Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 12:45 In article <er9hlt$8qk_004(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <er7av0$ijh$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <er6s31$8ss_006(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[.....] >>>When Linux can be installed and used with very little relearning >>>by any computer owner, then it will cease to be a toy and become >>>a general purpose tool. It hasn't reached that maturity..yet. >>>It is getting there rapidly. >> >> >>That is the case today. The average computer owner sends email, recieves >>spam, surfs the web and plays Minesweeper. > >Then you have not been keeping up with what is going on in the >real world. Clear your windows and take another look. Go take a look at what all those PCs get used for. What I listed was most of it. People have PCs in there home that only serve as a very limited tool. >> You get all that in many >>installs today. All the user has to do is answer yes to installing the >>software. > >Youare a decade behind. No. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 18 Feb 2007 12:01 In sci.physics, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote on Sun, 18 Feb 07 11:52:37 GMT <er9em5$8ss_004(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>: > In article <cj2ka4-ise.ln1(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net>, > The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote: >>In sci.physics, MassiveProng >><MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> >> wrote >>on Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:59:49 -0800 >><tiget2h5auga6jl46gn46oisadv8ckr322(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Sat, 17 Feb 07 14:08:30 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>> >>>>The CPU isn't doing that work. That's what the video card >>>>does. >>> >>> >>> WRONG. The cpu is what the video playback applets run, and THAT is >>> 100% cpu intensive for EACH AND EVERY FRAME of video PASSED to the >>> video card. >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc >> >>is what I used for metrics. CPU utilization appears to be about 50% >>according to my CPU monitor. (Athlon XP 1600++, 1.4 MHz. 512 MB. >>BT5500 RV250-based video system. OS: Linux 2.6.20 Gentoo 2006.1. >>DSL line incoming. No skipping noted on this particular video >>during initial stream. Playback was possible without network IO. >>Note that this was in "tinyscreen mode". >> >>(This video is safe for work: "Spiders On Drugs".) >> >>Another test case >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhd2lnCTWQM >> >>skipped horribly on initial load, but that looks to be >>more of a bandwidth problem than a CPU one. CPU utilization was >>slightly lower. >> >>SFW. Its main themes are apparently music, a school >>bus, and dancing. Replay was possible without skipping. >>Full screen utilized almost 90% of CPU, so that might be >>an issue. >> >>FWIW. >> > If this becomes a common usage, it sounds like a dedicated > processor will be installed. > > /BAH One already is -- the GPU in the card could probably be expanded to include common codecs. This could get quite interesting, from a political standpoint, as Microsoft and others may want to ensure that DRM is enshrined into law and into one's 'puter. Fortunately, Microsoft and Sony have so botched it that they'll have to be very careful lest the public become even angrier than they already are about Vista. :-) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net Conventional memory has to be one of the most UNconventional architectures I've seen in a computer system. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 12:54 In article <er9h7n$8qk_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <er7bgl$ijh$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: [....] >>The funny thing is that the computer business has swung back and forth on >>single vs multiple users. > >Of course. That's the nature of the biz. There are other >kinds of swinging, too. > >> Now we seem to be at the single user end of the >>swing. > >Not at all. It is clear that single user hasn't been adequate >for at least 8 years. That is only a leading indicator of what is to come not an indication of where we are. > The problem is that the software side >of the biz is dragging its heels and the hardware types are >getting away with not including assists to the OS guys. The most hardware guys have to design hardware to run with Windows. This sets a limit on what assists they include. The lack of assists included sets limits on what the OS does. There is a positive feedback between the two. >>There is a trend back with people suggesting that everyone in the >>building's files be maintained on a single server. > >Well, whenver somebody talks to you about that, always mention >keeping a backup copy off-site. Even just suggesting that there be true backups of peoples machines throws them into a panic. "Imagine an evil person gets to the PC, deletes all the files of that user and reformats the harddisk on the machine. How long would it take to put it all back as a working system?" has been the question I have asked. >> Unfortunately, with a >>Windows system done this way, there is no sure way to back up your files. >>I figure at some point someone will bring out 3rd party software that >>correctly backs everything for each user correctly. > >Nope. That won't happen. As soon as you get a procedure and >hard/software/humans in place, MS will change something that >will break it. I've never been able to figure out a independent >way no matter what they did. On just a sinlge PC it is quite easy. Doing the backup of whats on the server is hard. On a single PC, you boot something other than windows and make a bitwise image of the hard disk. When things break, you go back to that other OS and restore the disk as it was. If you have been good about backing up your data files, you don't need to do a full image every day. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 13:00 In article <er9i65$8qk_006(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <er7blr$ijh$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <er6sft$8ss_009(a)s994.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>In article <er4gcr$1ln$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <er45hl$pkf$1(a)jasen.is-a-geek.org>, >>>>jasen <jasen(a)free.net.nz> wrote: >>>>>On 2007-02-15, Ken Smith <kensmith(a)green.rahul.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The DOS mind set was to only do one thing at a time. Some bits of later >>>>>> versions looked like multitasking was intended but abandoned. Even very >>>>>> later versions save registers into code space instead of onto the stack. >>>>> >>>>>I read that there was a multitasking dos released by Microsoft in >>>>>Europe. and then there's Deskview and I think Digital Research had >>>>>a go at multitasking dos too. >>>>> >>>>>I played with something called multidos (I think it) was shareware or >>>>>freeware and faked multitasking somehow. >>>> >>>>If you call two tasks "multi", >>> >>>I don't :-). >> >>I could do 3 too. >> >>It just takes a little more coding. > >My point is that it should not take more coding to add and/or >subtract. To have to do coding in order to add one is a crock. >None of our old customers would have accepted this. We certainly >did not have the resources to code every time we needed to run >an extra task. The tasker in question was a special purpose bit of code. I could have made it so that a variable number of tasks with variable priorities could be done but this would have been more of a coding effort. The tasker did exactly what was needed. [....] >>Yes, but the two tasker served its purpose quite nicely. I created only >>the tool I needed for the purpose not a general OS. > >Sure. I understand what you did. :-) Now think about all the >different kinds of hardware, formats, software, etc. and the >fact that each person's individual system are all different from >any other system in the world, past and future. I didn't care about that. The tasker in question was for a single purpose. I could write one with all the requirements you suggest but why would I bother. I can just install Linux and be done with it. >You can't force everybody to code every time they want to do >something extra. I don't want to force others to do something. I didn't care one bit about what they did. It didn't and still doesn't matter. The tasking under DOS did exactly what I needed done. Everyone else can go fish. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 18 Feb 2007 13:04
In article <er9e30$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [....] >>"another window" won't do because the term window is used for a part of >>what is on the screen. > >If I understand what you are talking about, on our OS, we would have >used the term job. That doesn't cover it either. I can have many-many jobs going with their outputs if any displayed on one desktop and run some others from another. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |