Linux-Advocacy Digest #720, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: which OS is best? (James Lee)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (John Jensen)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:48:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:20:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>That 'quantum' marks the difference between a CMT- (which doesn't have
>>>it) and a PMT-system (which does have it).
>>
>>Thank you. That's quite illuminating. Interesting, don't you think,
>>that while many people were saying "the app decides when to yield, not
>>the OS", they probably thought this is just what they were explaining,
>>but none of them thought to put it like that. Perhaps this is why I
>>kept getting flamed for not paying attention when they thought they had
>>answered my questions; none of them realized their answers were
>>misleading. It isn't the OS controlling the multi-tasking which makes
>>the difference; its the notion of a maximum quantum.
>
>Oh come on! What do you think controls the quantum? The OS. It's
>settable and in the nature of the OS.
Precisely. It is in "the nature" of the OS. It doesn't need to be
directly controlled or enforced by the OS. If all the apps implemented
the notion of a quantum in a CMT environment, it magically becomes a PMT
environment, without the necessity of implementing a scheduling
algorithm in the OS.
>>That makes a lot more sense. Multi-tasking without a maximum quantum;
>>now that *would* be a stupid idea. ;-)
>
>Well then, you agree CMT is a stupid idea. Very good. It only took
>what... a week?
Try three or four days. And it would have been less if I'd been taken
seriously to begin with. The assumption that I knew that CMT had *no*
maximum quantum is, I will admit, an automatic one for people who
learned all the technical details years ago. But it was still an
assumption, you see? And as painfully obvious as I made it that I was
approaching the discussion from a conceptual, not a technical, level, I
would have hoped somebody here was bright enough to realize it was an
issue. I have constant practice figuring out what small detail such as
this somebody is missing, and trying to point it out to them from a
non-technical perspective. You all thought that's what you were doing,
I'll grant, but I became frustrated too easily expecting that others
could do it as well.
No, "the app, not the OS is in charge" does not automatically mean the
app has no notion of maximum quantum.
--
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: 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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:50:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> No, I am trying to suggest that a CMT system which does not need to
>> >> "forcibly move things around" might be possible. A CMT with a more
>> >> comprehensive mechanism for allowing non-active processes to effectively
>> >> pre-empt the active process without requiring an external scheduler.
>> >> ^^^^^^
>> >
>> >> Perhaps token passing in place of polling might be a suitable
>> >> comparison, or at least analogy. Do you see what I mean?
>> >
>> >You are dense,are you? Read what you just wrote and then ask yourself what
>> >does the P in PMT stand for.
>>
>> Gary, I'm not only going to not re-read what I wrote and ask myself why
>> you are being an asshole, I'm going to point out that I'm just trying to
>> learn something, and would appreciate it if you'd stop being an asshole.
>>
>
>Ok, I'll try to make this as simple as possible since you seem to be so
>clueless.
You apparently didn't understand what I said. Did you read it? Do you
expect that the phrasing and intent of that sentence is not exclusively
limited to the purpose of you being an asshole?
> Adding pre-emption to CMT would, by definition make it no longer CMT
>- it would become PMT. The P in PMT stands for pre-emptive. This is simple
>logic here.
Yes, but the P doesn't stand for "some notion of a maximum quantum", now
does it? Yes, apparently, it does. Pity I didn't know I was supposed
to make that assumption.
--
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: James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 16 Jul 2000 21:51:31 GMT
In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gee, I agree with 99% of what you say. But I can't offhand think of an
> easier keyboard equivalent of opening up win explorer to a dir of choice,
> holding down the control key while left clicking to select any combination
> of arbitrary files in the right hand pane, right clicking, and choosing
> "send to ->>" source. How many commands would I have to type to accomplish
> this? I can't script that very easily. A better question would be why would
> I need to script what is inherently available?
do this in an xterm
$ w3m <dir>
$ links <dir>
blah blah blah.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:59:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The reason he is being "an asshole" is because you simply refuse, despite
>numerous suggestions, to even learn the absolute and most basic differences
>between PMT and CMT.
I never "refused" to learn anything in my life. If your explanations
weren't clear enough for me to learn from, that's your fault, not mine.
Remember, I'm the one who didn't already have the knowledge necessary to
know what assumptions the explanations were based on, such as the fact
that no maximum quantum whatsoever is implemented by convention in a CMT
system.
Much like, I still figure, most people just took their word for it when
they were taught that CMT is not feasible. Much like those who insist
the Mac was a stupid idea. All I did was point out that there seemed to
be some inconsistencies in that argument.
The reason you and Gary are being assholes, I figure, is because you
simply refuse, despite numerous suggestions, to ever make the effort to
teach. You expect your explanations are sufficient for those who don't
understand something, simply because they make sense to someone who
already knows what is being explained. But obviously your ability to
teach someone something they didn't already know is severely limited.
At least in Gary's case, that's what I'll presume. Since I've had a
longer experience with your posts, I'd say you simply don't want to
teach, as it is counter to your objectives. What they may be, I still
haven't figured out. Self-aggrandizement, perhaps.
--
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: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 16 Jul 2000 21:59:33 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Precisely. It is in "the nature" of the OS. It doesn't need to be
: directly controlled or enforced by the OS. If all the apps implemented
: the notion of a quantum in a CMT environment, it magically becomes a PMT
: environment, without the necessity of implementing a scheduling
: algorithm in the OS.
Look Max, if you really care, I found an amazing resource on the net
yesterday. It is the Creating Your Own OS FAQ:
http://mega-tokyo.com/os/os-faq.html
Go for it, and let us know how it all worked out.
John
--
Max: Know how to keep an engineer busy?
Eng: How?
Max: I'll post again tomorrow ...
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 08:08:46 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >
> >> >He did, before you even questioned. The rendering job "dies" because
of
> >the
> >> >inherent limitations of the CMT scheme.
> >> >
> >> >For someone who claims to be intelligent, you're doing an extremely
poor
> >job
> >> >of *learning*.
> >>
> >> Heh.
> >>
> >> You've misunderstood the question, apparently. No bother; I'll
rephrase
> >> it: "Is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?"
> >
> >Yes, that reason is because it was running on a CMT system and some other
> >process was refusing to yield.
>
> And people think that *I'm* thick-headed on purpose, in order to annoy
> people...
>
> Chris, you should win award for "intentionally missing the point". The
> ironic part is, you are making my point in doing so. This is why I
> wondered whether it might be possible that the problem with CMT is
> implementation, not architecture. Some of the supposed benefits of PMT
> are generally mere accommodation for badly implemented application
> processes which fail for no reason if they don't get enough CPU time,
> since there are some processes which do require regular attention, such
> as drivers. This parallels my experience with networking, where most of
> the blame for poor response is application implementation, not lack of
> bandwidth.
>
> Please stop purposefully refusing to answer my question. If your
> problem is that you don't know the answer, just say so.
Your question was "is there some reason that the renderer fails under load?"
in repsonse to dc's post about the rendering process "basically dying" when
it is placed in the background. He was not talking about a functional
failure, but a practical one, where the renderer slowed to such a point as
to be useless - thus the "practically" part of "practically dies".
The *reason* this happens is due to the fundamental design of the CMT
system.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:07:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Mea culpa. You had not explained anything about why I was incorrect, in
>> my re-reading; you provided indirect consideration of my questions. I
>> apologize, because I did become frustrated without cause. I appreciate
>> you efforts. I will point out, for your benefit, not mine, that the
>> fact I didn't understand CMT had no max quantum made your explanation of
>> PMT seem to miss the mark and fail to address the concerns I was
>> raising. I was told the difference was whether the app or the OS was
>> "in charge", not that it was whether there was any maximum amount of
>> time the active process could fail to yield.
>
>Your problem is that you lack the ability to think logically.
I'm sorry, this is patently absurd. My problem is that is all I have.
>If you had
>thought about it, you would realize that, if the app is in charge as in CMT,
>then there is no one to enforce a maximum quantum. This has been explained to
>you on numerous occasions. Yet you do not learn.
I did not assume that there was any need to enforce a maximum quantum.
So long as all processes implement the notion, no enforcement is
necessary. Does this mean the system will crash if an app fails in the
wrong way? Yes. But the fact is that system crashes are tolerable on a
desktop system, and they are not on a multi-user host. Which brings us
back to precisely why the Mac implemented a putatively successful CMT,
in direct contrast to the considered opinion of a large number of
people.
>I will say again what I and many others have said. Get a good book on the
>subject and read it.
It isn't that interesting in the abstract, I certainly don't need that
level of knowledge. The idea that understanding requires every cogent
fact is patently and obviously untrue. I'll point out that it was
beyond the ability of many here to recognize which fact was important
for correcting my (mis)understanding of CMT, even though you are the
ones with all of those facts available to you.
>This is not the place to learn about CMT and PMT. This
>ng is an appropriate place to debate the pros and cons of CMT vs PMT, but first
>you must have some understanding of the subject.
I didn't hear anyone complaining when Christopher Smith suggested this
is a place for trolls and religious wars. I thought a more interesting
examination of the issues would be appreciated, possibly one which is
more accessible to the people who still defend the Mac without having
even as much technical knowledge as I do. According to you, there is no
debate about the pros and cons of CMT, so I can't help but notice that
your statement isn't entirely appropriate.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:06:58 -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:
>
>
> I know you feel you did, but it is a matter of perception and opinion.
> Try to chill; you're getting yourself worked up over nothing. I'm
> entirely harmless, believe me.
Yes, your right - you are totally harmless since no one would believe a
word you say.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:13:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:24:27 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Gary, I'm not only going to not re-read what I wrote and ask myself why
>>you are being an asshole, I'm going to point out that I'm just trying to
>>learn something, and would appreciate it if you'd stop being an asshole.
>
>You seem to be trying as hard as you can not to learn anything. Your
>posts have taken a strange, wheedling, ingratiating tone, intermingled
>with grandiosity. It's quite bizarre to watch.
No shit. What's ironic is that very style is spawned by my intent to
try as hard as I can to learn as much as I can. Despite the frequent
disruptions that meta-discussions such as these provide, it has been
quite successful in that regard, as well, and these interruptions are as
much the responsibility of "no, you're wrong" trolls than any intention
or contribution on my part. I refer to the other fifty or so
discussions I've had on Usenet in the past few months, as well as the
current opportunity for rude behavior on both sides which this thread
has presented.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:14:04 -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:
>
>
> Not *entirely*, no. I was being rhetorical. I didn't think you'd need
> to double-check that I knew what I was saying, but I can understand how
> you would think you should.
>
> CMT without a convention for limiting a processes' maximum CPU time
> *would* be a stupid idea. I'm still not clear on if this is the actual
> problem assumed to occur on CMT systems. My post yesterday fantasizing
> about a "three level model" for scheduling to replace the monolithic
> system found in PMT should indicate that I think CMT/PMT is something of
> a false dichotomy. Complete lack of a quantum is certainly an
> unacceptable implementation for a general purpose OS, yes.
As has been explained to you many many times, there is no way to limit the
cpu time that a CMT process keeps control of the system. The only way to do
this is to pre-empt the process and that automatically, by definition,
changes it to PMT. This is not a question of coming up with some new
scheduling algorithm. At this point, it has nothing to do with computers.
It is a simple matter of formal logic which you seem totally unable to
comprehend. You have an amazing ability to ignore everything anyone says to
you and follow a totally illogical path.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 18:16:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said void in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 20:36:46 GMT, Karl Knechtel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>: If your frontmost task is waiting for human input in a PMT system, the
>>: rest of the tasks get the vast, vast majority of the CPU time, and the
>>: system continues to run cleanly. That's the major benefit in PMT. A
>>
>>I highly doubt that. Unless your computer is psychic, how is it supposed
>>to know when will be the next time the foreground app actually *receives*
>>input? It won't.
>
>Good god, it's T. Max's long-lost twin. I wonder how many people who
>never heard of blocking I/O are going to pop up with the same bogus
>arguments before we can put this thread to bed?
If people keep popping up with it, it isn't a bogus argument. Just one
you can't answer very easily in a way that can be comprehended by
someone with enough understanding to raise the question but not enough
knowledge to answer it themselves. Practice makes perfect, though...
The PMT discussion is by no means the only discussion on the thread,
BTW.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
