That’s interesting. I have the opposite effect—X11 always had jank and latency, to the point that it drove me to windows for a couple of years.

This is with multiple monitors on Nvidia’s, all of which support vsync. Disabling that did help, but why would I want to?

Wayland, currently, is butter smooth.

It's faux smoothness caused by the mandatory vsync. There's several frames of delay in Wayland which apparently you're not sensitive to

I’m sensitive enough that I bought 180Hz monitors.

People do get that wrong. But the corrected version is “you were supposed to die as a baby”, and…

That doesn’t sound any better.

>That doesn't sound any better.

It doesn't, because "it was so common to", as OP stated, is not the same thing as "you were supposed to". There's no reason it should be corrected, it's accurate.

The XL? Yes, but they also have an eight colour nozzle changer.

Respectfully disagree. The AGPL exists for that use case, and the difference is exactly that you need to distribute the changes.

If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.

For me, that means I use a mix of AGPL and MIT depending on project.

> If you license something under GPL, that necessarily means you’re okay with people making local changes and not sharing them. If you aren’t okay with that, then don’t use the GPL.

GPL has always meant you're okay with someone making local changes for their own internal use.

When it comes to servers, someone making a project this decade that uses GPL might be signalling they're okay with server code staying closed source. Or it might be other reasons, like the uncertainty over what code is covered by AGPL. And if a project is older, there's an increasing chance they didn't expect the current ecosystem and hate that the code is being used this way.

If you're building bridges, this shouldn't be a controversial statement. Same if you're building cryptography software.

It's debatable if the same should apply to the vast majority of software that is less critical.

It has always been a controversial statement.

How are you supposed to learn without doing? Who sets the bar for when you have achieved understanding?

And finally, in specific instances of creating front ends that are inclusive for users, I would argue that being willing to receive feedback and improve is vastly more important than getting it right on the first try.

Well, there's degrees of understanding, as well as degrees of seriousness of the project. You can also learn a lot by building something.

Some people are writing the Netflix homepage (where an outage costs millions of dollars), and some people are writing a blog for three readers.

That's not what I said, I said I likely understand it less than a 635B parameter LLM, and that using the LLM as a shortcut to that knowledge is something I'd consider perfectly acceptable. I might even become better at it through using the LLM.

You need a certain understanding to be able to judge whether the output is adequate. I think the argument is against people who lack that understanding.

Keep in mind these are two different things. Not all websites need to be accessible.

It increases the chance of solder cracks, which is one major cause of failure. Thermal cycles in general will do that, however, and home computers are designed to survive a lot of them.

So overall it’s not something I’d worry about.

Is it a local LLM? Sibling seems to be assuming remote, but I have trouble imagining a TUI that inefficient.

No. Simply the rest api call in opencode tui. I don’t know why maybe the mbp is too old, at least it served 6 years +.

Not counting compilation passes, the rest of OpenCode is trivial enough that it should work on a 1980s PC.

It’s just so weird.

I feel like that says more about them. Feeling good about the existence of something, or bad about its absence, does not count as evidence.

> Feeling good about the existence of something, or bad about its absence, does not count as evidence.

Isn't the inverse also true?

Sure, but nonexistence is the default. Has to be the default; most possible things do not exist. In this case we have no evidence for, so we stay with the default.

You're making the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody hears it" pontification? If so, I disagree with you.

Are they? And anyway, plenty of trees have been observed falling in the forest, and gravity in general. Not so many repeatable observations about divine beings, healing, etc.

Absence of evidence isn't proof of existence. Ultimately it's all about probabilities based what is known. Unlikely there is a blue teacup within Saturn's rings or a flying spaghetti monster.

I'd say there's a lot less evidence of god than a tree falling in the forest that nobody was there to see.

Doesn't that reduce to RJ45?

No. It's twin-axial. Think coaxial, but more axial.

How many PCIe lanes are you allocating?

The card is obviously 16-lane, but it also has two ports; 40Gb total. In a server that’s fine, but if you want 10G in a desktop you’ll have a problem.

I’m probably not telling you anything new. NICs using newer PCI generations are rare as hen’s teeth. It should be possible to do this with four lanes, but isn’t…

Unless you find a 25G dual-port card, in which case the single lane my secondary slots hand out does at least suffice for 10G one way.

PCIe is also a full duplex connection so 2x10G is still just 20G instead of 40G. For PCIe 2.0 an x8 connection should get you full bandwidth on both ports simultaneously while x4 will fall just short for simultaneously usage (but still higher than 1 port). Unless you're really hankering for that full 20G, in which case a 25G NIC is definitely the better pick, that means you can just slot it in an x4 slot off the chipset on even a standard desktop PC.

Funnily enough, if you want a dirt cheap PCIe 3.0 based card the MCX353A-QCBT and MCX354A-QCBT give 1/2 ports of 40G QSFP+. They support QSFP+ to SFP+ adapters, so you can plug a 10G SFP+ into the QSFP+ port, but they don't support 4x10G breakout unfortunately. I ended up using the 2 port variant in both of my NASes - one port is 40G between the 2 for dirt cheap fast backups and the other is adapted to 10G to connect to the rest of the home network.

I've started buying Intel E810s for most purposes, even for 10G links. (SFP28 ports are generally backward-compatible with SFP+ DACs and transceivers.) The ones you can get on eBay for cheap typically run Dell firmware but it's serviceable. An E810-XXVDA2 is Gen4 x8; as long as the host slot can physically accept the card connector you only need Gen4 x1 electrical for a single 10G link or Gen4 x2 for dual 10G or single 25G.

I'm only planning on using one of the SFP+ ports on each of the cards, the dual port cards were just more common and cheaper on eBay.

The specs say they require PCIe v2.1 x8 lane.

My Proxmox server is quite old and has a Gigabyte GA-X79-UP4 mobo and has loads of spare PCI slots. One slot is taken up by a generic graphics card as the Mobo has no on-board graphics. (I think I went for this mobo because of the number of SATA ports, but it was over 10 years ago so not entirely sure.)

My general Linux server is newer and has an ASUS Prime H610M-A D4 mobo. Only two PCI slots (not used at the moment) and so the Intel X540-DA2 will use up the PCIe 4.0 x16 slot leaving just a PCIe 3.0 x1 slot. But that's fine as this machine is just a CPU (i7-13700), 64GB RAM and a 2TB NVMe. Sticking a good graphics card in it for GPU related fun had been on my list for years but I never got around to it, now the prices are just insane so I'll ignore that for now or something second hand falls into my lap.