Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
Jason Beaudoin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Dexter Tomisson > wrote: > > I'd really, really like to know what's the matter with a larger > > memory support? > > > > Why is 'bigmem' still not default? What faults/bugs does it still > > has? > > > > What do you need to make it ok? Do you need a hardware donation to > > make that better, > > do you need few bucks, do you need a good coder to improve that, or > > again some license problems perhaps?, > > what's the problem, share with us please, I'd really like to help > > with everything i can. > > > > I hope, maybe someday, our beloved Puffy will catch up to the 21st > > century. > > maybe I haven't been on this list long enoug.. but it seems like 2010 > has been the year of the troll, first update to the chinese calander > in ages.. If [1] is correct and I fully understood it I counted 12 trolls and only one single person being able to answer OPs question. And it took him only one single URI. Indeed, 2010 seems the year of the troll. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29 -- No Swen today, my love has gone away My mailbox stands for lorn, a symbol of the dawn
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Chris Cameron wrote: > > I'm not complaining about what OpenBSD can or can't do. I'm just saying that > telling people what their needs are is rather insulting. I imagine they'd > just like to use their favourite OS in more places. +1 IMHO OpenBSD doesn't make apologies for its choices, so don't make any on its behalf. -- -- Paul D. Ouderkirk Senior UNIX System Administrator p...@ouderkirk.ca -- laughing, in the mechanism -- William Gibson
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:14:13AM -0600, Chris Cameron wrote: > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 PM, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO > wrote: > > > > Most people that have those big amounts of memory don't use their > > PCs full potential. CPU is mostly idle, etc. Also they don't > > realize how big those amounts of memory are... > > > > Also there is the environment problem, too many good computers > > throwned away because of mere fashion... > > > > > When questions of OpenBSD's short comings come around, it seems legions of > OpenBSD apologetics leap out of the woodwork. My favourite instance was ^^^ "apologists" > someone asking about rate-limiting in PF (which at the time didn't exist), > and him being thoroughly berated because that wasn't the job of the > firewall! That's the job of the daemon running the service. Shortly after > someone implemented rate-limiting in PF, and it was touted as PF's > awesomeness, now enhanced. > > Or how much better using a VPN over your WEP protected AP us rather than > using WPA2. But really, the fact is, OpenBSD doesn't (didn't?) support WPA2. > > > People waxing on about how unnecessary they think >4GB of RAM is, seems > about par for the course. But I believe it to be equally ridiculous. Where I > work, we have databases that would gladly use as much RAM as you could throw > at them. Memcached, which does its job all the better with >4GB, and many > many PHP utilizing webservers with a metric tonne of modules. Inefficient in > CPU and memory use, yes, but we can't afford to pay our web developers to > write our site in C. But why stop at C? How inefficient when compared to > hand-tuned assembly?! > > I'm not complaining about what OpenBSD can or can't do. I'm just saying that > telling people what their needs are is rather insulting. I imagine they'd > just like to use their favourite OS in more places. Yes, but rabble-rousing on a notoriously cantankerous mailing list is pretty low on the list of ways to make it happen. The subject of "what does it take to make feature jizzmahpantz happen???" always comes down to "somebody with the skills, desire, and opportunity needs to do it." Punktum. To actively assist in making it happen, you need to find someone who posesses the first two items on that list and provide them with the third. Until then, it's complaining that it's not the future yet because we dont' have flying cars.
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:32 PM, VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO wrote: > > Most people that have those big amounts of memory don't use their > PCs full potential. CPU is mostly idle, etc. Also they don't > realize how big those amounts of memory are... > > Also there is the environment problem, too many good computers > throwned away because of mere fashion... > > When questions of OpenBSD's short comings come around, it seems legions of OpenBSD apologetics leap out of the woodwork. My favourite instance was someone asking about rate-limiting in PF (which at the time didn't exist), and him being thoroughly berated because that wasn't the job of the firewall! That's the job of the daemon running the service. Shortly after someone implemented rate-limiting in PF, and it was touted as PF's awesomeness, now enhanced. Or how much better using a VPN over your WEP protected AP us rather than using WPA2. But really, the fact is, OpenBSD doesn't (didn't?) support WPA2. People waxing on about how unnecessary they think >4GB of RAM is, seems about par for the course. But I believe it to be equally ridiculous. Where I work, we have databases that would gladly use as much RAM as you could throw at them. Memcached, which does its job all the better with >4GB, and many many PHP utilizing webservers with a metric tonne of modules. Inefficient in CPU and memory use, yes, but we can't afford to pay our web developers to write our site in C. But why stop at C? How inefficient when compared to hand-tuned assembly?! I'm not complaining about what OpenBSD can or can't do. I'm just saying that telling people what their needs are is rather insulting. I imagine they'd just like to use their favourite OS in more places. Chris
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
2010/6/7 VICTOR TARABOLA CORTIANO > > My first programming primer (Fortran ... them days) had a very concise > > delineation of the difference between neat programming and the much > > more common alternative -- "given a big enough engine, even brick will > > fly". I never cared for the american "muscle" cars but was always > > fascinated with the slick european sports cars. I guess that is the > > same attraction I have for OpenBSD. I also find that the currently > > popular obsession with CPU cores, GHz and GBs is nothing more than the > > computer version of the muscle car. (yes, I am aware that there are > > specialized applications that do require the use of a monster-sized > > dump truck with an engine to match, but in reality how many places have > > a genuine need of a database that even with fully optimized design > > requires that much physical RAM?) > > > > Most people that have those big amounts of memory don't use their > PCs full potential. CPU is mostly idle, etc. Also they don't > realize how big those amounts of memory are... > > Also there is the environment problem, too many good computers > throwned away because of mere fashion... > > +1 > I'm pretty happy with my "new" Thinkpad X22 with 256mb RAM running > OpenBSD 4.6 :) > > New operating systems "***grades" makes good computers incompatible with its need for "fashion" power. Mine, OpenBSD 4.7 @ Pentium 3 350mhz 128mb ram :) It even run games! - Andris Genovez Tobar / Sistemas Elastix ECE - Linux LPI-1 - Novell CLA - Apple ACMT Jabber: bitfr...@asgard.crice.org http://www.crice.org
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
> My first programming primer (Fortran ... them days) had a very concise > delineation of the difference between neat programming and the much > more common alternative -- "given a big enough engine, even brick will > fly". I never cared for the american "muscle" cars but was always > fascinated with the slick european sports cars. I guess that is the > same attraction I have for OpenBSD. I also find that the currently > popular obsession with CPU cores, GHz and GBs is nothing more than the > computer version of the muscle car. (yes, I am aware that there are > specialized applications that do require the use of a monster-sized > dump truck with an engine to match, but in reality how many places have > a genuine need of a database that even with fully optimized design > requires that much physical RAM?) > Most people that have those big amounts of memory don't use their PCs full potential. CPU is mostly idle, etc. Also they don't realize how big those amounts of memory are... Also there is the environment problem, too many good computers throwned away because of mere fashion... I'm pretty happy with my "new" Thinkpad X22 with 256mb RAM running OpenBSD 4.6 :)
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
don't feed the trolls 2010/6/7 Adam M. Dutko : > Maybe it's more attributable to increased interest and the increase has > brought a proportional increase in what you call "trolls." More noise is > distracting but has "fringe" benefits...sometimes... > > On Jun 7, 2010 9:01 PM, "Jason Beaudoin" wrote: > > maybe I haven't been on this list long enoug.. but it seems like 2010 > has been the year of the troll, first update to the chinese calander > in ages.. > > > > On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Dexter Tomisson > wrote: >> I'd really, reall...
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
Maybe it's more attributable to increased interest and the increase has brought a proportional increase in what you call "trolls." More noise is distracting but has "fringe" benefits...sometimes... On Jun 7, 2010 9:01 PM, "Jason Beaudoin" wrote: maybe I haven't been on this list long enoug.. but it seems like 2010 has been the year of the troll, first update to the chinese calander in ages.. On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > I'd really, reall...
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
Dexter Tomisson wrote: > I'd really, really like to know what's the matter with a larger memory > support? > > Why is 'bigmem' still not default? What faults/bugs does it still has? > It has always being default on real hardware. Your problem is that you are using shitty Wintel hardware. http://quigon.bsws.de/papers/2010/bsdcan-openbsdupdate/mgp2.html > What do you need to make it ok? Do you need a hardware donation to make that > better, > do you need few bucks, do you need a good coder to improve that, or again > some license problems perhaps?, > what's the problem, share with us please, I'd really like to help with > everything i can. > > I hope, maybe someday, our beloved Puffy will catch up to the 21st century. > Regards. > > deX
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
maybe I haven't been on this list long enoug.. but it seems like 2010 has been the year of the troll, first update to the chinese calander in ages.. On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > I'd really, really like to know what's the matter with a larger memory > support? > > Why is 'bigmem' still not default? What faults/bugs does it still has? > > What do you need to make it ok? Do you need a hardware donation to make that > better, > do you need few bucks, do you need a good coder to improve that, or again > some license problems perhaps?, > what's the problem, share with us please, I'd really like to help with > everything i can. > > I hope, maybe someday, our beloved Puffy will catch up to the 21st century. > > Regards. > > deX
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jacob L. Leifman wrote: > (yes, I am aware that there are > specialized applications that do require the use of a monster-sized > dump truck with an engine to match, but in reality how many places have > a genuine need of a database that even with fully optimized design > requires that much physical RAM?) I can name a couple right off the top of my head.
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
My first programming primer (Fortran ... them days) had a very concise delineation of the difference between neat programming and the much more common alternative -- "given a big enough engine, even brick will fly". I never cared for the american "muscle" cars but was always fascinated with the slick european sports cars. I guess that is the same attraction I have for OpenBSD. I also find that the currently popular obsession with CPU cores, GHz and GBs is nothing more than the computer version of the muscle car. (yes, I am aware that there are specialized applications that do require the use of a monster-sized dump truck with an engine to match, but in reality how many places have a genuine need of a database that even with fully optimized design requires that much physical RAM?) On 8 Jun 2010 at 1:43, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > No, > "640k ought to be enough for anybody" > > On 7 June 2010 22:12, Bret S. Lambert > wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:52:50PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > > > > "It's the future, where's my goddamn flying car?"
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
Touchi. -Kyle On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > No, > "640k ought to be enough for anybody" > > On 7 June 2010 22:12, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:52:50PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote: >> >> "It's the future, where's my goddamn flying car?"
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
No, "640k ought to be enough for anybody" On 7 June 2010 22:12, Bret S. Lambert wrote: > On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:52:50PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote: > > "It's the future, where's my goddamn flying car?"
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
Dexter Tomisson wrote: > I'd really, really like to know what's the matter with a larger memory > support? > > Why is 'bigmem' still not default? What faults/bugs does it still has? > > What do you need to make it ok? Do you need a hardware donation to make that > better, > do you need few bucks, do you need a good coder to improve that, or again > some license problems perhaps?, > what's the problem, share with us please, I'd really like to help with > everything i can. > > I hope, maybe someday, our beloved Puffy will catch up to the 21st century. Your multicore, mega-memory box with its 12 jabillionbyte hard disk would probably be happier some place else. > Regards. > > deX
Re: It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 09:52:50PM +0300, Dexter Tomisson wrote: "It's the future, where's my goddamn flying car?"
It is 2010. Still no >3GB support by default?
I'd really, really like to know what's the matter with a larger memory support? Why is 'bigmem' still not default? What faults/bugs does it still has? What do you need to make it ok? Do you need a hardware donation to make that better, do you need few bucks, do you need a good coder to improve that, or again some license problems perhaps?, what's the problem, share with us please, I'd really like to help with everything i can. I hope, maybe someday, our beloved Puffy will catch up to the 21st century. Regards. deX
