Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Bruce Sherwood]

It is indeed an eye-roller. But it's more a Python eye-roller than a
Microsoft or Windows eye-roller. If I remember correctly, it was Owen who
some months ago pointed out some unfortunate aspects of the Python ecology.
On the one hand, Python is very open to adding modules written in compiled
languages such as C++. However, for such foreign modules you have to use
the same compiler that was used to build the target Python (and you have to
prepare different versions for different versions of Python); you mostly
don't have such problems with modules written in Python. I could in
principle build Python myself from source, using any compiler I liked on
Windows, but there are lots of downsides to that, especially that other
people's compiled modules wouldn't work with my Python. For lots of
reasons, VPython is built to go with official python.org releases.

An additional complication is the break between Python 2.x and Python 3.x,
which in order to clean up some stuff is deliberately (though mildly)
incompatible with the 2.x series. For 64-bit Python built on wxPython I
have to use the older Python 2.7 at the moment, because wxPython for Python
3.x hasn't yet been released -- a general annoying problem in the Python
world, that modules lag Python. I guess for historical reasons, both the
32-bit and 64-bit Python 2.7 are built with the old 2008 version of Visual
Studio, for which 64-bitness apparently wasn't fully developed, especially
in the free version of the compiler that I use.

So the Python module situation is Not Good.

Bruce

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Bruce Sherwood 
> wrote:
>
>> In the case of 64-bit Python on Windows, that compiler is a rather old
>> version of Visual Studio which required arcane edits of various Visual
>> Studio configuration files on my machine.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>
> 
>
> --
> *Doug Roberts
> d...@parrot-farm.net*
> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
> * 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[glen e. p. ropella]

Edward Angel wrote at 02/08/2013 08:02 AM:
> Although it might seem that I would have a similar view as Bruce
> since we both support 3D graphics for educational purposes, my
> experience is exactly the opposite of Bruce's. [...]

Perhaps it's my own abstraction run amok, but this whole discussion
reminds me of the recent one about Doug's friends Dick and Bart:

glen wrote at 01/15/2013 03:37 PM:
> I suspect Dick had methods he invented for his astrophysics and Bart 
> invented methods for ... billing people. 8^)  And I suspect they
> were competent with those tools.  But I also suspect those tools did
> not translate well to non-astrophysicists or non-lawyers ... or
> perhaps even very many astrophysicists or very many lawyers.

Forget complexity (kind or degree), the metric is universality.  The
more expressive a tool, the less likely any particular use case for the
tool will apply across a large cohort.  The less expressive a tool, the
more likely a particular use case will translate, at least between
commonly structured individuals.

This discussion ranges over a very limited set of highly expressive
tools.  It makes complete sense that a particular use case for, say, a
Mac would not translate between even very similar users.

The beauty of on OS, a GUI, or a tightly coupled monolithically
integrated toolchain is that it _limits_ the universality of the tool,
thereby making it easier to translate any particular use case amongst
the members of a cohort.  If you're not in that cohort, well, tough luck
for you ... You have to puncture the monolithic toolchain, the GUI, or
the OS to get what you want.  (E.g. Marcus' description of analyzing to
the bottom.)  You need a more expressive tool in order to formulate and
satisfy your use case.

If you're belligerent and want to retain the monolith, but coerce it
into a suboptimal satisficing for your compromised use case, then you
have to continually react to the slight changes in the toolchain. Your
compromised use case (and its generating machinery) is _fragile_ to
changes in context.


-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Douglas Roberts]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

> In the case of 64-bit Python on Windows, that compiler is a rather old
> version of Visual Studio which required arcane edits of various Visual
> Studio configuration files on my machine.
>
> Bruce
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
* 
505-455-7333 - Office
505-672-8213 - Mobile*

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Bruce Sherwood]

The difference is indeed that users of VPython (not me!) have no
involvement with C/C++, and no involvement with any kind of compiling.
Almost all of the VPython C++ code is platform-independent, thanks to use
of OpenGL, with no use of DirectX, and as I've said, the platform-dependent
code (make a window, handle events) has been rock-solid for 12 years on all
versions of Windows (7 of them). During that time there were repeated
problems with Mac and Linux. Maybe another difference is that in your
textbook, Ed,  handling events is a rather minor issue, so that for example
Carbon/Cocoa issues probably haven't mattered?

Changes in the Visual Studio compiler have not been a problem until just a
couple of months ago, when I had to do quite a bit of work to keep going.
The problem is that one has to compile a C++ module for Python X.Y using
the same compiler that was used to build that version of Python. In the
case of 64-bit Python on Windows, that compiler is a rather old version of
Visual Studio which required arcane edits of various Visual Studio
configuration files on my machine.

Bruce


On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Edward Angel  wrote:

> Although it might seem that I would have a similar view as Bruce since we
> both support 3D graphics for educational purposes, my experience is exactly
> the opposite of Bruce's. I have to support thousands of mostly CS students
> and various professionals every year. Windows is an absolute nightmare for
> me to support with somewhat linux behind that. I have never had a problem
> on a Mac that wasn't my own error.
>
> Maybe the difference is that the majority of my users use C/C++.
> Incompatible versions of DirectX, changes in Visual Studio, coupled with
> driver issues from third party graphics boards and dealing with 32 and 64
> bit architectures makes it almost impossible to give a single set of
> instructions on how to get an OpenGL program running. If I get someone
> going on a 32 bit build, that may not work for 64 bits on the same machine.
> We even had to add a line in one of our libraries that sets a single
> element of a small array to 0.0 because of a driver bug in an AMD driver.
>
> The problems with linux have usually been simpler to deal with, usually
> involving where each one puts the "standard" libraries or how they are
> named.
>
> I used to recommend and do my own development using linux under Windows
> but that got worse with problems of dealing with dynamic vs dynamic
> libraries.
>
> If I didn't have to do so much support for my textbook and was only doing
> my own work, then there would be some attraction to Windows such as the
> ability to access the latest hardware. Apple sometimes infuriates me by its
> slowness hand secrettness in keeping up with graphics standards but when
> they do upgrade, the software is correct and works across their hardware
> and versions of OSX..
>
> Ed
> __
>
> Ed Angel
>
> Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory
> (ARTS Lab)
> Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico
>
> 1017 Sierra Pinon
> Santa Fe, NM 87501
> 505-984-0136 (home)   an...@cs.unm.edu
> 505-453-4944 (cell)  http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel
>
>
> On Feb 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
>
> I'm not claiming that Windows has all the answers for all possible goals.
> What I am pointing out is that in the case of a quite non-trivial
> application there has been remarkable stability that has been missing from
> both Mac and Linux environments. I haven't seen Microsoft being given
> credit for this, and it's not unimportant. Clearly someone at Microsoft has
> thought it important that applications continue to work.
>
> Concerning graphics, with each new release of Ubuntu I find it easy or
> difficult to install a proprietary graphics driver without which even
> simple 3D can fail. As for the Mac, a couple years ago World of Warcraft
> was broken on the Macbook Pro for something like a year and a half because
> the graphics driver had been tweaked to cater to some iProgram, and there
> was no way to upgrade the driver, given the closed Mac environment.
>
> What I'm objecting to is the facile assumption in computer-savvy circles
> that "obviously" Windows and Microsoft are hopeless (roll the eyes). That's
> not the whole story.
>
> Bruce
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Marcus G. Daniels 
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/7/13 10:54 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
>>
>>> To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far
>>> more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
>>>
>> Windows is the biggest market for gamers.  3D innovation has historically
>> always been first on WIndows.
>> If all you want a computer to do is a fixed set of 2d and 3d graphics
>> APIs, then, sure, use Windows.  But performance and stability are only two
>> dimensions.
>>
>> I care much more about flexibility than stability or graphics
>> performance.   For example, I want to use GPUs for accelerated computatio

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Edward Angel]

Although it might seem that I would have a similar view as Bruce since we both 
support 3D graphics for educational purposes, my experience is exactly the 
opposite of Bruce's. I have to support thousands of mostly CS students and 
various professionals every year. Windows is an absolute nightmare for me to 
support with somewhat linux behind that. I have never had a problem on a Mac 
that wasn't my own error.

Maybe the difference is that the majority of my users use C/C++. Incompatible 
versions of DirectX, changes in Visual Studio, coupled with driver issues from 
third party graphics boards and dealing with 32 and 64 bit architectures makes 
it almost impossible to give a single set of instructions on how to get an 
OpenGL program running. If I get someone going on a 32 bit build, that may not 
work for 64 bits on the same machine. We even had to add a line in one of our 
libraries that sets a single element of a small array to 0.0 because of a 
driver bug in an AMD driver.

The problems with linux have usually been simpler to deal with, usually 
involving where each one puts the "standard" libraries or how they are named.

I used to recommend and do my own development using linux under Windows but 
that got worse with problems of dealing with dynamic vs dynamic libraries.

If I didn't have to do so much support for my textbook and was only doing my 
own work, then there would be some attraction to Windows such as the ability to 
access the latest hardware. Apple sometimes infuriates me by its slowness hand 
secrettness in keeping up with graphics standards but when they do upgrade, the 
software is correct and works across their hardware and versions of OSX..

Ed
__

Ed Angel

Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab)
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico

1017 Sierra Pinon
Santa Fe, NM 87501
505-984-0136 (home) an...@cs.unm.edu
505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel


On Feb 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:

> I'm not claiming that Windows has all the answers for all possible goals. 
> What I am pointing out is that in the case of a quite non-trivial application 
> there has been remarkable stability that has been missing from both Mac and 
> Linux environments. I haven't seen Microsoft being given credit for this, and 
> it's not unimportant. Clearly someone at Microsoft has thought it important 
> that applications continue to work.
> 
> Concerning graphics, with each new release of Ubuntu I find it easy or 
> difficult to install a proprietary graphics driver without which even simple 
> 3D can fail. As for the Mac, a couple years ago World of Warcraft was broken 
> on the Macbook Pro for something like a year and a half because the graphics 
> driver had been tweaked to cater to some iProgram, and there was no way to 
> upgrade the driver, given the closed Mac environment.
> 
> What I'm objecting to is the facile assumption in computer-savvy circles that 
> "obviously" Windows and Microsoft are hopeless (roll the eyes). That's not 
> the whole story.
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Marcus G. Daniels  
> wrote:
> On 2/7/13 10:54 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
> To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far more 
> stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
> Windows is the biggest market for gamers.  3D innovation has historically 
> always been first on WIndows.
> If all you want a computer to do is a fixed set of 2d and 3d graphics APIs, 
> then, sure, use Windows.  But performance and stability are only two 
> dimensions.
> 
> I care much more about flexibility than stability or graphics performance.   
> For example, I want to use GPUs for accelerated computation.  It is 
> inappropriate in my situation to code using unportable (CUDA) or crudely 
> simple APIs like OpenCL.   That's no way to write complex, long-lived,  
> maintainable software.   It could be a way to write simple, static, 
> scientific codes that perform on particular cards, if that's all you need to 
> do.   I want the possibility of *some* acceleration over generations of 
> cards, not peak performance for one generation.
> 
> AMD GPUs on Linux now have the driver bits (in Mesa, a free OpenGL) and 
> compiler bits in LLVM (a free compiler).   Together there's now the 
> possibility of integrating real compilers with accelerator technology.   On 
> Windows, this kind of integration and experimentation is not possible.
> 
> Now fast forward to the day this all just works.   Someone writes a code 
> using these compiler tools, but, oops there's a strange anomaly in a 
> particular calculation.   How do you fix it?   Get your favorite bloggers to 
> complain in a public setting?No thanks, I want direct control.   That 
> means source code.
> 
> Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Grou

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 2/8/13 8:32 AM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
What I'm objecting to is the facile assumption in computer-savvy 
circles that "obviously" Windows and Microsoft are hopeless (roll the 
eyes). That's not the whole story.



I agree with that.   The operating system is solid, and the development 
tools are first rate.  It's even possible to do functional programming 
on Windows with F#.   I don't want to function in that world, but I can 
appreciate it is possible to.


Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Bruce Sherwood]

I'm not claiming that Windows has all the answers for all possible goals.
What I am pointing out is that in the case of a quite non-trivial
application there has been remarkable stability that has been missing from
both Mac and Linux environments. I haven't seen Microsoft being given
credit for this, and it's not unimportant. Clearly someone at Microsoft has
thought it important that applications continue to work.

Concerning graphics, with each new release of Ubuntu I find it easy or
difficult to install a proprietary graphics driver without which even
simple 3D can fail. As for the Mac, a couple years ago World of Warcraft
was broken on the Macbook Pro for something like a year and a half because
the graphics driver had been tweaked to cater to some iProgram, and there
was no way to upgrade the driver, given the closed Mac environment.

What I'm objecting to is the facile assumption in computer-savvy circles
that "obviously" Windows and Microsoft are hopeless (roll the eyes). That's
not the whole story.

Bruce


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:

> On 2/7/13 10:54 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
>
>> To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far
>> more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
>>
> Windows is the biggest market for gamers.  3D innovation has historically
> always been first on WIndows.
> If all you want a computer to do is a fixed set of 2d and 3d graphics
> APIs, then, sure, use Windows.  But performance and stability are only two
> dimensions.
>
> I care much more about flexibility than stability or graphics performance.
>   For example, I want to use GPUs for accelerated computation.  It is
> inappropriate in my situation to code using unportable (CUDA) or crudely
> simple APIs like OpenCL.   That's no way to write complex, long-lived,
>  maintainable software.   It could be a way to write simple, static,
> scientific codes that perform on particular cards, if that's all you need
> to do.   I want the possibility of *some* acceleration over generations of
> cards, not peak performance for one generation.
>
> AMD GPUs on Linux now have the driver bits (in Mesa, a free OpenGL) and
> compiler bits in LLVM (a free compiler).   Together there's now the
> possibility of integrating real compilers with accelerator technology.   On
> Windows, this kind of integration and experimentation is not possible.
>
> Now fast forward to the day this all just works.   Someone writes a code
> using these compiler tools, but, oops there's a strange anomaly in a
> particular calculation.   How do you fix it?   Get your favorite bloggers
> to complain in a public setting?No thanks, I want direct control.
> That means source code.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ==**==
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe 
> http://redfish.com/mailman/**listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD?

[Russell Standish]

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 11:06:36PM -0700, Steve Smith wrote:
> Nick -
> 
> I recently read (probably in Russell's work or in one of the
> references it took me to (Tegmark?)) a quote that "complexity is a
> quality, not a quantity" (attributed to whom?).
> 

Could be me, but if so its been misquoted. I distinguish complexity as
a quality versus complexity as a quantity in the paper "Concept and
Definition of Complexity"*, which I originally wrote for an
encyclopedia article, which was eventually canned when the editor gave
up due to time pressures, and was later revived as a book chapter.

*Almost all my papers are available in full text, linked from my
website (see below).

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 2/7/13 10:54 PM, Bruce Sherwood wrote:
To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been 
far more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
Windows is the biggest market for gamers.  3D innovation has 
historically always been first on WIndows.
If all you want a computer to do is a fixed set of 2d and 3d graphics 
APIs, then, sure, use Windows.  But performance and stability are only 
two dimensions.


I care much more about flexibility than stability or graphics 
performance.   For example, I want to use GPUs for accelerated 
computation.  It is inappropriate in my situation to code using 
unportable (CUDA) or crudely simple APIs like OpenCL.   That's no way to 
write complex, long-lived,  maintainable software.   It could be a way 
to write simple, static, scientific codes that perform on particular 
cards, if that's all you need to do.   I want the possibility of *some* 
acceleration over generations of cards, not peak performance for one 
generation.


AMD GPUs on Linux now have the driver bits (in Mesa, a free OpenGL) and 
compiler bits in LLVM (a free compiler).   Together there's now the 
possibility of integrating real compilers with accelerator technology.   
On Windows, this kind of integration and experimentation is not possible.


Now fast forward to the day this all just works.   Someone writes a code 
using these compiler tools, but, oops there's a strange anomaly in a 
particular calculation.   How do you fix it?   Get your favorite 
bloggers to complain in a public setting?No thanks, I want direct 
control.   That means source code.


Marcus


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Bruce Sherwood]

The VPython history is Windows 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP, Vista, Windows 7. I
haven't yet tried Windows 8. VPython got started in 2000, but at the time
there were still machines around running OS versions as old as Windows 95.

Bruce


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> Windows what: XP? If so, it had better be stable. It's been around since
> 2001!
> On Feb 7, 2013 10:55 PM, "Bruce Sherwood" 
> wrote:
>
>> To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far
>> more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> It just might be, however, in the grander scheme of things, time for the
>>> degenerate M$ genome to expire, no longer able to sustain the instabilities
>>> it has spawned.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> 
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>>
>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD?

[Steve Smith]

Nick -

I recently read (probably in Russell's work or in one of the references 
it took me to (Tegmark?)) a quote that "complexity is a quality, not a 
quantity" (attributed to whom?).


As for robust genotype/phenotype, I think a key is that evolution 
doesn't throw things away or even invent new things as much as turn them 
on and off (up and down regulate)...


Among other things, if a "tail" or an "appendix" or even "gills" becomes 
valuable in the fitness metric for humans, we still have everything 
needed to light those things back up without having to invent them again.


This might be a tie-in to the Windows Resource Manager thread in the 
sense that my wife's instinct (learned 20-25 years ago in her early 
MacOS experiences) is to go "uninstall" everything she doesn't know what 
it is ...   which of course, if I were to give in to that instinct, 
would mean *re-installing* the many things she simply *didn't know* she 
was needing/using.


- Steve


Doug,

Ah! Now this is the sort of topic we used to discuss:  when does 
complexity lead to stability and when does it lead to chaos?


One of the remarkable things we discovered in the EVO DEVO group that 
met a couple of years back is how the genome has been designed to be 
stable under change.  It's a bit mysterious to imagine how such a 
 design might have come about through natural selection.  A bit like 
wondering how the air traffic control system could have come about 
through competition among airlines.  It was apparently accomplished 
more than a billion years ago because the basic structure of the 
genome is very ancient.   If I were an "intelligent design" freak, 
this would be my candidate for evidence.


But please don't bend my Resource Monitor thread.  I am learning a 
heluva lot, and I am very happy with it.


Nick

*From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas 
Roberts

*Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:31 PM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Windows Resource Monitor

You say that like complexity is a bad thing.

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Owen Densmore > wrote:


Just an observation: Things are Getting More Complicated .. when it
comes to computing.

I have two friends, both quite bright in terms of computing.  One a
PC, the other a Mac user.  Both have what I call Rotten System Syndrom
(RSS).  It is NOT a PC vs Mac issue.  Its just that things are getting
way too complex.  The cloud, backups, sluggish systems, how to
uninstall apps, knowing what's on the computer, knowing whether or not
there is a problem.  It goes on and on.  The same for Linux, Mac,
Windows.

I'd love to say: Oh, just get a Mac.  Or Ubuntu.  Or Windows 8.

Nope.  It all boils down to systems being so complicated that even
experts have problems.

My solution has been along the lines I mentioned to Nick earlier: in a
phrase -- System Hygiene.

So how do you keep your system clean and nice .. and not even need to
do a clean install?

There are several things that contribute to your system being healthy.

The most important is: know what is on your system and being able to
remove it when no longer needed.  Nick hit one one right away: a
system utility like the Task/System monitor he found.  So rather than
being a noob, Nick turned out to hit on the right issue right away.

On my system, I always have the "Activity Monitor" running, and yes,
as Josh mentioned, run "purge" often.  So I can see visually what's up
with the system.  All the Big 3 have these, just look for performance
monitor etc and you'll find it.

Next: after understanding how your system is running, look at your
disk.  Again, all the Big 3 have something like Omni Disk Sweeper for
the Mac: a program that lets you see, by size, where everything is on
your disk.  I had to scrape my Mini clean recently so that Time
Machine (the incremental backup system) wouldn't fill up immediately.
I found over (blush) 40GB! that I no longer needed!  That's a lot of
cruft.  And I'm supposed to be hip.  But no, cruft happens.

So after (2 days believe it or not) of figuring out what needed to be
done, I applied yet another tool available on all of the Big 3: an
un-installer programmer.  There were several available.  I deleted a
large amount of the 40GB blush that way.  Amazing just how much TeX
takes up on legacy systems.

What next?  Well, I still had WAY too much on my system to have a sane
backup/TimeMachine strategy.  DiskSweeper again.  Man did I have a LOT
of stuff I no longer needed.  What to do?  I chose a mixed strategy:
- All working docs were put in the cloud. How? Dropbox for a lot of
it.  Music?  Both Google Drive and iTunes Match.  Again available for
the B3.  Whew, that was a lot.  I had over 80GB music, and now it's
all in the cloud, multiply backed up.  Next photos.  As mentioned
earlier, Arc and Amazon storage helps there.  Mail: IMAP/gmail ..
that's solved (and now with 2-factor authentication).

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Douglas Roberts]

Windows what: XP? If so, it had better be stable. It's been around since
2001!
On Feb 7, 2013 10:55 PM, "Bruce Sherwood"  wrote:

> To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far
> more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.
>
> Bruce
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> It just might be, however, in the grander scheme of things, time for the
>> degenerate M$ genome to expire, no longer able to sustain the instabilities
>> it has spawned.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Bruce Sherwood]

To repeat, Windows for my 3D graphics development purposes has been far
more stable than either Mac or Ubuntu Linux.

Bruce

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> It just might be, however, in the grander scheme of things, time for the
> degenerate M$ genome to expire, no longer able to sustain the instabilities
> it has spawned.
>
>
>

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] IS: wHEN IS COMPLEXITY A GOOD? WAS: Windows Resource Monitor

[Douglas Roberts]

Bend a thread? Perish the thought. Please, continue on with the
complexities of Windows 7 systems administration.

I don't use it myself, so the less I know about it, the better. But that's
probably just be me.

It just might be, however, in the grander scheme of things, time for the
degenerate M$ genome to expire, no longer able to sustain the instabilities
it has spawned.

I believe Darwin probably got most of it right.

--Doug
On Feb 7, 2013 9:08 PM, "Nicholas Thompson" 
wrote:

> Doug,
>
> ** **
>
> Ah!  Now this is the sort of topic we used to discuss:  when does
> complexity lead to stability and when does it lead to chaos?
>
> ** **
>
> One of the remarkable things we discovered in the EVO DEVO group that met
> a couple of years back is how the genome has been designed to be stable
> under change.  It’s a bit mysterious to imagine how such a  design might
> have come about through natural selection.  A bit like wondering how the
> air traffic control system could have come about through competition among
> airlines.  It was apparently accomplished more than a billion years ago
> because the basic structure of the genome is very ancient.   If I were an
> “intelligent design” freak, this would be my candidate for evidence.  
>
> ** **
>
> But please don’t bend my Resource Monitor thread.  I am learning a heluva
> lot, and I am very happy with it.  
>
> ** **
>
> Nick 
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas
> Roberts
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:31 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Windows Resource Monitor
>
> ** **
>
> You say that like complexity is a bad thing.
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Owen Densmore  wrote:
> 
>
> Just an observation: Things are Getting More Complicated .. when it
> comes to computing.
>
> I have two friends, both quite bright in terms of computing.  One a
> PC, the other a Mac user.  Both have what I call Rotten System Syndrom
> (RSS).  It is NOT a PC vs Mac issue.  Its just that things are getting
> way too complex.  The cloud, backups, sluggish systems, how to
> uninstall apps, knowing what's on the computer, knowing whether or not
> there is a problem.  It goes on and on.  The same for Linux, Mac,
> Windows.
>
> I'd love to say: Oh, just get a Mac.  Or Ubuntu.  Or Windows 8.
>
> Nope.  It all boils down to systems being so complicated that even
> experts have problems.
>
> My solution has been along the lines I mentioned to Nick earlier: in a
> phrase -- System Hygiene.
>
> So how do you keep your system clean and nice .. and not even need to
> do a clean install?
>
> There are several things that contribute to your system being healthy.
>
> The most important is: know what is on your system and being able to
> remove it when no longer needed.  Nick hit one one right away: a
> system utility like the Task/System monitor he found.  So rather than
> being a noob, Nick turned out to hit on the right issue right away.
>
> On my system, I always have the "Activity Monitor" running, and yes,
> as Josh mentioned, run "purge" often.  So I can see visually what's up
> with the system.  All the Big 3 have these, just look for performance
> monitor etc and you'll find it.
>
> Next: after understanding how your system is running, look at your
> disk.  Again, all the Big 3 have something like Omni Disk Sweeper for
> the Mac: a program that lets you see, by size, where everything is on
> your disk.  I had to scrape my Mini clean recently so that Time
> Machine (the incremental backup system) wouldn't fill up immediately.
> I found over (blush) 40GB! that I no longer needed!  That's a lot of
> cruft.  And I'm supposed to be hip.  But no, cruft happens.
>
> So after (2 days believe it or not) of figuring out what needed to be
> done, I applied yet another tool available on all of the Big 3: an
> un-installer programmer.  There were several available.  I deleted a
> large amount of the 40GB blush that way.  Amazing just how much TeX
> takes up on legacy systems.
>
> What next?  Well, I still had WAY too much on my system to have a sane
> backup/TimeMachine strategy.  DiskSweeper again.  Man did I have a LOT
> of stuff I no longer needed.  What to do?  I chose a mixed strategy:
> - All working docs were put in the cloud. How? Dropbox for a lot of
> it.  Music?  Both Google Drive and iTunes Match.  Again available for
> the B3.  Whew, that was a lot.  I had over 80GB music, and now it's
> all in the cloud, multiply backed up.  Next photos.  As mentioned
> earlier, Arc and Amazon storage helps there.  Mail: IMAP/gmail ..
> that's solved (and now with 2-factor authentication).  Movies?  again,
> not too difficult.  A larger dropbox might help but I decided on
> simply finding .torrent files, so that I can get lost movies in a few
> hours if needed, the rest on local storage (redundant, via a NAS, bu