https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=500745
--- Comment #10 from John <ilikef...@waterisgone.com> --- (In reply to Harald Sitter from comment #9) > I suppose. I think we also need to keep in mind that in 10 years nobody > complained on those grounds. It's seems super contrived. Why do you need to keep in mind that in 10 years nobody complained about a specific problem or with some arguments? Is this some kind of "ad hominem" or similar to it argument? The problem reported by the reporter is not a real problem because nobody else before it complained about the same thing or with the same grounds? How would first reporters ever report their problem since nobody else complained about that or used the same grounds before? This kind of argument or consideration makes no sense to me. I cannot just not write a bug report for a problem that bothers me, just because no one else complained about it before and didn't do it with the same arguments. And I don't see what is "super contrived". I think it's pretty common that when somebody sees a bit more information about a CPU, besides the brand name and model name (which they can search together and see the vendor's page with all the information), if some information is displayed there already, after the brand name and model name, then the most important that most users want to see is the frequency and core numbers (maybe threads too aa as some can do HyperThreading and others can't). Personally I don't see anything here super contrived or even contrived at all. Windows, that is actually very user friendly and used on a lot more devices than Linux + Plasma, is not afraid to display the additional information: https://helpdeskgeek.com/wp-content/pictures/2017/09/system-information-cpu.png https://winaero.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/cpu-info-msinfo32.png https://www.partitionwizard.com/images/uploads/articles/2020/07/what-is-my-processor/what-is-my-processor-2.jpg Or like this (which I assume it's for dual-socket systems): https://www.earthslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/windows-10-about-settings.jpg Also, maybe people have not complained about this problem before because let's admit it, Linux in the past 10 years didn't had such a great market share. And distros with Plasma are not the most recommended ones, as Linux Mint and Ubuntu still have lots of recommendations. I think that similar to how people complain about things not being aligned, corners looking bad, pixes not being where they are supposed to be, things that I never noticed or cared about, I want to report the things that bother me, and lying about the hardware bothers me. Not displaying cores and threads bothers me too, but at least I can see them in the dedicated CPU page and it's not so bad. It's an extra click, but anyway. > If I the persona, that doesn't know much about a CPU, opens system monitor > they'll see it report 12 compute units. The about module reporting "12 × AMD > Ryzen 5 5600X 6-Core Processor" seems rather consistent in that regard and > easy to understand to the uninformed. "I have 12 doodads to do computer > work. If I upgrade I want more than 12 doodads." So the persona goes to the > computer person around the corner and asks them for an upgrade to more than > 12 doodads. The computer person will install a suitable piece of hardware, > after possibly offering the range of combinations that yield more than 12 > doodads total. Why are you comparing the "Hardware" section of the Info Center to the system monitor? Do you know that the system monitor, like pretty much any other resource monitor don't know anything about the hardware and just shows what Linux tells it to show? Want to compare the "Hardware" section of the Info Center with the proper software? Then do it with the firmware (UEFI / BIOS) because that's the only software that shows proper and accurate information about the hardware! I don't know what as to say except that it's very strange to me to let a bad way of displaying hardware information on the assumptions that the user must know 1 or 2 x $CPU actually means (sockets or cores or threads), it cannot possibly believe absurd numbers like 32 CPUs or that it will go with its computer to the computer person and there the misunderstanding will be fixed. What if the person has a desktop computer too heavy to carry it to the computer person so it will just order online a new CPU? Why can't we have more E-waste based on misunderstandings? I guess the eco.kde.org never thought that wrong / inaccurate information can lead to E-waste too. I didn't either until now. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
