Linux-Advocacy Digest #717, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning ("Yannick")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Jerry McBride)
Web stats revisited. ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (void)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: This thread has needed a new name from the beginning
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:42:02 GMT
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> > >>
> > >But I've noticed that to
> > > most people these days "proper administration" and "competent end-user"
>
> Some people consider me to be a computer geek. I get about 1-2 blue
> screens a day and have to reboot Windows on a daily basis. I am
> incompetent?
>
No, but you must have a special version of something installed on you computer
to make it crash so often... (read on)
> > > equates to "knows how to avoid doing the things that make Windows tend
> > > to crash",
>
> Like "run the minimum number of programs at once" and other idiotic
> advice. A good OS should allow you to run plenty of apps at once, no
> problem, right?
>
> And that is as much a problem of troubleshooting and system management
> > > technique as it is crappy software,
>
> Frankly, I am sick and tired of this excuse, "Windows crashes due to bad
> drivers, bad 3rd party software, etc." Tell me, does *nix often go down
> due to these things? I don't think so.
Until some recent time, *nix never crashed due to bad drivers because they
weren't any drivers for any strange hardware provided by 3rd parties. On Windows
we have a bunch of horrible legacy, of people writing drivers without knowing how to,
etc... (read on)
> (Some might argue that many did, which
> > > is why "reboot/reinstall" is the primary technique for dealing with
> > > problematic Windows installations.)
>
> My opinion is that a good OS should rarely need to be reinstalled. Is
> this true?
... and again...
I don't know much about what happens for Windows 9x systems running for a very long
time.
Although I spend the major part of my free time on my computer, I do not use it all the
time,
I switch it off when I don't use it for more than an hour, which means that "rebooting
on
a daily
basis" has no meaning for me. As for reinstallation, I did not reinstall Win98 at home
since November
1998. Though I use it a lot and install/uninstall lots of things, including some crap
found on magazine CDs.
As for NT-based systems...
I've been in a small university running mostly WinNT 4 systems on more than a hundred
machines
for multiple uses. Of course, I wasn't sysadmin so I couldn't know whether they hung or
not, but since
I spent a LOT of time in the computer rooms, I could see that BSoDs were pretty rare.
In
fact, most of
the few I've seen during three years were related to hardware failures.
I've done a seven month training period in a small software developing company (~20
people). All machines
under NT4. Most machines with lots of software on them (database servers, development
environments,
etc...) and often using 150% or 200% the available amount of physical RAM. I may have
seen
a few BSoDs, but,
if so, less than I can count on one hand's fingers (and I am not polydactyl).
But of course, you'll answer that's a teardrop in the sea of existing computers...
Yannick.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:48:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >Many people mentioned that utilities were available to reprioritize
>> >tasks under PMT OSes. If it took them some time, it was probably because
>> >your understanding of the basics is so flawed that it wouldn't have
>> >meant much to you.
>>
>> Bullshit. Thanks anyway, though.
>
>Ouch. Even more hostility. You didn't become hostile until you realized
>you were in over your head. Does your increasing hostility mean you're
>now really running out of air now?
Is that the way you perceived it? No, I became hostile when I started
getting ridiculed for my statement, rather than having them corrected in
a more civil method.
>> >Of course, it shouldn't surprise me that you apparently didn't notice.
>> >You've ignored just about everything that has been said in this thread,
>> >and now that everyone has been driven to the end of their patience and
>> >said as much, you've become hostile.
>>
>> More bullshit. Why is it that people expect me to pay attention to what
>> they say when they couch their supposed presentation of information in
>> ridicule?
>
>I explained your mistakes in my first response to you, which set off
>this entire conversation. Please read
>http://x55.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=644947466.1
>and point out the "ridicule." Be specifc.
>The "ridicule" didn't start until you started using the word "engineer"
>as some sort of insult and repeatedly asserting things which it had been
>carefully explained to you were incorrect.
Mea culpa. You had not explained anything about why I was incorrect, in
my re-reading; you provided indirect consideration of my questions. I
apologize, because I did become frustrated without cause. I appreciate
you efforts. I will point out, for your benefit, not mine, that the
fact I didn't understand CMT had no max quantum made your explanation of
PMT seem to miss the mark and fail to address the concerns I was
raising. I was told the difference was whether the app or the OS was
"in charge", not that it was whether there was any maximum amount of
time the active process could fail to yield.
>No lack of logic? Please read that first article above. I explained the
>problems with CMT, and went on to explain that PMT doesn't have those
>problems.
What can I say? I don't think you did a very good job of it.
>Among other things, I stated "The fact is that _any_ app in
>Mac OS can grab control of the processor; a background app can cause the
>foreground app to lock up, for example."
But I thought the fact was that *no* app in MacOS can grab control. You
see where I found this misleading? Your assumption that I understood
that CMT had no maximum time before the process must yield led you to
believe that I would understand this statement as rhetorical. Since I
didn't, I took it as literal, and as such it is false.
>Your response was "Any app grabs control, and can screw it up royal
>you are correct, *when the foreground application yields*. All good
>foreground applications, of course, yield on a routine basis. But that
>only highlights the lack of necessity for pre-emptive multitasking,
>when it is assumed that all of the programs running on one computer are
>under the cognizance and control of one operator."
>
>I'm not sure what the point of the first sentence was, because it's
>irrelevant in light of your correct statement in the second sentence.
>The third sentence doesn't follow at all from the first two. You have
>yet to explain just what that means, and that has been a major issue in
>this thread.
In light of my newfound knowledge, I find that this is still a valid
statement in general. If you cannot see why, don't bother with it. If
you are interested, please substitute "scheduler" for "pre-emptive
multitasking". Do you recognize what I mean be "daisy chain" mechanism?
I have tried to explain why cognizance of the operator is important, and
the fact that nobody seems to recognize it may very well be a major
issue in this thread. But I'm not interested in pursuing it at this
point.
>> Nobody said 'you're not arguing for CMT, you're just saying we need a
>> lot better scheduling systems.' If they had, I'd have agreed, and we
>> could move on.
>
>I guess everyone should apologize. I'm sorry I can't read minds.
I am sorry I was not more clear, but I must point out that I was
obviously the one with a lack of technical knowledge on the subject.
Your ability to read my mind should have been much greater than my
ability to read yours, since you had supposedly already been over the
same ground. I think trying to read my words should have been
sufficient to understand, particularly after I noted that your first
several answers did not seem to be addressing my concerns. In fact, you
seem to have thought you could read my mind, and starting complaining
about how empty it was because I didn't understand you answers. All the
while missing the somewhat important fact that I wasn't asking the right
questions.
Had I known to ask in my first post "Why can't CMT work if you add a
maximum quantum," the response "because then it would be PMT, as that is
the crucial difference between the two," would have made sense. My
apologies for being so ignorant that I didn't know which question to
ask.
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:57:11 -0400
In article <8kp87q$skq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <LnPb5.80691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Jeff Hummer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Here's some irony for you. A knowledgeable friend and I installed both
>> Windows 2000 and Gentus Linux 6.2 on an HDD last night. Windows took 5.5
>> hours to install and it still crashes during boot, despite much tweaking at
>> the command line level. This is supposed to be easy?
>> On the other hand, at 12:30 A.M., we inserted the Linux CD and began
>> installing. Twenty minutes later I was seeing GNOME for the first time, and
>> it works beautifully. I still don't know what to do with it, but I can't
>> wait to learn!
>> I'm converted.
>
>I smell a rat. 5.5 hours for Windows 2000? Twenty minutes for Linux with
>Gnome. Sounds like a fishy story to me. They both usually take around the
>same time.
>
Say what? In who's nightmare? Linux is one of the easiest OS's to install that
I've ever been exposed to. For crying out loud... OS/2 is easier to install
than windows!
--
*******************************************************************************
> To err is human, to forgive ... 5 dollars. <
*******************************************************************************
> 1:05am up 0 days, 8:02:57, load: 20 processes, 85 threads. <
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
* ICQ# 76727806 *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Web stats revisited.
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:05:49 -0500
After the recent article claiming that Netcraft should have looked at
the Fortune 500 sites rather than at all sites, some kind souls
researched the Hot 100 sites (by actual workload; see
http://www.100hot.com/directory/100hot/), and posted the results to
Slashdot.
For the top 10, click up
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/07/10/158213 and scroll down to
the topic "hot 100 survey". Several of these sites do not name their
Web servers, but the following facts are clear:
o 3 run Solaris
o 2 run Linux
o 2 run FreeBSD (I'm not counting Hotmail.)
o 2 run Tru64 Unix
o 1 runs W2K.
o As the poster points out, Microsoft itself is the only one of the top
10 running IIS, and the only one running a Windows OS. (The only one
running a non *n*x OS, for that matter.)
For the to 100, click up
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/07/10/158213&threshold=1&commentsort=3&mode=thread&cid=343
or just find the topic "All of the Hot 100" at the previous link. I
have not done full statistics on this, but:
o The author counts 59 sites running Apache (very near the 62% in
Netcraft's broader survey).
o I count 19 sites running Linux.
To be honest, I was a bit surprised to see how well Linux is doing in
the top 10 (20%) and the Hot 100 (19%). Like others, I had expected
Linux to be used primarily on the lower-budget sites.
Does anyone know what percentage Netcraft reported for Linux on the
overall survey? I have never seen any numbers at the site, but
occasionally other news sites report a number and cite Netcraft for it.
I assume this means Netcraft has a pay-to-view version of its survey
that gives these additional numbers. Can anyone confirm this? Does
anyone know what the latest numbers were? A couple of months back I
read an article that cited Netcraft as saying 29% of all sites use
Linux, and a few months before that another quoted 25%. So if these
numbers are correct then the overall employment of Linux is both large
and growing. (Circa 30% of 17,119,262 sites surveyed would put an upper
bound of c. 5 million known Linux servers, modulo however much virtual
hosting is being done. A pretty big number for those claiming that
*overall* Linux use is only a couple of million installations.)
It's also surprising to see how many of the top 10 are running OSes that
*may* be running on x86 hardware, though some cases are ambiguous.
(E.g., are the 2 Linuces running on x86 or on some RISC platform?)
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:20:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Sorry, I meant clients as customers, not machines. A customer pays
>> >you to run a complex simulation. The simulation does not require your
>> >attention after you start it, but it does require the lion's share of the
>> >CPU. If the customer pays enough, I will put up unresponsive apps
>> >to run the simulation.
>>
>> This seems a direct argument for Shortest Job First, in which some
>> explicit notion of which thing is expected to finish first is given
>> priority. The problem, of course, is determining the notion, and
>> deriving it.
>
>Which is, naturally, next to impossible without knowing a great deal about
>whatever it is you're running. Vanilla SJF is a poor algorithm to use on
>any system where jobs may potentially take a very long time [1][2].
So I've been told. I didn't mean it was a practical approach, I merely
wanted to point out the similarity.
>Hence multiple queues would probably solve this problem best, with the
>process in a low priority queue in the former case and a high priority queue
>in the latter case.
Could somebody explain the implementation of queues on Linux? I only
have the reference on FreeBSD. Is it the same?
[...]
>> One can do anything in CMT one can do in PMT, if one designs a suitable
>> CMT system.
>
>In the context of this discussion, no, you can't. The reason is because
>ultimately CMT is at the mercy of the applications.
>
>There are a few simple and specific situations where a CMT scheduler would
>be a better choice, but these are irrelevant to the types of computers we're
>talking about.
[...]
>All PMT OSes have methods for manipulating priorities. Almost all have
>included programs for manipulating priorities while a process os running.
>Of those, the vast majority have GUI tools.
>
>As usual, your hypothetical problem was determined and fixed a very long
>time ago.
>
>You also ignore the fact it is a very rare case for the vast, vast majority
>of people that a priority needs to be manipulated. Most people who need to
>be manipulating priorities, know what they are and how to do it.
I am interested in expanding that group tremendously, if it will improve
the control the user has over their experience with computers. "Speed
this up" and "slow this down, I don't need it soon" are not beyond the
capabilities of any user to understand. The question remains whether
they can deterministically implement such changes to an operationally
effective degree. The fact that the problem seems hypothetical, and was
fixe a very long time ago, are both reasons why I am trying to discuss
them today. I do not know if there is any possible benefit to the
end-user of a desktop system to re-examining scheduling. All of the
assumptions that it is not seem to be predicated on research done before
there was such a thing as a desktop system, or a non-expert end user.
Constant suggestions that my questions aren't appropriate, rather than
simple and civil (and, yes, ongoing and sometimes repetitive, since I'm
still playing catch-up on the technical details) discussion, caused me
to become frustrated.
>> >That's why there is nice/renice.
>>
>> Yes, but the nice value, it turns out, doesn't have anywhere near the
>> impact as the other components of the algorithmic scheduling. I'm not
>> sure really how much, though, as I'm not a CS graduate, and I really
>> suck at math. Here's the piece where it comes up, I think:
>>
>> p_usrpri = PUSER + (p_cpu/4) + 2.p_nice
>>
>> And the description says that nice "cancels out some of the effects of
>> high CPU loading". I'm not really sure how much impact that has on the
>> over-all efficiency of algorithmic scheduling.
>
>It won't affect the *efficiency* at all. You'll still maximise the usage of
>system resources, assuming[1] you're running enough stuff to actually do
>that.
But it seems possible, if not probable, to me, that maximizing the usage
of system resources may in fact be counter-productive for maximizing the
perceived performance by the end user. It is not without precedent that
a sacrifice in efficiency may be worthwhile to optimize effectiveness.
The theoretical (and I do not mean that disparagingly) basis of the
current PMT systems does seem to be heavily weighted towards
time-sharing systems:
>A plethora of, say, xterms running at the highest priority that are all
>waiting for user input will still result in a mostly idle CPU and a highly
>responsive system.
>
>It might affect the responsiveness of the system, if you bump something that
>actually uses a lot of cycles, but if you're messing with priorities that's
>a risk you've implicitly decided to take.
Again, I'm unsure of your use of "responsiveness" in this technical
sense matches what a general use of the term may indicate. Please
consider the case of a desktop, where there aren't multiple users. Does
anything change at all?
>> Then again, I guess I'm still not sure how much impact algorithmic
>> scheduling has overall on the handling of bottlenecks, or where those
>> bottlenecks are.
>
>It reduces their impact on the efficient use of system resources.
>
>However, if a process is waiting for some slow device like a printer, it
>will still have to wait for it, so if that's the only process you're using
>then you *will* notice the delay. Nothing can change that fact, although
>PMT will lessen it from the OSes point of view.
>
>The fundamental different between PMT and CMT is that while that process is
>waiting for the printer (or some other device), on a PMT system the rest of
>the processes on the system can potentially do useful work (assuming they
>have some to do).
They can potentially do work in CMT as well; it is still multi-tasking.
Consider: if the crucial difference, as I'm told, between CMT and PMT is
the notion of a maximum quantum, would not a CMT system in which all
processes internally implemented a convention of a maximum quantum be
similar in most respects to PMT? Yes, I realize the problems of
cognizance and reliability still remain; I just want to double-check my
understanding.
>> So I'm obviously floundering at this point.
>
>You've been floundering since your fist post. Even now, after many subtle
>and not-so-subtle suggestions to actually go and learn even the *basics* of
>the topic under discussion, then sit down and think about them for a while,
>you obviously haven't.
So kill-file me. I'm sick to death of being taken to task, even if I
did insult more people than I intended.
>The intricacies of CPU scheduling is not something you can even learn about,
>let alone understand, in "20 minutes".
Neither are the intricacies of ATM, but it didn't take me longer than
that to develop a working understanding of the system suitable for
explaining some of the subtleties to some who had supposedly been
thinking about it for a vastly longer time.
>Not really. Everything's gotten faster and bigger, but there haven't been
>any fundamental changes (at least not in mainstream computing) in the way
>computer resources are used - and faster and bigger is what makes the few
>advantages CMT has over PMT irrelevant. That's why PMT is still around
>after 30-some years.
I think personal computing *should* change the way computer resources
are used. PMT as currently implemented seems focused primarily on
multi-user computing. The thing that slows PCs down the vast majority
of the time is certainly I/O bottlenecks, to be sure. Perhaps the real
reason I've been ignorant enough to wonder about this stuff is because
of that faster and bigger you pointed out. My CPU is so much more than
I need over any long time scale (seconds, minutes) that it doesn't
commonly go above 2% utilization, AFAIK. Yet a CPU-intensive task
doesn't seem to happen almost instantaneously, in my time frame, as I'd
expect.
>[1] On that note, I remember hearing a story in one of my OS lectures about
>an old, old computer (talking early 70s here IIRC) at a University in the
>States using a similar system. Apparently when it was being shut down after
>many years of faithful service, they discovered a job that had been
>submitted *years* beforehand and never been started, due to its predicted
>length and the SJF algorithm.
>
>[2] "Very long time" being a relative measure. A system which runs nothing
>but days-long jobs obviously has a different concept of "very long time" to
>a system being used interactively, like a desktop.
Thank you. Cool story.
--
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] (void)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 20:12:47 GMT
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:24:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Gary, I'm not only going to not re-read what I wrote and ask myself why
>you are being an asshole, I'm going to point out that I'm just trying to
>learn something, and would appreciate it if you'd stop being an asshole.
You seem to be trying as hard as you can not to learn anything. Your
posts have taken a strange, wheedling, ingratiating tone, intermingled
with grandiosity. It's quite bizarre to watch.
--
Ben
220 go.ahead.make.my.day ESMTP Postfix
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:25:10 -0500
On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>That 'quantum' marks the difference between a CMT- (which doesn't have
>>it) and a PMT-system (which does have it).
>
>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
Oh come on! What do you think controls the quantum? The OS. It's
settable and in the nature of the OS.
>That makes a lot more sense. Multi-tasking without a maximum quantum;
>now that *would* be a stupid idea. ;-)
Well then, you agree CMT is a stupid idea. Very good. It only took
what... a week?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:28:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> >He did, before you even questioned. The rendering job "dies" because of
>the
>> >inherent limitations of the CMT scheme.
>> >
>> >For someone who claims to be intelligent, you're doing an extremely poor
>job
>> >of *learning*.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> You've misunderstood the question, apparently. No bother; I'll rephrase
>> it: "Is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?"
>
>Yes, that reason is because it was running on a CMT system and some other
>process was refusing to yield.
And people think that *I'm* thick-headed on purpose, in order to annoy
people...
Chris, you should win award for "intentionally missing the point". The
ironic part is, you are making my point in doing so. This is why I
wondered whether it might be possible that the problem with CMT is
implementation, not architecture. Some of the supposed benefits of PMT
are generally mere accommodation for badly implemented application
processes which fail for no reason if they don't get enough CPU time,
since there are some processes which do require regular attention, such
as drivers. This parallels my experience with networking, where most of
the blame for poor response is application implementation, not lack of
bandwidth.
Please stop purposefully refusing to answer my question. If your
problem is that you don't know the answer, just say so.
--
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:31:22 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Mea culpa. You had not explained anything about why I was incorrect, in
> my re-reading; you provided indirect consideration of my questions. I
> apologize, because I did become frustrated without cause. I appreciate
> you efforts. I will point out, for your benefit, not mine, that the
> fact I didn't understand CMT had no max quantum made your explanation of
> PMT seem to miss the mark and fail to address the concerns I was
> raising. I was told the difference was whether the app or the OS was
> "in charge", not that it was whether there was any maximum amount of
> time the active process could fail to yield.
>
Your problem is that you lack the ability to think logically. If you had
thought about it, you would realize that, if the app is in charge as in CMT,
then there is no one to enforce a maximum quantum. This has been explained to
you on numerous occasions. Yet you do not learn.
I will say again what I and many others have said. Get a good book on the
subject and read it. This is not the place to learn about CMT and PMT. This
ng is an appropriate place to debate the pros and cons of CMT vs PMT, but first
you must have some understanding of the subject.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
