Linux-Advocacy Digest #914, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting apps) (The
Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:13:32 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Irrelevant. "Applications" are not automatically and in all cases one
> >process.
>
> Just because it is not a deterministic relationship does not mean it is
> irrelevant.
I disagree. The fact that an application can be multiple processes is
precisely why your focus on "a single application" is invalid.
> That is certainly a large part of my point, I think. To
> the scheduler, all processes are "equal",
Nope. All processes are *NOT* equal. Have you read my simplified
explanation of how PMT works, yet?
> so to speak, though each might
> have priorities and nice values to attempt to present their "importance"
> to the scheduler.
"Attempt"?
In what ways does the process priority fail to represent "importance"?
> Still, the scheduler has no awareness of which
> processes are linked by being part of the same application
Not true. Consider Unix, where every process has a parent process.
> (now, or in
> general). Would there be no extra performance to be gained by paying
> attention to this, so that if one process of an app is a bottleneck, the
> other processes in that app are handled in whatever way might reduce the
> bottleneck?
Priority based scheduling, in conjunction with sleep/wakeup provide the
neccessary mechanisms for reducing bottlenecks.
> >You missed the point: a single (modern) application *IS* multiple tasks.
>
> Yes, you've already noted that the term 'task' is problematic. Have you
> a suggestion for what to call something which includes (potentially)
> multiple applications?
The term "application" is at best, ambiguous. Hence the irrelevance of
your point.
> The end user task was my focus,
The end user has *multiple* processes running, that is the point.
> not the
> "collection of processes" task of the software designer.
The software designer designs a set of processes to fulfill the needs of
the end user. This mythical gap between the way "engineers" see the
world and "users" see the world is simply . . . well, mythical.
> Hopelessly
> vague, and changing definition instantaneously and quickly, the "higher
> order" task is less easily quantified,
And therefore, irrelevant.
If you cannot discuss it in numeric terms, it really has no place in an
engineering discussion.
> but far more important in the
> end, than *any* individual 'task' the computer is performing.
Nope. If you cannot quantify it, it is meaningless.
And just because someone lacks the training or knowledge to quantify
something, does not mean that it cannot be quantified. It just means
that they really don't know what they are talking about yet.
> Precisely my point. Why is scheduling method that optimizes the use of
> the CPU by multiple processes automatically considered to optimize the
> CPU for multiple *tasks*, or *applications*, or *tasks*?
Your question is akin to asking: "Why is blue called blue?"
Answer: because that is the way we've labeled it, and it is the only
quantifiable way we have of describing the situation. Even you cannot
describe a users actions in a quantifiable fashion, such that a system
can be engineered to enforce that policy.
In short: PMT maximizes the return on your CPU cycle investment. You
might as well ask: "Why is an investment strategy that returns 100
dollars for every dollar invested automatically considered a better
strategy than that of one that returns 3 dollars for every dollar
invested."
> Perhaps
> something less than optimal for processes would be more efficient for
> the user's purposes,
Max . . . this is like saying that it is better to make the user spend
an hour in front of his system, doing X amount of work, instead of
spending 50 minutes in front of his computer, getting the same amount of
work done.
> even if it seems an inefficient waste from the
> engineer's more technical perspective?
Let's fix this mistake you keep making: the engineers perspective *IS*
the users perspective, with *NUMBERS* attached.
That's it. That's the primary difference.
> We get back, again, to Ethernet.
Nope. Ethernet analogies are even less valid than car analogies.
> >NO Max! A *SINGLE* application. Not an FTP client *AND* a game program
> >*AND* a data base system, a *SINGLE* word processing application may be,
> >under the pretty lies, *31* separate tasks.
>
> Sorry for treading on holy nomenclature.
Ask, first. Have you read my simplified description of how PMT works?
> Couldn't you maybe consider
> that the term 'task', for all its engineering value, is not a term
> strictly and solely defined within the world of engineering?
I'm aware of that fact. Couldn't you consider the fact that, within an
engineering discussion, that the term has a very simple and precise
definition?
> It seems
> obvious, as well as regularly remarked, that I'm not an engineer.
You are thinking of someone else.
> So
> why you are insisting that my statement don't make sense using the
> engineer's definition of 'task', when obviously I'm not using any such
> strict formal concept,
Because if you aren't using correct nomenclature . . . you are not
communicating, you're just making noise.
> but merely the routine definition of the word
> 'task': work which a person is faced with performing.
Engineering is not (normally ;-) a process of guessing. If you want to
attempt to provide feedback to the engineering community, you have to
communicate facts, not opinions or guesses.
> Which is why I stated essentially the same thing when I pointed out that
> even if multiple applications are in use, to the user it is a matter of
> one 'task' they are performing.
No. If multiple applications are in use, the user may *NOT* neccesarily
view that as one 'task'.
> How many 'tasks' or whatever the
> computer is performing is quite beside the point,
Wrong. How many tasks the computer is performing is precisely the
point. Computer tasks are what performs the users work.
> other than to note
> that it is optimizing the computer for the *users* task which is
> important,
A meaningless distinction: computer tasks are executed in order to
perform the users 'tasks'.
> not optimizing the computer for the minimal CPU bottlenecks.
> In most cases, the two are handled well by PMT. I would prefer if, when
> things do get bogged down, the user is given preference, if possible,
> over the putative average value of the CPU scheduling mechanism.
Once again . . . you make a distinction that is incorrect. Maximizing
CPU throughput *IS* giving preference to the user. These goals are not
in conflict.
> >Because of what you write. You very strongly imply that a single
> >application means that no task switching is neccessary.
>
> I think it is a strong desire to interpret it that way, more than any
> intent to imply that from my end.
Why? We cannot very well give you the benefit of the doubt, as you've
already stated that you do not know what goes on under the hood. If you
are aware of the fact that even with a single 'application' running,
your computer might still be running multiple processes or tasks, then
you need to say so.
> Task switching, however, is performed
> in user time.
Nope. Task switching is performed in kernel time.
> There are more than enough cycles to completely change
> the method of prioritizing processes when the user task switches.
Yes. In fact, that is already done.
> It is
> having a single static method at all times which seems the more limited
> approach,
Most modern PMT implementations are neither static, nor do they
implement a single approach. If you were not aware of what "dynamic
priorities" meant, you should have asked a question about it.
> not considering a single static set of processes. I have
> never thought task switching was relevant, from your perspective *or*
> mine.
You were wrong. 'Task' switching is relevant, as has been shown
repeatedly in efficiency studies. The cost of a one minute telephone
call may be as much as 15 minutes worth of lost productivity for the
receiver.
> >It does appear, on this side of the screen, that you do not.
>
> Yes, I did know why you insist I'm hand-waving task-switching or not
> considering 'background' processes. Because it seems to make sense that
> I must not be aware of them, since in that context, you can most easily
> avoid having to comprehend my remarks.
Max, I am not attempting to 'avoid having to comprehend your remarks'.
For the most part, your remarks are confused, obfuscated and when
parsable . . . meaningless.
I find it disheartening to see you make personal attacks. I had thought
you had a valid point to make, but that you were simply unable to
communicate it in a useful manner.
Now, I suspect that you are casting responsibility for your inability to
communicate onto others, as an excuse.
> If you want to know why it looks
> like I do not know what I'm saying, look in a mirror.
Ok . . . sorry, that didn't answer the question. Try again. It still
looks like you do not know what you are saying is confused and
obfuscated.
On the one hand, I've made every attempt to figure out what you are
saying, and I've gone to great lengths to teach you the basics. . . work
you ignored, proving once and for all that you have no interest in
communicating.
> I'm trying to
> discuss something,
No. If you were trying, you would be trying to learn the basic
terminology and patterns.
I repeat: have you read my simplified explanation of how PMT works, yet?
If you have not, you are not being truthful when you claim to be "trying
to discuss something". If you have, then by now you should be able to
use basic terminology somewhat correctly, and are now ready to be taken
to the next level: a discussion of dynamic prioritization.
Even at best, you do not seem to be able to describe this "something"
you are trying to discuss. At worst, it looks like you do not know that
many of the "exclusive or" relationships you are attempting to describe,
simply do not exist.
> but I don't seem to be getting any response apart
> from "that does not need to be discussed
This is a misrepresentation of what has been said to you. I'm more than
willing to discuss what ever the heck it is you want to discuss, just as
soon as *you* figure out what you are trying to say.
> and you are obviously
> misunderstanding something if you think it does."
You obviously *are* misunderstanding a great deal of what has been said
to you. So instead of repeating incorrect statements, you should ask
questions.
> So, what the hell. I
> have such a short attention span, that I have already ignored my intent
> to let this drop several times.
Until you know what you want to discuss, and are willing to learn, you
really should drop this. Even with the best of intentions, and working
very hard to understand what you are trying to say, you have been
totally unable to communicate what it is you are thinking.
The closest I've been able to come is: "He doesn't realize that it's the
CPU that performs the work that the user wants done."
> I'm already ahead of the game, having
> figured out many issues so subtle it would take six months of this kind
> of crap before you'd be willing to listen to them.
Ah. The standard, "I'm so much smarter than you, you'll never
understand me" defense.
If you cannot communicate what you are thinking, you aren't as smart as
you think you are.
Sorry, Max, but I do this kind of thing for a living, and I'm *WAY*
ahead of you. I know for a fact that you haven't figured out *any*
issues, subtle or otherwise. I'm willing to bet big money that you
couldn't answer even the simplest question re: information theory.
> So I give up.
A wise decision. The truly subtle stuff cannot be understood until you
understand the simple stuff.
> >No. PMT is a manual transmission, as it allows you greater control than
> >an automatic (CMT) system does.
>
> The former analogy was that PMT was the automatic transmission;
Nope. I never made such an analogy.
> Bye.
Bye Max. Don't be a stranger, but *DO* figure out what you are trying
to say before you post again.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If Microsoft starts renting apps)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:25:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 22 Jul 2000 20:10:00 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.fan.bill-gates;
>> >> All of this discussion about Microsoft renting apps with .NET
>> >> got me to thinking...what are we facing if, in fact, Microsoft
>> >> does start renting apts???
>> >>
>> >> Microsoft Apts 2000
>> >>
>> >> WINDOW
>> >>
>> >> No apartment may ever have more than one window. Residents might
>> >> forget which window they were looking out of and get confused.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Hilarious! Where'd it come from?
>
>I wrote it.
In that case, you might consider giving us the Webpage containing
it. :-) (Presumably, you've got a home page/site to put it on.)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- that way, I can bookmark it with my 7,000
Other WebPages I Need To Sort Through SomeDay :-)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:20:13 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said John W. Stevens in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Consider the effects of the speed differential, and chaos, on the
> >system.
>
> Actually, it was the possibilities of tolerating, and even using
> "chaos", in a way similar to Ethernet and the Internet.
Sorry, but that wasn't appropriate use of the term: "chaos". Ethernet
does not make use of chaos.
Nor does the internet.
> Modern
> engineering seems to have shown that rigorous control is often inferior
> to autonomous authority,
Where, and how? Bald assertions are not discussion, Max. Provide
references.
> despite the apparent dangers of
> non-deterministic behavior.
Chaotic systems cannot be controlled, only managed. This does not make
rigourous control inferior to autonomous authority, it merely indicates
that a centralized management system, provided with real time feed back
and enforcement authority is to be prefered over "fire and forget"
systems.
> Just because a system is not prevented from
> acting chaotically doesn't mean it will.
Max . . . systems that are chaotic *WILL* act chaotically. The answer
is not to try to make them totally deterministic, but to, instead,
implement a centralized management system that is provided with real
time feed back.
> And if you pick the right
> 'strange attractors', quite the opposite effect can be perceived;
> whatever would allow the system to break may actually enable it to work.
> You follow me?
Yes, I follow you. Your suggestions are either old technology, or
unrealistic. Have you anything both useful and feasible to suggest?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:34:05 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 07:09:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[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;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Because, to compete with "the browser" (primarily Netscape) which
>> >> >threaten[ed,s] to make the OS obselete, Microsoft have turned Windows
>> >into a
>> >> >delivery system for Internet Explorer.
>> >>
>> >> That is illegal.
>> >
>> >I see. It's illegal to compete with a superior product ?
>>
>> It is illegal to not compete with an inferior product, but to force
>> consumers to accept the inferior product in order to acquire another
>> product (in this case, also inferior, but that's beside the point).
>
>No one was forced to buy Windows, as far as I know.
Getting to "build thier own airplaine" or "do without" doesn't count.
[deletia]
This is a good illustration of the problem with racketeering both
as the Corleone's did it and as Microsoft does it. The customer is
left with only one really viable option in an enviroment engineered
precisely for this end result by the mobster in question.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:38:25 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 17:53:34 GMT, Paul E. Larson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:28 GMT, Daniel Johnson
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>[snip]
>>>> >Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
>>>(*including
>>>> >a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed
>>>in
>>>> >a un altered state.
>>>>
>>>> They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
>>>> consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>>>
>>>I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>>>*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
>>
>> Actually, the copyright clause of the US Consitution quite
>> plainly justifies intellectual property entirely in terms
>> of public good.
>>
>
>You want to show us the clause you say is the copyright clause -
>http://tn.areaguide.com/constitu.htm
Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have Power...
...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:45:52 GMT
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:59:43 -0400, JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8lhqsc$sme$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> -- snip --
>>
>> > > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
>> > > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>> >
>> > Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
>> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
>> > that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
>> > choice have *always* been available.
>>
>> To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
>> about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
>> which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
>>
>> > You'll have to work hard to convince me the computers I've bought in
>> > the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
>>
>> And you'll have to work really hard to prove that you are really paying
>> any attention to this discussion.
>>
>> > > Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
>> >
>> > False.
>>
>> Uh-huh. "Proof by Proclamation" strikes again.
>>
>> > > Unless you built your own machine from parts, or went to the most
>> > > obscure hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county,
>> > > there was no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
>
>Even in 1995 you could pick up a copy of PC Shopper (if you could lift 75
>lbs) at Wal-Mart and choose from thousands of part vendors.Sources for
>building your own computer have always been readily available.
...and completely ASSININE for the purposes of this discussion
for reasons that have been pointed out already.
Would you buy a washing machine, refridgerator or big screen TV
or similarly expensive appliance from some completely unknown
company of unknown reputation that may be on the other side of
the continent? Would you expect the super-majority of consumers
to do such a thing?
[deletia]
You ARE an M$ cheerleader using a marginal independent market in
a very weak attempt to make the wider computing market appear
healthy and competitive.
The like of Circuit City can quite easily allow access to rather
obscure brands in other areas of electronics. What's the holdup
in terms of computing. Why don't they have at least one BeOS
machine on display? Why doesn't CompUSA, or even some of those
overrated mom&pop shops?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
