this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2025
281 points (98.0% liked)
Open Source
36179 readers
214 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, I'm not disagreeing with it being weird, my main point was to switch the weirdness towards battery use as nothing else matters.
And CPU doesn't bottleneck RAM usage.
As for use case (which again, I'm not disagreeing as my main point is "it wouldn't affect you in any way other than battery" + "they prob went with the cheapest option that still works, just like they did with CPU"), prob apps being fully in RAM and not swap, not closing old apps, etc. So like FF & 3 chat/social media apps (they all have inefficiently big libraries), a few store and service apps (for car/taxi/food delivery/etc), none need to leave RAM. Idk how to get to 32, but perhaps over 16.
And again I point out that it's just what they did for the project to survive, it's clearly frankensteined from the cheapest sensible parts. In your analogy the i3 with 32 or 128GB of RAM, if sold at the same price, will preform the same for most users.