Linux-Advocacy Digest #704, Volume #27 Sat, 15 Jul 00 21:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature (Ray Chason)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: which OS is best? (Bloody Viking)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (richard harlos)
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (richard harlos)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: New Linux user & damn glad!! (richard harlos)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:33:13 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
A lot of words and no substance,
Your assumptions are way offbase. I do have a very good understanding of
both PMT and CMT. Perhaps you would like to read a paper I wrote on an
application of mine that uses CMT.
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/414/hallock.html
Yes, this is an application, not an OS. So, contrary to your assumption
earlier, CMT does make sense outside of the OS itself. In this specialized
situation CMT makes sense to use. The OS it runs on can be a
non-multitasking OS such as VM/CMS or a PMT OS such as AIX or Linux.
You obviously have little to no understanding of CMT or PMT and you seem to
quite often confuse PMT with real time operating systems. They are not
synonymous. Yet you want to have an intelligent discussion on the
subject. That is just not possible. You are talking to people who have
experience with all three types of systems and you act like we only know about
PMT. You should really (as was suggested to you earlier) read up on the
subject. Then, perhaps, you could come back and have something to say.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 15 Jul 2000 18:45:19 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>I would point out that its up to you to provide reason to believe it is
>>>>>a practical issue. You have attempted to do so and have found fault
>>>>>with your reasoning because of your assumptions that one must be free to
>>>>>profiteer in order to earn profit.
>>>>
>>>>I've said no such thing. I've said you can't give away GPL'd
>>>>code in many contexts.
>>>
>>>Which?
>>
>>If you have built something that includes a GPL'd component
>>and anything else under different restrictions, you can't
>>give it away, even if the other component is itself freely
>>available or the recipient already has it.
>
> ...those being "commercial" and pseudo-PD.
>
>[deletia]
>
> Commercial assimilation of free software is why the GPL
> got written in the first place and pseudo-PD developers
> could solve the issue by merely dropping any pretense.
Yes, I can understand why someone would want to GPL a crippled
version of something to keep it from competing with his
own commercial version, but that seems to be the only
place it would be needed. However, some people seem
to think it should be represented as free rather than
restricted.
It is actually the pseudo-PD restrictions that are incompatible
with the GPL that keep it free. Otherwise anyone would be
able to slap a GPL on it and force any new additions to
be GPL'd (or prevent getting any from people who don't want
their work to be GPL-restricted).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:44:41 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I think that is what it always comes down to. Second guessing. You
> don't want the app second-guessing "what else might be running", but I
> don't want the OS second-guessing the importance of the app to the user.
> Tell me, because I'm not really that familiar with this bit, how would a
> user that wanted to tell their computer "I want this to speed up" do it,
> and how would the computer know when that was no longer necessary. How
> would a user say "I want this app to have a higher priority every time I
> start it." If these are easily understood and manipulated controls,
> than half of my argument disappears.
>
Fair enough, but how would one do this in CMT? All you have said is
that CMT gives the lion's share of the CPU time to the foreground app.
What if the user doesn't want this? In Linux (if one were root) one could
renice X.
Also, is the cause or unresponsiveness the CPU, or is it I/O?
> goddamn data to work with. What is "priority"? How do you control
> which program gets which slice of the pie. If you can't use any
> metaphors or illustrations, then just say "I'm too much of a specialist
> to explain it; sorry for wasting your time."
>
Nor have you explained how to do this in CMT.
> No, CMT is when *processes* keep the CPU until they relinquish it, to my
> understanding.
And how can a user force such relinquishing?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R. Kulkis' signature
Date: 15 Jul 2000 22:52:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Ray Chason wrote:
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >What does it take to get this guy to stop attaching his rediculous
>> >signature to his posts? Most times the content of his replies are 1 or
>> >2 lines and yet, after many people pointing out that his signature is
>> >far too long, he does nothing!
>> >
>> >It's a shame as his comments are normally reasonable and well put.
>>
>> I'd plonk him, but Microsoft hasn't innovated the killfile yet.
>>
>> BTW, Aaron, who the fsck is "Tammy Hahn"? Hell, who the fsck are most of
>> the other people in your sig?
>
>"Tammy Hahn"...for the clueless and humor impaired, is the unification
>of "Tammy Fae Baker" and "Jessica Hahn"
>Do I really need to explain EVERYTHING to you???
That's it.
*PLONK*
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 19:53:20 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ray Chason in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control
>>>> of the apps, not the other way around.
>>>
>>>The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
>>>The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
>>>(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
>>
>>Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
>>scheduling. My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
>>end result is valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
>>insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
>
>This "theory" has no basis in experience or reason. Indeed, there's an
>enormous counterexample. Windows 3.1 was CMT. And Windows 3.1, from the
>very standpoint of usability and responsiveness you argue from, was a train
>wreck.
Yes, but Win3.1 wasn't anymore an example of good CMT than Win9x, or
even NT, is an example of good PMT, is beside the point. I didn't say
all CMT was good, though it appears that you might be trying to say all
PMT is good, which makes just as little sense. And, in point of fact,
the case that both CMT and PMT have good and bad examples is an argument
for my case. No, it is my case.
>Do you remember August 1995? Thousands of people lined up outside CompUSA
>and Egghead and all the rest to buy their copy of Windows 95. Now Win95
>is dodgy and BSOD-prone, but it's nonetheless a vast improvement. PMT is
>a large part of that improvement.
Anti-competitive business practices was a much larger part, in my
estimation. Win9x has crappy PMT, I think you'll agree. Perhaps you're
assuming that it is simply that fact that it is PMT which made it better
than Win3.1, but I make no such assumption, though I'll admit that it
may be true.
>If you say "preemptive multitasking" to the average Win95 user, you'll
>probably get a blank look. But J. Random User does know that when he
>clicks on "Recalculate," and Excel throws up an hourglass, he can switch
>to Word and type on a memo until Excel is done.
>
>PMT in action.
Well, it may be PMT in action, but it is not an example of PMT. Because
Windows PMT prevents this benefit from always being available, and CMT
does not prevent it in any large degree.
>To get this kind of responsiveness from CMT, you need to break up a CPU-
>bound task. For a spreadsheet, that might mean recalculating some number
>of cells, and then yielding the CPU. It sounds simple, but to do this,
>you have to save your place. Also, the need to break up the task distorts
>the flow of the code; another programmer will have a harder time figuring
>out how it works. You get higher development costs, more bugs, and longer
>time to market. It is unwise to make the developers' job harder than it
>already is.
Pity the poor person being paid to do his job? If you're saying it
can't be done, then just say so. If you're saying you can't figure out
how to do it, ask questions until you can or admit you can't. If you're
saying it can't be done, you're wrong. Higher development costs, more
bugs, and longer time to market come with producing any *improvement* in
a software package, and are, in fact, the investment which is supposed
to pay off.
Now perhaps the investment isn't supported by current market practices,
perhaps they are. I don't here complaints about how much the
development of things which encourage cluelessness cost. Why do the
ones that discourage taking the easy way out tend to result in
invocation of market principles? A tacit admission that engineers are
indebted to the producers, not the users, is bad form in trying to
defend against users wanting to have more discipline on what is or is
not wasting their, and their CPU's, time.
>I've been there. I've done that. And it ain't no fun. And all too many
>Windows developers said the hell with it and just let their apps throw up
>that hourglass. All too many apps hogged the CPU when they did anything
>non-trivial. *This* is how Windows 3.1 came to be called "Windoze."
[...]
>And user pickiness does not have to go away just because Mac OS X adopts
>PMT.
A good point; market forces still have some impact on an application's
loading behavior. I must insist that it is not as evident as it would
be on a CMT system, if only for that admitted fact that it is easier to
screw it up.
>And if PMT could turn a dogpile like Windoze 3.1 into something
>almost usable, imagine what it can do for a Mac.
This is predicated on the assumption that Windows9x is not a dogpile,
despite the benefits it gains from PMT.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 15 Jul 2000 23:59:19 GMT
A_Customer_at_an_easyEverything_Cybercafe
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I've taught both platforms and can say hand on my heart, it's easier
: to get someone to point at something rather than to try and remember
: which commands to type in or in what order to do them in. Or course
Everyone is different. And yes, there is X Window with Linux. Personally, I
like the good old fashioned command line interface. My favourite word
processor is an old fashioned text editor. I use a text editor to code up
.HTML too, by hand. BUT most people don't want the challenge! I'm not a
techie, but a long time computer hobbyist. Remember the old Commodore 64? On
my own, I figured out how to use its BASIC and POKE to code machine code TSRs.
Point n' click is great for routine computer use, like what most people in
fact do. No question about it. But if for some reason you want to fuck around
with the computer's innards, a command line is best. I remember Windows 3.11.
That was fun to fuck with by editing system files or by funny renaming of
files.
Today, I have one Linux habit with my own box that is like those Windows days.
I move /usr/bin/vi to something else and rename pico to vi so pico is the
default text editor, my favourite. Like editing International PGP sourcecode
to remove the "i", I consider this standard practice with Linux. For PGP, you
chmod +w pgp.c in the source directory tree, edit, and compile. Not hard if
you know how to use a command line.
One thing though. If you own the computer in question, while routine stuff can
be done by point n' click, you sometimes need to "get under the hood" so you
still need to learn some command-line skills. No, you don't have to know
programming, like I know a little of, but knowing some command-line skills is
a good thing.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:00:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>So now I'm a dumb-ass if I can't explain modern operating systems to you
>in 20 minutes. Enough. I'm done here.
I asked for an explanation of what about my comments you considered
'overstating the case so much... [and] plain wrong', not the entirety of
the science of modern operating systems. I figured it would take a
knowledgable person about twenty minutes to outline the incongruities or
inaccuracies of my case, as I've quite clearly spent far more time
providing it. I have reason to believe that some found it reasonable,
and even effective in identifying a valid concern, though certainly by
no means were they in the majority, or speaking to the literal technical
issues. I have also never said you're a dumb-ass, although I did
express my frustration with your suggestion that you would provide me
with a six month reading list of technical detail rather than attempt to
spend a brief amount of time explaining yourself.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:07:37 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> But what is "rare" at 60 seconds a minute might turn out to be extremely
> frequent at millions of cycles a second, don't you think? CMT doesn't
> all by itself offer anything near what you know the technical
> requirement are, and I recognize that. But CMT never purported to. It
> is CMT plus the implementation of scheduling, *cooperatively*, the apps,
> which is of value, and can indeed, as proven in the marketplace, provide
> effective solutions which end users can benefit from, even if engineers
> want to insist they're "stupid".
>
And how did the market do this? Did people choose Mac because it
had CMT as opposed PMT? Did people choose applications on the
basis of the apps' CMT performance, and were they even aware that
that was an issue?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:14:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ray Chason in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>All right, so I've been overstating the case. But when somebody says
>>that something which has been successful in the market does something
>>"wrong", I can't help but notice that they have to be making
>>assumptions.
>
>Windows is successful in the market. You are claiming that Windows does
>something wrong. (So do I, of course, but it isn't PMT.) Now what
>assumptions are you making?
That it is possible to have a successful PC operating system on the
market that doesn't do as many things wrong as Windows. I think that's
more of a postulate than an assumption, but if you insist.
>>If I have twelve apps waiting for user
>>input, it is because I want them to wait. I don't want them to slow
>>things down by increasing their priority; it isn't *that* kind of
>>"scheduling".
>
>Those twelve apps are *waiting*. They are using zero percent CPU. You can
>raise their priority to the moon and it won't make a whit of difference.
A good point. CMT doesn't use priority, though, so it is a rhetorical
one. Processes in PMT which aren't active aren't using any CPU either,
but the algorithm will still inevitably provide them with at least some
level of priority, if only the lowest possible one. Thus, CMT has a
marginal but true efficiency in this regard, doesn't it? The argument
that PMT systems have a 'cognizant' scheduler belies its ignorance in
terms of whether applications might actually benefit exorbitantly from
more explicit control of their loading, I think. In less complex terms,
if the fact that apps don't "want" to yield is used to discount CMT,
then the same logic discounts PMT for providing unnecessary
opportunities to take CPU resources when they don't benefit from them.
This would be true even with deep magic algorithms for determining what
is best to provide the lowest average loading.
The problem is, possibly, that the goal of providing the lowest average
loading is predicated on the idea that it will allow for the greatest
number of processes. This true goal aside, however, there is equal
value in allowing whatever processes are present at the moment to
control their loading behavior, so that the value of the CPU's time most
benefits the user, rather than the abstract and potentially contrary
goal of minimizing demand conflicts by using an external control
mechanism. I don't want to care if my CPU is at 100% utilization. I
want that to be considered a *good* thing, and a goal that all apps
cooperate in producing. Because the very necessity of PMT is
justification, in my mind, for mandating that cooperation of interests.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Quickie Script for "Staircasing" Printers.
Date: 16 Jul 2000 00:15:55 GMT
I finally got off my arse and quickly coded up a quick shell script that
undoes the "staircase" problem some printers have.
It is:
---begin---
cat > /tmp/temp
perl -pi.bak -e 's/\n/\r\n/g' /tmp/temp
lpr /tmp/temp
rm /tmp/temp
---end---
Once chmoded executable, to use you simply type this at the command line:
lprint <file.txt
On my system the script is named "lprint" like DOS. Of course you can name it
what you like or modify the script and make it part of some config file
somewhere. But sticking the script in /usr/bin and using its name as the print
command is the easiest way to use it. Obviously, the "secret" is that command
line perl line of the script. The rest of the lines simply support the perl
line and clean up things. That piece of perl can be used for other things too,
like fixing MIME of incoming email if you still are a Luddite.
--
DANGER: Charles Darwin is the lifeguard of the gene pool. Swim at own risk.
------------------------------
From: richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:18:45 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>
> Welcome, welcome, welcome.
>
> I hope you experience a wonderful shift in computer perspectives due to
> your new endeavor with Linux. I know I did when I first started using
> it.
I think I already am, and thanks for the warm welcome!
> If you do run into snags, don't hesitate to ask people in the groups
> (although this isn't the right group for tech questions, if you ask
> politely you will usually get an answer).
That's exactly what happened to me. I worked 'til I got stuck, then it
was off to alt.os.linux.slackware with a question of three ;)
There's a fine bunch over there. <wipes tear from eye> ...they got me
where I am today! <sniff!> =)
> Anyway, have fun with your new OS.
I'm tryin' -- thanks again :)
> Anybody else feel like throwing a Welcome Party?
--
richard harlos
quote loading; please wait...
------------------------------
From: richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:22:05 GMT
Wow, thanks for the insight and tips. So much time and so little to
learn... wait... reverse that :)
--
richard harlos
quote loading; please wait...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Fri, 14 Jul 2000 04:37:22 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Hi, all.
> >
> >I'm just about messin' my shorts for joy!
> >
> >I installed Slackware 7.1 (BigSlack, the UMSDOS install) on my PC and am
> >now happily up and running on the 'net.
> >
> >Aside from a little tweaking to get my cheap, ISP-supplied network card
> >enabled, I'm good to go.
> >
> >And even though it's going to take some time to learn my way around X
> >and Linux in general, I'm much happier to be *doing* something about
> >my dissatisfaction with Microsoft product (by not using them anymore
> >than necessary!) than just *talking* about it.
> >
> >Don't flame this newbie too bad :)
> >
> >richard harlos
>
> Flame? Nay, we salute thee, new user! :-)
>
> Welcome to an interesting, reliable, and hopefully exciting world.
> While not as highly polished as Microsoft's so-called wizards,
> it may be far more interesting in some respects. I for instance
> am experimenting with GTK, and, despite its flaws, is very easy
> to work with, as it comes complete with code examples and bends
> over backwards to ensure portability (for starters, it's written
> in C). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a Windows implementation
> for gtk, although I haven't looked; this means, of course, that
> one could code on Linux and port to Windows, which means that
> both markets are covered.
>
> Similar issues abound in other environments; Motif, while getting
> a bit on the old and hoary side, is still a strong environment
> for widget development available world-wide for almost all
> Unix platforms. Note also that there's freeware available;
> http://www.lesstif.org
> for details thereon.
>
> I've already enabled access to our Oracle database, using nothing
> but a thinclient JDBC Java driver package, freely available. This
> promises an interesting future! Note also that I can prototype
> at home using Postgres, and, with minimal changes, deploy
> at work. This is in the future, of course -- but it does open
> a door or two.
>
> I'm also given to understand that Linux has the capability of
> better firewalling than Windows 98. I could be wrong.
> There's also more to protect, mind you -- Postgres in
> particular has the capability of hosting itself to anyone
> on the Internet, if anyone cares to set up such a capability.
> Sendmail is a tad quirky. Httpd (Apache) is highly capable,
> but can lead a hacker in if one is not careful regarding
> security. Ftp is a potential problem and tftp is a very very
> large hole waiting to be entered unless the sysadmin is very
> careful.
>
> Best put all of these behind a firewall (my firewall
> machine's an old Pentium 90 with 16 megs) if you have one available,
> and use IP masquerading. Or use tcp wrappers (/usr/sbin/tcpd)
> and put ALL:ALL in /etc/hosts.deny, and edit /etc/hosts.allow
> to suit your tastes. Edit /etc/inetd.conf if need be, to disable
> them on the firewall machine.
>
> And there's a lot of documentation to wade through. A mixed blessing,
> in some respects, especially considering that it's in at least
> 3 places: 'man', 'info', and /usr/doc. But at least it's there.
>
> But all these are capabilities Windows can only dream about. :-)
> At least, not without extra outlay, or being employed at Redmond. :-)
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:20:36 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engineer in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >>Then other than buggy applications, there's no benefit to PMT, right?
> >>Except its easier for the engineers, and doesn't work the way I want
> >>when I *don't* have any idle time. What happens in PMT if I *don't*
> >>have idle time?
> >
> >OSes without PMT are therefor useless for developers? Also
> >useless for multiuser. Runaway processes happen far too frequently;
> >I wouldn't want to reboot for them. CMT is also more expensive for
> >the CPU; it is constantly polling the OS whether it has something else
> >to do.
>
> I am neither a developer nor multiple users, and so don't understand why
> that would come up in the discussion of a computer that is built for me,
> the desktop customer. I'm sure it will be greeted with more anger and
> derision, but I don't believe that whether a behavior such as you
> describe can be treated as a mathematical issue, with a simple
> calculation using abstract assumptions providing a useful judgment of
> whether spending this overhead giving the OS a chance to do something
> else (for the user), is effective. It is a math problem to engineers.
> But the answer to the math problem matches the abstract assumptions, not
> the real world in any one individual case. I don't want a computer that
> does things the "right" way. I want a computer that does things a way
> that I find useful. If that means "wasting" a lot of time polling the
> OS and thus requires overhead which is "more expensive for the CPU",
> then so be it.
But you have failed to show that CMT is useful. Also, for all your claims
that PMT leaves the users at the mercy of the OS designers in
allocating CPU time, you have not shown that CMT does not leave
the users at the mercy of applications in allocating CPU time.
If you are that concerned, renice X (and maybe the keyboard and
mouse daemons as well?). As one can keep X up for days (and
even log out in X), this shouldn't be a problem.
>
>
> >Solaris assigns a higher priority to applications that have the input
> >focus; this is what you could call the "foreground" application.
> >A PMT system can be made to change priorities automatically, giving you
> >the benefits of CMT without any of the disadvantages.
>
> Except one: it is automatic. Granted, CMT would be even worse, it being
> limited in this way (but also more flexible, because the scheduling
> algorithms are *cooperative*). But something more responsive to the
> user and both their general *and specific* requirements, which can
> change on a dime and in a way that can't be automatically detected,
> instead of simply covering all the mathematical basis, could very well
> be more efficient. And efficient in a free market means it is worth
> money....
>
And how would one do this in CMT?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: richard harlos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux user & damn glad!!
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:22:48 GMT
Cihl wrote:
>
> Be welcome, Richard.
>
> If you have any questions, feel free to ask. I do recommend you ask
> within appropriate newsgroups, as you will get answers more quickly
> and to the point.
>
> Also, this newsgroup is here for the sole purpose of bad advocacy
> (read: bashing Windows). For some good entertainment, join in anytime.
> :)
>
> --
> �I live!�
> �I hunger!�
> �Run, coward!�
> -- The Sinistar
Window-bashing? I *LUV* that sport! :)
--
richard harlos
quote loading; please wait...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
