Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #27 Tue, 18 Jul 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Can the long sigline, please ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:40:51 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >The Political Left is striving to cause us to collapse from within.
> >> >Sadly, they ar winning.
> >> From a grove of birch trees it came.
> >Your underhanded smears, typical of left-wingers everywhere
> >are indicative of your character....
>
> Just proves my point -- Mr. Kulkis spends too much time in groves
> of a certain kind of birch trees.
>
> Consider his claim that the Communist Party is still in control of
> Russia. That's totally laughable idiocy.
Why are you so determined to deny that the Communist Party still has
any power? For what reason are you so invested in this?
Is it your embarrassment of having invested so many years in supporting
them, denying the traiterous acts of the Rosenbergs, Philby, etc.,
only to have all of your denials refuted when the KGB opened several
decades worth of files....
nahhhhhhhhhhhh, couldn't be....
must be something...deeper...darker....something...completely
unspeakable.
>
> Although I do agree with him on the wickedness of M$.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What happens when all the bit twiddlers are gone?
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:35:47 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >The Political Left is striving to cause us to collapse from within.
> >> >Sadly, they ar winning.
> >> From a grove of birch trees it came.
> >Your underhanded smears, typical of left-wingers everywhere
> >are indicative of your character....
>
> Just proves my point -- Mr. Kulkis spends too much time in groves
> of a certain kind of birch trees.
>
> Consider his claim that the Communist Party is still in control of
> Russia. That's totally laughable idiocy.
Which party occupies 75% of the Russian Duma?
A) The Communists
B) Yabloko
C) The Fascists
D) "Our Home is Russia"
E) Loren Petrich's expansive girth
>
> Although I do agree with him on the wickedness of M$.
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:38:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
[...]
>> Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
>> . My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
>> end result isscheduling valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
>> insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
>
>The exact opposite is true. In CMT, no "weighting, preference, or
>priority of scheduling" is provided, or even possible. It is only PMT
>that has both the global knowlege, and the neccessary control, to grant
>the user the power to set scheduling policy.
I guess it is pretty stupid to think that each process could afford to
"run" the schedule. I had over-estimated the mechanics of the CMT
method, that's for certain. Thank you for your illuminating comment.
>Yes and no. Apps have to know if they are CMT, and a fairly large
>amount of time and money must be spent designing, profiling, then
>tweaking "properly designed" CMT apps.
I was under the impression (false, it appears) that this was of some
actual benefit. Apparently, from all reports, it is merely attempting
to make do with a lack of complete support for multi-tasking.
>PMT apps don't need to know, other than to understand race conditions
>and how to avoid them.
Could you explain "race condition" to me? I think I grasp the general
issue, but I'm not sure. I've never understood the explanations given
to me completely, probably because I lacked the background. They were
good enough for the moment, but I forgot them very quickly. Why does a
PMT app need to "understand" race conditions?
>> >There's no way to write an app that is "friendly" under all conditions
>> >in a CMT system.
>>
>> Yes, I'm sure there is, you just haven't figured it out, yet. ;-)
>
>No, Max, there is no way to do it, because the information and control
>neccessary to do it are not part of the CMT system. It's not a matter
>of not having figured it out, it's a matter of two conflicting and
>mutually exclusive requirements.
Now that I feel comfortable with, actually. I did have a fleeting
fantasy of adding the information without needing the control, but after
thinking it over for a couple days, I realize there's little point in
it.
>> And it is that suspicion, not the fact that PMT is more robust, less
>> problematic, and better suited for a modern computer. I encourage all
>> engineers to *fight* the people telling you that users want to remain
>> ignorant and out of control.
>
>Of *course* they want to remain ignorant and out of control. They spend
>good money fulfilling exactly those desires.
Touche.
>> I have been teaching people how to use PCs for more than a decade,
>> easily, and I have yet to have one remark to me after learning a new
>> feature "Wow, that's *way* more control and efficiency than I really
>> want to have."
>
>You do realize, don't you, that you are talking about a statistically
>meaningless data set? Your students comprise a self-selected data set,
>so therefore no reasonable statistical analysis can be done.
Well, I've had a very broad set of students; they are very much a cross
section of the user population, I think. If I were trying to prove a
statistical relationship, obviously you are correct that they're not
truly random. But for observational studies, it seems sufficient.
>> You're going to deny again that CMT puts the user in charge, I know it.
>
>It's the truth: CMT does *NOT* put the user in charge.
My thought was that it *could*, more easily than PMT, but that was
incorrect AFAIK as well, of course.
>It seems to be repetitive because you do not understand what is being
>said to you. It is unreasonable to state that CMT puts the user in
>charge, when it does *NOT* put the user in charge.
>
>In terms of the user control, PMT gives the user every control that CMT
>does, and *MORE*, yet you claim that CMT puts the user in charge . . .
>from the outside looking in, this seems to be the response of a man who
>is not listening, or does not understand what has been said to him.
What can I say? I was confused. I understood what was being said, I
thought, but I didn't seem to know why it was being said, I think.
Thanks for your 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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:51:33 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> 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?
1% performance hit, at worse.
On a 500 MHz system, I would guess the performance hit is somewhere
around 0.2%
>
> >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
scripts could be written fairly easily.
I'll see if I can come up with something.
> 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! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:54:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 19:30:45 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>What is the reasoning for the fascination with what engineers think?
I should think that would be obvious. I'm relatively incapable of being
one.
>>was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
>>"experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
>
>For other reasons. No one says "Hey, the Mac's got _great_
>multitasking, far better than NT/W2k, so let's buy one!". They buy it
>for other reasons - easy to use, all-in-one unit, etc.
Very true.
>>Now, perhaps we will move away from the kernel and discuss whether the
>>Mac would have disappeared soon after its introduction if not for the
>>assembling of a monopoly to inhibit the freedom of the PC market. Care
>>to begin?
>
>Why? Are you going to put any more time and thought into this than
>you did the last topic?
The problem with the last topic is I got caught up in it before I'd put
all that much thought into it at all. I thought I'd champion the Mac
fanatics side. At least now I figure even Derek Currie knows a bit more
about why the Mac wasn't much more than a toy computer (but a toy
computer beyond compare, IMHO). To be honest, I really think this MacX
thing is going to be more of an ugly duckling than a golden goose for
Apple. It does seem likely, in retrospect, that being the only desktop
alternative for the mass market was the Mac's real value. It never did
and never could have competed with the PC. But it was the only way to
'compete', with Microsoft. If not for the MS monopoly, the Mac probably
would have died before 1990.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 02:59:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >With all sincerity, Max, I've NEVER seen a CMT system that provided
> >decent user response. The problem is, NO programmer wants to make
> >his application volountarily give up the CPU without an explicit
> >signal from the user.
>
> Thank you, Aaron. I consider that a cogent and practical response, and
> I appreciate it. Programmers *should* want to make their app
> voluntarily give up CPU, on signal form the user or anything else, and
> they *could*. They also would, I think, if they had a reasonable
> supposition that others would give it back, when appropriate.
>
> >This translates into ungodly huge amounts of wasted clock cycles
> >waiting on I/O which could be used for processing background jobs
> >with little or no difference in the of the process which is currently
> >in-focus in the gui.
>
> Bad CMT isn't an argument against CMT any more than bad PMT is an
> argument for CMT.
>
> >Conversely, CMT systems are notorious for incredibly sucky response
> >to user's request to change focus from one process to another.
>
> Because the shell is just another process, I guess. When we're talking
> CPU cycles, the time from my mouse down to mouse up should be more than
> enough time to shift focus, don't you think?
Should be...but...the currently running app often doesn't want to
give up the CPU to the process which would switch focus. So, the
focus-switch is delayed several seconds until the process decides
that *IT* wants to give up the CPU.
You see...this is why CMT actually THWARTS the objective of giving
the user control over the machine.
>
> >For this reason, I rate it right up there with coal-dust diesel
> >engines for automobiles: Yes, it *does* work....but just barely,
> >and not nearly as well as liquid fuel engines.
>
> Well, I wouldn't necessarily agree if there were still coal-dust
> diesel's on the road.
CMT is going the same route..
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Can the long sigline, please
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:04:41 -0400
Bob Lyday wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >>
> > A good OS should NEVER need to be reinstalled.
>
> Linux needs to be reinstalled on rare occasions. Therefore it is not a
> good OS?
What did you do to cause the need for a re-install?
Assuming that you had a stable installation, what in the world could
possibly justify wiping out all of the customizations of the
installation
over one config file in /etc?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 03:08:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Right there. It wouldn't matter if a million engineers thought the Mac
>> was a stupid idea; they're still selling units. The market, not
>> "experience and logic" decides what is a stupid idea and what is not.
>
>You have made a very basic blunder in logic. You assume that since the Mac
>did ok in the market and the Mac uses CMT that CMT must be good. That is
>not a logical conclusion.
It was not presented as a logical conclusion, but as a supposition. If
the Mac survived in the market, CMT cannot be entirely and completely
unusable. It isn't, after all, though it isn't considered sufficient
for a modern system. Nevertheless, saying that the Mac is not bad,
logically, must mean that CMT is not bad, if one assumes that all
components of a system which is not bad must be not bad. I prefer not
to play sophist games, though.
I would, in retrospect, however, put the argument in the same category
as those who insist that Windows cannot be a piece of crap because
millions of people use 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
******************************
