Aramo ISO Beta 4 (Dic 24 2022)
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
Right, if human resources is the limiting factor that is a reasonable and good answer, and makes sense. I was curious to understand if there were some other reason, like a philosophical concern or known technical problem that needs engineering help to resolve.
Turning the question around: is there some variant of Trisquel that could be dropped? How important is the Sugar variant? The upstream Sugar website looks dated.
Btw, is there a tracking bug for the Aramo release? If the list of known blocker issues were easily available, I would feel more inclined to see if any of them is something I could help with.
/Simon
When Linux headers are proposed for removal, the update manager informs the user that "the computer also needs to restart in order to finish installing previous updates", which is correct. However, the timing of the warning may let the user believe that the removal of the headers is going to trigger the system to restart immediately, while in fact the prompt to restart appears only after the headers have been removed, and the user can still choose to restart later.
Not sure how long this has been the case, I just noticed it now on Aramo. Here is a drawing of the situation, extracted from a 2019 Ubuntu wiki page:
Hi,
So, to tell my feedback about this beta release I'm using for a couple of days, I would start by it stability. One of the most satisfying things in Aramo is that it combine stability, and not just a little, with features with only a delay of few months from Ubuntu/Debian.
That I note is that I my CPU usage had drastically reduced since I started used it. To give numbers, I'm standing around 5~25% most of the time as in Trisquel 10 it had much peaks to 100% and was the rest of the time at ~60%. I also note major improvements with my GPU. Indeed this last months I had serious problems with it, becoming more and more difficult to launch some applications, notably games. Now, but of course it's not a miracle, I get fewer hangs from my GPU, even if sometimes I have to reboot, but I believe in futures patches.
About apps, I get less and less problems with Trisquel apps & forks, specially Abrowser which I left while I was using Trisquel 9 because of a lot of problems, for the benefit of Firefox, and now I went back to it it is much usable, even (sometimes) I get sort of "traces" of these problems, but it's not annoying anymore since it's rare. I can also say that KDE now uses less RAM (on Triskel), but it might be independent from Trisquel development.
Last, it might be a good thing to add a checkbox in the LiveUSB installer to choose if we could use other mirrors as archive.trisquel.org, as I was surprised to get an unknown mirror with much keys errors.
So, to conclude, it would be relevant to release Aramo in the next days, it has a perfect "LTS behaviour".
I'm standing around 5~25% most of the time as in Trisquel 10 it had much peaks to 100% and was the rest of the time at ~60%.
If the system is apparently doing nothing, it is abnormal to have a ~60% CPU usage (and a waste of energy): have you looked at which process was consuming that much? Maybe a Web page full of JavaScript...
When the system is asked to do something (to launch a large application, to display a 3D video game with as many FPS as possible, etc.), you actually want the CPU usage to peak: you did not buy a processor to never use it to its full potential.
Hi,
About 60%, I think it was due to hardware problems, because even with non-JS tabs opened, CPU usage was high of course).
About the peaks and "its full polential", of course I agree with that but the problem was that, even doing nothing, CPU usage was high. Now, with Aramo, I can sometimes see a 95% usage, but most of the time the jobs doesn't require that performance.
I hope you understood what I meant.
> I hope you understood what I meant.
I do. I currently get quite similar figures on Trisquel 11 Aramo, and used to get about the same on Trisquel 9 Etiona. I had no particular reason to upgrade to Nabia, so unfortunately I cannot tell you what these figures would have been, but while trying the live beta ISO I never noticed anything close to "60% most of the time".
Are you using the same edition now and for Trisquel 10?
My experience with both Trisquel 9 and Trisquel 10 has been remarkably low cpu usage. Sounds like it was probably hardware problems you ran into. What are some of your hardware specs?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios