Linux-Advocacy Digest #355, Volume #30 Tue, 21 Nov 00 22:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:37:29 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <JNgS5.9261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vc416$i6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Only one version of NT ever had random uptime reporting problems.
> > > SP5. It
> > > > jus so happens that SP5 is probably the most common service pack
> being
> > > used
> > > > on most web servers.
> > >
> > > That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate
> for
> > > 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
> > > remaining accurate for 497 days. BTW, I thought service pack were to
> FIX
> > > problems, not create them! looks like the programers that worked on
> > > service pack 5 didn't get that training.
> >
> > It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is
> less
> > precise.
> >
> > I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially
> identical
> > between both platforms.
>
> Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate TEN
> TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the TIME
> that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
> bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not program
> with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days was
> a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When NT
> was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not uncommon
> for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very poor
> choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that drove
> me away from MS
>
Maybe not
Considering that 49 days of uptime is an ETERNITY for an NT machine...
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:37:48 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
> > > You have a gross double standard. You wish them to learn so much, but
on
> > > your terms. We wish them to learn a few things, you scream "bloody
hell,
> > > but why make them learn so much?"
> >
> > No, I am reacting to the reverse claim that windows users don't need
> > to know anything which is not true at all. They do have to learn
> > lot, yet they end up only knowing about special cases that will
> > likely be different in next year's version. They are not encouraged
> > to see the potential for using the computer to work for them as
> > they notice the repeating patterns in their jobs. That is, there is no
> > straightforward way to go from the interactive use of typical
> > windows tools to automation of the same action. The program
> > may have its own special-case internal language for automation
> > but it has nothing in common with normal use.
>
> You have a very impractical and hopelessly purist view on things.
I can afford to be. I have no vested interest in selling something
and no reason to mislead anyone to make sales.
My purist views are that (a) computers are tools to help do
different jobs, (b) most people will use them over a long
period of time, and (c) people are only novices for a few
days. That means that the deception of ease of use by hiding
the real functionality and giving you point and click operations
is good for making the sale, and it's good for the first few days
of use. Then you spend the rest of your life repeating the point
and click operations over and over instead of understanding
the commands that you would use to have the computer do all
the repetitive parts for you.
> How
> many computer users do you think know how to use grep, Perl and regex's
> to help deal with the repetitive aspects of text editing.
Anyone could use grep in a second. Anyone could use regex's in
editing, as long as the editor has an 'undo' command which is always
the first thing you should learn. Perl is for programmers, although
anyone can used canned scripts and many people could tweak
them a little if they started with one that was close to what they
wanted.
> How many people
> know how to use scipting languages to automated repetitive tasks or even
> know how to write simple batch commands. I'm one of those non-
> professionals who knows and believe me I feel like a fish out of water.
Most people who use command-driven editors and command line
programs notice the repitition and learn to take advantage at
least of history recall and command line editing. This can lead
directly to simple shell scripts with some substitions, then
to more complex operations.
> If my level of knowledge was a prerequisite to using computers, not as
> many computers would be in use today. It takes a great amount of time and
> effort to learn what you speak about so trivially.
It takes time for you because it doesn't evolve from the normal operations
you were sold as being 'easy'. If you used a command-oriented language
from the start you would have developed the knowlege you have naturally
instead of as a completely different way of doing things.
> MS KNOWS this, have
> stolen most of the market for users who wish not to learn so much. They
> ARE getting by without knowing so much. I'm not saying that many wouldn't
> be more productive knowing how to do these advanced things; however, I'm
> saying that many wouldn't benefit from the knowledge.
Perhaps some things can't be described as well by commands as by
pointing-tool operations, but for anything where commands make sense,
using the commands instead of the mouse is not only natural if you
start that way, but the grouping and automated repetition of commands
will also come naturally.
> > Note that a regexp handler works just fine with simple strings, and
> > you don't have to start over when the pattern is slightly more
> > complicated.
>
> That's besides the point. I, however know what you're getting at. :=)
> That would apply to a user like myself, who is willing to learn and may
> decide to use regex's later. It will prevent me from having to go out and
> find another tool. Just include it from the word go since regex tools
> will accept simple strings. Unfortunately, most are not like you and me.
Some are, some aren't - people do think differently. But concealing
the real operations behind a GUI isn't best for everyone, and I think
it is only best for 'most' for a few days.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:38:39 -0500
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2000 04:07:00 -0600,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8vcn0b$gr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate TEN
> >> TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the TIME
> >> that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
> >> bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not program
> >> with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days was
> >> a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When NT
> >> was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not uncommon
> >> for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very poor
> >> choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that drove
> >> me away from MS
> >
> >You are completly clueless Matt.
> >
> >No Unix system that I know of suffered from Y2k in the way you mention.
> >Unix has never used two digits for years (digits, not bits as you claim) in
> >any way except for textual printout (on screen or printer or text file).
> >All date and time variables are stored internally in a "seconds from" some
> >day (usually Jan 1, 1970, IIRC). The only Y2k issues Unix had were when
> >dates were stored in textual form, or when they were printed or read, not
> >when they were stored in binary form.
> >
>
> You completely avoided answering the point raised, which was the poor choice of
> 49 days as an uptime counter reset used in NT, unless maybe 49 days was the
> best they expected NT to stay up for?
Kind of like the speedometer scale on production street cars is
ALWAYS higher than the maximum speed that the car will go with
the factory drivetrain.
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:40:36 -0500
sfcybear wrote:
>
> In article <ENrS5.9449$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8vcn0b$gr4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hardly Identical. NT is acurate for 49 days, Linux/Unix is accurate
> TEN
> > > TIMES LONGER! 497 days! This is better design. When looking at the
> TIME
> > > that Unix was designed, memory was VERY expensive (the reason that 2
> > > bits were used for the year giving us Y2K), Programers did not
> program
> > > with large variables and computers were much less reliable, 497 days
> was
> > > a VERY reasonable number and shows a well thought out choice! When
> NT
> > > was being designed memory prices were far lower and it was not
> uncommon
> > > for computers to be up MUCH longer than 49 days. 49 day was a very
> poor
> > > choice, and is an example the LACK of thought in programing that
> drove
> > > me away from MS
> >
> > You are completly clueless Matt.
> >
> > No Unix system that I know of suffered from Y2k in the way you
> mention.
> > Unix has never used two digits for years (digits, not bits as you
> claim) in
>
> Yeap, just another way that Linux is better than MS. However, I did not
> mention a type of OS when I was talking about the date, Did I? That is
> because I was reffering to it as the CAUSE of the y2k problem! The same
> REASONS that prompted the use of a 2 place year variable vs. a 4 place
> year variable were the same REASONS that promped keeping the uptime
> variable short. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE SAME ISSUE! The y2k bug
> in non-unix systems and the fact that Unix boxes turn over at 497 days
> are the result of descisions made to save memory when ram and disks were
> very expensive.
>
> > any way except for textual printout (on screen or printer or text
> file).
> > All date and time variables are stored internally in a "seconds from"
> some
> > day (usually Jan 1, 1970, IIRC). The only Y2k issues Unix had were
> when
> > dates were stored in textual form, or when they were printed or read,
> not
> > when they were stored in binary form.
>
> read it again buddy, I never said that Unix was vunerable to the Y2K
> bug. Only that the Uptime roll over being at 497 days was to save
> expensive memory where ever possible. this is the same REASON that the
> year was represented with 2 places not 4. Yes, admit that the savings on
> the uptime variable was very small, but habits are habits and a good
> programer at the time used the smallest variable possible where ever
> possible.
>
> Now, The statement I made was that the use of 479 days was based on a
> reasonable thought process at the time the OS was writen. It may be
> outdated But it was not an error or a flaw. There is NO reasonable
> thought that I know of that justifies a 49 day uptime clock at the time
How about: Neutered Technology will always crash before 49 days anyway.
> NT was writen. Memory was already getting MUCH cheaper and Computers
> were already running far longer than 49 days. This means that the 49 day
> uptime was an error or flaw.
>
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:42:02 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is less
> > > precise.
> > >
> > > I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially
> identical
> > > between both platforms.
> >
> > If someone sells you a hot dog for $5 and another for $50 you'd say that
> > the price is essentially identical?
>
> I didn't say that. I said the problem is identical, even if the results are
> different.
>
> If the hot dog were really $ .50, then it's the same problem whether they
> charge you $5 or $50.
With the $0.50 hotdogs, 10 will cost you $5
With the $5.00 hotdogs, 10 will cost you $50.
If you wanted to take your family out to eat, would it make a
difference to you?
If so, why?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:43:10 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It's the same bug. The only difference is that the Linux clock is less
> > > precise.
> > >
> > > I can't believe you're gloating over an issue that is essentially
> identical
> > > between both platforms.
> >
> > If someone sells you a hot dog for $5 and another for $50 you'd say that
> > the price is essentially identical?
>
> I didn't say that. I said the problem is identical, even if the results are
> different.
>
> If the hot dog were really $ .50, then it's the same problem whether they
> charge you $5 or $50.
This lack of logic shows very clearly why you are not, nor ever
will be, a highly educated person.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "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"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:41:59 GMT
Giuliano Colla writes:
>>>>>> sfcybear writes:
>>>>>>> That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate for
>>>>>>> 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
>>>>>>> remaining accurate for 497 days.
>>>>>> You're confusing range with accuracy. Both clocks could be equally
>>>>>> accurate. Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is,
>>>>>> the same number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision
>>>>>> is reduced.
>>>>> Maybe the terms he used aren't exact.
>>>> You're not sure?
>>> It depends wether you're speaking of clock accuracy (which is a hardware
>>> issue, not OS related, and therefore off topic), or of uptime estimate
>>> accuracy.
>> Which do think fits into the context of the discussion, and how does
>> your "depends" matter?
> Clock accuracy of course has nothing to do with the context
> of the discussion, but uptime estimate accuracy has to do.
> That's what he was speaking of.
That's what I'm speaking of.
> If you're out of range you've lost all accuracy.
Which can happen to both. So, how does that make one "10 time more
accurate"?
>>> Whenever uptime estimate is completely wrong you may well say that
>>> accuracy of the measured value is not so good, even if clock accuracy
>>> comes from a caesium primary. In that case with Unix you have an
>>> accurate measurements for a time 10 times longer than with NT.
>> That's range, not accuracy.
> The out of range error may be the reason to loose any
> measurement accuracy. A reading of 2 instead of 51.7 is a
> 2500% error. How do you define accuracy? Something like the
> difference between actual and measured value, divided by
> actual value, or something different?
You're talking about relative accuracy, which can differ from
absolute accuracy. However, I'm simply interested in finding out
how one can be "10 times more accurate".
>>>>> But if someone comes to your home to measure the floor in order to
>>>>> deliver you the wall to wall carpet,
>>>> That's a matter of fitting some material into a space. Rather different
>>>> from an uptime measurement, which is open-ended.
>>> That's an abstract notion.
>> Not at all.
Note: no response.
>>> Any value may be open ended.
>> Incorrect; consider the amount of carpeting example.
> What will be the upper limit? The average room or the
> Versailles castle ballroom? Or carpeting the fifth avenue to
> give it a Christmas look? You see, it's not so obvious, even
> if you're just selling carpets.
On the contrary, it is quite obvious, given that the surface
area of the Earth is a very good upper limit.
> However what do you suggest for uptime? 64 bits with 1
> second resolution gives a range of 50 billion years (roughly
> the Universe age). Following what you say it's not
> appropriate because it's not open-ended!
I'm not trying to suggest what anyone should use for uptime. I'm
simply trying to find out how one can be "10 times more accurate".
>>> Writing a program you must decide what will be your upper limit, and
>>> reserve space accordingly. If your decision is wrong, then you've made
>>> a silly mistake.
>> No program writing is involved in computing the amount of carpeting
>> needed.
> Off topic, but have you ever heard about architecture
> programs, used to design interiors?
Non sequitur, as you just admitted.
>>>>> and does it with a micrometric gauge, providing .1 mil accuracy, but
>>>>> spanning only 3 inches, you'd call him an idiot, wouldn't you?
>>>> He isn't the one who chose the poor analogy.
>>> Maybe you don't grasp it,
>> Maybe I did grasp it.
Note: no response.
>>> but if you select a word size and a time resolution, you set your
>>> upper limit.
>> If you had bothered to read what I wrote, you would realize that I
>> already grasped it:
>>
>> DT] Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is, the same
>> DT] number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision is reduced.
>>
>> Note that the correct word is now precision, not accuracy.
Note: no response.
>>> If the choice is poor you end up exactly like that. Using milliseconds
>>> to measure uptime isn't much smarter than using a gauge to measure a
>>> floor.
>> If uptime is the only thing being measured with that choice, then you
>> would have a point. You don't suppose they're using that same value
>> for something else, do you?
> If they use something not appropriate for uptime, then
> they're making the same mistake of the gauge. The man
> measuring the floor could have a gauge in his pocket for
> other purposes, but it's not appropriate for measuring the
> floor.
Tape measures can be used to measure carpeting needs as well as the
size of curtains. Imagine that, another purpose.
> Do you believe that a second counter, with an appropriate
> resolution would have been such a task to endanger system
> performance? Or a few instructions to handle overflow of the
> millisecond counter would have been dangerous?
What limited imagination you have. Are the only other uses you can
imagine ones that endager system performance?
> Unix had a 10 ms counter, and they judged that a range of
> over one year and a half was enough, so they didn't bother.
> MS roughly 30 years later had a 1 ms counter and didn't
> bother either. Judging apparently that a range of one month
> and a half was enough.
How does that make one "10 times more accurate"? You're still
avoiding the issue that I originally addressed.
>>> If you think differently I'll address elsewhere whenever in need
>>> a) to measure my floor, b) to measure uptime.
>> Be sure to write a program to handle (a), with appropriate upper limits.
> Whenever in need I'll do it. But you may be sure that
> existing interior design programs are using appropriate
> upper limits: the feature is visible, competition is present
> and if they made it as crappy as MS, they wouldn't survive
> for long time.
How does that make one "10 times more accurate"?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:43:53 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>> sfcybear writes:
>>>>> That still leaves the FACT that NT uptime clocks are only acurate
>>>>> for 49.7 days while Unix clocks are 10 times more acurate than that.
>>>>> remaining accurate for 497 days.
>>>> You're confusing range with accuracy. Both clocks could be equally
>>>> accurate. Range usually comes at the expense of precision. That is,
>>>> the same number of bits can provide a greater range if the precision
>>>> is reduced.
>>> So? Does it change anything?
>> Yes. It changes your claim that it's a "fact" than UNIX clocks are
>> 10 times more accurate than that.
>>> NT uptime clock croaks at 49 days
>> Irrelevant, given that the issue I was addressing was the one of
>> the alleged "10 times more accurate".
> What benifit is derived by gaining uptime precision to fractions
> of a second, at the cost of the upper limit being 49 days rather
> than 497 days?
Irrelevant, given that the issue I was addressing was the one of
the alleged "10 times more accurate".
> Oh yeah..I forgot...
> We're talking about NT, which can't stay up for more than 3 weeks anyways.
>
> NEVER MIND.
Then why bother posting?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
