0 users browsing Discussion. | 4 guests | 2 bots  
Main » Discussion » Ubuntu: x86_32 is dead because WE SAY SO!
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last
Posted on 19-07-26, 19:23
Post: #35 of 60
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 49 days
Last view: 10 days
Posted by tomman
you should be using Gentoo
That was my first thought when I heard about this. Based on my experience with gentoo, even crazy-specific CFLAG hokey pokey will typically only get you a few percent improvement on most workloads anyway. They should identify the few packages that actually benefit and offer those in AVX2-only flavors alongside the generic builds.
Posted on 19-07-26, 21:15
Not from my cellphone

Post: #453 of 740
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 5 hours
Also, if your software is also performance-sensitive, do runtime detection of CPU features and pick the most appropiate code path suitable to the host CPU.

I've seen plenty of software to do that, both proprietary and FOSS.

I do, from time to time, build my own ffmpeg&friends (stashed in /opt to not conflict with the distro-provided versions), and know to use -march/-mtune (really, only the former is useful for those of us building binaries for personal usage). But that's the exception, and for everything else, I'm no ricer. I don't understand why this proposal by some Fedora guy even came to exist (it was quickly shot down by some of their own people: "my 11yo Core 2 laptop still serves me well" / "none of my production servers are AVX2 yet"... it was only missing a "goodbye Fedora, and thanks for all the fish!")

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-07-27, 00:26
Custom title here

Post: #591 of 891
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 15 hours
Last view: 25 min.
User is online
And here I thought IBM bought Red Hat to stop the madness.

What I'm hearing here is "learn FreeBSD".

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-27, 08:39
Post: #6 of 6
Since: 10-31-18

Last post: 351 days
Last view: 5 days
Posted by tomman
Yup, someone is trying to convince the world that any 64-bit CPU made before 2014 should be thrown in a dumpster (yay, leadtin-flavored water!), because it's AVX2 OR BUST. The feature that didn't got into Intel CPUs until Haswell (so my Sandy Bridge is now considered "prehistoric, museum piece"), or whatever AMD was selling back then, in the late pre-Ryzen era.

Looking up what AMD processors have AVX2 out of curiosity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Vector_Extensions#CPUs_with_AVX2 tells me AMD was even later to that party than Intel, and only the final generation of pre-Ryzen architecture, Excavator, in 2015 near the same timeframe as Skylake, finally got that. So the move is an even bigger fuck you to AMD processors
Posted on 19-07-27, 13:04
Not from my cellphone

Post: #454 of 740
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 5 hours
Posted by CaptainJistuce
And here I thought IBM bought Red Hat to stop the madness.

What I'm hearing here is "learn FreeBSD".

The Troo UNIX® Way graybeards are dying. That's AWESOME, we need no "fuck you, computers have to be HARD!" user-unfriendly guys anymore.

Sadly, they're being replaced not by conscious people with great ideas, but by Silly Valley VC kids where the motto is "more Javascript and a new iPhone a year is the solution to every problem". They're way worse than your Poetterings and the like: they believe anyone not using a computer bought in the last 18 months is Doing It Wrong, and completely forgot why computers exist in first place (hint: they're not for displaying your ePeen or how overdrawn is your Mastercard). "Optimizing is HARD, let's make everybody buy new computers for our free piece of software!".

One thing is a Gentoo ricer which will do everything to shave off that 0.3% from their iPod access times, but another (and very disgusting) thing is those guys that do everything to defend software bloat while driving away their userbase just because they're too poor/unwilling to buy a new Mac or an overclocked i9/Threadripper rig.

My Sandy Bridge laptop says "fuck you very much" to guys like those.

(your beloved *BSDs will eventually get infected, make no doubt of that)

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-07-27, 18:45
Post: #12 of 20
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 143 days
Last view: 29 days
You don't really need to learn BSD, it's more like you will have many "oh, that shitty Linux way was already done right by FreeBSD" moments.
Posted on 19-07-28, 20:24
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #542 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 170 days
Last view: 169 days
Posted by tomman
The Troo UNIX® Way graybeards are dying. That's AWESOME, we need no "fuck you, computers have to be HARD!" user-unfriendly guys anymore.

Yeah but was this really an improvement? What you forget is that one of these things presumably caused the other. I mean, consider the Internet before and after 2008. All sorts of people started using it and brought the quality down. And all these supposed advantages of a "connected world" failed to materialize. News websites shut down their comment sections, websites moved into apps, and forums moved to Facebook; all to provide a more user-friendly experience for the new clientele.

You see what I'm getting at here? User-friendly is not good, and should be avoided as far as possible. It's true that more user-unfriendly computers are less pleasant to use, but the discomfort you receive from it is far smaller than the new clientele's ditto.

Go even further back, and then most users knew not only how to administer their computers but often how to program. It stands to reason there's been a decline in their quality since then and that this was precipitated by an increase in user-friendliness. It's like using complicated words. In theory, all it does is make things harder to understand and should be avoided. In practice, the effect is negligible for educated people and allows discussions of even fringe matters to proceed without much issue, while keeping the uninitiated from getting offended.

Now you might object, that while you do get a lot more slag, the share of competent people ought to stay the same, and in the slags you should find some 'diamonds in the rough'. But this ignores the operational reality of things. If you have a project with 10 competent people doing whatever, then things presumably should go right on ahead pretty smoothly. Whereas, if you add in two utter buffoons who are preoccupied with adding in codes of conduct, displacing the competent people and putting their people in, and writing retarded "UX improvements," then it will all end up in the shitter. And you see this too - projects wasting lots of time going on utter wild goose chases because they weren't xenophobic enough with regard to the new clientele.

Consider how many technological projects that greatly changed people's lives you got during the period 2000-2010. BitTorrent (2001, TPB 2003), Tor (2002, open source 2004), 4chan (2003), Bitcoin (2009). I'm sure you could name plenty more, depending on what stuff you're into.

Now the 2010's are almost over. What did we get during them? Hardware stagnated, and the so-called experts claimed this would result in great strides in software instead. Where are they? You can add 5% for fairness, since we're still half a year from 2020. I can't think of hardly anything. Darknet markets, while utterly reprehensible, arguably form an improvement from the status quo. Silk Road was opened in 2011, so I guess we can count that in. We still didn't get assassination markets though, nor good betting sites. And the prediction markets are still all clearnet and with KYC out the wazoo.

Any other takers? Because "it got slightly easier for people who frankly should not exist to order things they frankly should not order" really does not feel like a meaningful improvement to me. The those sorts of people I know still do that type of business like they would have used to, without relying on any high-tech encryption or the like.

User-friendliness is like makeup. If it attracts good developers and results in the furtherance of the project, then, sure, add it, why not?, but if it's just to make things slightly more pleasant at the end cost of attracting useless people and thereby becoming useless, then what purpose does it serve?

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-29, 06:46
Post: #67 of 144
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 11 days
Last view: 2 hours
I think some ancient greek philosopher said the same things about writing.

User-friendliness never caused any of the negatives you are complaining about, and the positives you are extolling never existed.

the vast number of people who where using computers in the early 80's had enough wherewithal to be able to read the instructions to install and run their software, but rarely trawled anything outside of that. Those knew how to program where rare, adept administrators ever rarer.

Lets not speak of Jughead and Veronica's love for gopher, and Archie's poking about in ftp servers, before the web buried all of them.

Its one thing to wear rose coloured-glasses for stuff you lived thru, its another for stuff only heard of second hand.
Posted on 19-07-29, 09:51

Post: #163 of 210
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 284 days
Last view: 255 days
btw I use Arch Linux.
Posted on 19-07-29, 10:02
Custom title here

Post: #593 of 891
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 15 hours
Last view: 25 min.
User is online
Does Arch fuck like a tiger?

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-29, 11:00
Has a random title

Post: #310 of 502
Since: 10-29-18

Last post: 19 days
Last view: 3 hours
Hey what are you talking about?
Posted on 19-07-29, 13:28 (revision 1)
Custom title here

Post: #594 of 891
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 15 hours
Last view: 25 min.
User is online
I honestly have no idea. Possibly video games.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-29, 14:07
Not from my cellphone

Post: #459 of 740
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 1 day
Last view: 5 hours
I'm well aware of the fact that "user friendly" can be a double edged sword.

At one end, without user friendly systems and applications, personal computers might as well have never happened, we would not have cellphones, online banking, credit/debit cards, videogame consoles, media players, or any of the modern electronics we love. Computers would belong to a few institutions, where only a few select would be allowed to use them. This leads us to the "graybearded sysadmin" scenario some of us particularly hate.

At the other end... we get the smartphone generation, where a few "disruptive entrepreneurs" took user friendliness to the extreme, dumbing down to the point of uselessness, trying to cater to that mass of population to which computers and electronics are little more than tools to achieve something, without considering consequences or side effects. The extreme who got us diseases like social networks and advertising, and yes, that's another scenario some of us really hate.

Extremes are bad, but that's not excuse to condemn user friendliness on principle. I will never use cellphone crapps beyond the basics, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch web browsers and move to Lynx/Elinks (I like watching my porn pretty images and stylesheets, thanks) or become a "get off my lawn" grumpy man. What we need is fresh blood WITH RATIONAL IDEAS ("old" doesn't have to mean "museum grade", but "we can take advantage of what we have"). None of this "cellphone revolution in the Valley", but also definitely none of this "the BSD way is the only true way" elitist stuff. Too bad taking sensible decisions these days is highly frowned upon all across the board...

Licensed Pirate® since 2006, 100% Buttcoin™-free
Posted on 19-07-29, 23:01
Custom title here

Post: #595 of 891
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 15 hours
Last view: 25 min.
User is online
If you aren't loading data with an array of a hundred or so toggle switches and reading it out with a row of lamps showing you register values, you're using a machine that shouldn't exist.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-30, 21:03
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #545 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 170 days
Last view: 169 days
Posted by funkyass
I think some ancient greek philosopher said the same things about writing.

The ancient philosophers were right about a lot of things, far more than you'd think, and I'd argue on a lot of things we're now wrong on. In this case, you're probably talking about Plato/Socrates:
Posted by Phaedrus
Soc. ... And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.

I think he's got a fairly reasonable point here. Books then weren't what they are now, with the references and all.

Anyhow, it doesn't feel all to relevant. My issue is that with user-friendliness, you attract incompetent people who should in the ideal case be kept far away from anything of importance. Not that user-friendly software is bad unto itself. If you would, for instance, ban stupid people from using semiconductors, there wouldn't be all of these problems.

User-friendliness never caused any of the negatives you are complaining about, and the positives you are extolling never existed.

the vast number of people who where using computers in the early 80's had enough wherewithal to be able to read the instructions to install and run their software, but rarely trawled anything outside of that. Those knew how to program where rare, adept administrators ever rarer.

Well, this seems like common sense. Surely, if you need less skill to operate computers, then less skilled people will use them? And if UX improvements have marginal returns, so that less skilled people get more out of them, which intuitively seems true - consider old people or kids - they couldn't find the start menu on a computer, but their phones they can play around with all day without much issue, whereas technologically skilled people tend to not have much trouble with either, and accomplish about as much (not to say less) with their phones as computers, despite the former being more user-friendly - then it stands to reason UX improvements get you more incompetent people.

How didn't it cause said negatives? Of the people who used computers in the 80's, they sure were far more knowledgeable than the people who used them in the 90's, who in turn were far more knowledgeable than those who used them in the 00's, who in turn... you get the point.

With lowering barriers to entry, you get a lower and lower quality clientele. That is all. My main point is NOT that software that's easier to use makes people dumber, although that might be the case too at the extremes.

I mean, this goes for everything. Like with the case where Youtube made their pages load faster, and then they noticed average page load time was going up. How come? Because then they got people from rural Siberia who could suddenly use it, and they dragged down the average. And on a similar tone, go on any famous Instagram person's page and look at the comments. You know what I mean. Those people sure aren't experts with the computers, even if that's what they'd put on Quora.

Posted by tomman
I'm well aware of the fact that "user friendly" can be a double edged sword.

At one end, without user friendly systems and applications, personal computers might as well have never happened, we would not have cellphones, online banking, credit/debit cards, videogame consoles, media players, or any of the modern electronics we love. Computers would belong to a few institutions, where only a few select would be allowed to use them. This leads us to the "graybearded sysadmin" scenario some of us particularly hate.

Let's analyze the scenario in full: if it's indeed only used by people with degrees from (good) universities, then surely the average skill level should be through the roof. So that's not entirely a downside.

At the other end... we get the smartphone generation, where a few "disruptive entrepreneurs" took user friendliness to the extreme, dumbing down to the point of uselessness, trying to cater to that mass of population to which computers and electronics are little more than tools to achieve something, without considering consequences or side effects. The extreme who got us diseases like social networks and advertising, and yes, that's another scenario some of us really hate.

Well, this just continues the same development, it's not a flip side of anything, just the eventual progression it has to end up at if UX improvements continue.

Extremes are bad, but that's not excuse to condemn user friendliness on principle. I will never use cellphone crapps beyond the basics, but that doesn't mean I'll ditch web browsers and move to Lynx/Elinks (I like watching my porn pretty images and stylesheets, thanks) or become a "get off my lawn" grumpy man. What we need is fresh blood WITH RATIONAL IDEAS ("old" doesn't have to mean "museum grade", but "we can take advantage of what we have"). None of this "cellphone revolution in the Valley", but also definitely none of this "the BSD way is the only true way" elitist stuff. Too bad taking sensible decisions these days is highly frowned upon all across the board...

Well, let's put it this way. The share of fresh blood with rational ideas is going to be about the same as the share of young people who use computers who are any good at them. So if more stupid people can use them - the end result of any UX improvements - that'll go down. If it's at 0%, software will be K-selected - "large body size, long life expectancy, and the production of fewer offspring," and if it's at 100%, software will be r-selected - "high fecundity, small body size, early maturity onset, short generation time, and the ability to disperse offspring widely".

At which end of the spectrum are we today, where were we ten, twenty, thirty years ago, and whither are we heading? The driving cause of this development is lowering barriers to entry, and they must be raised again.

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-31, 01:57
Post: #68 of 144
Since: 11-01-18

Last post: 11 days
Last view: 2 hours
Posted by sureanem
How didn't it cause said negatives?


Easy. your entire post is nothing but a logical fallacy.

cause I can summarize your entire point very succinctly: its all been downhill since the Cotton Gin.
Posted on 19-07-31, 12:22
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #546 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 170 days
Last view: 169 days
Posted by funkyass
Easy. your entire post is nothing but a logical fallacy.

cause I can summarize your entire point very succinctly: its all been downhill since the Cotton Gin.

That's a bit rude, to claim it's a logical fallacy to say anything at all has gone downhill, don't you think? I would think it is possible for things to have been better before, even if it's not always the case.

The claim here is very simple, it's not just some "they don't make computers like they used to back then" tripe.
1) If computers are easier to use, more stupid people can and do use them.
2a) Programmers are drawn from the pool of users.
3a) Stupid programmers make bad software.
or
2b) Programmers develop software in accordance with the wishes of the users, as determined by the market. (in economic terms, in accordance with the wishes of the market)
3b) Stupid people want bad (e.g. r-selected) software and furnish for the requisite financial incentives. (e.g. pay for it, either directly or indirectly)

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Posted on 19-07-31, 12:33
Custom title here

Post: #597 of 891
Since: 10-30-18

Last post: 15 hours
Last view: 25 min.
User is online
We get it. You are an elitist prick. You don't have to keep driving it home.

--- In UTF-16, where available. ---
Posted on 19-07-31, 14:37
Post: #6 of 20
Since: 11-08-18

Last post: 40 days
Last view: 21 days
Posted by tomman
a whole bunch of old/simple games still on sale [on Steam] will still run on XP on a P4 with some RAM and a GPU with non-braindead drivers


No they won't. Because the vast majority of games won't start if Steam isn't running, and Steam no longer supports Windows XP.

Am I being pedantic? I actually think this is super sucky. When the future's retro-PC enthusiasts try to run their Steam purchases, they'll discover that their game collection no longer works.

It gets a bit worse. I don't think there are any games on Steam that are only compatible with Windows XP, but presumably newer versions of Windows will also get cut someday. Is every game available on Steam compatible with the newest release of Windows? How long before some games become unplayable?

DRM sucks, and Steam is DRM. I wish gamers who would otherwise rail against DRM schemes weren't so accepting of Steam. Sorry for the tangent.
Posted on 19-07-31, 15:57 (revision 1)
Stirrer of Shit
Post: #547 of 717
Since: 01-26-19

Last post: 170 days
Last view: 169 days
Posted by CaptainJistuce
We get it. You are an elitist prick. You don't have to keep driving it home.

Well, that's a bit rude, but it's also an accurate characterization of my beliefs.

I thought you weren't bullish on the smartphone/webapp trend. Et tu, capitanee?
Posted by Wowfunhappy
No they won't [run]. Because the vast majority of games won't start if Steam isn't running, and Steam no longer supports Windows XP.

... When the future's retro-PC enthusiasts try to run their Steam purchases, they'll discover that their game collection no longer works.

... How long before some games become unplayable?

DRM sucks, and Steam is DRM. ...

Aren't there one-size-fits-all no-Steam patches anyway?

As long as you have the actual games preserved, you can sort out getting them to run properly later on. Not as if all copies of Windows XP will disappear any time soon, or as if the DRM is very strong.

I mean, DRM isn't DRM. It's not like all of these games are shipping with Denuvo, or worse. And if they do, you can just wait a few years and then download them off of The Pirate Bay into your collection when someone eventually cracks it. Which I won't think should be possible for so long anymore with always-online DRM. But when it does, it won't be Steam who are to blame for the development.

(It's curious why nobody did that yet - Denuvo made them mad stacks, and hardly anyone plays offline anyway, so if they merge DRM and anti-cheat in one then they'll kill two birds with one stone, and as a bonus get really nice facilities for A/B testing, analytics, and whatnot - it's also far cheaper and more effective)

EDIT: were -> weren't

There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.
Pages: First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last
Main » Discussion » Ubuntu: x86_32 is dead because WE SAY SO!
you need to wake up michael