[DONE] Boron suggestions

rbh · 2023-09-29 22:18:14

rbh wrote:

Maybe we should use "inxi -xx" at least?

@johnraff, I still think it is a good idea with inxi -xxx or -xx. Are you not sharing it, as you haven't implement it?

johnraff · 2023-09-30 04:30:49

Quotes are more easily checked out if accompanied by links. You mean this post?
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 47#p129147

If so, it was a discussion about hw-probe, and your comment about inxi came right at the bottom, like an afterthought, in brackets:

(Maybe we should use "inxi -xx" at least?)

Even then the meaning was not clear, and anyway it didn't look urgent.

Are you talking about the menu item "Quick System Info"?
https://github.com/BunsenLabs/bunsen-co … d.csv#L137
https://github.com/BunsenLabs/bunsen-co … d.csv#L139

If so it would be very easy to replace -x with -xx or -xxx
I compared the results and the difference is quite small, although I wonder how useful the extra data is to first-time users. The title is "Quick..." after all, and anyone can open a terminal if asked to do so and run a suggested inxi command.

Anyway I have no particular objection to changing the inxi command line in the menu. The original code was proposed by another developer and I implemented it as it was because it seemed to work well.

I don't think this is such an important change, but now that you've mentioned it (if you are indeed talking about the menu item) I'm quite happy to do it.

As you are well aware, we are all volunteers here, including both me and you, and we work on issues that we find useful and important. People who want to move a change up the priority list are advised to work on making it easier for others (who might not care so much) to implement. One way to do that is to find the relevant code on GitHub (I linked it for you above) and file a Pull Request. There's no need to do that now because I have already searched out what I think you are talking about, but it is a suggestion if you want to see faster results in the future.

An even simpler way is to start a new forum topic on the change you want, to separate it from the ongoing discussion.

johnraff · 2023-10-01 07:29:20

Add RAM and CPU to default conky?

It does bulk the conky height up a bit, but I always find it useful to see if the CPU is busy or RAM is full when the computer seems to freeze.

Opinions? Just a lightweight suggestion...

hhh · 2023-10-01 08:17:35

^ Yes, that's good. I only omitted it because... 1) Once the system is set up and stable the way one wants it, the info is superfluous, and... 2) The RAM info is usually inaccurate, or at least it used to be.

lxtask is my preferred system monitor, it's simple, accurate and easy on the eyes. htop we already include, I use it for more detailed analysis.

johnraff · 2023-10-02 01:57:02

1) Superfluous? For me, to run the computer without seeing current RAM and CPU use would be like driving without a speedometer and tachometer. Sure it's perfectly possible but just feels uncomfortable. And sometimes a glance at the RAM will tell you whether you'd better shut down one of the VMs you've got open, or a few Firefox tabs...

This isn't what I'm (tentatively) suggesting here, but I use a custom conky on the top left that's always visible:
(and a network monitor on the right)

2) About the RAM being inaccurate, I think that discussion is pretty much over. What conky used to show is now considered too low. inxi, top and free show the new high value while htop, neofetch and lxtask are still low. Anyway, all I want to know is if my RAM is in danger of running out or not, nothing more than that.

BUT, but, but... this is very much a personal preferences thing. Conky without RAM and CPU at the top looks cleaner.

Let's see if anyone else has an opinion here.

Last edited by johnraff (2023-10-02 01:59:42)

Sector11 · 2023-10-02 03:17:57

Unlimited up|down on net so not really worried about that.
As for RAM - are you talking Conky's 'mem' commands?
I have 16G conky reports 15.6G
In use: 1.78G
Amount of free (including easy free cache etc = 13.9G
Free Mem : 11.3G (15.6 - 1.78 does not = 11.3G) Hmmmmm
% in use 11%

I just don't bother anymore.

Temps I do concern myself with and CPU usage (Avg)
The rest is eye candy.

or1o9 · 2023-10-02 03:59:22

I am ok with both alternatives really. I never have 8 different tasks going on at the same time so I do not need it, max 3. So that makes me quite a light user I guess. On the other hand I do think that the default conky is so discreet and blend in very well that it is of no concern if it should end up a little bit bulkier. If it is too much, one can just edit it, or make a switch to something lighter.

If I have to choose, I say with CPU and RAM.

johnraff · 2023-10-02 05:20:52

Sector11 wrote:

As for RAM - are you talking Conky's 'mem' commands?

Yes.
Currently this (but commented out in the default file) atm:

RAM:${alignr}${mem} / ${memmax}

or this for people who want to see the low figure:

RAM:${alignr}${legacymem} / ${memmax}

I have 16G conky reports 15.6G

Some of these small discrepencies might be because of the difference between decimal and binary Mega. Hardware suppliers usually use decimal because the figure is a bit bigger. A lot of software uses binary (or lets you choose).

I just don't bother anymore.

I don't care about the details, I just want to know if I've got enough. As you approach 100% usage I guess all the methods converge again anyway. I've got 8GB (or 7.65GiB) and, with a small VM and a couple of Firefox tabs open, already running 5.67 GiB in use according to Conky. Enough to say it might be better to shut down that VM if I want to open another one.

unklar · 2023-10-03 12:19:03

johnraff wrote:

Add RAM and CPU to default conky?
It does bulk the conky height up a bit, but I always find it useful to see if the CPU is busy or RAM is full when the computer seems to freeze.
https://i.imgur.com/B8VNZ70m.png
Opinions? Just a lightweight suggestion...

Exactly! Do it like this

Last edited by unklar (2023-10-03 12:21:19)

or1o9 · 2023-10-12 03:11:02

Default conky, the somewhat bulked up in height, looks fine in my opinion. I will keep it like that.

grubernd · 2023-10-23 10:11:21

I think it's nice to see RAM, CPU and disk usages for those who do not completely replace the conky.conf with their own.

Personally I prefer the bars for CPU and RAM and disks because they are much more helpful. My regular machines have 12, 32 and 64GB of RAM so being reminded when I am killing my laptop with a few memory hogging tasks is always nice.

And yes, my conky.conf is a little more involved, including several scripts for graphics tablet, weather and mounted drives. Sorry, still running Beryllium on that machine:

walter · 2024-01-04 20:50:01

Obvious to late for Boron but maybe for Carbon;

A couple of months ago I discovered the browser Thorium.
https://thorium.rocks/

I have the impression this is a fairly obscure browser. It is a version of Chromium.

They claim they are the fastest browser. I do not know of that but indeed it is fast.
I have done the https://browserbench.org/Speedometer2.1/ test on a couple of browsers and for me it was the fastest.

It is something obscure but at the same time for the world you are just an other Chrome user. And the extensions work. No issues of websites being broken.

IMHO Thorium would be a good fit for BunsenLabs.

A niche Linux distro targeted to be fast and lean and a niche but also mainstream browser (for the server) that is also fast and lean.

As default browser or in the menu for for easy suggested install.

Last edited by walter (2024-01-04 20:50:27)

Döbbie03 · 2024-01-05 03:13:56

Yeah I don't think Thorium Browser is the way to go. A one man band that maintains a browser is not a good thing to use as a default. Plus there has been a couple of issues with "easter eggs" in Thorium, namely Furry porn and links to anti-circumcision sites. Not things that should be associated inside a browsers code.

Personally, Firefox is really the best way to go.

or1o9 · 2024-01-05 04:04:33

Dobbie03 wrote:

Personally, Firefox is really the best way to go.

Indeed it is.

johnraff · 2024-01-05 06:53:07

Hi Walter, thanks for the suggestion to introduce Thorium.

Web browsers are a very important part of the desktop, and because they are in constant contact with the internet, a major path for attackers to get in. Debian basically recommend only Firefox and Chromium: https://www.debian.org/releases/stable/ … r-security Those two are available from the Debian repositories and get regular security updates.

BunsenLabs ships Firefox by default. We make an exception for the "lite" package list (used on the 32bit iso) which comes with a patched version of dillo. That's a slightly less safe option, but dillo is very minimal - for example it has no javascript support at all - which makes it a small target. It's good enough for searching documentation, but many users will install Firefox anyway, even on old machines which can barely support it.

By contrast, Thorium seems to have been compiled for modern processors, which rules it out for old machines. Web searching will show some other issues which came up. Although it looks like a legitimate project, there is only one main developer. I don't think a web browser is a something that should be left in the hands of a very small dev team (again, some concern about dillo).

So let's wait a while and see how the project goes.

walter · 2024-01-05 09:14:44

@Dobbie03 @johnraff
Thanks for explaining why it is not a good idea.

I understand. - It was just that I like Thorium & wanted to share that.

Now I need to go looking for those furry porn easter eggs :-)

Last edited by walter (2024-01-05 09:25:28)

Sector11 · 2024-01-05 13:25:58

walter wrote:

@Dobbie03 @johnraff
Now I need to go looking for those furry porn easter eggs :-)

grubernd · 2024-01-06 05:10:20

Dobbie03 wrote:

Personally, Firefox is really the best way to go.

Fully agree.

There is also a larger issue at play. Currently there are only two serious web-engines left for general usage:

Webkit and Gecko.

Since Firefox/Gecko is the only one not using Webkit every distro that uses Firefox as their default is a little fight against another monopoly. And until a unified browser engine under the umbrella of the Earth Nations Public Foundation¹ becomes a reality we need as much diversity as we can get.

For the little webdesign I do, I always design for Firefox and make sure the site is flawless then I look at Chrome and see what needs adjusting.

my2cts.

¹) one can dream, right?

Sector11 · 2024-01-06 17:28:38

grubernd wrote:

my2cts.
¹) one can dream, right?

Dreamers are the ones that give us hope.

Döbbie03 · 2024-01-06 18:20:06

grubernd wrote:

Dobbie03 wrote:
Personally, Firefox is really the best way to go.
Fully agree.
There is also a larger issue at play. Currently there are only two serious web-engines left for general usage:
Webkit and Gecko.
Since Firefox/Gecko is the only one not using Webkit every distro that uses Firefox as their default is a little fight against another monopoly. And until a unified browser engine under the umbrella of the Earth Nations Public Foundation¹ becomes a reality we need as much diversity as we can get.
For the little webdesign I do, I always design for Firefox and make sure the site is flawless then I look at Chrome and see what needs adjusting.
my2cts.
¹) one can dream, right?

I'm on the same page, aside from using Firefox from day dot, the current Chromium Monopoly is why I stick with FF. Plus it works how I like and I can customise it to how I want it to look as well. Not to mention the about:config tweaks.

Five reasons for me to stick with Firefox

#81 2023-09-29 22:18:14

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#82 2023-09-30 04:30:49

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#83 2023-10-01 07:29:20

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#84 2023-10-01 08:17:35

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#85 2023-10-02 01:57:02

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#86 2023-10-02 03:17:57

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#87 2023-10-02 03:59:22

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#88 2023-10-02 05:20:52

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#89 2023-10-03 12:19:03

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#90 2023-10-12 03:11:02

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#91 2023-10-23 10:11:21

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#92 2024-01-04 20:50:01

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#93 2024-01-05 03:13:56

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#94 2024-01-05 04:04:33

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#95 2024-01-05 06:53:07

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#96 2024-01-05 09:14:44

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#97 2024-01-05 13:25:58

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#98 2024-01-06 05:10:20

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#99 2024-01-06 17:28:38

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

#100 2024-01-06 18:20:06

Re: [DONE] Boron suggestions

Board footer