That is very impressive! Although to be honest I question the accuracy of all those estimated power draws. I would be interested to see an endurance test of your battery- assuming your battery capacity is accurate, your runtime on a full charge should line up with your power draw.
Obligatory: "Use Debian instead of Ubuntu. It's basically Ubuntu without Snap."
Mostly yes but there are functional differences in convenience. For example the standard upgrade process is completely manual. You have to disable third party repos. You have to change the repos. You have to check if you have space. You have to remove obsolete oackages. And more. On Ubuntu, the software update tool does all that, eliminating a lot of possibility for error. To an exoerienced user, the Debian process is fine. A novice would have plenty of opportunity for frustration and pain.
What? Software Center is GNOME, not Ubuntu. Discover is KDE, not Ubuntu. Debian updates can be done the same way? I don't do any of the things you mention. Using SC or just apt upgrade works just fine.
They're talking about a Debian 12 -> Debian 13 upgrade
On Debian, you get release notes on what commands to run.
Ubuntu has their own software update utility, separate from Software Center or Discover, that runs the commands for you
Ahhh OK. I've always gone fresh for a full upgrade. But does apt dist-upgrade not work? That's what the docs say to do.
You have to at least modify your sources.list.d manually first. For most people, updating sources.list.d and running full-upgrade will probably work fine...
The full instructions are
It takes like an hour? but it's still not "just press okay."
Ubuntu's has broken on some upgrades for friends and they had to do the whole Debian process manually, but it does try to automate the removals, disablements, and updating sources
it was always wild to me back in the day when so many container images were based on ubuntu… was like PLEASE debian is functionally identical here at like 1/10th the base container size!
It has much slower release cycle and ancient kernel. For people with new hardware it's not suitable.
Unless you prototype in a cpu fab it does not matter, debian 13 came out last week and its kernel is not that old
Bullshit
This is why Backports exists. You can get any newer packages or kernels you need by enabling it.
And Ubuntu LTS doesn't go much farther ahead than base Debian.
A great way to brick your system and enter the package versionning conflict hell
If you need to rely on back ports to have day to day function of HARDWARE. Then your OS is not suitable to your use case. Backport reliance should not be the norm for your avg user.
I disagree, since this is why Backports was made. That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
At that point why not just run a rolling release? Debians whole selling point is stability which backports kinda ruins.
I would argue that backporting one package does not ruin everything. If you backport a lot of stuff, then I would agree that it changing distrio to something more up-to-date should be considered because of the increase of potential problems.
Pop_os
I prefer "ubuntu without the bullshit"
Your entire backlight is only 3w? I feel like my phone is over 3w.
You can use the Wattz app to monitor current/power flowing into/out of the battery on some Android phones. Yes, 3 W is about the average in normal use. Unfortunately you cannot gauge the power consumption while charging unless you have a USB wattmeter too: the system only measures battery current because it's required for battery capacity/percentages.
Honestly it's a little staggering how much better web video got after the W3C got fed up with Flash and RealPlayer and finally implemented some more efficient video and native video player standards.
<video> was a revolution.
I remember, that was a dramatic change.
Also, most people now dont remember this, but YouTube was initially popular because their flash video player was efficient, worked acrossed many different system configurations and browsers and dynamically changed resolution to match your connection.
At that point you had some people with broadband connections and a lot more with dial-up. So often dial-up users would not be able to watch videos because they were only available in one resolution.
YT had 144p (or less!) videos ready for dial-up users and higher resolution videos for broadband users and it automatically picked the appropriate video for the client. This made it so most people (dial-up users) would look to YT first, because you knew that YT would have a video that you could actually watch.
Then Google bought them.
I forget that people still had dial up in mid 2000s, I always associate it with the 90s
YouTube blew up the year I went to college and got access to a T3 line. 🤤 My school had pretty robust security, but it was policy-based. Turns out, if you are on Linux and can't run the middleware, it would just go "oh you must be a printer, c'mon in!"
I crashed the entire network twice, so I fished a computer out of the trash in my parents' neighborhood, put Arch and rtorrrent on it, and would just pipe my traffic via SSH to that machine. :p
Ah, and the short era of iTunes music sharing... Good memories.
Yeah, my high school had a computer lab donated by Cisco to teach their CCNA course. There were like 2 students taking the class and 25 PCs, so we setup one to run WinMX, Kazaa and eDonkey.
They all had CD-RW drives. We were minting music and movie CDs (divx encoded SD movies were under 650MB so they would fit on a CD), and selling them on campus for $3-5. You could get a 100 blank cd-rs for around $40, so it was very profitable.
I've seen 10-12W easily on 4K for soc without av1. your soc (intel 11 gen) should support av1. try to play the video on mpv (with yt-dlp integration) with various hw acceleration options to see if it changes. probably your browser is software decoding.
for hardware decoding supported soc too I noticed 2-3W of extra power usage when playing youtube from website compared to mpv or freetube. the website seems doing inefficient js stuffs but I haven't profiled it.
Av1 will probably increase power usage. It's made to reduce data consumption
Is that good or bad? What cpu? How big is the screen? What encoding?
It's a Framework with 11th gen Intel i5. I've never seen it below 11W while doing this. I don't recall the exact number I got in Debian 12 but I think it was in the 11-13W range. The numbers were similar with Ubuntu LTS which I used till about a year ago. Now I see 9-10W. The screen is 3:2 13". Not sure about the enconding but I have GPU decoding working in Firefox.
Not sure about the enconding
Right click on video -> Stats for Nerds
It's a youtube video so whatever youtube is these days. I tested with this M1 Macbook Pro and it was using about 7 watts so 3 watts more is pretty good for pretty much anything. I think my 12th Gen. laptop typically draws about 13-15 doing the same thing, but with a much dimmer screen.
Me with an older notebook that doesn't support av1 decoding: ðŸ˜
I wish there were more M.2 cards beyond just SSDs and wireless NICs. The idea of a small form factor PICe interface is underutilized and things like hardware codec accelerators can keep laptops with older processors usable with new standards for longer. It's sad how PCMCIA had an entire ecosystem of expansion cards yet we somehow decided that the much higher bandwidth M.2 is only for storage and networking. Hell, do what sound cards in the 90s/00s did and have M.2 SSDs specifically designed for upgrading older laptops that also have built in accelerators for the latest media standards. Hardware acceleration is energy efficient and can probably just be bundled into the flash controller like they're bundled into the processor, and unless you have a top of the line SSD you're probably not saturating the M.2 interface anyway.
capitalism underutilizes tech and its sad. we could be in 2085 already if we didn't just waste time and materials on shit made to be thrown away in a few years.
There's a browser extension called "Your Codecs." which can prevent YouTube from serving you AV1-encoded videos.
What cpu architecture is this?
x86_64
ngl I expected to be ARM cause of the low power usage.
AMD has been proving that x86_64 can be at least as power efficient as ARM over the last few years (given a floor of performance for like a phone/laptop... I doubt it can get as low power as a little ARM microcontroller)
It seems like x86 was getting so power hungry because of Intel's laser focus on single core performance
Are there any good mini PCs with AMD CPUs for low spec/power? Only really aware of intel N150s
Thats pretty cool actually, Balance between performance and power efficiency.
intel held the industry back big time for at least a decade.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
