17 Mar
2010
17 Mar
'10
4:32 a.m.
On 17 March 2010 10:31, Philipp <hollunder(a)lavabit.com> wrote:
Excerpts from Stephen Stubbs's message of
2010-03-17 02:23:56 +0100:
Oo 10 years..yeah that could work. I'm not a frequent update either,
but anyway a little guesstheomatical fun:
Let's just assume that over the last 30 days, there were 200MB of
updates per client. Not a very big number, and not very small either,
and so should allow for a healthy average. That works up to 2,400MB
per annum, but assume that it is likely that a significant number of
clients would not have updated for a total of 60 days due to
schoolwork, officework, socialwork etc., so the end-of-year assumption
implies an even 2,000MB. A 10-year total would then be 20,000MB, or,
20GB.
Let's also assume that over the last 10 years global internet
bandwidth, including developing/third-world nations and their
respective socio-economical pricing plans, rose from a mere 56Kbps to
1024Kbps on the lowest end and 1024Kbps to 12228Kbps on the highest.
Here, we can say that in the following decade we can see 1024-12228
and 12228-102400, or developingNations(1Mbps,12Mbps) and
developedNations(12Mbps,100Mbps). Flawed, but probable in a layman's
opinion if we take into consideration regions continue to develop at
the same rate they have been for the past decade.
So downloading 20GB of updates after 10 years would mean it would take
1715 seconds (20971520/12228) or approx. 30 minutes on one end and 5
minutes on the other, rounded off to the nearest 5th. We must also
take into consideration that there may have ben worthy news updates to
follow to avoid system breakage, so this assumption can be 6 major
articles a year, meaning one would have to read through 60 articles
after 10 years.
## Conclusion ##
Assuming the average schooling and working Archer reads 10 articles a
day, it would take approx. 7 days or a week (inclusive of the
less-than-half-hour pacman -Syyu) to overcome this updating feat.
The size of updates may have been bigger at 200GB, and the amount of
articles may have been 100 (although http://www.archlinux.org/news/
will provide a more informed average for 8 years).
That, is the conlcusion of a best-case scenario. I didn't have
anything better to do, I have the flu since this morning.
--
GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD
From: A. C. Censi <accensi(a)gmail.com>
Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 2:26:36 PM
http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/36698-from-windows-to…
From Windows to Linux: a sound decision
Beasley's set-up:
Arch Linux system custom 2.6.31,6-rt19 kernel with RT preemption
============================
Thanks for posting this article. It's allowed me to start using Jack and Rosegarden
again.
Last November 20th or so (it's why I went totally silent, Oleg), an update came down
from Fedora 11 (I was also using Planet CCRMA repositories for audio). I only use the
stable repositories and I consequently trust all updates that come down from either Fedora
or Planet CCRMA.
That trust appears to have been misplaced.
For no readily apparent reason, I couldn't start Jack anymore. Time was extremely
short for me. I tried the suggested fixes in the Jack error log output, but it didn't
solve the problem. I next tried Fedore 12 and must have gotten the same update, since
Jack wouldn't start with the same error messages as I got under Fedora 11. I've
gone from then until Sunday, March 14th, without Jack, Ardour, and Rosegarden.
On Sunday I installed Arch Linux. No problems, except for searching the Wiki Forum to
find out the port number needed to get my network printer server recognized so I could
print under Arch Linux. I got that fixed yesterday.
I'm now running:
without PulseAudio (oh what joy!)
ALSA version 1.0.22, release 1 (if I've read that correctly from the PKGBUILD
script)
Jack version 0.116.2, release 1
qJackCtl version 0.3.6, release 1
Ardour version 2.8.7, release 1
Rosegarden version 10.02, release 1
Audacity version 1.3.11beta, release 1
The other thing I like about Arch Linux is that it doesn't automatically check for
updates, and it doesn't try to push updates on you. Now that I have a system running
the way I want, I can leave this system as is for the next 10 years if I wish and there
won't be any broken programs due to buggy updates. Oh what joy, again!
For What It's Worth,
Stephen.
I'm very glad Arch Linux works well for you, but I do have a word of
warning: If you plan to update Arch Linux in ten years you're likely to
run into lots of issues ;)
It really is designed for quite frequent updates, but if you're
selective and know what you're doing you should be fine for a while.
The point is that you're in control, you have to decide. Most of the
time the decisions are easy, but if you stick with a version of a
certain program and you need to re-compile the app because one of the
underlying libs had a so-name bump, then you could run into issues.
It's all about what you choose to do. And with passing time the required
effort might grow.
That all may sound a bit negative but I'm a very happy Arch user as well
and I'm very glad that it works out for you.