SpaceCadet

joined 1 year ago
[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

ad blockers “infringe copyright by altering HTML elements on their sites”,

LOL that's like saying you're infringing copyright if you rip a page out of a book or magazine, or scribble some notes in it.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 31 points 3 months ago

They're already harvesting my data. The greedy fuckers can fuck right off if they think I'm going to pay a subscription for that. It's not as if Google isn't profitable as it is. They just want more, and it will never be enough.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 3 points 3 months ago

Pentium 2 and 3 had rudimentary protection. They would simply shutdown if they got too hot. Pentium 4 was the first one that would throttle down clock speeds.

Anything before that didn't have any protection as far as I'm aware.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 9 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That’s not true. It was just last year that some of the Ryzen 7000 models were burning themselves

I think he was referring to "back-in-the-day" when Athlons, unlike the competing Pentium 3 and 4 CPUs of the day, didn't have any thermal protections and would literally go up in smoke if you ran them without cooling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRn8ri9tKf8

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 24 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Why does that graph show Epyc (server) and Threadripper (workstation) processors in the upper right corner, but not the equivalent Xeons? If you take those away, it would paint a different picture.

Also, a price/performance graph does not say much about which is the superior technology. Intel has been struggling to keep up with AMD technologically the past years, and has been upping power targets and thermal limits to do so ... which is one of the reasons why we are here points at headline.

I do hope they get their act together, because we an AMD monopoly would just be as bad as an Intel monopoly. We need the competition, and a healthy x86 market, lest proprietary ARM based computers take over the market (Apple M-chips, Snapdragon laptops,...)

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 12 points 4 months ago

Yup, but that's already mentioned in the article. Thought I'd give people the exact userpref, so they can modify their custom user.js if they have one.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 39 points 4 months ago (3 children)

To disable:

user_pref("dom.private-attribution.submission.enabled", false);
[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago

I just booted up a Windows 2000 VM to check ... it's there in the disk management tool. It looks a bit weird with the drive icon in Explorer, but ok.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yeah, I believe that was introduced as far back as Windows 2000. It never really caught on though.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl -2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well keep dreaming then. If that is what keeping you on Windows, you will never leave Windows. Nobody in their right mind is ever going to create a new OS with drive letters.

/thread

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

The thing is, you are absolutely free to use a /c,/d,/e mounting scheme, but you are not shackled to it like you are in Windows. Personally I like to organize my data in one big root (/) file system on my NVME drive and then /data for my bulk storage on HDD and /nas for my NAS shares. I never have any problems knowing where my data is.

BTW, I notice all your complaints revolve around "OMG it's different" and "OMG the user can choose to do things differently... so complicated". That is kind of the point of Linux you know?

At some point you just have to accept that it's different and move on, or decide that it's too complicated for you and use something else.

BTW, I wonder why people never make this complaint about Apple devices? It also has a hierarchical file structure without drive letters, after all it is also a Unix variant.

[–] SpaceCadet@feddit.nl 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (9 children)

I know the filesystem is simple to Linux users, but the semantic form of physical drives getting a letter always made more sense to me.

That's one of the things that semi-experienced Windows users need to wrap their head around, but I strongly disagree that drive letters are somehow inferior to a hierarchical file system structure. I mean, the A:, B:, C: ... convention was originally just intended for the first IBM PC with 1 or 2 floppy drives. It was never intended to support complex storage configurations, whereas the hierarchical file system was designed for Unix systems that had to handle multiple magnetic drives from the start. It is a much more flexible system to organize your file storage.

On Linux, as best I understand it, if I have three drives, two of them are at /dev/hdd0 and hdd1. But they’re not actually there.

That's because there is a difference between a block device and a mounted file system. Windows just obscures that difference from you with its archaic drive mapping system.

All your block devices and partitions on your block devices will be in /dev with a meaningful name. You can list them with the lsblk command. If a partition contains a file system that Linux knows how to use, you can mount it anywhere you like.

they’re accessed at /media/hdd0 after mounting them

No that's not "convention" at all. Some desktop environments may decide to mount undefined drives there, but there really is no convention, ultimately you mount it where you want it to be mounted.

If you place an item in /home/documents/notporn, then who knows which drive it’s on because you don’t know what symlinks someone set up to make that folder.

If your unsure, df /home/documents/notporn should tell you exactly what drive it's on, but ultimately it's up to you to know how you've organized your storage.

BTW I've said this before, but Linux is probably harder for users who know Windows just well enough to be dangerous than it is for relative beginners, because there are so many concepts and things they take for granted that they have to unlearn.

view more: ‹ prev next ›