Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2007 08:15 In article <erpp2s$c02$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erpam2$8ss_002(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ermtbj$rph$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ermofh$8qk_003(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <er4i05$1ln$7(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>In article <er47qv$8qk_001(a)s897.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>[.....] >>>>>>>NT was written in the first place for a processor that didn't do >>>>>>>interrupts well. >>>>>> >>>>>>Nuts. If the hardware doesn't do it, then you can make the software >>>>>>do it. As TW used to say, "A small matter of programming". >>>>> >>>>>On the N10 there was no way to code around it. The hardware was designed >>>>>so that it had to walk to the breakroom and back before it picked up the >>>>>phone. Nothing you could say over the phone would help. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The N10 AKA 860 processor had to spill its entire >>>>>>>pipeline when interrupted. This slowed things down a lot when the code >>>>>>>involved interrupts. When the project was moved back to the X86 world, >>it >>>>>>>was marketed as secure ... well sort of .... well kind of .... its better >>>>>>>than 98. I don't think a lot of time was spent on improving the >>interrupt >>>>>>>performance. >>>>>> >>>>>>You are confusing delivery of computing services by software with >>>>>>delivery of computing services of hardware. >>>>> >>>>>No, hardware sets the upper limit on what software can do. >>>> >>>>That all depends on who is doing the coding. >>> >>>If a CPU chip needs 1 hour to do a an add instruction, you can't make it >>>go faster by anything you code. Like I said it sets the upper limit on >>>the performance. >> >>Sigh! If an ADD takes an hour and the computation has to be done >>in less time, then you don't use the ADD instruction. You do >>the addition by hand. > >In other words: You need another CPU to do the operation. Not at all. You can arithmetic by hand. > No amount of >fancy code on a machine that takes an hour per instruction will fix it. > >This is what I have been trying to explain to you about the hardware >setting the upper limit on performance. Sigh! The IBM 1620 had no arithmetic instructions. Arithmetic was done "by hand" by looking up table entries. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2007 08:17 In article <erpmth$c02$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erpaqn$8ss_004(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ermuv0$rph$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ermmos$8qk_002(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>[....] >>>>>>>I use electronic banking. I go to the banks web site and do it. It is >>>>>>>just another "surfing the web" case. I don't have any special software >>to >>>>>>>do it. I am far from the normal user but even I didn't add anything >>>>>>>beyond the web browser to do my banking. >>>>>> >>>>>>Since you have already converted to on-line banking, why are >>>>>>you disputing my statements about it? >>>>> >>>>>I am disputing your incorrect statements. >>>> >>>>You cannot know what is incorrect because you've already been >>>>herded into doing online banking. >>> >>>You are completely off your nut on this. >> >>Not at all. You are already herded into the corral. You will >>never experience the pressure that will push the rest into >>that pen. > >It isn't a corral. A corral implies a loss of freedom. I can still write >a check or see a teller if I want. For now. >I can pay a bill while I'm at work of >on vacation. I have lost nothing. You have lost the physical paper trail. Doesn't it bother you that electronic checks can be applied against your account without any physical permission written by you? /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2007 08:20 In article <erppm2$c02$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erpb68$8qk_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: <snip> >>>> Computer usage >>>>by the general population requires more than this. You keep >>>>looking at the load balance from a naive user POV. >>> >>>No, you are just making stuff up because you've been shown to be wrong >>>about the real world of computers today. >> >>Keep thinking like that and you'll never learn something. > >From you! You have been shown to be wrong on this subject. You think I'm wrong only becaues you don't have my knowledge. Do you also think that people, who are experts in fields not your own, are also wrong? <snip> /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2007 08:29 In article <4f62c$45e0c567$cdd08488$22846(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <erpb68$8qk_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>>In article <ermu1l$rph$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>> >>>>In article <ermmhd$8qk_001(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <erhn0i$em5$4(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>> >>>>[.....] >>>> >>>>>>Sure you can. If the computer is running a printer server, you can >>>>>>predict the right order for the files to be read by the server. If there >>>>>>is a task constantly running to take sliding billion point FFTs, you know >>>>>>what is best for the FFT part. Just because the human may change >>>>>>something it doesn't mean they change everything. >>>>> >>>>>All of this is single-task, single user thinking. >>>> >>>>No, it isn't. It is taking a practical example of a way that real >>>>multiuser systems actually run. >>> >>>I know of plenty OSes and how they actually ran. We even made >>>them go. >> >> >> Then you should know that I am correct in what I am saying about the real >> usage. >> >> >>>>It is very common for a small fraction of >>>>the tasks to need the large fraction of the memory. This is just the way >>>>it is in the real world. >>> >>>That all depends on the computer site and who the users are. >> >> >> Everything "depends", but 99.9999% of the cases are like that. There are >> very few where the jobs are evenly spread. >> >> >> >>>>The computer that is doing the work of posting this is a multiuser >>>>machine. It has me on it using only several tens of kilobytes. >>> >>><GAG> That's too much. >> >> >> That's what I am using. "pico" is smallish and there is a little overhead >> from "bash". >> >> >>>>> Computer usage >>>>>by the general population requires more than this. You keep >>>>>looking at the load balance from a naive user POV. >>>> >>>>No, you are just making stuff up because you've been shown to be wrong >>>>about the real world of computers today. >>> >>>Keep thinking like that and you'll never learn something. >> >> >> From you! You have been shown to be wrong on this subject. >> >> >> >> >>>>I'm using a company that sells computer time like a timesharing company. >>>>They also sell modem access, and data storage. This is the modern >>>>business model for this sort of company. >>> >>>And that is one business. >> >> >> There are a great many like it now. There are also a lot of internet ISP >> companies. They have the same sort of usage profile. >> >> >> [....] >> >>>>You only think that because you haven't stopped to think about what I >>>>wrote. We were discussing the case where swapping had to happen. There >>>>is no point in asking at this point if it needs to happen because the >>>>argument has already shown that it must. There is more data to be >>>>maintained than will fit into the RAM of the machine. There is no >>>>question about swapping being needed. The discussion is about the >>>>advantages of having the code specific to the large memory usage make >>>>informed choices about swapping. >>> >>>You are not talking about swapping; you are talking about the >>>working set of pages. You do NOT have to swap code if the >>>storage disk is as fast as the swapping disk. >> >> >> What the devil are you talking about? You were sort of making sense until >> you got to this. The "swapping" under discussion is between the swap >> volume and the physical RAM. The swap volume can never be anything like >> as fast as the RAM. A VM system makes it appear that there is more RAM >> than is physically there by using the swap volume. >> >> Do you think that computers still use drum storage or mumble tanks for the >> memory. > >It could just be her shorthand You are correct. In the biz, we use the word "core" like the word "kleenix" is used. It is meant to distinguish between "fast memory" and the less fast memory. The way Ken has been using the word RAM is to reference the "fast memory". >but she still talks about >"core" which I remember well, and differing speeds of >hard drives, diskpacks, and so on. I wonder if she is still >using an 80ms full sized hard drive on her home system. I don't know the specs of my disk. > >That being said, a great deal of what she has been writing >attaches to really elementary computer and OS design which, yes. >offhand, reading both of you going at it, she seems to >understand better. It seems to me you're a level or few away >from the sots of internals she worked with during her career. Yup. I haven't been able to communicate this to Ken. I've given up on that MP guy. > >Most of those essentials haven't changed all that much. They haven't. The computer biz is simply reinventing what we implemented 25 and 35 years ago. It's not only annoying but boring; the biz should have been further ahead. > AFAIK >the linux systems we're running continue to organize the hard >drives much as early Unix organized tape magnetic storage. >Certainly that was true as recently as 5-7 years ago, but I >haven't messed with Linux on those levels in some time so >that *might* have changed though I see no reason why it >should have. (That and a buck will get you a cup of coffee.) It's still similar. I never liked the holey file implementation, but that is my taste in methods of nailing bits to the iron. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 25 Feb 2007 08:44
In article <erpov3$c02$3(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <erpfvv$8qk_001(a)s934.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <ermvfo$rph$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <ermm1f$8qk_001(a)s774.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>In article <era3ti$tvp$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>[.....] >>>>>> 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. >>>> >>>>Sigh! Windows' OS has a grandfather that required those hardware >>>>assists. Your point is making an excuse for lousy design >>>>requirements. >>> >>>No, I am pointing out what has really happened. Windows was written to >>>run on the usual DOS hardware. Gradually, features got added until it >>>needed more stuff than DOS. If I designed a 4096 by 4096 display, I >>>wouldn't sell very many unless I could make a windows driver for it. >>> >>> >>>[.....] >>>>>Even just suggesting that there be true backups of peoples machines throws >>>>>them into a panic. >>>> >>>>Good. That's why you should just say the words. That will have >>>>a ripple effect throughout the industry. >>> >>>No, I need my computer to work and be backed up. I don't give the hind >>>most 3/4 of a rat what happens to the average windows user's data. >> >>I know that you don't care. I do care. That is why you don't >>understand about all kinds of computing usage and I do. > >You are assuming that I don't know about things I don't care about this is >a serious error on your part. I know that there are many people out there >who have not yet seen the light and still run Windows. I know that these >people are doomed to lose valuable data at some time in the future. I >know that fixing this will require some software that gets around things >Windows does. I don't run Windows. I run Linux. As a result, I want to >back up my data on a Linux box. I also want to protect my self from the >bad effects of Windows losing data on someone else's machine. This is why >I raise the issue. And you keep assuming, erroneously, that this type of usage is the majority of computing in the world. It is not. I am trying to talk about the day when everybody has to have a computer to do any financial transactions. >>>>> "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. >>>> >>>>Instead of saying evil person, just say lightning strike or power >>>>surge or blizzard/hurricane when everything shuts down for 2 weeks. >>> >>>That is a lot less damage than an evil person can cause. Backing up by >>>storing on two computers will serve to protect against lightning. >> >>No it won't. There a billions of dollars spent on trying to >>make one set of computing services non-local. > >Either, you just lack imagination about what an evil person can do or you >over estimate the problem caused by something like a lightning strike. An >evil person can destroy any copy on any machine he has the ability to >write to. This means that he can delete all the data on the remote >machines too. This is why you need a write only memory in the system. This subject is too complex to discuss without some basic computing knowledge. You don't seem to have that specialized knowledge. I've spent man-years on these kinds of problems. > >[.....] >>>>>On just a sinlge PC it is quite easy. >>>> >>>>No, it is not. The way files, directories, structures and MOST >>>>importantly, data has been organized makes it almost impossible >>>>to manage files on a PC. >>> >>>We are talking about a backup. You can just copy the entire hard disk >>>when it is a single PC. >> >>That is not a backup of the files. >> >>YOu seem to be talking about a bit-to-bit copy. That will also >>copy errors which don't exist on the output device. > >I am talking of a complete and total and correct image of the drive. I know you are. A complete and total and correct image of the drive will also include its bad spots. It is possible (and likely) that the reason you are rebuilding your system is becaues a bad spot happened on a crucial point of the file system. The you are describing will simply restore the problem that wiped out your disk. > It >is a bit by bit copy. Usually it is stored onto a larger drive without >compression. If something goes bad, you can "loop back and mount" the >image. This gives you a read only exact copy of the file system as it >was. You then can simply fix the damaged file system. Now go back to my reply ^up there^. You have a flaw in your backup strategy. > > >[....] >>>>That's called an incremental backup. Great care needs to occur >>>>to combine full and incremental backups. >>> >>>No great amount of care is needed. I've done that sort of restore a few >>>times with no great trouble. Since files are stored with the modification >>>date, a copy command that checks dates does the hard part. >> >>You are very inexperience w.r.t. this computing task. > >You seem to be claiming knowledge you don't have. I am not claiming; it is a fact that I have the knowledge..and extensive work experience. > >> It is not >>as easy as you make it out to be. > >It in fact can be easier. I knew someone who wrote a lot of the software >used by banks and insurance companies. They stored the data transaction >by transaction, daily and incrementals, monthly near full backups and >yearly total backups. The system for recovery was very well tested and >automated. After every software change, they had to requalify the code. >This meant restoring an old back up and making a new one and restoring >that. I assume that software like that is still the common practice. It's even more complicated. I yak daily with a guy who does this work. > > > >> Now think about that fact >>and all the people who are going to be doing all banking online. > >It doesn't matter if you bank on line or in person. If you bank's >computers fail, you can't do a transaction. If they lose all their >computer data, you will have a devil of a time getting at your money. >This is why I always try to keep more than one bank, a couple of credit >cards and some cash. I know that there is some risk that a bank may have >a windows machine connected to the important information. Your backup strategy for this type of computing is mulitple copies. Most people don't have enough money to maintain multiple accounts. Most people don't check their single account activity; having many accounts will not solve this problem but mutiply instances of it. To use your stategy, you have to keep up with your backup maintenance for many accounts rather than one. Every bank's timing is different. This is not a solution. /BAH |