Linux-Advocacy Digest #681, Volume #27 Fri, 14 Jul 00 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it ("Drestin Black")
Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows? (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? (Brian Langenberger)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (abraxas)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (rich)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 14 Jul 2000 16:06:14 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8klghv$me$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8kfke8$18st$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nik Simpson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:8kefcs$3p2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > so, your reply to these articles is something to do with google
> > needing
> >> > such
> >> >> > a huge cluster of boxes and your unsupported claim of zero
downtime
> >> > since
> >> >> > inception?
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> The reason that theyve had zero downtime since their linux cluster
> >> >> approach is because of "redundancy". I dont expect you to know what
> >> >> that means.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > And if you couldn't get zero downtime out of a 6000 node load
balanced
> >> > cluster, it would be pretty sad ;-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> And its a defacto victory, such architecture is simply not possible
with
> >> any version of windows.
> >>
> >
> > ahhahahahahahahahhhaaa bullshit.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Oh really now dresden? Why dont you point me in the direction of
documentation
> that states that windows (in any form) can lode balance 6,000 nodes,
beowulf style.
Nope. Can't find it. In fact, I don't find any hard set limits... Just keep
throwing more servers into clusters. If you understood how things worked
you'd know that "6,000" is no magic number to either beowulf or NTLB - it
just happens that google has something about that number of boxes. I can't
imagine needing 6000 boxes to do anything as simply as a lot of text
searches, index manipluation and web crawling ... other search engines do
just fine without requiring 6000 boxes... and you highlight this as a "good"
thing? hmm...
>
> You'll have to look up the beowulf thing yourself. Though I doubt youll
actually
> understand it, lets just say that you've your choice of implementations.
again, grow up ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just curious, how do I do this in Windows?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:06:51 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> oh, grow up and get a life child. You couldn't possibly know how much code
> I've done and copyrighted in my life. Yep, as in registered at the copyright
> office, not just a little (C) in some remarks somewhere.
>
Yeah? Lets see some examples, dresden.
Not some examples of VB (which anyone with a mouse can write, literally),
I want to see c, c++, fortran, etc. And ill know if you used 'visual *'
to write it, as will approx. half of this newsgroup.
Careful now.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:08:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >>so, they need 6000 linux boxes to achive zero downtime and perform text
>> >>searches? oh yea, you are REALLY impressing me now...
>> >
>> > Nope --- but they do a hell of a lot of cross-indexing.
>> >
>> > http://www.internetwk.com/lead/lead060100.htm
>> >
>> > Google's search algorithm requires massive computing power. Google
>> > weights each Web page for importance by analyzing the pattern of which
>> > pages link to others over all 300 million pages the search engine
>> > indexes. Google's process entails 500 million variables and 2 million
>> > terms to index every month, resulting in about 1 terabyte of data to
>> > index.
>> >
>> > The whole article is worth reading.
>> >
>>
>> Dresden will swear up and down that windows can do it too (and will of course
>> be lying, as usual).
>
> Please don't insult Dresden. It is a nice german city and would never
> say anything positive about Windows or lie about something.
>
Its an inside joke, but as you wish....:P
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:09:05 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > like the sun boxes we replace often!
>> ^^^
>> What, do you have a mouse in your pocket??
>>
>> You said you work for yourself and now claim `we` ?????
>
> I work for my own company. Correct. My company has almost 100 employees. I
> typically refer to it and the things I/it does as "we"
>
Dresden, I think theres a printer over there in 'IT' that needs a toner
change...can you get right on that?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:09:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Peter Ammon in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Do you have technical indications this is CMT, or
>> might it not just be a mirage which is conveniently explained as CMT?
>
>It's the only explanation I can think of for why classic modal dialogs
>would feel less responsive under OS X, especially when OS X is under
>heavy load.
Well, I'm afraid I'll have to point out that isn't good enough.
Particularly because, as I explained, it doesn't actually provide a
valid or complete explanation. Though it certainly is similar to the
issues I'm trying to get these guys to discuss.
>> 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".
>
>That's true. There are still those bits that are preemptively scheduled
>in the Mac OS. But the foreground is certaintly receiving a lot more
>attention than the background.
To PMT advocates, this is simply a reason to tweak the scheduler
algorithms. That this doesn't address the issue is not really
important, for they do have a point that what a desktop user perceives
as "active" isn't necessarily what requires the preference of CPU time
in order to speed up what the desktop user perceives as "active".
I mean, none of them here ever actually tried to make this point, but
they hinted they might. The process that needs most of the CPU's time
in order to keep the "foreground responsive" might not be the foreground
process. The similar issue that the user might not know which program
or process they want to speed up has been presented, but I think there
is a difference. I suspect the reason they might never have considered
this is that an OS schedule isn't cognizant of what inter-relationships
might incur between processes which are part of the same "program", and
the art of multi-process programming is a very difficult one, I would
guess, perhaps no more than some early guesses about what will someday
be a very important area of development. Which process needs to be
given CPU in order to speed up the process the user wants done first
would require input from the application developer, and that would
require cooperative scheduling, whether it is CMT or not. On the other
hand, it could be because its a ludicrous idea, but nobody's had a
chance to explain it to me before I presented it here as an idea,
ludicrous or not.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:10:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Mike Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Drestin Black wrote:
>>
>> > > b) a server that can only do ONE thing (mail, webserving, file
> serving)
>> > > and even then crashes every 45 days or less.
>> >
>> > like the sun boxes we replace often!
>>
>> In your dreams. If those boxes were doing only one thing, then they
>> were either not setup right, so old it's pitiful, or seriously
>> underused.
>
> Oh, I see. So it's just simply impossible that any Sun box could possibly
> crash or be anything but perfect but every NT box is crap? My what bias we
> have here... Look, it's a FACT that my company replaces sun boxes with NT
> boxes because our clients are unhappy with their performance/$ and/or the
> software costs and availablity.
Its actually because your clients are too stupid to know anybetter and likely
because you lie to make the sale.
> The TCO is a joke ... I won't bother going
> on. There are plenty of great Sun setups, of course. But to imply that there
> is no such thing as a bad sun server or good NT server is... just plain
> dishonest.
So you DONT lie to make sales?
I cant get my mouse to work dresden, could you send someone over from 'IT'
to help me out?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:12:46 GMT
Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2 or
early versions of Windows. Folks who had no choice but to learn how
things worked, at least at an elementary level.
The state of average computing folks is quite sad today. They really
don't have a clue and this goes for many of the so called MSCE's as
well. If it's not in the book, they don't know it.
Again I am not talking about the bright nerdy computer hacker type or
the gifted programmer, I am talking about the average Joe who wants to
do his checkbook, surf the net and play a game or 2.
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 15:32:39 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Better yet, make up something absurd and describe how you feel the
>> failure/problem is related to it.
>>
>> Ex:
>> I feel the BSOD's are coming from the "double-flush" buffer in
>> the ball-cock module. I've seen this happen before when a new memory
>> simm is installed and the user doesn't re-install Windows so it can
>> recognize the dual piping system now.
>>
>> Or something along those lines.
>>
>> It's kind of like the "muffler bearings" joke amongst auto mechanics.
>>
>> You have to be convincing though and do it with a straight face :)
>>
>> DP
>
>Sadly, this happens enough that it is no wonder some people remain
>scared of computers. With the administrators/help desk people saying
>things like (your above quote DP) people will never understand computers
>(the general population). Unfortunately too many youngsters are exposed
>to computers through the MS paradigm with the tendency to show them how
>"unpredictable" it can truly be and it is assumed that all technology is
>unreliable. Sad.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:14:11 GMT
Actually after reading all of this, and I know I am going to regret
getting into this mess, I think ya'll agree on most points and are
instead picking at each others choice of words.
I offer my experience;
Windows 98SE can be quite stable IF and ONLY IF, careful selection of
hardware and software is considered. This includes inter-operability
of the programs, in essence the ability to co-exist peacefully without
stepping on each others toes so to speak.
My DAW is a prime example of this method. It runs Win98SE and has
never crashed. Not once, not ever.
Reason is simple, I did my homework and purchased software and
hardware that works together well. I do not subscribe to the "driver
of the month club" and only upgrade drivers if there is a performance
gain or some strange bug that maybe I have seen. I don't upgrade just
for the heck of it, or because it's the latest and greatest.
I don't install and de-install programs all the time and I run
regclean and various virus checkers (Standalone) regularly.
The reality though is that most systems are not like mine. They have
crap/random hardware chosen for price instead of quality and they are
subjected to a myriad of programs being installed and de-installed all
the time. Just the plugins that just about every web page requires is
enough to set things off kilter.
My home systems are a prime example. They BSOD on a regular basis due
to all the crap the kids are loading on them.
I don't give them the care they need, and frankly why should I have
to?
In this case, the user is left with a system that over time will
render itself useless and they will, like good soldiers, re-install
from their image CD and the process will start all over again.
The sad part is they think this is normal. What if you had to replace
all the capacitors in your TV every 3 years?
This needs to be fixed.
And BTW the same thing applies to Linux, in a different manner though.
If you check the HCL and purchase hardware that works, you will have a
smooth road. If not, it could range from mildly frustrating to
downright unusable.
So what's the answer?
Is Windows stable?
It all depends on how it is managed, and I think we all agree this
type of management should NOT be necessary, but it is a fact of life
that it is.
A crap motherboard will cause just as much grief under Linux as it
will under Windows. Heck, we used to test SIMMS with OS/2 3.0 for a
while. Best damm memory checker money could buy.
So what's the solution?
It depends on the need. People run Windows because the applications
are there and "everybody" is running it.
This is clearly not the best solution, but Beta was better than VHS
and look what happened :)
DP
On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:34:48 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Are Linux people illiterate?
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:14:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Ahh.. yet another linux user skirting the REAL issue by attacking my
: spelling.. Look PimpleDick..my post is not documentation therefore is
: not subject to scrutiny. The Linux Documentation Project on the other
: hand is representative of the operating system itself. THAT is the
: issue, not my spelling. If Document I cited is representative of the
: OS, then whoooo whoooo....no wonder it's so lame.
The real issue is that you expect freely available (donated, in fact)
documentation to be of professionally-edited caliber and when it
fails to suit your expectations, rather than informing the authors
of errors, you air your complaint on usenet in troll form.
Furthermore, when your own troll post contains errors, you expect
documentation authors should be judged more harshly despite the
fact they've been paid no more than you have for considerably more
effort.
If you genuinely want these errors fixed, talk to the authors and I'm
sure they'd be happy to oblige. But if you're happier trolling
for flames by accusing the entire Linux community of being
"illiterate", don't expect a warm response.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:19:16 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh really now dresden? Why dont you point me in the direction of
> documentation
>> that states that windows (in any form) can lode balance 6,000 nodes,
> beowulf style.
>
> Nope. Can't find it. In fact, I don't find any hard set limits... Just keep
> throwing more servers into clusters. If you understood how things worked
> you'd know that "6,000" is no magic number to either beowulf
Actually, if you understood exactly what beowulf was, you would know that
that sentence doesnt even make sense. That is, once again you are pretending
that you know what you are talking about, when in actuality you do not.
> or NTLB -
Actually, there is a limit. 32 nodes, 8 processors per node. Now, it is
possible to take an unlimited number of these "domains" (forgive the term,
I do not know the windows terminology for such a beast) and make them all
talk to eachother---but thats not exactly a 'cluster', thats more like a
'cluster of clusters'.
And thats datacenter.
With beowulf style clustering, you can create and tear down these "domains"
as you see fit, and any individual one can be any size. You can do this live,
on the fly, while clustered processes are actually happening. The same is simply
not possible under windows.
Oddly, the same IS possible under certian kinds of E10000/solaris configurations,
S/390 w/VM configurations and a hell of alot of other platforms.
Just not windows. Sorry about that.
> it
> just happens that google has something about that number of boxes. I can't
> imagine needing 6000 boxes to do anything as simply as a lot of text
> searches,
You have no concept of DB architecture. Thanks for pointing that out for the class,
dresden.
> index manipluation and web crawling ... other search engines do
> just fine without requiring 6000 boxes... and you highlight this as a "good"
> thing? hmm...
Actually, most of them go down fairly often, are very slow, and/or do not have
nearly the size index of google. Once again, you dont know what youre talking
about.
>
>>
>> You'll have to look up the beowulf thing yourself. Though I doubt youll
> actually
>> understand it, lets just say that you've your choice of implementations.
>
> again, grow up ...
>
>
Apparantly you still dont undertand it. I'm glad you're paying yourself, dresden,
because no one in their right mind would hire you.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:19:10 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:07:42 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You people are as concise as your friggen' operating system. Could you
>>give me some more *information*, please?
>
>The renice command changes the scheduling priority of a process. If,
>for example, you are running a long simulation job and don't want it to
>slow down your desktop, you can renice it to a lower priority. That
>way, your foreground apps get to be "first in line" to get cpu cycles
>when you do finally click on something.
Can I say "renice this every time it runs?" Can I say "renice this if
this other program is running?" Can I say "nice this as long as these
aren't trying to get that done?" I know the discussion is on technical
scheduling of the CPU resource. But what I am saying would be useful,
and that CMT approximates and that is why it was successful on the Mac
though scoffed at by engineers, is something with a higher abstraction.
Something which deals with the performance of the *system*, as opposed
to the "efficiency" of a component.
>OTOH, if you go to lunch for an hour, your foreground apps will be
>blocked waiting for IO and so won't take cycles away from your
>background job, which will now automatically get nearly 100% of the
>cpu.
DDTT
>This is the fundamental reason why pretty much everyone here agrees
>that PMT is superior for general purpose computers. You can prioritize
>based on things besides a simple "who has focus" criteria.
But can you prioritize on things more complex than "an integer value
manually entered by the operator through a command line utility?"
Check this url page:
http://www.uk.research.att.com/~dmi/linux-srt/wm.html
I'm not a fan of realtime OSes, but it seems to me that this approach
might be useful for any desktop OS which is used by a "power user" as
opposed to someone who would be just as happy on a nice simple Mac. ;-)
--
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: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:17:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
> was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
> about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2 or
> early versions of Windows. Folks who had no choice but to learn how
> things worked, at least at an elementary level.
>
> The state of average computing folks is quite sad today. They really
> don't have a clue and this goes for many of the so called MSCE's as
> well. If it's not in the book, they don't know it.
>
Man does this sound like my ex-boss. A user would bring him a problem
and he would say, "That's not possible." They would say, "but that's
what happened." He would say, "It's not possible, you are lieing." and
that would be good enough for him. Of course, this lead to some of my
frustration (and eventual leaving) in that they would then come to me
and ask for help. I tried to be honest with them and show them what I
could without talking down to them in the hopes that they would learn
something from it. My boss found out about this and confronted me on
numerous occassions telling me that I was making him look bad because I
didn't back him up when he said, "That's not possible." I told him,
"Sorry, I won't lie." Needless to say this was good enough to say I was
not getting promoted.
> Again I am not talking about the bright nerdy computer hacker type or
> the gifted programmer, I am talking about the average Joe who wants to
> do his checkbook, surf the net and play a game or 2.
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
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: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 17:30:08 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 23:20:19 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>And that's the problem with CMT. What if you put a rendering job in
>the bg? It dies, basically. It's a PITA on a modern computer - you
>can run one thing, and everything else is suspended. Oh, it isn't
>nearly that bad, and modern CPUs have smoothed over some of the
>problems, but still, it's a horrid method of MT'ing.
But my question then becomes "why does the rendering job die?" The PITA
for all modern technology, I have found, usually rests on
connection-oriented demands that were formerly necessary due to
technical restraints and lack of ingenuity. All the really cool
technology is the stuff that abandons those assumptions, and points out
that sometimes building the system to tolerate unreliability is WAY more
powerful, and even easier at the same time, then continuing to build
systems that mandate reliability, but are just as ineffective,
ultimately, at providing it as the connectionless alternative.
The Internet wouldn't work if it were just one big real-time phone
system, you know. It would seize and die, almost instantaneously, if it
somehow could become one. Too much complexity. And it may be possible,
particularly given just how much Moores Law has proven valid, that a
single desktop computer may be able to cross that threshold of
complexity, as well. At that point, its a smarter move to let the
system be able to fail, because then it will fail less often and cause
fewer problems when it does, then to insist that it cannot ever fail.
>>>In a CMT system, any app (including the foreground app) can become
>>>unresponsive if any other app hogs the CPU.
>>
>>Thus providing the need for cooperation. Yes, any system that is based
>>on cooperation can screw up the system for everyone. Are you saying
>>Token Ring is better than Ethernet? TCP/IP sucks compared to X.25?
>>Microchannel was more successful than the original PC? All of these
>>very important technologies are all based on one thing: you cannot
>>mandate technical value in market-driven development. So stop trying.
>>Because there is always technical value in cooperation, and the market
>>LOVES cooperation. Its what its built for. System which mandate
>>cooperation end up being far superior than systems which attempt to
>>impose even egalitarian rules.
>
>Software isn't a standard. Yours is a pie in the sky fantasy.
According to the engineers, PMT is absolutely "the standard". You
overestimate the difference between interoperability standards and
computer software. Particularly in a system which we want to be
modular, expandable, and multi-vendor.
>>>Worse, if, for example,
>>>you're doing a 3D render that's hogging the CPU, everything else in
>>>_that app_ becomes unresponsive.
>>
>>Sounds like renderer should be a separate process.
>>Is that too tough? You realize it would provide value all by itself, right? At
>least I
>>assume so, since multi-threaded programs seem to be very popular in the
>>market.
>
>I think that was a poor example. A better one is simply putting the
>rendering app in the bg, and watching as it dies while your
>newsreader, which requires perhaps .2% CPU time, gets almost 100% CPU
>time. CMT is a very poor method for multitasking; everyone else has
>dropped it (even, finally, Apple). Why do you champion it? You've
>yet to list a technical benefit that can't also be offered by PMT.
Because all you have been able to illustrate is a very poor newsreader.
The foreground app doesn't *have* to take any time it doesn't need in
CMT. And your renderer shouldn't have any trouble staying alive,
either. Timeouts on software networking protocols are in the range of
*seconds*, not CPU cycles.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich)
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: 14 Jul 2000 21:32:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also schrieb richard harlos:
>Hi, all.
>
>I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
>
>I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and am
>now happily up and running on the 'net.
>
I'm hopefully going to join you this weekend. I'm FTPing Slack 7.1 in
another Win95 window as we speak. It's a company owned PC, so I'll only
be able to do U-Mess-Dos on it for a filesystem.
Actually, I have a Red Hat installation at home. Problem is, I don't
appear to have a monitor that survived the move into our new house. So
there it sits at the login: prompt, impotent. :-{(
Ah well. Computer show at the end of the month. I'll find something
cheap there.
I am dying to try Slackware on this Compaq LTE 5380 laptop. We shall
see how much fun I can have without trashing the company-maintained
filesystem. ;-{)
--
Catch the cluetrain. http://www.cluetrain.com
ALL programs are poems, it's just that not all programmers are poets.
-- Jonathan Guthrie in the scary.devil.monastery
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
