Linux mintvirt 6.13.7 #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Mar 13 06:52:06 PDT 2025 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
real 415.70 user 19247.88 sys 4010.50
Compiled on workstation, installed in virtual host.
On 13 Mar 2025 14:17:26 GMT, vallor wrote:
Linux mintvirt 6.13.7 #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Mar 13 06:52:06 PDT 2025
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
real 415.70 user 19247.88 sys 4010.50
Compiled on workstation, installed in virtual host.
Hot on your heels Fedora 42 updated to 6.13.6 yesterday. There was also
a lot of systemd stuff. Still works.
Linux mintvirt 6.13.7 #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Mar 13 06:52:06 PDT 2025 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
real 415.70
user 19247.88
sys 4010.50
Compiled on workstation, installed in virtual host.
On 13 Mar 2025 14:17:26 GMT, vallor wrote:
Linux mintvirt 6.13.7 #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Mar 13 06:52:06 PDT 2025I hope that Mint-shit provides a Rust compiler because soon you will
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
real 415.70 user 19247.88 sys 4010.50
Compiled on workstation, installed in virtual host.
need it.
Among other things, the kernel NVMe driver, written in Rust,
will soon be accepted into the kernel tree.
I know that you, being a patsy to technical convention, will certainly
need that.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
your spinning rust archaisms.
Rust is not magnetic.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than your spinningThat is quite irrelevant.
rust archaisms.
All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
of whatever kind, play no role. Even heavy disk I/O is always buffered
in RAM.
Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical fashion,
just like spoilers on a car.
And some people run sophisticated virtual reality simulations
that need access to more _fast_ disk space than will fit in RAM.
You must be a piker.
I hope that Mint-shit provides a Rust compiler because soon
you will need it.
Among other things, the kernel NVMe driver, written in Rust,
will soon be accepted into the kernel tree.
I know that you, being a patsy to technical convention, will
certainly need that.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
your spinning rust archaisms.
That is quite irrelevant.
All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
of whatever kind, play no role.
Even heavy disk I/O is always buffered in RAM.
Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
The real scientist would try to test his claims instead of staying in
error. Your claims don't stand the facts.
On 14 Mar 2025 20:01:53 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
The real scientist would try to test his claims instead of staying in
error. Your claims don't stand the facts.
Let us see YOUR test results.
You have none. All you have is "hot air," i.e. bullshit.
My claims are unassailable.
On 14 Mar 2025 19:48:26 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
There will be more and more rust code in the Linux kernel. I'd like to
see how you'll manage to keep rust away of your computer.
The kernel Rust code will always be optional,
and I will always reject it.
If I cannot then I will move to FreeBSD.
There will be more and more rust code in the Linux kernel. I'd like to
see how you'll manage to keep rust away of your computer.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 15:46:43 +0000, vallor wrote:
And some people run sophisticated virtual reality simulations that needWhoever does that would destroy the SSD before the sim is finished.
access to more _fast_ disk space than will fit in RAM.
For such work a motherboard with 1Tb or 2Tb or RAM would be recommended,
or even a cluster of such MBs.
You must be a piker.That's the term used by the crass instead of "efficiency expert."
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
other.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:26:28 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the otherOnly for file loading/saving. On my machines the Iron browser, which is based on the severely bloated Chrome, takes almost 10 seconds to load
with HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than
the other.
and start. With SSD this would be a lot faster.
But for program execution and computation overall, SSDs have no effect.
As I stated many times before, I do not use SSDs because the available consumer technology is garbage. Consumer SSDs degrade very rapidly and require technical "tricks" to give an illusion of durability.
Ironically, to keep a record of failed and useless storage bits,
consumer SSDs will incorporate a very small amount of high-grade and essentially permanent memory cells. Only when the entire SSD is
composed of such permanent memory will I make the switch.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 16:26:28 -0500, Physfitfreak wrote:
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
other.
Only for file loading/saving. On my machines the Iron browser, which
is based on the severely bloated Chrome, takes almost 10 seconds to load
and start. With SSD this would be a lot faster.
But for program execution and computation overall, SSDs have no effect.
But for program execution and computation overall, SSDs have no effect.
Sure ... until one hits swap...
On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
your spinning rust archaisms.
That is quite irrelevant.
All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
of whatever kind, play no role. Even heavy disk I/O is always
buffered in RAM.
Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with
HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
other.
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
your spinning rust archaisms.
That is quite irrelevant.
All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
of whatever kind, play no role. Even heavy disk I/O is always
buffered in RAM.
Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with >> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
other.
SSD Sucks!
BS.
The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Physfitfreak wrote:
On 3/14/25 5:27 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 05:45:22 +0000, vallor wrote:
Meanwhile, my NVMe devices are much, much faster than
your spinning rust archaisms.
That is quite irrelevant.
All computation is performed in cache/RAM and the attached drives,
of whatever kind, play no role. Even heavy disk I/O is always
buffered in RAM.
Thus, the gimmicky SSDs are only useful as a badge of technical
fashion, just like spoilers on a car.
Hm.. ? I have almost identical machines, one with SSD and the other with >> HD, same RAM (12 gigs). The one with SSD is noticeably faster than the
other.
SSD Sucks!
BS.
On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 07:15:16 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote in <vr0l23$r5e8$1@dont-email.me>:
Rust is not magnetic.
Neither are you.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:22:12 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,799 |