Linux's Much Overlooked Calculator -- BC
in [General Linux]
|
Prev: inetd problems
Next: Downloading andLinux
From: Jean-David Beyer on 24 Mar 2010 13:11 John Hasler wrote: > Jean-David Beyer writes: >> I usually have one running, but not always. Once I have loaded one in >> the morning, even if I exit it, it reloads very fast as it tends to be >> in the cache. I tend to close it if I need more desktop space for >> something else. > > That's why I have four desktops with sixteen panes each. I am not sure what you mean. I have the default setup from my distro that puts up one desktop that is divided into for panes. I always keep instrumentation in the top left one (xosview, top, and a tail on my system voltages and temperatures). I keep Thunderbird in the lower left one, Firefox in the lower right. And I work in the top left. But sometimes I need more stuff so I close out the stuff in the lower two. I know I could set it up for 6 or 9 or whatever panels of my desktop, but then I would not be able to remember what is where. -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 13:05:01 up 7 days, 5:07, 3 users, load average: 4.43, 4.50, 4.60
From: The Natural Philosopher on 24 Mar 2010 13:16 Jean-David Beyer wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > >> It's a lousy analogy. Applications which you have open but are not >> using do not use any resources. >> > Actually, you do consume a slot in the process table, but this is > trivial these days. Absolutely trivial. > AND a bit of RAM. Somewhere in the wide wonderful virtual RAM space of your machine. The greater danger is that 'you are not using' != 'idle' I couldn't understand why an iconised copy of MS office on a Mac used 50% CPU. Until someone open another copy on another machine and it screamed license abuse at us. Polls the network looking for copies of itself. Jesus! The other issue is memory leaks in processes that are not as idle as they could be.you CAN end up with things getting badly swapped out to the point where its quicker to reload them than swap them back in. However this is all bad design: your basic point stands.
From: unruh on 24 Mar 2010 13:43 On 2010-03-24, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > On comp.os.linux.misc, Sidney Lambe <sidneylambe(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> On comp.os.linux.misc, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: >>> Jean-David Beyer writes: >>>> I usually have one running, but not always. Once I have loaded one in >>>> the morning, even if I exit it, it reloads very fast as it tends to be >>>> in the cache. I tend to close it if I need more desktop space for >>>> something else. >>> >>> That's why I have four desktops with sixteen panes each. >> >> That's absurd and isn't anything but showmanship. To impress >> the ignorant. ??? Showmanship for whom? I work on my machine by myself. I do not show it to anyone else. If I open a window for something I tend not to shut it, because I am likely to want it again in a little while. So what? Why waste my time shutting windows that do not need to be shut. They just sit there doing nothing when not used. >> >> Useless eye-candy. No one needs 64 windows open at a time. >> >> I have 7, full-screen windows open. There's nothing on the screen >> but the app and a narrow strip, one character high, at the bottom >> of the screen which tells me the number and name of each window >> and which one I was at last and where I am now. The strip is also >> used to display brief and short messages like "mail on the foo >> account". If I need to I can split the screen in various ways >> so I can view the output of two or more apps at the same time. >> >> These uncluttered screens make working and playing very pleasant. Fine, do whatever you want. Your are probably one of those people that believe a clean desktop indicates some obscure virtue as well. I do not. >> I don't keep a window open displaying system info all the time, >> as I am sure John does. If I need system info I enter the alias >> "sys" in a window running bash and it runs a simple script that >> displays all critical system information, updated every 2 seconds. >> When I've seen what I need to see I kill the script with Ctrl-c. >> >> I can be done with this and be back at my working window >> before these Windows refugees have got their mouse in hand. >> >> Sid >> > Actually, to do that I would generally hit Ctrl-z to suspend > the app I'm working with and I'd have bash in front of me and > enter sys at the prompt, take a look at what's going on, > kill the sys script with Ctrl-c and enter fg to bring > up the app I was working with. Fine. Go to it. > > Sid > >
From: Rui Maciel on 24 Mar 2010 14:42 Sidney Lambe wrote: > Well, that's probably because you don't type well. That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by that? Rui Maciel
From: Rui Maciel on 24 Mar 2010 14:46
John Hasler wrote: > Rui Maciel writes: >> It's as easy to fire up programs such as Octave and Maxima than it is >> to run bc... > > I don't find that to be the case. In your opinion, what makes Octave and Maxima harder to run than bc? Rui Maciel |