On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:49:56 +1000, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:45 -0600, Tom Grieve wrote:
snip...
31-bit being a subset of yes 64-bit, yes, I *absolutely* expect all
software to be capable of discerning the absence (or dearth) of storage
above the bar.
Where it
In response to strictures from Shane Ginnane [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tom
Grieve [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK, that's fair enough, graceful failure with meaningful error messages
is absolutely desirable.
and I will venture the further comment that it is not just absolutely
desirable but
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List On Behalf Of john gilmore
In response to strictures from Shane Ginnane, Tom Grieve writes:
OK, that's fair enough, graceful failure with meaningful error
messages is absolutely desirable.
and I will venture the further
On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 08:14:15 +1000, Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have
mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less
than 2G makes no sense.
Seems a lot of people
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:45 -0600, Tom Grieve wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying here - what's the point of a 64-bit product
that doesn't use 64-bit storage? Do you think maybe it should check to see
if there's no 64-bit and use 31-bit instead? Why introduce such complexity
when there is
On Thu, 2006-11-02 at 15:44 -0600, Mark Zelden wrote:
The jury is still out on what a good default to set is (I have
mine set to 10G), but IMHO setting memlimit to anything less
than 2G makes no sense.
Seems a lot of people are in the process of the 1.4 - 1.7 leap of
faith. Lots of things
Shane [EMAIL PROTECTED], in his usual self-deprecatory fashion, writes:
I don't know how to write a fork bomb in Java, but I'll bet it ain't hard
. . .
and I can offer supporting evidence for his conjecture. Not one, not two,
not three, not even four, but five of the eight participants
7 matches
Mail list logo
