Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Mar 2007 07:41 In article <es9g7v$q95$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <es92nu$8ss_004(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <es84ft$5ks$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <87y7mhb0fx.fsf(a)nonospaz.fatphil.org>, >>>Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>[.... swapping ...] >>>>Wrong. If it's not moved onto the swap medium, it's lost. >>>>My kind of computing doesn't like losing data, yours might, >>>>but as we know BAH computing is BAD computing. >>> >>>This is almost exactly right. The write to the swap volume is only needed >>>if the page is dirty (ie: has been written to) >>> >>>This is part of the "complex issues" skipped to keep the list short. >> >>Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the >>swap file? > >If you think otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about. This >is what "swapping" in a VM system implies. It didn't in any VM system JMF implemented. I'm unaware of any other OS that used the term in that wasy. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Mar 2007 08:02 In article <26ngu2dr092sm97d4dvtbnvhnql2ffd0mm(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > >>In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh(a)4ax.com>, >>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet? >>> >>>This is what happens when you free the serfs. >> >>Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best >>use of those other fluids. > > Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site >or an urn of ashes to talk to? Yes, I do. > Do you really feel so compelled to try >to talk to us? It's part of the job. > If you're such a bit god, invent something! I'm trying to solve a number of problems. A few have been demonstrated in this thread. /BAH
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Mar 2007 08:03 In article <f3d56$45e8681e$49ecf0e$20166(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >MassiveProng wrote: >> On Fri, 02 Mar 07 12:25:31 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >> >> >>>In article <9abb5$45e6dbbb$4fe70c3$30531(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>> "nonsense(a)unsettled.com" <nonsense(a)unsettled.com> wrote: >>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article <epccu25dvaomn9ak8i5fmq0lks6prbbtuh(a)4ax.com>, >>>>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>Aren't you out of vital bodily fluids yet? >>>> >>>>This is what happens when you free the serfs. >>> >>>Even serfs have been toilet trained and know the best >>>use of those other fluids. >> >> >> Your senility is showing again, witch. Don't you have a grave site >> or an urn of ashes to talk to? Do you really feel so compelled to try >> to talk to us? If you're such a bit god, invent something! > >Well here's one that was/is incapable of learning toilet >skills. It is clear that he needs adult supervision of the maternal kind. /BAH
From: Phil Carmody on 3 Mar 2007 08:19 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com writes: > In article <es9g7v$q95$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: > >In article <es92nu$8ss_004(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > >>Do you think that a swapper moves pages from the RAM to the > >>swap file? > > > >If you think otherwise, you don't know what you are talking about. This > >is what "swapping" in a VM system implies. > > It didn't in any VM system JMF implemented. I'm unaware of > any other OS that used the term in that wasy. You're unaware of techical terminology that's been in use for decades then. But we knew this already as you've demonstrated it about a dozen times already in this thread. Phil -- "Home taping is killing big business profits. We left this side blank so you can help." -- Dead Kennedys, written upon the B-side of tapes of /In God We Trust, Inc./.
From: jmfbahciv on 3 Mar 2007 08:15
In article <es9eh9$q95$5(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <es95ji$8qk_001(a)s1006.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <es6rgr$kgg$6(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>In article <es6h92$8qk_001(a)s985.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: <snip> >>Honey, you are not paranoid enough. > >I have suggested the reasonable way to deal with the problems of doing a >back up. Your methods have serious problems. > You are so determined to prove me wrong It was my job to find all flaws of all processes, systems, and designs and think of solutions. I didn't earn the title den mother for nothing. >that you haven't even >read and thought about what I wrote. I've read and thought about your ideas over 30 years ago. This is all old stuff and I'm learning that this is another piece of knowledge that seems to have been lost. > You just bark some new claim at the >thread and assume that it will convince people. This is not a conflict of who knows more than the other. These are serious matters and there is no room for pissing contests. > >[....] >>>This is only a problem with this copy of the file and not with the one we >>>were backing up. You have also ignored the verify step which is always >>>done. >> >>No, it is not. Verifying requires a second "save" to occur. >>Even the old days a full system save couldn't be saved and verified >>in one night. Nowadays you have disks that have capacities >>in the giga-thingies. > >The disks and computer have gotten faster more than they have gotten >bigger. Sure they've become "faster". The capacity increases have stayed ahead of processing speeds. >Today it takes less time to image my 250G disk than it did the >10M Winchester that was the first one I imaged. I don't believe imaged the Winchester. I think you dumped it to magtape or some similar unit record medium. If you had two drives with one dedicated for backups, then you worked for a very rich company. > >[.....] >>>None of this changes the fact that you mixed up back up, restore and >>>repair. The whole reason you do a back up is because files can be changed >>>when they shouldn't. This is not a question we have been arguing. >> >>I have, almost consistently, been talking about files disappearing. >>Plus all the things that can go wrong along the way. > >Yes so we have always agreed that the reason you do a backup is because >the files can change at times when they shouldn't. Hopefully we can now >put this question away. > >[.....] >>>As I pointed out, this is exactly what a restore would do. It puts the >>>files back as they were on some date in the past. If the files are not >>>right on that date, those incorrect files are exactly what you want a >>>backup to have on it. You have mixed up the question with one of repair. >>>That is a different topic. >> >>If you are restoring the virus that is causing you to rebuild your >>system, you will be rebuiling your computer system over and >>over and all over again. You will never, ever, get out of >>restore mode until you stop restoring the virus (a.k.a. the mess >>maker). > >No, I am not completely stupid, as you seem to want to imply. I am not trying to imply this. YOu seem to be showing it all on your own. > The restore >puts things back to the way they were. This means that if the system was >broken on a given day, that exact situation is recorded on the back up. >An earlier back up would have the system as it was on some day before >things went wrong. This is exactly what you want back ups to act like. >They are complete pictures of the system on a given day. The restore >process lets you put things back as they were. The repair process is how >you make the system correct. Both steps involved making crucial backup decisions. YOu have to make these decisions when you design your backup process. You cannot tell when the system got infected unless it's a poorly designed virus. YOu could have been saving the virus on each and every backup tape. This implies that you have no clean system backups. The repair process and restore process has to be done at the same time. Both "steps" have to be done with the same action and cannot be separated as you seem to claim here. /BAH |