Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:47:11PM +, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:24:03AM +, Lusercop wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its > > > full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. > > > > You could do what I do with the unused CPU time on colon, and donate it > > to one Nicholas Clark and his bleadperl smoketests. (obviously you wouldn't > > necessarily want to do those, but something similar may be possible). > > Smoking CPAN might be worthwhile. When I asked Jos, I think that his answer > was that CPANPLUS has pretty much all the functionality needed build in. Just be careful of the rootkits hidden in Makefile.PLs. Oh, hold on. Wrong thread. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:24:03AM +, Lusercop wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its > > full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. > > You could do what I do with the unused CPU time on colon, and donate it > to one Nicholas Clark and his bleadperl smoketests. (obviously you wouldn't > necessarily want to do those, but something similar may be possible). Smoking CPAN might be worthwhile. When I asked Jos, I think that his answer was that CPANPLUS has pretty much all the functionality needed build in. Nicholas Clark -- INTERCAL better than perl? http://www.perl.org/advocacy/spoofathon/
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
* alex ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > An installation of subversion would be a very good thing, which was > mentioned on IRC earlier. > Well I'd like to see someone take ownership of this task, which may provide the foundation of a project i'd like to see happen. The project is stolen almost entirely from gnat and its the idea of mentoring within the Perl community. Basically I'd like to see people in London.pm who are or feel they are less experienced with Perl get teamed up with people who have more experience to work on small open source works. I'd like this to happen on a 1 to 1 basis and I'd like it to use subversion on Penderel as the repository as opposed to yet another doomed SF project. Thoughts? G. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.org.uk/~gem/ jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
Penderel is stable now, since putting in bits donated kindly by (oops, can't remember, sorry, kind person). There's a pending hardware upgrade too, which I paid for in advance of receiving suggested 20 quid donation for some extra accounts (5 quid for the unwaged/otherwise poor). I'll drop in the new motherboard and chip Real Soon Now. An AMD 1700+ I believe. I bought it a long time ago but the motherboard was faulty. I have long since returned to the tcr computer fayre, and replaced it for a working one. It's just not inside the computer... I offer a vague feeling that I won't get all my money back, in return for not having to document the process. If someone else wants to manage it more professionally they should feel free. There are some limits on bandwidth but the deal was that we (state51) give you (london.pm) some bandwidth and you do some interesting community things with it. The reason for my question is that I think it could be used more but don't have many good ideas myself. An installation of subversion would be a very good thing, which was mentioned on IRC earlier. alex
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 01:51:44PM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Paul Makepeace ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > > I think Penderel is one of london.pm's most underused assets. Its got > > > a reasonable processor (AMD-K6/350), 1/2gig of memory and 25gig of > > > > One of the more recent possible, and certainly very real older > > reasons it is/was unused is that its hardware was tolerant of heavy use. > > A mailing list and website might not be a big deal but oh boy do people > > make a noise when they disappear. > > > > Well if we do not want to put more load on the box, should we be I think the issue is simply that there isn't a demand for it. Hardly surprising considering that most people probably have their own computers and network connections. > appealing for hardware cash in exchange for accounts. Why not get > t-shirt cash in exchange for accounts. Hell, you could even do a deal This is already in effect in fact. You can dig thru' the archives if you like, or persuade Alex to re-post it :-) Heck it may be on the site even. I'd do all this myself if I could persuade galeon to stay up for more than about three nanoseconds *grumble* > where you get a free account if you buy 5 shirts and sign the AUP > (which we should have). "Don't be bad, thanks. If you don't know what bad probably means you probably shouldn't have an account." Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ "What is the color yellow? Tappa, tappa, tappa!" -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
* Paul Makepeace ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > > I think Penderel is one of london.pm's most underused assets. Its got > > a reasonable processor (AMD-K6/350), 1/2gig of memory and 25gig of > > One of the more recent possible, and certainly very real older > reasons it is/was unused is that its hardware was tolerant of heavy use. > A mailing list and website might not be a big deal but oh boy do people > make a noise when they disappear. > Well if we do not want to put more load on the box, should we be appealing for hardware cash in exchange for accounts. Why not get t-shirt cash in exchange for accounts. Hell, you could even do a deal where you get a free account if you buy 5 shirts and sign the AUP (which we should have). Greg -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.org.uk/~gem/ jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > I think Penderel is one of london.pm's most underused assets. Its got > a reasonable processor (AMD-K6/350), 1/2gig of memory and 25gig of One of the more recent possible, and certainly very real older reasons it is/was unused is that its hardware was tolerant of heavy use. A mailing list and website might not be a big deal but oh boy do people make a noise when they disappear. A useful duty penderel does is providing shell accounts for travelling mongers and I've tried to be quick & helpful setting these up with a punt to Alex to collect some kind of donation to the hardware. > It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its > full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. I'll install a distributed.net client immediately! :-) At the end of the day, the box has been around for ages, people know it's there, and they can email root for an account if they want it. I wouldn't personally lament that its disk or CPU wait states aren't begging for mercy 24x7. I'm curious why Alex asked the question and what kind of answer he'd like to see, or what thoughts he has on it... Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ "If you exploded into a thousand tiny pieces, then don't bend over in the Monastery." -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Greg McCarroll wrote: > It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its > full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. Personally, I think that this is the wrong way to look at this. I prefer instead to think that we have the extra resources should we need it to do anything. There's no law that say we have to consume all of our resources. I'd prefer for someone to come up with an interesting project and then that they had the resources to do it on penderel, rather than the other way round, where someone goes out looking for things to simply consume the resources. Don't think that I'm saying that you shouldn't do something with penderel (infact I think that if you can come up with a great project it would be wonderful) but I'm just saying I think you're coming at it from a point of a problem that I think doesn't exist. Extra capability is good. If memory serves, in the past running distributed.net clients and their ilk caused instability in the box (I believe at the time this was attributed to heating issues.) Given that our website and mailing list run on this box (which, as Dave Cantrell points out don't need to be up all the time, but do require someone to get back up every time they fall over) I'd rather see the sacrifice machine stability without providing some tangible benefit. Just my two pence worth. Mark. -- s'' Mark Fowler London.pm Bath.pm http://www.twoshortplanks.com/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ';use Term'Cap;$t=Tgetent Term'Cap{};print$t->Tputs(cl);for$w(split/ +/ ){for(0..30){$|=print$t->Tgoto(cm,$_,$y)." $w";select$k,$k,$k,.03}$y+=2}
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
At 18/11/2002 10:20 [], Greg McCarroll wrote: I think Penderel is one of london.pm's most underused assets. Its got a reasonable processor (AMD-K6/350), 1/2gig of memory and 25gig of free disk, which by my standards makes it a useful little machine. We probably can't use too much bandwidth on it, but is there not some other ways we can use it? It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. It could sit and chug on SETI units... ;-) But I agree, there must be something the box could be doing... /joel -- S. Joel Bernstein :: joel at fysh dot org :: t: 020 8458 2323 "Nobody is going to claim that Perl 6's OO is "bolted on". Well, except maybe for certain Slashdotters who don't know the difference between rational discussion and cheerleading..." -- Larry Wall
Re: Penderel (Was IQfC)
On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 10:20:17AM +, Greg McCarroll wrote: > It is probably just me, but I hate to see a computer not used to its > full potential and penderel is sitting unloaded for much of the day. You could do what I do with the unused CPU time on colon, and donate it to one Nicholas Clark and his bleadperl smoketests. (obviously you wouldn't necessarily want to do those, but something similar may be possible). -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002