Linux-Advocacy Digest #508, Volume #29 Sat, 7 Oct 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Maximimun Process Size 555Mb ? (mlw)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (spicerun)
Re: To all you WinTrolls ("MH")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mike burrell)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~! ("Philo")
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Gardiner Family)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Maximimun Process Size 555Mb ?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 16:48:10 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know what is going on with your machine, but I am running
2.2.16SMP and I can allocate 2G of memory in one process. Using memset,
it takes for ever to initialize, but I can allocate it.
What could be an issue is that you are using malloc. and allocating
small chunkc of memory.
I am not sure what the overhead is, but you are allocating 500M 1 byte
chucks, that could be a three byte overhead per chunk. Putting your 500M
bytes up to 2G.
Process size is heap + stack + static + code. That is limited to
2147483647 bytes. In newer kernels, one can up this to, about, 3G. But,
signed memory addresses can sometimes destroy otherwise working
programs.
> G'Day All,
>
> Righto, we run an ISP and have a Large Linux / Squid proxy box. We put
> some more disk in, and our squid process begain to grow (this is
> expected) - to this end, we bumped the ram on the machine up to 1Gb.
>
> When our squid process bombs ouy (at 555Mb) we see
> "xmalloc: unable to allocate 32768 bytes!".
>
> After much trolling around lists / squid archives etc I just couldn't
> find any (linux specific answers).
>
> I needed to work out if it was a squid issue or a memory issues. I
> wrote a small C program that mallocs 1 byte at a time. Malloc _always_
> fails at: 576797824 bytes. (which is around the same size as the squid
> process).
>
> I have also tried intentially getting other processes to blow out
> memory wise, and sure enough they all die around the same size. This
> has been done on 4 machine (the ones with enough real memory test with
> swap off too).
>
> I have gone through all of the ulimit issues etc (all show data seg
> size set to unlimited).
>
> So - is there some kind of kernel limitation on the maximum size of the
> kernel ? (if so where on earth is it!!!).
>
> FYI: (main squid proxy)
> Gigabyte Motherboard
> P3 800 (100)
> 1Gb Ram
> Slackware 7.0 (with kernal upgrade to 2.2.16)
>
> With my little "memory test" program, I managed to stop it 1 byte
> before the failed malloc - at this point, /proc/process_num/-
>
> status
> Name: test1
> State: S (sleeping)
> Pid: 15523
> PPid: 10677
> Uid: 0 0 0 0
> Gid: 0 0 0 0
> Groups: 0 1 2 3 4 6 10 11
> VmSize: 568708 kB
> VmLck: 0 kB
> VmRSS: 568044 kB
> VmData: 567700 kB
> VmStk: 8 kB
> VmExe: 4 kB
> VmLib: 972 kB
> SigPnd: 0000000000000000
> SigBlk: 0000000000000000
> SigIgn: 0000000000000000
> SigCgt: 0000000000000000
> CapInh: 0000000000000000
> CapPrm: 00000000fffffeff
> CapEff: 00000000fffffeff
>
> stat
>
> 15523 (test1) S 10677 15523 10677 771 15523 0 141935 0 106 0 14 358 0 0
> 9 0 0 0 120640442 582356992 142011 2147483647 134512640
> 134514411 2147482400 2147481856 716493729 0 0 0 0 21486041
>
> statm
> 142011 142011 77 2 0 142009 14193459 0 0 17 0
>
> I have looked _everywhere_ but I can't even find mention of max data
> size process limits.
>
> ANY help at all would be fantastic.
>
> If anyone has the solution, please mail it to me asap: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> All help appreciated!
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Matt Robinson BCompSci
> ISP Dr Internet (Australia)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 21:10:50 GMT
There is a difference between just evaluating Linux against Windows knowing
what you'll make the outcome to be, and seriously trying out Linux for a while
to see what it can really do before comparing it objectively to Windows. You
have shown no signs that you have done anything at all with Linux other than to
use it as fodder against your Windows system so that you feel good about
running Win2K.
Todd wrote:
> I am called a wintroll here, but I also have RedHat Linux 6.2.
Having RedHat Linux 6.2 doesn't rescind your wintroll status. When you decide
to seriously look at Linux and be objective about it, then you might be taken
seriously.
> I've compiled the kernel a couple times and done this and that. Linux ain't
> bad. I've used it now for quite a while (ever since 6.2 was released).
Yeah, you've used it to keep comparing it to Windows, not for any real work I'm
sure.
> But it isn't nearly as good as Windows 2000 nor as feature complete. Heck,
> most UNIX are way better than Linux as well. For example, HP-UX / Solaris /
> FreeBSD.
Only a wintroll would put Win2K in the same classification as HP-UX/ Solaris /
FreeBSD. Frankly, I think this is an insult to HP-UX/Solaris/FreeBSD.
And How would you know HP-UX/Solaris/FreeBSD is 'way better than Linux'? If
you won't try Linux seriously, why should I believe that you've ever tried any
other non-Windows system seriously. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if you had
tried Solaris and thought Win2K was better (especially with the way you
evaluate).
As far as the other Unixes being better than Linux, I would agree...but I won't
agree with 'way better'. I do know of some Unixes that are worse than Linux
(I'm thinking of the PC Version of SCO Unix......that was downright painful for
me to use, especially trying to make it cooperate with a Solaris machine).
>
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To all you WinTrolls
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 17:27:04 -0400
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
>
> > "Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Windows 2000 is a great OS, however, it is very top heavy, on a clean
> > startup on a
> > > machine with 128MB ram, 65MB RAM is already used by Windows, if thats
not
> > >excessive,
> > > I would hate to know what is!
> >
> > What has this have to do with the price of a Sunday paper? All this talk
> > lately about ram consumption. Why? If you don't have 128 mb's of ram in
your
> > machine by now you don't take c o m p u t e r u s e v e r y s e r i o
u s
> > l y, DO YOU?
>
> That's utter bullshit. Why the hell should I waste money (which I don't
have
> too much of to waste) upgrading my computer when it works well as it is.
If my
> OS took up 65M of ram an a clean boot, I'd be pissed off too. Oh, by the
way, i
> do take my computer use very seriously, I'm just able to do it in less RAM
than
> you.
Then you're not running much, are you? I don't call adding ram to my pc a
waste of money. On a standard red hat installation without X running you're
looking at 30mb's minimum. You can trim that for sure. But what do you have?
A really good shell or two, a decent compiler, a few good editors and not
much else.
Launch X and you're near 60mb's if you're running a recent (popular)
desktop.
Ram bloat -waste was the issue. A year ago ram was less < $1 a mb. I bought
it up at that price.
> > Look at what the desktop user is getting for that 65mb's. Most of the
> > libraries for web browsing are loaded, and the GUI is worlds more
> > sophisticated (read productivity).
>
> Real productivity? Are you capable of realising that other people like
> different things from you? I do a lot of programming. What use is a big
GUI for
> me? Hint... NONE AT ALL (I use vi and SVGATextMode). I personally don't
like
> the windows GUI. The lack of focus-follows-mouse and MDI interfaces really
bug
> me.
Of course. When learning C, linux was great. I didn't have my choice of too
many 'free' C compilers for windows. The c++ compilers for learning c on
windows are like swatting a fly with a bazooka. Shell programming is fun. I
like it. If that's all you need then that's great!
But, guess what, the other 90% of the computing world wants more. More means
more ram. Simple to me..what's the problem? As for the mouse focus, tweakui
provides this, with options for the window activation as well. MDI is going
going just about gone as well. MS dumped it inWord 2000. Other apps will
follow. RAD packages make more sense as MDI, so do databases and so on. If
you want to stay in a terminal based world then that's fine.
But don't cry when we're talking about ram needs for modern gui based
computing.
> > With Linux on the other hand, every time I want to go online I have to
> > launch that horrifically bloated and buggy NN (which takes forever it
seems)
> > and gobbles up ram like YOU wouldn't believe. NN is the only thing I
believe
> > that makes the linux box swap. (96mb's of ram)
>
> Jees, you must have a real dinosaur if loading NN takes for ever. It's
fine on
> my 133.
We all know the problem with NN. After all that slop is cached, it's not too
bad. Even then though, it's not exactly a speed demon. The box in question
is a P8 200\256. Better than twice the power of the p5 133.
> > The only problem I ever have with Linux is when loading big
> > "windows-world" applications. These same applications that are as much a
> > part of the computing world right now as bash is to linux.
>
> I have had no real problem running Word Perfect, Star Office, Netscape and
even
> Office 97 under Linux.
I've not run office 97 under linux..hehe.. but star is a complete bug fest.
Word perfect I'd like to try one day.
> > Linux shines when
> > it's doing what it is good at. It's not a windows replacement, nor can
it
> > compete with windows on the desktop in its current state. Anyone who
comes
> > in here and say that they are "rid of windows" has either made up their
mind
> > to make sacrifices in applications, hates MS on pure principle, never
really
> > needed big windows applications anyway, or is just content to hack with
free
>
> > tools and put up with a third rate web experience.
>
> I would say that my 3rd rate web experience (under all OS/Browsers) is
caused
> by poor website design.
Please! Talk to any web designer, they'll tell you that NN is the LEAST
standards compliant browser there is! It handles some forms terribly. The
listbox widgets are archaic, .. I could on, but it's such common knowlege
I'm bored by the prospect. I know many people who were NN die hards. After a
few spins with I.E., even they had to admit it was on a magnitude greater
product.
> Also, I'm rid of windows for all except a few games. I have had to make no
> sacrifices in terms of applications, and as it turned out, no, I never
really
> did need those big applications anyway. There are many smaller, better
> alternatives around. Eg, pico+latex beath the hell out of most word
processors.
I think that's fine. So be it. But, and a big but, go to a hospital, a
college, a high school, a ..go ANYWHERE, they are using windows\office\I.E.
Get used to it, it's not about to change soon.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:52:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
>> >What's that have to do with the your statement:
>> >
>> ><quote>
>> >"Enough said. You're entirely and completely wrong. WHO has the right
>> >to deny anyone access in public forums?"
>> ></quote>
>>
>> Nobody has the right to deny access in a public forum. According to the
>> law you cite, the provider or user of an interactive computer service
>> cannot be held liable for any *good faith* restriction. You haven't
>> been referring to any good faith restrictions; just to a blanket ability
>> to redact some particular person's messages because you don't like them.
>> That's not going to wash.
>
>Feel free to post in the following public forum
>news://sector51.dynip.com
>I'm sure the groups haven't been picked up by your own news server yet, but
>it's set to allow pulling. Oh - I will delete every single one of your posts
>because I want to. Sue me.
You've again missed the point. I don't care.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 21:57:50 GMT
In comp.lang.c Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wine runs Office? Wow, what a claim.
> A quick trip to the wine database shows that there isn't much that really
> runs under Wine. The highest rating for Office 97 is 3. This rating is
> described as "3 -- Sufficient functionality for noncritical work. Occasional
> crashes okay, as are weird setup problems, required patches, or missing
> major functionality. Alpha quality." Other reviews gave it even lower marks.
> The highest review given to Word 2000 is 1: "1 -- Loads without crashing.
> Good enough for a screenshot." And the highest review of Office 2000 rates
> it 0: "0 -- Totally nonfunctional. Crashes on load."
you have, of course, conveniently ignored that the most recent review of
Microsoft Word is from six months ago with a comment saying "maybe in 3
months it works".
of course everybody knows that Wine doesn't run Office well, but lying
(albeit by omission) doesn't help anybody.
--
/"\ m i k e b u r r e l l
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X AGAINST HTML MAIL,
/ \ AND NEWS TOO, dammit finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for GPG key
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 10:59:12 +1300
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most of what I do on Windows 98 SE could be done with Linux (though I'd
> probably go bananas trying to get my head round some of it): EMail, surf
> the net, usenet etc.
true
>
>
> I am a Software Engineer, and I use Delphi to create GUI applications. I
> created a 3D scene editor for POVray, a public domain ray tracer. I
> created it for Windows because that appeared to be (and still is) the
> most popular desktop system around.
>
> Delphi is being ported to Linux, and when that finally appears, I might
> switch to Linux at home. The lack of games on Linux does inhibit this,
> also the lack of 3D audio is another consideration.
ever hear of loki games? Simcity for Linux, Quake, and other games ported to
Linux by Loki?
>
> At work I develop audio device drivers for Windows. So, no matter what I
> do, my interest in Windows isn't going away any time soon.
>
Matt
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
> Coming soon: Kylix!
> (I do not need the destruction of Microsoft to succeed).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does anybody offer free Linux access?~!
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 16:59:50 -0500
this is a very interesting question.
first of all...as we all know, there is no free lunch...
the free isp's are being paid for by the advertisers of course.
just to see what it was all about i set up juno (on windows, of course)
and got an add banner atop the browser.
when i shut the as banner down...the browser simply closed.
if an isp were to do the same with linux...
it is not too likely they'd want to supply the source code as one could
easily disable the ad banners then...
and to not supply the source code would be against the priciples behind
linux (as i understand them)
so i do not see much likelihood of a free linux isp...
but i sincerely hope someone proves me wrong here.
--
Philo
website: www.plazaearth.com/philo
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 11:04:54 +1300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Professional level Digital Audio recording and restoration done under
> Win98se which despite all it's technical on paper design flaws (most
> of which are real), has been absolutley flawless for me. Each version
> has improved the stability and features, at least for what I use.
you can do this on an old atari, amiga, mac any plaform, why windows?
>
>
> I would use Win2k or better still Linux (I could save a fortune using
> Open Source) but the programs are not there for Linux, and the Win
> NT/2k programs are actually not as good as their Win98 versions.
>
What a load of rot, there is tonnes of applications such as StarOffice,
Netscape, the 1,000s of GNU applications being/have developed, and games
for Linux, Simcity 3000, Quake, Doom and other verious titles. I think that
the old wives tale that there is not enough apps or games for linux has run
its course!
Matt
>
> claire
>
> On 06 Oct 2000 10:19:44 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Okay, here's an opportunity for some real advocacy. The debates about
> >how Linux or NT/W2K provide a better desktop than the other are
> >neverending in COLA (I don't read COMNA, so I can't comment there). I
> >want to hear what you all use your desktop OS of choice for and why it
> >is a better solution for you than the alternatives. I'll start...
> >
> >I do IC CAD design on Solaris at Motorola. Linux provides me with a
> >free OS and networking tools to allow me to work from home on a cheap
> >Pentium II. I have a real X-Windows implementation in XFree86 instead
> >of a slow emulator like Exceed on NT, and I have all the tools at my
> >disposal to allow me to run and monitor jobs remotely just as I would
> >if I was in front of my terminal at work. All these tools were
> >available to me for the cost of the bandwidth used to download my
> >distro of choice, which is actually nothing since my employer pays
> >for my cable modem. No Microsoft OS of any variety offers me anything
> >of similar functionality in terms of ease of use or cost.
> >
> >Not that I don't use Windows at all; I have a dual-boot Win98 box. I
> >actually do most of my browsing under Windows. Linux, OTOH, is what I
> >use for real work, not play.
> >
> >Now it's your turn. What do you use your desktop for, and why does
> >you OS do the job better than the alternatives?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
