• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 5th, 2023

help-circle






  • I believe SSD’s don’t actually experience wear when reading data, only when writing. Loading more data from SSD’s shouldn’t cause any premature failure. Overwriting more data each update could cause the drive to fail slightly earlier, but if that’s really that big of a concern, you’d be best of moving to Debian stable (no updates means no SSD writes).

    If SSD wear prevention is really that big of a concern, you might be interested in profile-sync-daemon (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Profile-sync-daemon). It reduces writes to hard drives by keeping your browser profile in RAM, and only periodically syncing it to disk.

    Though I must add that SSD’s wearing out really isn’t that much of an issue with modern drives. With normal usage, a drive will become obsolete long before it actually wears out.


  • Not OP (OC? Not the person you were helping, you get what I mean), are you sure you meant df -h? fd -H seems more useful for to me when trying to find a specific file in a dotfolder, though even that didn’t work on my system. fd ignores ~/.config by default, so you need to use fd -u (which is an alias for fd -I -H) to find the correct files.

    Anyways, from your description it seems like the correct file would be ~/.config/kwinrc, which exists on my system.




  • Ah, it looks like we have a small misunderstanding. I thought you were talking about uncompressed video, which is enormous. This is only used in HDMI cables for example. A 1080p60 uncompressed video is 2.98Gbit/s, or about 1.22 terabytes per hour.

    A remux is “uncompressed” in the sense that it isn’t recompressed, or in this case transcoded. A remux is still compressed, just to a lesser degree than a transcode. This means the files are indeed larger, but the quality is also better than transcodes.

    To clarify the article’s confusing statement: they claim that remuxes can reduce size by throwing away some audio streams, while keeping the original video. This is true, but the video itself hasn’t gotten any smaller: you are simply throwing away other information.



  • The more you compress the longer and more CPU intensive it is to decompress

    I believe this is becoming less and less true with modern algorithms. Take for example ZSTD: while the compression speeds differs by several orders of magnitude between the fastest and slowest modes, the decompression difference is only about 20%. The same holds true for flac, where the decompression speed is pretty uniform across all compression levels.

    These algorithms probably aren’t used by repacked like fitgirl (so your answer is generally correct in the context of repacks). I do believe it is still interesting to see these new developments in compression techniques.