| 1 |
On Saturday 14 Jun 2014 23:57:43 Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 15/06/2014 00:20, Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I looked at how long some packages are taking these days. I noticed that |
| 4 |
> > firefox and chromium take a lot longer to emerge than was the case 3-4 |
| 5 |
> > years ago. For example: |
| 6 |
[snip ...] |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Your firefox example is very skewed - in the 3.x days firefox was really |
| 9 |
> just a front end thingie and the bulk of the code was in backend |
| 10 |
> packages (eg xulrunner). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Ahh! Yes, well spotted. I had forgotten about xulrunner, which was growing at |
| 13 |
an alarming rate as I recall. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Chromium is a good example, that one has grown *enormously* |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> And maybe your disks are tired too :-) . You do have hdparm results from |
| 19 |
> 4 years ago to compare? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I have not install hdparm on this laptop, thinking that I do not really need |
| 22 |
it for anything. Anyway, do disks spin slower with age? Even if their |
| 23 |
bearings theoretically wear out and eventually slow down, would this be |
| 24 |
perceptible? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What readings would I be comparing? hdparm -t and -T? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Regards, |
| 30 |
Mick |
Archives