3 ms·
And when do I want to `cat` 1GiB of text? I cannot process it with my human eyes, so what does it matter if the CPU rendering can keep up or not? cat 1_gb
by usrbinbash 5y ago
And when do I want to `cat` 1GiB of text?
I cannot process it with my human eyes, so what does it matter if the CPU rendering can keep up or not?
cat 1_gb_of.txt | less
Is what I want to do, and this is easily rendered even on older hardware.
- user-the-name 5y agoWhen you don't actually realise it is 1 GB before you cat it.
- usrbinbash 5y agoSo then I hit Ctrl-C and issue the correct command. How does a GPU based renderer improve on that use-case?
- ziotom78 5y agoBefore you press Ctrl+C and type the correct command, your neighbour running Kitty has already got the last line of the output (which is often the only thing that one really needs). I switched to Kitty because I felt that the increased speed produced a perceived improvement in my workflow.
- usrbinbash 5y ago>which is often the only thing that one really needs) tail 1_gb_of.txt ...will get the last line of output long before the rendering engine finished initializing. And it will probably do so even on a 10year old laptop with no GPU, in virtual console, while the system is running under load ;-)
- ziotom78 5y agoAs other said, sometimes you do not know that there is going to be a lot of output. In my case, I often save the time it takes to press Ctrl+C and add "tail" at the beginning of the previous command I see you posted the same comment again and again, every time asking for a possible use case, and when people provided you with theirs, you answered, «well, but I would…», with the tone of who is saying that mine is the only rightful way to do it. Well, it's not.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- user-the-name 5y agoIt improves it by me not having to press Ctrl-C and issue the correct command. Surely you can see how that is an improvement.