Ardour !

Kodi https://kodi.tv/

Glad you find something of interest in my comment.

Well, it’s true. I’m open to suggestions, feel free to share.

So go vote, be in unions, call your representative about these matters.

This should be how the message ends.

Seafile

Faster, cleaner ans lighter. It’s faster because it’s lighter. It’s lighter because it’s made to be efficient rather than selling stuffs to you. It’s cleaner because it can delete its temp files by itself, something windows still doesn’t want to do.

deleted by creator

DaVinci is better, but it also provides licence for life. So it’s proprietary but have a good relationship with the customers.

‘Generally’ is a really wide word. Better for what? For who? When? That’s the all question…

deleted by creator

Audacity can have multiples inputs. If it can receive sound from one usbc-c it should receive two…

I would suggest to work with a proper sound card and standard mics rather working with USB mic you won’t be able to use for anything else.

Sanitarium.

Yes that can be difficult some time.

But it’s really mandatory to anyone wanting to use GNU/Linus.

The main challenge is resisting the urge to install Linux on your own. Because you will need help at some point, so start now by asking for help.

And then, when you don’t find the solution by yourself don’t waste time and ask for help.

In time you will get it enough to know what you’re doing.

Unless everyone have an instance near home :) which is the case for me on Peertube, didn’t checked for Lemmy though. I should check when I can. But for this to happen we need instances. Small, large, run by people, associations, communities, whatever.

Yes encoding is still a thing, but less analysis, online editing bullshit and advertising. So yeah Peeture is lighter than YouTube ;)

I agree that strict efficiency could be hard to tell on video diffusion only.

Google loves making new hardware/tech, but yeah they’re not the only one to blame on this…

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

Yes, but it doesn’t mean low tech hardware should always be replace by new ones.

I honestly doesn’t understand why everybody here seems to think efficiency=ecology. Mass manufacturing new hardware have a big ecological impact. As I said before things aren’t magically replaced by better ones. Old unused tech ends up burning in pile in Africa or Asia.

What’s the point of using things like YouTube that keeps promoting 4k (needs for better screen), instant access, streaming over download, advertising, things that have a judge ecological impact.

Here is the study : https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4238589?sommaire=4238635 It’s in French, I didn’t find something in English (maybe in the IPCC studies ). 47% of digital impact comes from users terminals (mostly from smartphone manufacturing).

I agree with you, but YouTube is also a big part of the incentive of building more and more new hardware. Plus as I said before YouTube isn’t just for hosting videos but also metrics tools, content id, advertising, editing tools and such… All this needs also power to run.

Did you have any data regarding packet distribution on google services? Last time I checked (about 4/5 years ago) an email send from a gmail to a gmail traveled about 1,5 of the earth size. Which is a lot for 2 laptops side by side in the same room.

Lastly you’re trying to make this a debate only on the tech aspect but it is not. They are ethical points at stake and they are equally important I think.

There are tubes nonetheless, under the Atlantic ocean for instance… But I agree.

The major economic impact of the digital is making new teminal. The second is the streaming. I can find the scientific research about that if you like.

With this in mind, you are telling me that a streaming software running with potential low tech hardware and using p2p (allowing for packet to NOT travel 3 times around the world before reaching destination) will not be better for the environment than a centralised video system running 4k formats and advertising everywhere?

Again, maybe I’m missing something here. And yes hardware running uses power, yes datacenter are more power efficient (I already talked about that in the thread).

Less efficient? How?

And I’m pretty sure I didn’t say less work was done.