Linux-Advocacy Digest #767, Volume #25 Thu, 23 Mar 00 06:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("Jim Ross")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("Jim Ross")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("Jim Ross")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (George Richard Russell)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QUESTION: Linux Multiprocessor management ("Martin Sinot")
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donal K. Fellows)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:14:49 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 17:10:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22 GMT, George Richard Russell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>Like spreadsheets? Gnumeric.
> >>>
> >>>Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta
testing,
> >>>and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
> >>
> >> Just how would the suites be any better now under Windows than
> >> they were in the 3.1 era. Why would someone necessarily want
> >> a spreadsheet that can satisfy all the bulletpoints of a 3.1
> >> era version of 123?
> >
> >Because a free stable and released spread sheet that is equivalent to Win
3.1
> >era spread sheets doesn't exist?
>
> That's nothing more than repeating an unsupported assertion.
> Repeating something over and over again doesn't, by itself,
> make something true.
Unless it just is.
Repeating over and over that Linux IS ready for the desktop also doesn't
make it so.
>
> >
> >SIAG is as good as it gets, or Ksiag, the Qt / KDE port.
>
> 'As good as it gets' by one person's underdetailed
> subjective estimation isn't a very useful metric
> for determining whether or not something might be
> sufficient for a wide range of users.
>
> >
> >>>StarOffice just is horrible. Usable, sure, but not nice.
> >>
> >> Please define 'horrible' in less meaningless terms.
> >
> >In your words, bloated. Badly designed, poorly documented, unoptimised,
> >and a poor and inacurate clone of a better interface.
>
> Bloated is an aspect of trying too much to be like msoffice
> and is not a problem limited to StarOffice. How is it poorly
> documented? What exactly have you had problems trying to figure
> out how to do. I personally don't like having to hack *iqy files
> in text editor to get what I need done. The other suites have
> their own documenation issues.
Staroffice seems nothing like MS Office 97/2000 to me.
Word 97 loads in 3 seconds. SO takes 20.
MS Office 97 isn't one big program that takes forever to load.
MS Office 97 compared to SO is fantastic, and component based.
>
> StarOffice is not that remarkable in terms of being bad or good.
>
> >
> >> The 3D effects on SO5's graph are actually quite spiffy
> >> and manage to be eye candy superior to it's MS counterpart.
> >
> >Its file filters are inferior, its slower, has redraw / refresh problems,
>
> Actually, it's file filters aren't bad. They're not 'perfect'
> but then again nothing short of 'office itself' is going to
> provide that.
There are not good.
If one had to PAY for SO, I would then say they suck.
>
> >poor documentation, inferior macro langauge / capabilities, and fewer
> >"spiffy" graphing effects, and handles fonts poorly (across platforms,
too)
>
> Unless you're someone that makes extensive use of fonts in interesting
> ways, this whole 'bad fonts' bit is just a red herring. Also, without
> more detail in terms of what you can't do 'bad macro language' is still
> quite vague.
No. Since everyone must use their eyes, fonts are always important.
Bad fonts in X would make the difference of whether I can comfortably use
said GUI for 2 hours or 12 hours without pain. Fonts being smooth is
critical.
Having bad fonts is a great way to show that newby that
a. you're unprofessional
b. you don't give a damn about them or their eyes
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>You should mention kword, WordPerfect and Applixware if you wanted to
make an
> >>>argument of it. Fwiw, kword is alpha, Wordperfect is only in 3rd place
on
> >>>Windows Word processors, and Applixware is a niche product that existed
since
> >>
> >> So? We are trying to utilize tools here not run a popularity
> >> contest. Besides, Corel has taken efforts to ensure cross
> >> compatibility with 'the one true option'.
> >
> >Its not exactly perfect in that regard.
>
> Nothing is.
Life is a popularity contest.
And if you can't read/write the most popular format you are not considered
"acceptable".
Life isn't fair.
>
> >
> >The tools for Unix i.e. its Word processors are less capable.
>
> No. They are quite capable. The big problem is that anything not
> 'the one true program' will typically have problem dealing with
> data from that 'one true program'. This is no less a problem running
> under Windows if you happen to think exercising one of the other
> choices is appropriate for you.
If Linux developers aren't willing to create and support an open standard,
then
they Word 97 is still the standard and you are still not compatible.
Enabling people is a good idea. Not saying, well you can't do that, or
you can, but the result sux.
>
> >
> >>>for years, nothing better could be had for Unix.
> >>
> >> So? You still haven't told us why we wouldn't want to use
> >> it over something else.
> >
> >Its not as good, put simply. Good enough for some perhaps.
>
> That is too simple. It is completely meaningless in relating
> to how anyone else uses those applications. It's useless in
> determining whether or not you have a point or are just full
> of hot air and rhetoric.
It's not that hard to imagine a new user.
We all were one after all.
I think the orginal poster is 100% correct,
He seems very intelligent.
What he says seems to match my experience and what you say does not.
So what JEDIDIAH says sounds like rhetoric.
Saying new users must learn a ton of stuff to be productive isn't true
today.
Windows exists. Office 97 exists. Corel Office exists.
I don't want to learn typesetting and I don't have to in the year 2000.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>>E-mail? Good old mutt and elm; Netscape (when it works); emacs.
> >>>
> >>>All lacking in the warm fuzzie ease of use and setup stakes - Netscapes
client,
> >>>essentially the same across platforms, sucks, and uses Motif.
> >>
> >> So? Exactly how much easier would the competitors be to deal
> >> with and why?
If you have imap (which is open) many/most linux email programs won't deal
with it.
> >
> >Familiarity. Integration. Decent documentation. Modern interface. Tool
tips.
> >Sensible defaults. GUI configuration. Intended for Desktop Usage.
>
> Sensible is subjective.
> GUI configuration is available.
> "intended for desktop usage" is gibberish.
> Integration is also present, it just requires applications
> to be able to communicate via Motif facilities. Gnome
> has this.
> The interface is no more or less modern than it's main
> competitor.
> Tool tips really shouldn't be that crucial for NS.
You lose serious credibility when debating "Why Linux on the desktop?"
if you don't see that Motif apps (especially Netscape under Linux) sux.
It plain sux. It is more buggy. It is less open. It is slower. It does
use more memory.
It does work less than everything else. It does make drag and drop harder.
It does make Netscape an island, hindering integration into Gnome.
Can I have break-away floating Netscape toolbars?
No. That's one ex. of how Motif/Netscape isn't modern.
>
> >
> >>>Emacs is simply not an option for most casual users - the effort to
learn to
> >>>use and setup emacs outweighs the benfits to the casual users. i.e
Desktop.
> >>>
> >>>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN,
krn, knode
> >>>etc are getting closer. Also, SOffices newsreader. Its a browser / mail
/ news
> >>>reader as well as an Office suite. Shame it wants about 90Mb RSS.
> >>
> >> Gravity and Forte don't need one. Most of their relevant features
> >> are quite effectively delivered by multiple tools that can be
> >> bundled as one unit if necessary. The last time we had this arguement,
> >> the Forte crowd could only come up with some very superficial
> >> advantages to Forte.
> >
> >Like integration, documentation, ease of use and setup, designed for
offline
> >use, familiarity, etc.
> >
>
> Integration should not need to mean 'built into one huge indeterminate
> mass'. A caching nntp server integrates fine with any other client.
> Documentation is not an issue with nntp clients. Ease of setup is
> also pretty much a non-issue. Leafnode is quite nice in this respect.
> Any gui client will have a configuration system comparable to any
> other gui client. A proper news client shouldn't care whether or not
> it's functioning offline or not.
Good integration should provide an excellent shell/skeleton for components
that still can be used seperately.
Monolithic apps are on the way out.
>
> >The UNIX pinheads said things like piping through sed - bfd, I want to
read
> >news not play with it. You can call it a feature to run the message
through
>
> I don't 'play with my news'.
Other's do.
>
> >ispell via a pipe - I'd rather have Word like underlining, or a
spellcheck
> >toolbutton to press.
>
> Then use a different $EDITOR or pester the author if this facility
> in the gui newsreader in question is not available in a nice shiny
> happy fashion.
>
> As far as ispell goes, in a conventional unix editor like emacs,
> I can just use the pulldown menu. No shell tricks are required.
> You are grossly misrepresenting things.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Your position is based on lies and GROSS ignorance.
No. His position seems very much based on reality.
Your position does not. It's painful to read.
Do you have a problem with their being modern integrated apps (not
monolithic, but a shell w/components) in addition to the old standbies?
Surely you admit that lynx doesn't "do the job for newbies" and their is a
need for a nice integrated GUI easy to use modern web browser like Mozilla?
Jim
>
> --
>
> So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:26:54 -0500
Leon Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 19:51:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leon Hanson)
> wrote:
>
> Well, since no one has been able to provide any answers to the seven
> items I want on a Linux desktop, I guess Linux isn't ready for my
> desktop.
The fact is Unix was born of a time that having all command line tools made
sense.
Due to the fact that a. the command tools were good and b. old dogs
would rather not learn new tricks.
Unix has splintered too.
Due to all this, GUI tools appear to not have been taken seriously.
Only recently has it at all (KDE, Gnome).
Even then KDE and Gnome don't have enough resources for the job.
Note: I'm not knocking their work. Without it Unix on the desktop would be
a laugh to even me.
Therefore they seem to have to mostly copy interfaces already in use, and
it's taking a long time.
Compatibility isn't what it should be. Things like drag and drop can't be
taken for granted.
The GUI tools IMHO like KDE, Gnome isn't as good as Windows in ways
important to me.
I personally have tried but still can't stand to stay in it long as a
desktop.
For server I like linux and use it myself.
There are other issues but basically Unix didn't care much about the
desktop, let itself get way way behind, and
is struggling to catch up some. It may never provide a good desktop
experience as their are so many linux people that
believe in emac and lynx for everything still in the year 2000. They
outnumber the more modern thinkers which understand
what a desktop user wants and doesn't want in a modern desktop, no more, no
less.
Jim Ross
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 01:28:34 -0500
>
> Fewer "black boxes"
> One of the frustrating phenomenon in the Windows world is when
> one black box interferes with another - usually different DLLs
> that are loaded based on which application is started first.
> Generally the strategy for correcting this is the "4 Rs".
> Restart the application
> Reboot the system.
> Reinstall the application
> Reformate the hard drive and rebuild the system.
> Often the problem is that a service pack applied to MS-Office
> will alter a DLL used by Lotus Notes. Lotus notes will then
> "fix" the problem with a service pack that puts the old DLL
> in a Lotus directory and specifically loads that DLL. Now,
> If you start Word before starting Notes, Notes breaks. If
> you start Notes before starting Word, word breaks. Of course,
> since the crash usuall happens during race conditions
> or deadlocks, it may be hours before the destructive
> code is reached.
>
It looks like Windows 2000 may have this one finally under control.
Not being more open, but dealing better with DLL conflicts.
Time will tell
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:32:14 GMT
On 23 Mar 2000 10:14:53 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 14:14:22
> GMT, George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 , The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Call us when it reaches a release version, comes out of alpha and beta testing,
>>and has functionality equivalent to Windows 3.1 Works Suites.
>No we wont call you George, no one is going to dumb Gnumeric down to
>"Ms Works", which is a buggy piece of crap.
And yet is more powerful and fully featured. Hmmm...
Hint - you'll need more functionaility in Gnumeric before you can dumb it down.
>>
>>>Word processors? Lyx is pretty good, so I've heard; AbiSoft; StarOffice.
>>> Emacs (sort of).
>>
>>LyX - is emphatically not WYSIWYG. Its more a document formatter / typesetter.
>Who said WYSISYG ??, that is a MS retrograte offering,.... keep it.
for those who need it, its essential.
>Lyx is WYSISYW, way better imho, have you ever actually used Lyx George ?
Yes, and KLyX too, it doesn't offer too much layout control without the
insertion of La(TeX) codes into the document, but its the easiest way to do
maths in documentes I've found.
>I'm always amazed when someone writes of Lyx as a document formatter/typesetter
>when it's a GUI frontend for Latex and very easy to use, it has a spellchecker
>formulae facility, help, templates etc, the list is huge.
A litle more work on GUI independence, file type handling ( LaTeX import!) and
some more templates for more DTP stuff (an abuse of LyX's core idea, but would
be useful)
>>Gravity and Forte have no mature equivalent on X11 - but Xagent, PAN, krn, knode
>Bullshit, George.
>Slrn works nicely in a Xterm, mouse, colors the lot.
And if thats the best GUI newsreader - hmm. GUI newsreaders are like the list
above, not slrn.
>>>So...why is Linux not ready for the desktop?
>It is of course!
Optimist, aren't you?
>>
>>Too much like Unix of course. I mean, if you don't realise Emacs is not an
>>option for desktop usage, then you won't realise why linux isn't ready for the
>>desktop.
>I believe Linux is as ready for the desktop as Windows ever *was*.
Really? I don't see
a) Hundreds of Thousands of preinstalled Linux systems
b) Massive third party software range
c) All the hand holding books that Windows has
d) The ability to do everything by point and click
>The "Windows is a good Desktop" sentiment is a myth.
>Does a good Desktop crash, or lock up ?
It shouldn't, but then, it would be shutdown at the end of the day as well.
Uptime is not really an issue. Although warnings like "save your work every 20
minutes to avoid disappointment" are most worrying. Recently seen at another
Uni where there using NT + Citrix for remote desktops.
>Should a good Desktop, be able to run remote GUI or cli apps on another
>box, easily ?
Remote GUI - why ? Yes, I know the geek reasons, big deal.
CLI apps - there is a telnet client. It sucks, but its there.
Not really typical desktop needs.
>Should a good Desktop, offer many Window managers, instead of just the one?
>We are not all alike, hence different cars, colors, etc.
We all have to start from somewhere, hence the initial consistency, and besides
I hate car analogies, and all (ok ok most ) cars have pedals and a steering
wheel.
>Should a good Desktop allow me to log into it, if I'm away from my pc ?
Sounds more like a server task. Besides, isn't it better to use sshd, than
telnetd, and what is more usual on Linux?
>>Most desktop users have never started a text editor, and frankly, a decent
>>desktop should remove the need unless their software developers.
>Again I disagre George, unless we are talking Desktops for Dummies. If thats
>the case, let them have Windows.
What should be accessible only via a text editor? Why bother.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:32:15 GMT
On 23 Mar 2000 11:24:54 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:15:26 GMT,
> George Richard Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:39:59 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> GUI configuration is available.
>>
>>for mutt and elm? Show me where.
>Xterm ?
That a GUI? I don't think so...
>>Comapre the docs with say, slrn to those of Agent. slrn's assume more
>>knowledge and familiarity with Unix / USENET / etc.
>>
>>Its also not terribly task based - there is no documentation of howto
>>change, for example, the colours used. It just says edit the rc file.
>The rc file is self explanitory, because its TEXT. You're stuck in your world
>of binary registeries George.
Really, does it explain entries which can be added but aren't present?
All the possible values? Valide ranges? Next you'll say the sendmail.cf is
friendly since its text.
>>Not terribly novice welcoming. Nor is falling back to vi as editor.
>Incorrect: Slrn does not "fall back to Vi"
$EDITOR then - and on what Linux system is thise remotely likely to not be vi?
>>Nor having to quit and restart to change configuration options.
>We dont do this but once.
Remarkably easily satisfied.
>>Nor having slrnpull a sperately configured and run application.
>Slrn does not need Slrnpull, and so what if its a seperate app ???
It needs it to do offline reading - kind of the point of the comparison with
Agent, Gravity etc.
>>
>>>Ease of setup is
>>> also pretty much a non-issue. Leafnode is quite nice in this respect.
>>
>>Yes, you like to edit things like /etc/inetd.conf? /etc/leafnode/leafnode.conf?
>Sure, at least we *can* George, where are your tcp wrappers in Windows ?.
Who needs them? I'm not running a server OS prone to remote shell exploits.
If I wanted a secure server, I'd use OpenBSD. Linux - err, no thanks.
>>
>>There are some web and GUI config tools, but incomplete and unstable.
>Bull, The Dotfile generator is excellent if you need help, configuring
>a simple well commented textfile.
The dotfile generator understands few . files - it could do bashrc not tcshrc
for a trivial example.
There are more obscure rc formats than frontends.
>Recently I tried to help a lady over the irc *configure* Free-Agent. Too hard.
>She never got it going.
You must have been really dumb then. What is it, four or five dialog boxes?
>It makes NO difference whether its GUI or text, if you dont know the
>news server addy, you're screwed.
Yes, but at least its obvious where to enter the server name is the GUI - none
of the hunt the rc file game.
>>But they shouldn't force me to setup and run a local server, just to read news
>>offline.
>They dont, slrnpull is easy to set up.
Just more difficult to add a group than in Agent or change your groups etc.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George Richard Russell)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:32:16 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:59:24 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:41:42 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:41:06 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 21:15:26 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:39:59 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 19:17:31 GMT, George Richard Russell
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, it's meaningless because it's not at all obvious that all,
> or even most of those bulletpoints are relevant to the typical
> end user. This is akin to Beowulf in Linux terms or that spiffy
> BeOS spinning cube with the mpegs playing on each face.
You seem fixated on the typical end user - a mythical entity if ever there was
one. Try to meet the needs of all end users, if you can. So far, you haven't,
not even close.
> All hot air and no substance.
Recognise yourself?
> You can drone on and on for eternity about how something is
> inferior. However, until you actually fill in the details
> you are just a crackpot spouting propaganda.
Inferior UI, documentation, scripting, functions provided, formatting options,
data import / export etc....
Or someone who has used both, and has a distinct preference from experience?
Not that you'd know.
>>There is a reason why Miguel is shamelessly copying the UI and features of
>>Excel in Gnumeric.
>
> He could be copying the current version of 123 or Quattro
> and you likely wouldn't be asare of it.
You seem unaware of of his recent interview - "I'm copying Excel becuase I know
nothing about spreadsheets" is the gist of the quote.
The story was on slashdot reently - go read it. The Gnome - Microsfot connection
was the title, or something similar.
>>Oh yeah, how do you compare two pieces of software written for the same task,
>>on the basis of which one looks prettier on the screen? Maybe you do.
>>
>>Feature comparisons allow users to see if their needs are supported. You seem
>>to want people to switch blindly, unheedingly, and to unstable alpha software
>>too.
>
> No, feature comparisons allow for mindless marketing.
They can be misused for such.
> They don't necessarily address the needs of actual users.
Often however, they do.
> Nevermind that you never BOTHERED to even indulge in a meaningful
> feature comparison. Made more broad statements about types of
> features.
Its so easy to do for yourself Jedi - Just look at those bullet lists you
despise, pick the ones you need / want and see which has more. You don't seem
to be able to manage that. Oh well.
None are so blind as those who will not see.
George Russell
--
One ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.
Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.Tolkien
Hey you, what do you see? Something beautiful, something free?
The Beautiful People, Marilyn Manson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:43:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Murphy) writes:
>For example, the Microsoft C Compiler, which is a Windows application,
>and by your claim is programmed using careless software engineering
>by programmers who do not know what they are doing using primitive
>development tools, produces code which is demonstrably approximately
>20% faster than GCC, which is a Unix programmed and developed using
>Unix principles. How do you explain this?
Hmm, how many targets does the MS C compiler support?
Say, why don't you compare the speed of MS-C compiled stuff for the
21264 to that of stuff compiled using Compaq's Tru64 compiler?
>I have additionally even met some Unix programmers who do not even
>KNOW how to handle the out of memory condition properly, and do not
>even understand the types of conditions which cause it.
Say, how *do* you handle these conditions "properly"? Considering that
usually, you cannot assume a user to be anywhere near the machine, so
popping up a dialog box saying "please free some memory" is *not*
acceptable....
Bernie
--
A child miseducated is a child lost
John F. Kennedy
US President 1961-63
------------------------------
From: "Martin Sinot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.alpha,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,co
Subject: Re: QUESTION: Linux Multiprocessor management
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 09:38:06 GMT
Christian Langis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>We see that the usertime column increases with different increments (30,
15, 21, 14...) >hile the system time increases as well with more regular
increments. However, it is >disturbing to see such high system time (and
order more than user time ?!) since our test >program doesn't use the system
at all. The last observation is that the total of both >increases very
regularly.
>Why???
Your program DOES use the system. And fairly heavily, too. It prints, and
printing things is a pretty heavy operation. So what you see is true - most
of the time is indeed spent in the system. Try collecting the results and
print everything at once at the end of the simulation, and you will see
that the system times almost drop to zero.
Oh, and would you please send postings in plain text instead of rich text
please?
--
Martin Sinot
Nijmegen, Netherlands
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 23 Mar 2000 10:53:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Edwards <grant@nowhere.> wrote:
> In article <8bb42m$tr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>> dvipdfm keeps the fonts looking nice onscreen, whereas making
>> intermediate Postscript tends to result in jaggy fonts (tho the
>> printouts look as good as ever) because of the scaled-down
>> bitmapped-ness of them.
>
> I've never noticed any jaggyness as long as I use standard
> postscript fonts by doing a \usepackage{times}. Using CMR fonts
> does result in on-screen ugliness.
Apart from the actual look of the fonts themselves (which is the
subject of holy wars, and not rational debate) how do CMR look ugly?
Assuming you've got metafont set up right for the output technologies
you're trying to use...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
