Linux-Advocacy Digest #660, Volume #27 Thu, 13 Jul 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mike Marion)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Mike Marion)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Slava Pestov")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:43:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Matthias Warkus from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
22:16:29 +0200
>It was the Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:58:29 -0400...
>...and T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Can you find a way to make cooperative multitasking as robust as
>> >preemptive multitasking?
>>
>> No. Can you find a way to make PMT as user-responsive as CMT? Then all
>> you're doing is implementing CMT.
>
>Preemptive multitasking can, if decently implemented, do everything
>CMT does, and it is more stable because it protects you from buggy
>programs. That's the core issue.
Can't CMT not be said to follow the same rule? If the only reason PMT
exists is to protect me from buggy programs, it ain't doin' a tremendous
job of it, let me tell you. Of course, I'm on Windows, not Linux, yet.
I think maybe the core issue here (and Chris's note was helpful in
bringing me to think of this) is that OS engineers necessarily consider
the needs of the OS. And if you want to make sure that the computer
doesn't crash and you're designing an OS, it makes sense to make it PMT,
and CMT sounds like a really really stupid idea.
But I will refer, once again, to the case of the Macintosh. For years
it has continued to function while seeming to prove, to the markets
satisfaction if not engineers', that this core issue can be inverted.
Application developers, no doubt, will agree with the OS designers, as
they would not want the burden of having to try to figure out how to
know how much CPU time they might need, and how to gracefully share that
requirement with the other apps.
Perhaps I would like to hear that engineers are even now working on
developing a more "autonomous multi-tasking", which would allow
cooperative control by an OS that is knowledgable of all processes,
applications which can present their requirements appropriately, and a
user who can control the system easily and effectively. Perhaps someone
is going to explain to me how this is indeed the system that's currently
used. Being a non-engineer and discussing things with engineers doesn't
do much for your technical knowledge, it seems. But I'd appreciate a
little responsiveness. It certainly would be easy to prove me wrong (or
has been, if you of that mindset), but are you up to the challenge of
teaching? Or possibly, on some remote chance I happen to be providing a
unique perspective that hasn't been addressed before, of learning?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:43:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It would require app rewrites if Apple did. Carbon
>> (http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/carbon/CarbonOverview/index.html)
>> is essentially an reentrant version of the Mac OS toolbox, but even
>> that won't let you get PMT in Mac OS 9. I'm not sure why, but I
>> strongly suspect it's because Carbon itself calls the toolbox under OS
>> 9, and Apple would rather require people to upgrade to OS X to get PMT
>> anyway.
>
> OH, god, that sounds SO lame.
>
> The only thing you have to worry about in PMT is race conditions.
>
> Restructuring critical code sections to be guarded with "lock" flags
> normally takes all of a couple minutes for most algorithms.
> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>
I imagine in some situations, multiple toolbox calls must be executed
'atomically', without intervention from other apps. Eg:
DoSomething(&some_struct);
DoSomethingElse(&some_struct);
DoMoreStuff(&some_struct);
Where 'some_struct' is something that would be left in an incosistent
state if another app begins executing before the code block is done.
Fixing it would require apps to be rewritten to put locks around all
such code.
Slava
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:44:45 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> This happens to be a slightly lengthy process --- partly, because the machine
Try waiting for a 20Gig RAID-5 (software) array (on old 5400RPM SCSI
disks) to fsck while the array is rebuilding.
And no the computer didn't crash... I unplugged the wrong plug once.
Built a custom kernel... and forgot to compile raid support in (D'oh!).
:(
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Never Underestimate the powers of a dark clown"
- Darph Bobo, Tripping the Rift.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:46:05 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> These are all examples of the way Linux lags behind Windows.
Inserting/removing PCMCIA cards (net and modem) on my laptop works like
a charm with no intervention on my part under Linux. Windows (98 and
2k) complains about it, and often hangs hard.
This is an example of the way Windows lags behind Linux.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:47:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:06:35 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>>>I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>>>the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>>>running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>>
>>You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
>>slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND.
>
>So what? Who cares if it's in the bg? Why is there even a *concept*
>of bg? That's just archaic and old-time thinking.
That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's not. Yes, there are
"user-oriented tasks" which need to be accomplished in the background,
but its still the background. Its not *what I'm waiting for right now*.
I am not sure that PMT systems put enough emphasis on *the foreground*,
or some even better way of determining what is important to the user.
And it doesn't provide the mandate of cooperation that CMT does to
benefit the market, either.
>>I don't *need* it right
>>now.
>
>So what? Even if I don't "need" it right now, I still want it to keep
>working on whatever I told it to do!
Its not going to keep on working. Its just not going to get a "fair
share" of the resources anymore, because it is not as important as what
I need right now. Do you see what I'm saying. I know this isn't
normally how process scheduling is considered, and it isn't in fact the
same abstraction as the lowest level of consideration of PMT/CMT. But
at the highest level, it doesn't seem to make that much of a difference,
and the highest level is where I'm talking about. If the only benefit
of PMT is at the lowest level, then it is a theoretical benefit which
could be easily outweighed by factors outside that scope of reference.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:48:00 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> I mean, if it is claimed to support hardware, and I find myself doing
> extra work to make it happen, what does that tell me? If it works
> without any problems on Windows, that tells me Linux is still behind
> Windows.
If Linux sees hardware and uses it just fine, then a boot into windows
(on the exact same box) results in hardware/stability problems for
windows. Then that tells me that Windows is behind Linux for that
hardware.. I've seen this on several hardware configurations.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:48:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Then why did the original Mac OS team implement CMT?
>
> (Hint: it wasn't because they were incapable of producing something
> better)
The original MacOS was not written with multitasking in mind (unless
you could desk accessories). When they made the MultiFinder, they
probabably decided to make it CMT, because PMT would require major
changes to the toolbox, which was written without re-entrancy in mind.
Slava
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 11 Linux features I care about (was: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares
about.)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:42:05 GMT
I was going to post a humorous reply to this, but then I realized it
would be attacked by a bunch of losers defending a dying operating
system from a has-been company run by a geek and changed my mind.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:50:06 GMT
Karri Kalpio wrote:
> NT4 could detect the Adaptec AHA-294X SCSI card but could not make
> it work reliable in our CEO's machine. In a similar machine on my
I have problems with my home box where the SCSI chain will reset at
completely random intervals (which really sucks if it happens when
burning a CD). When I use that same box booted into Linux, it _never_
resets. I've gotten to the point where I boot into Linux to do any
serious CD burns, or other disk/cd intensive stuff.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
What goes up, must come down. Ask any system administrator.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:50:16 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>That's absurd. Foreground means you're working on it at that time.
>>Background means you're not.
>
>Not in the -slightest-. That's absolutely wrong. bg means it's not
>the frontmost app - that's IT.
Guys:
I've finally held on long enough that someone else actually starting
discussing this issue. If it degenerates to ridicule and trolling
immediately, it will have all been for naught. Please, I beg you; try
to keep it a conversation, even an argument, not a sparring match or a
fight.
If you differ with someone else's use of a concept, explain how yours is
different, don't tell them they're WRONG, and that's *it*. That doesn't
help anyone teach or learn; only defend their little hoard of
cluelessness from everyone else.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Slava Pestov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:50:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In OS X Classic Compatibility mode in file open or save dialogs, there's
> often a slight delay between when you click the mouse and when the OS
> registers the click. All the other apps get to do their thing, so the
> foreground dialog has to simply wait until it gets the processor time
> again. It's the same way on Windows.
Maybe this is simply due to the fact that classic apps have to run in
an 'emulation' layer.
> The Mac dialog boxes, on the other hand, register clicks in dialog boxes
> instantly. With other GUI elements, such as menus, there's often a wait
> before the OS first responds, but once it's down, the system gives you
> its complete attention.
Wouldn't giving the window server higher priority have the same effect?
Slava
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:55:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron R. Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >I disagree. By eliminating pre-emtptive multitasking, you eliminate
>> >the ability to do a renderining (CPU-bound) in the background while
>> >running netscape (mostly user-input bound, occassionaly network bound).
>>
>> You don't *eliminate* it. It gets much slower, potentially much much
>> slower. But that's OK; ITS IN THE BACKGROUND. I don't *need* it right
>> now. What I *need* is for absolutely nothing on that system to slow
>> down the *foreground* netscape from rendering. And I don't care what
>
>Actually, if you have ANY idle time, the *foreground* rendering and
>the *background* printing are BOTH proceeding as quickly as possible.
>
>Very few problems are actually CPU bound.
Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
have idle time?
>If you have root access, it's easy.
If I have to know what root access is, it isn't easy. ;-)
>use the "renice" command to give it a NEGATIVE nice value.
>
>If you don't have root acces, you're stuck.
If I don't have root access, I should be stuck, obviously. But how
trivial is it to tell the system "I want this reniced whenever it is
running"? How is the initial "nice" value determined? Is there an
automatic re-nicing when I switch apps, or to not re-nice when I switch
apps? I'd really like to know more about the details, and it might make
me realize that my advocacy of autonomous or cooperative systems over
external pre-emptive systems is not worth bothering about.
I'd appreciate the help.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 22:58:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Wed, 12 Jul 2000
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >No, there is not. CMT has no place and absolutely zero advantages on any
>> >general purpose machine where the operating system developer does not
>have
>> >absolute and total control over every instruction that is ever executed
>on
>> >it.
>>
>> What the hell does the operating system developer have to do with it?
>
>How else can you guarantee the programs are going to co-operate unless the
>developers of all of them, and the OS, have collaborated ?
Because if they haven't, they won't sell very many products. Market
behavior, not technical requirements, are the more flexible method of
ensuring co-operation. You can tell which program is not "being nice",
so to speak, and programs might even differentiate themselves by whether
they get something done fast, or whether they get it done optimally
while cooperating optimally. I think this relates to your reference to
the OS developer having "absolute and total control over every
instruction". To me, that sounds like the job of the owner of the
computer, and generally the operator.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 02:45:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please explain what the above has to do with it.
>
>Persons cannot be enslaved.
? This is a typo, right?
Did you mean only persons can be enslaved?
If so, why? Can you cite something that explains this. I am ignorant.
>Tools aren't persons, and therefore cannot be enslaved. The same
>applies to software, since software is merely a tool.
>
>Surely you can understand *that* difference, right?
No, I risk not being as educated as you in this area, actually. Maybe
I am more open to the concept of English as being a tool that we
reshape to fit our needs and desires, and maybe you would be more
confortable living in France. I don't know the exact reason why I
can't see the difference.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:02:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Peter Ammon from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>It is nice to have the complete attention of the CPU when you're doing
>something. I miss it in Classic dialogs in OS X, which feel jumpy.
>Windows is the same way.
So, Peter, you seem to support my point. But is it really the PMT/CMT,
or are you just noticing differences in effect, but not process? Do
you know what I mean? Do you have technical indications this is CMT, or
might it not just be a mirage which is conveniently explained as CMT?
One of the reasons I ask is that, as the PMT advocates will tell you,
you don't really have "the complete attention of the CPU".
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:03:49 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
> signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
> 2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
> far too long, he does nothing!
>
> It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
I bet there's no way he's going to change it now, he's having too
much fun using it as troll bait.
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:05:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Christopher Smith from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
>"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Then why did the original Mac OS team implement CMT?
[...]
>Insufficient hardware resources. Coupled with the, at the time, thinking
>that desktop computers were really not going to be used for multitasking.
>
>The Lisa was PMT, IIRC.
Well it certainly didn't have more resources than the Mac. Could you
explain what you mean?
[...]
>> It is nice to have the complete attention of the CPU when you're doing
>> something. I miss it in Classic dialogs in OS X, which feel jumpy.
>> Windows is the same way.
>
>I really must say I don't understand what you're talking about.
He's talking about the fact that desktop operating systems might be used
for multi-tasking, but desktop interfaces are still single-tasking. And
that seems a reason to us who are ignorant of the technical details to
wonder what difference it makes what kind of multitasking the OS uses,
and whether one that requires cooperation on an open platform might not
be more useful in its way then the one that was designed for systems
that require time-sharing.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:07:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Aaron R. Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 13 Jul 2000
[...]
>The Unix command that will give you what you want is the "renice"
>command.
You people are as concise as your friggen' operating system. Could you
give me some more *information*, please? Not data; I don't need the
command line switches (unless they're illustrative of the operation,
use, and purpose of the mechanism). I know what "renice" is, vaguely.
I don't need to learn it so I can program it. Could you get me a bit
closer to the middle? I'd appreciate it.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
