Re: Favorite Font The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-22 13:34 +0100

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#74586 — Re: Favorite Font

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> writes:

> On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 10:56:58 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

[...]

>> Anything interesting I find on the web I print for later reading.
>
> Whew!  You must spend a fortune on ink or toner.

Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
effect.

> I have literally tens of thousands of web pages saved.  If I were
> to physically print all of those the paper alone would weigh several
> tons.

Print the amount you need when you need.  

One shouldn't read so much that it gets expensive to print.  We should
read less than we can print because today we can print a lot.

(*) Footnote

I've been observing how all my neighbors are keeping on a lot of lights
for the entire night and every day.  One reason (I believe) is to shine
the whole place so that camera can record good images.  But surely none
of that would be viable if the efficiency of current light bulbs were
like they used to be.  Our economies are booming like never before.

But, yeah---lol---, you can accuse me of being wasteful on paper.  But
the fact is that I'm protecting much more valuable things.  And I don't
thinking filming your backyard is really necessary.  On the contrary: so
much light disturbs all animal life---humans in the first place.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#74588

On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:

> Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
> than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
> effect.

What’s the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a 
photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation 
source (i.e. the Sun)?

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

#74624

Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:
>
>> Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
>> than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
>> effect.
>
> What’s the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a 
> photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation 
> source (i.e. the Sun)?

The spectrum.

-- 
Cheap things are of no value, valuable things are not cheap.

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

#74627

On 20/09/2025 13:58, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
> 
>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:
>>
>>> Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
>>> than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
>>> effect.
>>
>> What’s the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a
>> photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation
>> source (i.e. the Sun)?
> 
> The spectrum.
> 
Yes indeed. My opticians assures me that cataracts get far worse in 
sunlight.

I'll stick to LED lit LCD screens...

-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's 
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

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

#74628

On 20/09/2025 14:51, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote or quoted:
>> Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>> On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:
>>>> Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
>>>> than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
>>>> effect.
>>> What’s the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a
>>> photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation
>>> source (i.e. the Sun)?
>> The spectrum.
> 
>    The sun usually lights up a scene pretty evenly, but a screen ends
>    up being this bright spot in a darker room, so it can feel harsher.
> 
Mine is running a dark theme - black background

>    Some people claim that yellowish light (sort of controversial) or
>    too much close-up work can lead to vision problems, especially in
>    kids, while others argue that blue light is more of an issue because
>    of its higher energy and because it can mess with melatonin and sleep
>    (also debated).
> 
>    You can cut down on the blue light from screens with filters, either
>    hardware or software, and you can keep tweaking the brightness to
>    match the room, but not everybody bothers with that.
> 
I really did NOT like CRTs and fluorescent lights.  A LOT of UV from 
both. And low x-rays from CRTs


LEDS do not bother me...



-- 
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's 
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

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

#74636

Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote or quoted:
>>Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
>>>On Fri, 19 Sep 2025 19:16:03 -0300, Ethan Carter wrote:
>>>>Health is priceless and I it seems much cheaper to put my eyes on paper
>>>>than to put them against a light of which nobody knows the long-term
>>>>effect.
>>>What’s the difference between a photon from a screen backlight and a 
>>>photon bouncing off a piece of dead tree from a thermonuclear radiation 
>>>source (i.e. the Sun)?
>>The spectrum.
> 
>   The sun usually lights up a scene pretty evenly, but a screen ends
>   up being this bright spot in a darker room, so it can feel harsher.

Couple that with the fact that a great many monitors ship in the box in 
"showroom floor mode" (maximum brightness) and far too many fail to 
adjust the settings to match their ambient lighting and you get folks 
thinking they sense a difference.

You see the same effect from the "I run my browser maximized on my 16:9 
landscape aspect monitor -- and all the lines of text are too wide for 
me to comfortably read" folks.  They inevitebably want websites to add 
left/right margins of empty space so that the website line length is 
shorter, all the time failing to recognize that if they just narrowed 
their browser window, they would magically get narrow line widths (from 
99% of websites) that match just what they want to see.

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

#74640

On 2025-09-20, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:

>   You can cut down on the blue light from screens with filters, either
>   hardware or software, and you can keep tweaking the brightness to 
>   match the room, but not everybody bothers with that.

Sometimes I wish they had never perfected blue LEDs.
Then there'd be one less irritating fad for me to put up with.
Besides, my eyes don't focus on blue light.

-- 
/~\  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]

#74849

On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 17:46:37 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> Sometimes I wish they had never perfected blue LEDs.
> Then there'd be one less irritating fad for me to put up with.
> Besides, my eyes don't focus on blue light.

Blue LEDs are a hate crime against eyeballs, full stop.

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

#74856

On 2025-09-22, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 17:46:37 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Sometimes I wish they had never perfected blue LEDs.
>> Then there'd be one less irritating fad for me to put up with.
>> Besides, my eyes don't focus on blue light.
>
> Blue LEDs are a hate crime against eyeballs, full stop.

Finally!  Someone who agrees with me.

One time I was doing lights and sound for a stage production.
I had the boards set up in a darkened hall, and the sound board's
pilot light was a blue LED that was so bright that I had to cover
it with three layers of masking tape before I could see what I
was doing.  Grrrr...

    Try blue, it's the new red!
      -- Wall-E

-- 
/~\  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]

#74872

On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:22:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> One time I was doing lights and sound for a stage production.
> I had the boards set up in a darkened hall, and the sound board's pilot
> light was a blue LED that was so bright that I had to cover it with
> three layers of masking tape before I could see what I was doing. 
> Grrrr...

I'm about to resort to that solution. I have Logitech Bluetooth speakers 
that have a blue LED and the Beelink wall wart has one. There are several 
other light sources in the room, digital clocks, a red light on the 
answering machine, but those are the two most annoying. 

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

#74896

On 2025-09-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:22:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> One time I was doing lights and sound for a stage production.
>> I had the boards set up in a darkened hall, and the sound board's pilot
>> light was a blue LED that was so bright that I had to cover it with
>> three layers of masking tape before I could see what I was doing. 
>> Grrrr...
>
> I'm about to resort to that solution. I have Logitech Bluetooth speakers 
> that have a blue LED and the Beelink wall wart has one. There are several 
> other light sources in the room, digital clocks, a red light on the 
> answering machine, but those are the two most annoying. 

The computer I keep in the living room as a media server has a
nice all-black case, with a bright blue power LED.  I covered the
LED with a circle I cut out of a piece of black electrical tape.
It looks great - or would, if you could even see it.

    Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see.
      -- The Beatles: Come Together

-- 
/~\  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]

#74932

On 2025-09-23 02:07, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2025-09-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:22:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> One time I was doing lights and sound for a stage production.
>>> I had the boards set up in a darkened hall, and the sound board's pilot
>>> light was a blue LED that was so bright that I had to cover it with
>>> three layers of masking tape before I could see what I was doing.
>>> Grrrr...
>>
>> I'm about to resort to that solution. I have Logitech Bluetooth speakers
>> that have a blue LED and the Beelink wall wart has one. There are several
>> other light sources in the room, digital clocks, a red light on the
>> answering machine, but those are the two most annoying.
> 
> The computer I keep in the living room as a media server has a
> nice all-black case, with a bright blue power LED.  I covered the
> LED with a circle I cut out of a piece of black electrical tape.
> It looks great - or would, if you could even see it.

I am looking now at my minicomputer that I use as server, and has a soft 
blue led light in the power switch. MSI Cubi N. I only see it when 
looking directly at it.

> 
>      Got to be good-looking 'cause he's so hard to see.
>        -- The Beatles: Come Together
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#74999

On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:00:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:

> I am looking now at my minicomputer that I use as server, and has a soft
> blue led light in the power switch. MSI Cubi N. I only see it when
> looking directly at it.

When the room is dark? Between the computers and other digital devices my 
space looks like the Starship Enterprise at night. It's even worse if I'm 
screwing around with some microcontroller project involving LEDs or 
neopixel strips.

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

#75008

On 2025-09-23 20:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2025 10:00:41 +0200, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> 
>> I am looking now at my minicomputer that I use as server, and has a soft
>> blue led light in the power switch. MSI Cubi N. I only see it when
>> looking directly at it.
> 
> When the room is dark? 

Yes, this particular led is polite :-)

> Between the computers and other digital devices my
> space looks like the Starship Enterprise at night. It's even worse if I'm
> screwing around with some microcontroller project involving LEDs or
> neopixel strips.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#74912

On 2025-09-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2025 17:22:19 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> One time I was doing lights and sound for a stage production.
>> I had the boards set up in a darkened hall, and the sound board's pilot
>> light was a blue LED that was so bright that I had to cover it with
>> three layers of masking tape before I could see what I was doing. 
>> Grrrr...
>
> I'm about to resort to that solution. I have Logitech Bluetooth speakers 
> that have a blue LED and the Beelink wall wart has one. There are several 
> other light sources in the room, digital clocks, a red light on the 
> answering machine, but those are the two most annoying. 

There are a couple of other options for dimming out a too-bright
LED:

- If they're still sold at office supply stores, small round
  stickers about 1/4" in diameter (used to) come in various
  colors.  Attentuation of the light will depend on how close the
  sticker's color is to the LED.

- With a pliers-like paper punch, a similar sized piece can be
  cut from a sticky-note or blue painter's tape.  Masking tape
  should also work.  I'd suspect vinyl electrical tape might not
  work well.

In either case, tweezers can make installation a bit easier.

HTH

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

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

#74998

On 23 Sep 2025 03:36:12 GMT, Robert Riches wrote:

> - If they're still sold at office supply stores, small round
>   stickers about 1/4" in diameter (used to) come in various colors. 
>   Attentuation of the light will depend on how close the sticker's color
>   is to the LED.

I had that thought late last night. I've sheets of stickers that I think 
are meant for price tags at yard sales although I use them as air gun 10 m 
targets. I'll have to experiment. 

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

#74961

On 22/09/2025 17:09, John Ames wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2025 17:46:37 GMT
> Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Sometimes I wish they had never perfected blue LEDs.
>> Then there'd be one less irritating fad for me to put up with.
>> Besides, my eyes don't focus on blue light.
> 
> Blue LEDs are a hate crime against eyeballs, full stop.
> 
I love them

-- 
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

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

#74629

Le 19-09-2025, Ethan Carter <ec1828@somewhere.edu> a écrit :
>
> But, yeah---lol---, you can accuse me of being wasteful on paper.

Often, I see someone who put something like that in his signature:
"consider the need to print before printing the email." I always fell
oblige to answer.

It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
heavily on electricity.

So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.

So if you want to read something only once: read it on your screen. If
you want to read it many times: print it. I'm speaking only about
pollution level here, nothing else. You can have other reason to print
it or to read it on screen. But I'm only answering your pollution part
here.

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

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

#74634

On 20 Sep 2025 15:13:50 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
> heavily on electricity.
> 

Speak for yourself.  I manage my own email.  I have nothing of any kind,
email or otherwise, stored on a remote server.


> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
> on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
> If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
> print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
> more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.
> 

Total nonsense.

I have tens of thousands of ebooks and an even larger volume of
other information (web pages, images, videos) which are all stored
on external optical media or external USB drives.  All of this
storage can be "unplugged" and requires no electrical power to
store. 

But the same material would require, literally, an entire forest
to print as well as a few tanker trucks full of petroleum-derived
ink.

To read this e-material only requires a few cents worth of electricity,
and such power can be obtained from renewable solar or wind sources
or even nuclear sources all of which have zero environmental cost.

Furthermore, unless one uses very expensive archival ink and paper,
printed material, and photographs, will fade and wither over time.
But e-material will stay fresh forever.

I am surprised to actually encounter such bullshit as is found in this
thread.  Print has been dead for a long, long, long time.  Get over
it and move on to the new world of digital.


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

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

#74644

Le 20-09-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 20 Sep 2025 15:13:50 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> 
>> It's important because people always believe that printing paper is bad
>> for nature when using computer isn't. So, when you are reading an email,
>> your computer is using electricity. And very few people manage their
>> email by themselves, the emails are stored in Data Centers which rely
>> heavily on electricity.
>
> Speak for yourself.

No. I'm speaking for general user. Learn how to read a DNS entry and try to
find what you can find about my email.

> I manage my own email.

That I can believe. By default Linux comes with a mail server. As your
mails never get out of your computer, I guess it's easy for you to send
mails to yourself.

> I have nothing of any kind, email or otherwise, stored on a remote
> server.

That, I can believe, too. You don't need to exchange anything with
anyone else in the world. And you have nothing of value which couldn't
be lost with consequences. And if you have any backup they are near your
computer. And a DRP means nothing to you.

>> So, to be short: reading something on your computer has the same impact
>> on nature as printing it. But, and that where the important point comes.
>> If you read it twice the pollution starts to diverge. You can read your
>> print paper as many time as you need: you don't pollute anymore. But the
>> more you are reading on your screen, the more you are polluting.
>
> Total nonsense.
>
> I have tens of thousands of ebooks

Speaking about nonsense, you are great with your answer. They are
useless: you couldn't have read them and you'll never read them. It's
impossible to read tens of thousand of book in a lifetime.

> and an even larger volume of
> other information (web pages, images, videos) which are all stored
> on external optical media or external USB drives.  All of this
> storage can be "unplugged" and requires no electrical power to
> store. 

Same answer: useless because you never read them and won't be able to.

> But the same material would require, literally, an entire forest
> to print as well as a few tanker trucks full of petroleum-derived
> ink.

So what? You don't read them there is neither need to print them nor to
keep them.

> To read this e-material only requires a few cents worth of electricity,

The price is not the issue here.

> and such power can be obtained from renewable solar or wind sources
> or even nuclear sources all of which have zero environmental cost.

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

> Furthermore, unless one uses very expensive archival ink and paper,
> printed material, and photographs, will fade and wither over time.

Yes, print will fade over time, but I'll be long gone before the ink
will fade on the paper I used.

> But e-material will stay fresh forever.

Nonsense. First it depend on what you store them. If you are using
Compact Disks they wont leave more than a few year. The floppy disks had
an expected life way shorter. For an hard drive, I don't really know but
as it's magnetic, it can't stay forever. And if you find something which
can stay forever, you can't be sure it will be usable forever. Today you
have an USB port: how can you be sure it will exist tomorrow? How can
you be sure your file system will still be read in a few thousand years?

You have to face it: if you want something to stay forever the
e-material isn't the solution. Maybe one day it will be, but nothing
relatively close to what the Mayans, the Egyptians or the Sumerians have
done with their writing can be accomplished with an actual computer.

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

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web