On 1/4/25 21:14, Segher Boessenkool via cfarm-users wrote:
On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 10:25:11PM +, mirabilos via cfarm-users wrote:
In general I’d ask people who run longer-term jobs to nice(1)
them, and people who do builds that aren’t over in a handful
of minutes to limit parallelisation, so
On Sat, Jan 04, 2025 at 10:25:11PM +, mirabilos via cfarm-users wrote:
> In general I’d ask people who run longer-term jobs to nice(1)
> them, and people who do builds that aren’t over in a handful
> of minutes to limit parallelisation, so that those of us who
> do quick-shot interactive testin
On 1/4/25 16:52, Luke Dashjr via cfarm-users wrote:
[...]
Bitcoin itself is an important tool for freedom. We are in an era
where governments regularly abuse their power over currencies, and
even private banks and money transmitters regularly abuse their
position for financial censorship. It
Luke Dashjr wrote:
> If you need a source for some reason, feel free to quote me. You won't
> find anyone else more* qualified in the Bitcoin area.
Without this hint, I would not have guessed it:
Luke Dashjr apparently is "the co-founder of Ocean mining pool" [1].
Which means that he has persona
On 1/3/25 11:16 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Luke Dashjr wrote:
Bitcoin is in fact good for the environment, despite whatever FUD you
dig up on Wikipedia
You cannot make points in a discussion, by repeating wrong claims that
already have been shown to be misinformation. Wikipedia lists sources.
You
Luke Dashjr via cfarm-users dixit:
> Bitcoin is in fact good for the environment, despite whatever FUD you dig up
> on
> Wikipedia (which is where credibility is truly lacking). It enables green
> energy production where it otherwise couldn't be done or would normally
> require
> mixing with fos
Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users writes:
>Which is why I am looking for solutions that also give us conventions for
>"politely" running other jobs like CI or fuzzing,
Fuzzing is essentially identical to mining in terms of what it does to a host,
even if it's for good (non-klepto) purposes. I thi
Luke Dashjr wrote:
> Bitcoin is in fact good for the environment, despite whatever FUD you
> dig up on Wikipedia
You cannot make points in a discussion, by repeating wrong claims that
already have been shown to be misinformation. Wikipedia lists sources.
You don't.
> TEPCO is working on a circul
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 08:46:27PM -0500, Luke Dashjr via cfarm-users wrote:
> Bitcoin is in fact good for the environment, despite whatever FUD you
> dig up on Wikipedia (which is where credibility is truly lacking).
No, bitcoin is terrible for the environment. Pretending that is not
true is at
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 07:19:24PM -0600, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote:
> Which is why I am looking for solutions that also give us conventions
> for "politely" running other jobs like CI or fuzzing, so we get
> /something/ even if the end result is that the cfarm proves
> uninteresting
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 12:20:52PM +, Jonathan Wakely via cfarm-users wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 01:40 Jacob Bachmeyer, wrote:
> [...], and discriminating against some cryptocurrency project
> is fine because being a crypto-bro is not a legally protected
> characteristic.
Them's fighting wo
On 1/3/25 03:23, tkoenig--- via cfarm-users wrote:
Am 03.01.25 um 02:40 schrieb Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users:
> I have a philosophical view that idle time on servers is essentially
> wasted: a sunk cost.
In the age of TTL, ECL or even NMOS, that might have been true, power
usage was pretty
On 1/3/25 06:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 01:40 Jacob Bachmeyer, wrote:
On 1/2/25 03:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 02:55 Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users,
wrote:
On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bac
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025, 01:40 Jacob Bachmeyer, wrote:
> On 1/2/25 03:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 02:55 Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users, <
> cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> > On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-use
Am 03.01.25 um 02:40 schrieb Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users:
> I have a philosophical view that idle time on servers is essentially
> wasted: a sunk cost.
In the age of TTL, ECL or even NMOS, that might have been true, power
usage was pretty much independent of the computational load in
those
On 1/2/25 03:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 02:55 Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users,
wrote:
On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote:
>> Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable?
>
On 1/2/25 06:22, Jing Luo via cfarm-users wrote:
On 2025-01-02 16:12, Paul Eggert via cfarm-users wrote:
It's better to steer clear of this tarpit.
I also lean towards a total ban for reasons stated by multiple people.
But before cfarm-admins has a consensus/conclusion, as the maintainer
of
On 1/2/25 05:39, Martin Guy via cfarm-users wrote:
> It's better to steer clear of this tarpit.
+1
Its unenforcable unless we set up a full-time Stasi or individual
cfarm users decide to play vigilante;
just handle individual cases as and when they occur, as has happened
so gently and resp
On 2025-01-02 16:12, Paul Eggert via cfarm-users wrote:
It's better to steer clear of this tarpit.
I also lean towards a total ban for reasons stated by multiple people.
But before cfarm-admins has a consensus/conclusion, as the maintainer of
cfarm420~430, I would like to unilaterally enforce
> It's better to steer clear of this tarpit.
+1
Its unenforcable unless we set up a full-time Stasi or individual cfarm
users decide to play vigilante;
just handle individual cases as and when they occur, as has happened so
gently and respectfully this time.
After all, Munin will say when
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025, 02:55 Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users, <
cfarm-users@lists.tetaneutral.net> wrote:
> On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote:
> >> Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable?
> >
> > Not for mining
On 2025-01-01 18:54, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
I am suggesting allowing /testing/ "miner" software,
not /using/ it.
That's not a rule that we can enforce. There are countermeasures to any
practical enforcement mechanism, including the mechanisms you suggested.
It's better to steer clear of this
On 1/1/25 19:23, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote:
Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable?
Not for mining, no. It would still consume resources that are better
used for cfarm's intended purposes.
The intention is to limi
On 2025-01-01 16:32, Jacob Bachmeyer via cfarm-users wrote:
Perhaps a combination of nice(1) and ulimit(1) would be suitable?
Not for mining, no. It would still consume resources that are better
used for cfarm's intended purposes.
I would suggest ... making very clear that "mining" for pr
On 1/1/25 17:25, Gregor Riepl via cfarm-users wrote:
We want nothing at all to do with any of it (well, I don't, at least),
even if not all of it is directly against the rules, does not violate
acceptable use directly: it is just distasteful.
The cfarm is supposed to be used for developing (whic
25 matches
Mail list logo
