ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
7
-----------------------------------------------
ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
Way to go!
And still the battery life will be longer than present
machines!!
Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
more than double.
Powerful processors like that would also improve the
overal specifications for embedded devices
like hard disk recorders to flat TV. It is up to the retailers
to start specifying what other features they want in
their embedded Linux gadgets to make use of this power
so that embedded Linux companies can make them and ship them for retail as
soon as possible.
I mean if you want hard disk recorders that use SSDs
and WiFI to connect with netbooks and their WiFI to transfer files,
then you got it!
Or if you want a powerful 4 phone asterisk server to answer phone calls
and record everything to the TV networked hard disk recorder, then you got
it! Whatever extra features you want to use as a talking point
to sell the product on the retail floor, then just get out there to the
linux product development companies and someone will mix and mash the open
source code to make the product you specify and bring it in to sell
to your customers at lowest possible cost and maximum profit.
Why wait?
Thats what Linux is all about!!
Hans Lister
> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
> Way to go!
>
> And still the battery life will be longer than present
> machines!!
Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
with current laptop models.
DFS
> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
> more than double.
Where's some evidence to support this claim?
Ezekiel
The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the problem
is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a netbook/smartbook
aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web server,
a build machine compiling in the background while the user does something
else.
Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two /slower/
CPUs.
Other idiocy from "7" -
> Powerful processors like that would also improve
> the overal specifications for embedded devices
> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
ARM isn't powerful. ARM is low power. Gaining a few milliWatts of power
savings with ARM in a Tivo or plasma TV is laking pissing into the ocean.
> And still the battery life will be
> longer than present machines!!
We've seen this claim before so lets see what the real-world power savings
are. My guess is that a ARM netbook may run somewhere between 15-30 minutes
longer than a Intel Atom netbook.
The CPU saves a few milliwatts but there's a lot more to a netbook than just
the CPU. Display power is the same, RAM power is essentially the same, HDD
power is the same, Wifi power is the same, bluetooth the same, peripherals
the same, etc.
An ARM processor will use less power but how that translates to actual
differences in battery life remains to be seen.
Bob Hauck
There are current laptop models that still use APM?
--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Hans Lister
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>> Way to go!
>>>
>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>> machines!!
>>
>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>> with current laptop models.
>
> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
Poor choice of words.
Power management.
Hibernate, suspend etc...
JEDIDIAH
> DFS wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
>>> more than double.
>>
>> Where's some evidence to support this claim?
>
> The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the problem
> is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a netbook/smartbook
> aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
Any workload that does more than one thing at once it going to
benefit from more than one core. This can even be a Windows box
sitting idle. This isn't 1988 anymore. A modern desktop machine
sitting and doing nothing has more going on than your database
server from decades gone by.
>
> Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
> concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web server,
> a build machine compiling in the background while the user does something
> else.
>
> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
> concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two /slower/
> CPUs.
That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
broken down into multiple processes or threads.
[deletia]
--
These Mac Fanboys want vi imposed on everyone. |||
/ | \
Ezekiel
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
>>>> more than double.
>>>
>>> Where's some evidence to support this claim?
>>
>> The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the
>> problem is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a
>> netbook/smartbook aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
>
> Any workload that does more than one thing at once it going to
> benefit from more than one core.
Correct but the point is that netbooks will rarely have a workload where
multiple cores are being utilized.
> This can even be a Windows box
> sitting idle. This isn't 1988 anymore. A modern desktop machine
> sitting and doing nothing has more going on than your database
> server from decades gone by.
Lots of processes that are idle in a 'S' state (interruptable sleep) are
simply idle waiting for something. They don't need multiple cores to wait
and sleep on an event.
>>
>> Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
>> concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web
>> server, a build machine compiling in the background while the user does
>> something else.
>>
>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
>> concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two
>> /slower/ CPUs.
>
> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that it
uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
single-threaded.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
>>> more than double.
>>
>> Where's some evidence to support this claim?
>
> The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the
> problem is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a
> netbook/smartbook aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
>
> Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
> concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web server,
> a build machine compiling in the background while the user does something
> else.
>
> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
> concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two /slower/
> CPUs.
BEAAAWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
ALL HAIL THE *STUPID* *FUCK* EZEKIEL
He *knows* a single fast CPU is better than two slower CPUs.
> Other idiocy from "7" -
>
>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>
> ARM isn't powerful.
Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
> ARM is low power. Gaining a few milliWatts of power
> savings with ARM in a Tivo or plasma TV is laking pissing into the ocean.
>
>
>> And still the battery life will be
>> longer than present machines!!
>
> We've seen this claim before so lets see what the real-world power savings
> are. My guess is that a ARM netbook may run somewhere between 15-30
> minutes longer than a Intel Atom netbook.
Of course, thats why why you also guessed everyone has an Atom in their
mobile phone. Being an idiot and being stupid no longer seems a
differentiator for you it seems.
> The CPU saves a few milliwatts but there's a lot more to a netbook than
> just the CPU. Display power is the same, RAM power is essentially the
> same, HDD power is the same, Wifi power is the same, bluetooth the same,
> peripherals the same, etc.
>
> An ARM processor will use less power but how that translates to actual
> differences in battery life remains to be seen.
Of course, thats why why you also guessed everyone has an Atom in their
mobile phone. Being an idiot and being stupid no longer seems a
differentiator for you it seems. How that translates into battery life
or getting a life remains to be seen.
Bob Hauck
IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
state of power management in Linux.
Ezekiel
> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Ezekiel
> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>
>
>
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
>>>> more than double.
>>>
>>> Where's some evidence to support this claim?
>>
>> The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the
>> problem is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a
>> netbook/smartbook aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
>>
>> Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
>> concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web
>> server, a build machine compiling in the background while the user does
>> something else.
>>
>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
>> concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two
>> /slower/ CPUs.
>
>
> BEAAAWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!
>
>
> ALL HAIL THE *STUPID* *FUCK* EZEKIEL
>
> He *knows* a single fast CPU is better than two slower CPUs.
In this case yes, a single fast CPU will give better performance than two
slower ones.
>
>> Other idiocy from "7" -
>>
>>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>>
>> ARM isn't powerful.
>
> Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
I realize you're a retard Joseph Michael but try to *think* before you post.
For mobile phone applications low-power is more important than number
crunching ability.
>> ARM is low power. Gaining a few milliWatts of power
>> savings with ARM in a Tivo or plasma TV is laking pissing into the ocean.
>>
>>
>>> And still the battery life will be
>>> longer than present machines!!
>>
>> We've seen this claim before so lets see what the real-world power
>> savings are. My guess is that a ARM netbook may run somewhere between
>> 15-30 minutes longer than a Intel Atom netbook.
>
>
> Of course, thats why why you also guessed everyone
> has an Atom in their mobile phone.
Do show me where I claimed or guessed that everyone has a Atom in their
mobile phone. For phones low power consumption (ARM) is more important than
higher CPU performance (Atom).
> Being an idiot and being stupid no longer seems a
> differentiator for you it seems.
Being a clueless idiot was always your trademark. Tell us again how
nano-bots can build a space-station in weeks.
Peter Köhlmann
Which nowadays is rarely true, if ever, on any computer which multitasks
>>
>>> Other idiocy from "7" -
>>>
>>>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>>>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>>>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>>>
>>> ARM isn't powerful.
>>
>> Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
>
> I realize you're a retard Joseph Michael but try to *think* before you
> post. For mobile phone applications low-power is more important than
> number crunching ability.
That simply *has* to be the reason why a very low power and slow ARM
processor is running the iPhone. Seems to me that it isn't really *that*
slow
So the one who has to achieve his very first instance of "thinking" would
be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
< snip more outright Ezekiel idiocy >
--
Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats
you with experience...
Ezekiel
"On any computer which multitasks" being the operative term. The problem is
that netbooks/smartbooks will spend most of their existence doing simple
tasks like checking email that don't require a great deal of multitasking.
Will there be "some" multitasking on notebooks - of course.
Will it be all that common - No.
On something like a netbook a CPU running at 2 Ghz will in most cases give
better performance than two cores running at 1 Ghz each.
>>>> Other idiocy from "7" -
>>>>
>>>>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>>>>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>>>>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>>>>
>>>> ARM isn't powerful.
>>>
>>> Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
>>
>> I realize you're a retard Joseph Michael but try to *think* before you
>> post. For mobile phone applications low-power is more important than
>> number crunching ability.
>
> That simply *has* to be the reason why a very low power and slow ARM
> processor is running the iPhone.
Perhaps you can't read but I never said they were "slow." For starters speed
is a relative thing and power/performance is always a compromise. ARM
elected to give up some performance and lean more toward the
power-consumption end of the scale. Other processors sacrifice low power
consumption in favor of increased performance.
Despite what the "7" retard and you are trying to claim - the main reason
that ARM is popular in phones is low power consumption and not high CPU
performance.
> Seems to me that it isn't really *that* slow
You seem to be the one who's slow here because you still haven't been able
to figure out that I never said that ARM was "slow."
> So the one who has to achieve his very first instance
> of "thinking" would be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
Shooting down idiot posts from you and "7" doesn't require much effort.
Peter Köhlmann
And which don't require much of CPU power at all
> Will there be "some" multitasking on notebooks - of course.
> Will it be all that common - No.
> On something like a netbook a CPU running at 2 Ghz will in most cases
> give better performance than two cores running at 1 Ghz each.
And this is naturally true because a retard like Scott Ezekiel Nudds
claims it
>
>>>>> Other idiocy from "7" -
>>>>>
>>>>>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>>>>>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>>>>>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>>>>>
>>>>> ARM isn't powerful.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
>>>
>>> I realize you're a retard Joseph Michael but try to *think* before you
>>> post. For mobile phone applications low-power is more important than
>>> number crunching ability.
>>
>> That simply *has* to be the reason why a very low power and slow ARM
>> processor is running the iPhone.
>
> Perhaps you can't read but I never said they were "slow." For starters
> speed is a relative thing and power/performance is always a compromise.
> ARM elected to give up some performance and lean more toward the
> power-consumption end of the scale. Other processors sacrifice low power
> consumption in favor of increased performance.
Certainly. A factor of 10 in power consumption for the processor is
nothing (which measures same computing speed ARM and Atom processors, BTW)
Even the next generation Atoms which will use significantly less power
than the current ones still use more than a similar speed ARM
> Despite what the "7" retard and you are trying to claim - the main
> reason that ARM is popular in phones is low power consumption and not
> high CPU performance.
>
And yet it achieves quite high speed on the miniature cell phone battery
What does it tell us? What you claim, or what reality says?
>
>> Seems to me that it isn't really *that* slow
>
> You seem to be the one who's slow here because you still haven't been
> able to figure out that I never said that ARM was "slow."
>
>
>> So the one who has to achieve his very first instance
>> of "thinking" would be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
>
> Shooting down idiot posts from you and "7" doesn't require much effort.
It still requires much more than you will ever have
--
It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
'Where am I allowed to go today?'
JEDIDIAH
>
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>> DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> 7 wrote:
>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that much
>>> concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two
>>> /slower/ CPUs.
>>
>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
>
> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that it
> uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
> single-threaded.
...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
--
If you are going to judge Linux based on how easy
it is to get onto a Macintosh. Let's try installing |||
MacOS X on a DELL! / | \
Peter Köhlmann
> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 7 wrote:
> [deletia]
>>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that
>>>> much concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than
>>>> two /slower/ CPUs.
>>>
>>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
>>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
>>
>> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that
>> it uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>> single-threaded.
>
> ...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
> into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
>
"Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
from his ass
--
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message, however, a
significant number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
BBWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!
THE UTTER *FUCK* *WIT* STRIKES AGAIN!!!!
You bring utter shame to the asstroturfing world.
If only you had even half a brain cell, you should shoot yourself
immediately.
Ezekiel
> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 7 wrote:
> [deletia]
>>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that
>>>> much concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than two
>>>> /slower/ CPUs.
>>>
>>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
>>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
>>
>> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that it
>> uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>> single-threaded.
>
> ...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
> into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
>
Somehow I doubt you have because you clearly have no idea what you're
talking about.
Ezekiel
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 7 wrote:
>> [deletia]
>>>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that
>>>>> much concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than
>>>>> two /slower/ CPUs.
>>>>
>>>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
>>>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
>>>
>>> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that
>>> it uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>>> single-threaded.
>>
>> ...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
>> into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
>>
>
> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>
> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
> from his ass
I realize you're an incompetent idiot so there's no need to keep proving it.
Yes - it is often easier to write a multi-threaded app then to do the same
thing with a single thread.
Here's a simple example that even someone with your extremely limited mental
ability might be able to understand.
Something like a simple instant-messaging (IM) app that displays data
received on a socket. With threads it's easy... one thread is the listener
and waits for incoming data to arrive on the socket and then prints it.
Another thread waits for user input then writes it.
Do tell how this would be "easier" to do without threads.
Run along now idiot and come back when you learn something about software
development.
Ezekiel
> Ezekiel wrote:
Doesn't require much CPU power and doesn't require multiple cores.
>> Will there be "some" multitasking on notebooks - of course.
>> Will it be all that common - No.
>> On something like a netbook a CPU running at 2 Ghz will in most cases
>> give better performance than two cores running at 1 Ghz each.
>
> And this is naturally true because a retard like Scott Ezekiel Nudds
> claims it
And two 1-Ghz cores are faster than a single 2-Ghz core because retards
like "7" and Peter Coalmann say so.
>>>>>> Other idiocy from "7" -
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Powerful processors like that would also improve
>>>>>>> the overal specifications for embedded devices
>>>>>>> like hard disk recorders to flat TV.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ARM isn't powerful.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, thats why its used in ALL mobile phones.
>>>>
>>>> I realize you're a retard Joseph Michael but try to *think* before you
>>>> post. For mobile phone applications low-power is more important than
>>>> number crunching ability.
>>>
>>> That simply *has* to be the reason why a very low power and slow ARM
>>> processor is running the iPhone.
>>
>> Perhaps you can't read but I never said they were "slow." For starters
>> speed is a relative thing and power/performance is always a compromise.
>> ARM elected to give up some performance and lean more toward the
>> power-consumption end of the scale. Other processors sacrifice low power
>> consumption in favor of increased performance.
>
> Certainly. A factor of 10 in power consumption for the processor is
> nothing (which measures same computing speed ARM and Atom processors, BTW)
> Even the next generation Atoms which will use significantly less power
> than the current ones still use more than a similar speed ARM
So you were not able to show where I supposedly said that ARM is slow.
>> Despite what the "7" retard and you are trying to claim - the main
>> reason that ARM is popular in phones is low power consumption and not
>> high CPU performance.
>>
> And yet it achieves quite high speed on the miniature cell phone battery
> What does it tell us? What you claim, or what reality says?
"Quite high speed" which is exactly what I said. ARM is willing to
compromise "very high speed" for power consumption. Exactly what part of
this is too difficult for you to understand? Tell me and I will explain it
to you with smaller words.
>>> Seems to me that it isn't really *that* slow
>>
>> You seem to be the one who's slow here because you still haven't been
>> able to figure out that I never said that ARM was "slow."
>>
>>
>>> So the one who has to achieve his very first instance
>>> of "thinking" would be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
>>
>> Shooting down idiot posts from you and "7" doesn't require much effort.
>
> It still requires much more than you will ever have
Which is still much more than you have.
Hans Lister
It's a mess...
Check the forums and see how many people have troubles with
laptops and suspend or hibernate etc.
You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
Bob Hauck
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:00:12 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:58:38 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>>>>> Way to go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>>>>> machines!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>>>>> with current laptop models.
>>>>
>>>> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
>>>
>>> Poor choice of words.
>>> Power management.
>>> Hibernate, suspend etc...
>>
>> IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
>> sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
>> state of power management in Linux.
>
> It's a mess...
Compared to what?
> Check the forums and see how many people have troubles with
> laptops and suspend or hibernate etc.
So you trawl the forums for problems to post here. Now there's a
scientific way to compare operating systems.
Do you actually have any idea if suspend/resume problems are more common
on Linux than on, say, Windows? No, you do not have the foggiest
notion. You have done no actual comparisons. All you have is some
complaints posted to some unamed forums.
I'm quite sure there are Windows users who have trouble with that stuff
too if only because some of the problems are due to BIOS bugs. Are
there more of them, percentage-wise than with Linux? I don't know, and
apparently neither do you.
Like I said, you're just tossing stuff out there to see what sticks with
no real knowledge of anything.
> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
If I needed a hobby I might take up trawling Windows forums for common
problems and post them here to try to make it look like everything in
Windows is a mess.
On second thought that would be a pretty boring hobby.
JEDIDIAH
You're one to talk.
>>> uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>>> single-threaded.
That's a hum-dinger. I'm sorry I missed it the first time around.
I must be getting old...
--
It's not the size of the CPU, it's how you use it. |||
/ | \
Ezekiel
"JEDIDIAH" <je...@nomad.mishnet> wrote in message
news:slrnh3o9h...@nomad.mishnet...
> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
>>>>>> DFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 7 wrote:
>>> [deletia]
>>>>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that
>>>>>> much concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> /slower/ CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
>>>>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
>>>>
>>>> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that
>>>> it
>>>> uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>>>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>>>> single-threaded.
>>>
>>> ...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
>>> into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
>>>
>>
>> Somehow I doubt you have because you clearly have no idea what you're
>> talking about.
>
> You're one to talk.
Since you've been proven to clueless on the subject of multi-threading you
certainly are NOT the one to talk.
>>>> uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
>>>> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
>>>> single-threaded.
>
> That's a hum-dinger. I'm sorry I missed it the first time around.
>
> I must be getting old...
Old and stupid to go along with clueless. Stick to writing batch scripts on
your precious little Atari and leave multi-threading to those who actually
understand it.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "On any computer which multitasks" being the operative term. The problem
>> is that netbooks/smartbooks will spend most of their existence doing
>> simple tasks like checking email that don't require a great deal of
>> multitasking.
>
> And which don't require much of CPU power at all
Jeez, no multitasking needed?
Then what the hell are all these daemons doing?
>>> So the one who has to achieve his very first instance
>>> of "thinking" would be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
>>
>> Shooting down idiot posts from you and "7" doesn't require much effort.
>
> It still requires much more than you will ever have
Well, ol' Zeke's got them Beamers.
--
You will win success in whatever calling you adopt.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>
> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
> from his ass
Well, there are few things easier than waiting for a socket client to
connect, accepting the connection, and then kicking off a thread function to
handle the socket, /if/ it is self-contained (no share data).
--
You will be advanced socially, without any special effort on your part.
GPS
It's nonsense. Consult a good computer architecture book or an engineer
that works on modern microprocessors. I gave a reference to a well
respected book called _Computer Organization & Design_ in another response
to 7 (in another thread).
Many current algorithms have not been designed to work with multiple cores,
so they often only utilize 1 core.
There is a cost for locking, which may introduce cache effects, and
serialize some memory accesses for 2 or more cores.
The program and kernel design influences the performance of processor. If 1
core is in a critical region, and another is waiting for the other core to
leave that critical region, then the core waiting is blocked by the other
working core.
If you throw cores at a problem you are not guaranteed to have better
performance. The bus speed, the memory speed, and the cache speed are all
involved, beyond just the basic processor architecture.
Many applications are more bound by RAM speed than by the speed of the
processor these days. The primary RAM speed is much slower than the
internal memory of the processor, and even with a huge cache, you still have
to fill that cache, and move data between the cache, and RAM.
RAM modules are much slower for several reasons, and the primary reason at
the moment is cost. The type of memory used for high speed caches is called
SRAM (static RAM) usually. SRAM is costly, generates more heat, and doesn't
require refresh cycles.
Dynamic RAM is what most primary RAM modules are made with, and it's much
cheaper, but it doesn't perform as well, and it has delays associated with
it, during the refresh cycles.
So, the question arises: why not just build computers with SRAM entirely?
Good luck! The cost would be enormous.
-George
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:13:43 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
>> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
>> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
(He means 'if', not when.)
> Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
> believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
>
> If I needed a hobby I might take up trawling Windows forums for common
> problems and post them here to try to make it look like everything in
> Windows is a mess.
>
> On second thought that would be a pretty boring hobby.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
--
You have an unusual understanding of the problems of human relationships.
Hans Lister
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:13:43 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:00:12 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:58:38 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>>>>>> Way to go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>>>>>> machines!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>>>>>> with current laptop models.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
>>>>
>>>> Poor choice of words.
>>>> Power management.
>>>> Hibernate, suspend etc...
>>>
>>> IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
>>> sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
>>> state of power management in Linux.
>>
>> It's a mess...
>
> Compared to what?
Windows.
>
>> Check the forums and see how many people have troubles with
>> laptops and suspend or hibernate etc.
>
> So you trawl the forums for problems to post here. Now there's a
> scientific way to compare operating systems.
Nobody has to trawl anything.
If you had a clue you would know that several major problems
plague Linux and power management is one of them.
> Do you actually have any idea if suspend/resume problems are more common
> on Linux than on, say, Windows? No, you do not have the foggiest
> notion. You have done no actual comparisons. All you have is some
> complaints posted to some unamed forums.
Of course I do.
Windows, it works.
Linux?
Good luck.
> I'm quite sure there are Windows users who have trouble with that stuff
> too if only because some of the problems are due to BIOS bugs. Are
> there more of them, percentage-wise than with Linux? I don't know, and
> apparently neither do you.
Linux can't be measured.
Linux can be measured.
Pick your day of the week and pick one of the above.
> Like I said, you're just tossing stuff out there to see what sticks with
> no real knowledge of anything.
Try looking in the forums.
>
>> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
>> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
>> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
>
> Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
> believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
Never?
Probably not.
It's easy to screw up the BIOS settings.
However It CAN work with Windows if set up properly and not
mucked with.
Preloaded systems work right out of the box.
Linux?
Better buy the right system or you are screwed.
> If I needed a hobby I might take up trawling Windows forums for common
> problems and post them here to try to make it look like everything in
> Windows is a mess.
You don't need a hobby.
You need a clue.
> On second thought that would be a pretty boring hobby.
I thought we were talking about power management?
You've moved the goal posts to the arctic circle.
Ezekiel
"Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
news:cDW_l.57086$qa.4...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K�hlmann belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "On any computer which multitasks" being the operative term. The
>>> problem
>>> is that netbooks/smartbooks will spend most of their existence doing
>>> simple tasks like checking email that don't require a great deal of
>>> multitasking.
>>
>> And which don't require much of CPU power at all
>
> Jeez, no multitasking needed?
>
> Then what the hell are all these daemons doing?
Sitting idle 99% of the time. Learn how to use basic system monitoring
tools and find out for yourself.
>>>> So the one who has to achieve his very first instance
>>>> of "thinking" would be you, Scott Ezekiel Nudds
>>>
>>> Shooting down idiot posts from you and "7" doesn't require much effort.
>>
>> It still requires much more than you will ever have
>
> Well, ol' Zeke's got them Beamers.
Competent people get paid more than morons who are busy claiming that a
multi-threaded app is *always* more difficult and complex. And this comes
as a surprise to you?
Bob Hauck
If you say so. But you are just saying it, not backing that saying up
with anything at all.
>>> Check the forums and see how many people have troubles with laptops
>>> and suspend or hibernate etc.
>>
>> So you trawl the forums for problems to post here. Now there's a
>> scientific way to compare operating systems.
>
> Nobody has to trawl anything.
Yet you do.
> If you had a clue you would know that several major problems
> plague Linux and power management is one of them.
If you say so. It works fine for on the laptops I use. That wasn't
always the case, but it is now and has been for a few years.
The one at work even hot-docks, a trick at least one of my collegues
can't get to work with his Windows. Something about a third-party
driver screwing up when he undocks it.
If I were an idiot like you, I would go to some forums and cherry pick
some posts with similar problems, then go around posting here that
Windows has a hard time dealing with docking stations because I saw
comments in the forums.
>> Do you actually have any idea if suspend/resume problems are more
>> common on Linux than on, say, Windows? No, you do not have the
>> foggiest notion. You have done no actual comparisons. All you have
>> is some complaints posted to some unamed forums.
>
> Of course I do.
No, you don't. You are just making stuff up based on what you trawled
out of some unamed online forums. Presumably ones where people go for
help rather than ones where to go to praise how well things work. So
amazingly, they have problems.
And this is supposed to prove something?
>> Like I said, you're just tossing stuff out there to see what sticks with
>> no real knowledge of anything.
>
> Try looking in the forums.
Whatever for? Will they tell me whether things on Linux are in general
better or worse than on Windows. No, they will not.
>>> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
>>> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
>>> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
>>
>> Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
>> believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
>
> Never?
> Probably not.
> It's easy to screw up the BIOS settings.
So you admit that there are sometimes problems with Windows too. Good,
that is progress.
> However It CAN work with Windows if set up properly and not
> mucked with.
Uh-huh. Hedging a bit I see.
> Preloaded systems work right out of the box.
Oh, I see. You want to compare pristine non-screwed-with systems that
were pre-installed by the vendor with systems that were self-installed
by random users on equally random hardware. But there's no reason you
have to make that comparison. You can compare like with like.
You can buy pre-installed Linux systems. Many netbooks come with Linux
for example. There are several vendors who sell pre-installed laptops
of one sort or another. Do they have more problems than comparable
Windows machines? You don't have a clue.
Similarly, people sometimes try to upgrade their Windows OS or install a
different version than came with the machine. How much trouble is it to
get suspend working on those? Again, you have no idea.
What you do have is a bunch of anecdotes selected specifically from
places where people go to complain. It is meaningless gibberish if you
want to argue how things are in general.
> Linux?
> Better buy the right system or you are screwed.
Well, duh! It is always a good idea to buy hardware that works properly
with the OS you intend to put on it. One could even buy a preinstalled
Linux system.
Despite people not doing that, it usually works fine. The fact that
some people complain on some forums somewhere doesn't really change
that.
Does it work everywhere and every time? No. Nothing does, especially
when untrained people are doing the configuration on randomly-selected
hardware. There are always people who have problems. And like
everything else, things change over time.
This is all very obvious to most people.
Gregory Shearman
Like smashing windows with rocks.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Ezekiel
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K�hlmann belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>>
>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>> pours
>> from his ass
>
> Well, there are few things easier than waiting for a socket client to
> connect, accepting the connection, and then kicking off a thread function
> to
> handle the socket, /if/ it is self-contained (no share data).
Nope. You are wrong. According to the JEDIDIAH and the Koalmann idiot who
earns a living writing .BAT files for MS-DOS this is wrong. EVERYTHING is
easier without threads. Adding threads will ALWAYS make the application
more difficult to write and understand. Common sense and reality be
damned - the anti-aliasing expert Koalmann has spoken.
Peter Köhlmann
You might try to actually find a Msg-ID for that lie, Ezekiel Scott Nudds
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Ezekiel
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:h1ijn4$q89$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:xFW_l.57087$qa.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>>>>
>>>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>>>> pours
>>>> from his ass
>>>
>>> Well, there are few things easier than waiting for a socket client to
>>> connect, accepting the connection, and then kicking off a thread
>>> function to
>>> handle the socket, /if/ it is self-contained (no share data).
>>
>> Nope. You are wrong. According to the JEDIDIAH and the Koalmann idiot
>> who earns a living writing .BAT files for MS-DOS this is wrong.
>> EVERYTHING is easier without threads. Adding threads will ALWAYS make
>> the application
>> more difficult to write and understand. Common sense and reality be
>> damned - the anti-aliasing expert Koalmann has spoken.
>
>
> You might try to actually find a Msg-ID for that lie, Ezekiel Scott Nudds
Are you that stupid that you can't remember what you posted in this thread
yesterday?
Here's a reminder for you:
Zeke - "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
Koalmann
<quote>
"Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
from his ass
</quote>
You wrote that it's a howler that I pulled from my ass that it's
"sometimes" easier to do something with threads. Since it's your ignorant
opinion that it's not possible for threads to every make a programming task
easier then you must believe that it's always easier write a single
threaded app.
So which is it fool? Can threads sometimes make a programming task easier
or do they always make it more difficult. And if they sometimes do make it
easier (which they do idiot) then what's the howler?
Run along now and do whatever it is that idiots like you do. Perhaps
there's some toilets that need cleaning in the "software" company you claim
to work for.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Ezekiel wrote:
>
>>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>> news:xFW_l.57087$qa.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K?hlmann belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>>>>
>>>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>>>> pours
>>>> from his ass
>>>
>>> Well, there are few things easier than waiting for a socket client to
>>> connect, accepting the connection, and then kicking off a thread
>>> function to handle the socket, /if/ it is self-contained (no share
>>> data).
>>
>> Nope. You are wrong. According to the JEDIDIAH and the Koalmann idiot
>> who earns a living writing .BAT files for MS-DOS this is wrong.
>> EVERYTHING is easier without threads. Adding threads will ALWAYS make
>> the application
>> more difficult to write and understand. Common sense and reality be
>> damned - the anti-aliasing expert Koalmann has spoken.
>
> You might try to actually find a Msg-ID for that lie, Ezekiel Scott Nudds
Peter ignored Zeke's "sometimes".
Zeke left off the "big if" (the one I surrounded with solidus characters).
Otherwise, threads add annoying synchronization complexities.
Now kiss and make up, you two (and then sterilize your lips, Peter).
--
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One. He gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to the earlier joke.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On 2009-06-20, Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Bob Hauck belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:13:43 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
>>>> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
>>>> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
>>
>> (He means 'if', not when.)
>>
>>> Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
>>> believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
>>>
>>> If I needed a hobby I might take up trawling Windows forums for common
>>> problems and post them here to try to make it look like everything in
>>> Windows is a mess.
>>>
>>> On second thought that would be a pretty boring hobby.
>>
>> Like shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> Like smashing windows with rocks.
I'm trying to figure out why unplugging one Windows Server 2003 Enterprise
(WS2E) server's interconnect using a "public" adapter would (just this one
time) severely screwup the "clustering" (a Microsoft Misnomer) with a peer
WS2E server, which is managed by another "private" adapter. And why this
unplugging of the public adapter would cause a "cluster" rollover in the
first place. At least I got some "Performance" data while this happened.
--
Today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Ezekiel
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K�hlmann belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <ahls...@launchmodem.com> wrote in message
>>> news:xFW_l.57087$qa.2...@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter K?hlmann belched out
>>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
>>>>>
>>>>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>>>>> pours
>>>>> from his ass
>>>>
>>>> Well, there are few things easier than waiting for a socket client to
>>>> connect, accepting the connection, and then kicking off a thread
>>>> function to handle the socket, /if/ it is self-contained (no share
>>>> data).
>>>
>>> Nope. You are wrong. According to the JEDIDIAH and the Koalmann idiot
>>> who earns a living writing .BAT files for MS-DOS this is wrong.
>>> EVERYTHING is easier without threads. Adding threads will ALWAYS make
>>> the application
>>> more difficult to write and understand. Common sense and reality be
>>> damned - the anti-aliasing expert Koalmann has spoken.
>>
>> You might try to actually find a Msg-ID for that lie, Ezekiel Scott
>> Nudds
>
> Peter ignored Zeke's "sometimes".
Bullshit. Here is Coahlmanns exact response:
<quote>
- "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
from his ass
</quote>
The very first word that he quoted was "Sometimes" and now the excuse is
going to be that he spouted his ignorance because he didn't actually see
this word. Just because the ignorant retard knows absolutely nothing about
software development doesn't mean that you have to help him conjur up lies
and excuses for his lack of knowledge.
> Zeke left off the "big if" (the one I surrounded with solidus
> characters).
I left out nothing. I wrote exactly what I wrote and meant exactly what I
wrote.
> Otherwise, threads add annoying synchronization complexities.
Gee... I guess that you're now an "expert" - what great insight. Threads
need to be synchronized. Who would have guessed!!!
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
And yet DFS (the anti-Linux scarecrow) and Hans "flatfish" Lister (the
anti-Linux Mephistopheles) will keep pushing this "Linux is broken" bullshit
over and over and over.
--
Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything.
Some think it is the voice of God.
-- Mark Twain
Hans Lister
Point is, Linux has far more power management problems than
Windows has.
Windows power management has worked for year.
With Linux, it's a crap shoot depending upon what brand laptop
you buy.
With Windows it will work right out of the box because if it
didn't there would be such a backlash that the manufacturer
would get burned at the stake on the Net.
Yet you Linux users have to hope it works with your particular
brand of laptop and then you have to hope that your particular
choice of Linux distribution this work will work on that
particular laptop.
Come one already, if you can't admit what is already well known
in the Linux community, that power management and Linux are not
a good combination, then there is no hope for you.
Sheesh, even the typical freetard admits there are problems.
He usually blames it on the hardware manufacturers for not
releasing specs to the Linux community.
Hans Lister
Kohlmann is just trying to waste your time.
Jeb uses the same tactic with his rhymes and riddles.
ZnU
Peter K�hlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> > On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2009-06-19, Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-email.com> wrote:
> >>>> DFS wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 7 wrote:
> > [deletia]
> >>>> Netbooks are generally used for simple tasks that don't require that
> >>>> much concurrency. A single /fast/ CPU would usually be better than
> >>>> two /slower/ CPUs.
> >>>
> >>> That's assuming that what you percieve as a single task isn't being
> >>> broken down into multiple processes or threads.
> >>
> >> Even when an app uses multiple threads or processes doesn't mean that
> >> it uses them concurrently. Sometimes it's simply easier to write a
> >> multi-threaded app even if the app spends 99.9% of it's time running
> >> single-threaded.
> >
> > ...somehow I get the impression that you've never bothered to look
> > into this sort of thing ever ever ever.
> >
>
> "Sometimes it's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app..."
It is often the case that apps will use multiple threads for things
other than actually spreading CPU-intensive work across multiple cores.
One extremely common use of such threads it to prevent blocking the UI.
If something takes, say, 10 seconds to process, you probably don't want
the app to stop responding to UI events during that period, so you do
the processing in another thread. The thread doing the actual processing
might use 98% of the CPU the app is consuming while the thread
responding to GUI events uses 2%. Executing that 2% on another processor
core is not going to meaningfully enhance performance.
In most of these cases the developer *could* keep the app
single-threaded, and simply run the long-running calculation in chunks,
checking for and responding to user events in between processing those
chunks. This is precisely what developers did in the days before desktop
systems commonly supported preemptively scheduled threads. But this is
annoying. It's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app....
> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever" pours
> from his ass
Don't worry, I think you've got that contest all locked up.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
AZ Nomad
>DFS wrote:
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Linux scales linearly for dual core so the benefits are
>>> more than double.
>>
>> Where's some evidence to support this claim?
>The problem is that even if true (and it is somewhat accurate) - the problem
>is that the types of apps that are going to be run on a netbook/smartbook
>aren't generally going to make use of dual cores.
>Dual cores are great if you're running something(s) that requires
>concurrency. A database serving multiple client connections, a web server,
>a build machine compiling in the background while the user does something
>else.
That's only true if you have an operating system whose multitasking is shit.
Windows would definately benefit from multiple cores instead of one fast
cpu.
Peter Köhlmann
It does since NT times.
The OS and the apps benefit from multi-core because fewer task-switches
are needed. A task switch is always expensive in CPU time.
--
Who the fuck is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
Peter Köhlmann
Since when has it been claimed that several threads need several cores,
too?
Windows and linux have been multithreaded well before multi-CPU/multi-core
systems were common
> In most of these cases the developer *could* keep the app
> single-threaded, and simply run the long-running calculation in chunks,
> checking for and responding to user events in between processing those
> chunks. This is precisely what developers did in the days before desktop
> systems commonly supported preemptively scheduled threads. But this is
> annoying. It's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app....
It is *not* automatically easier to write multi-threaded.
Depending on app threads need to be synchronized. Make some error in that
synchronization, and you are in for some very bad surprises.
I take it you never had to debug apps which locked up or behaved weird in
certain situations, which strangely enough seem to be difficult to
replicate in the debugging session. Ever heard of "dead-lock" or "deadly
embrace"?
>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>> pours from his ass
>
> Don't worry, I think you've got that contest all locked up.
>
Don't worry, I understood quite well that you have never written any
software in your life
--
You're genuinely bogus.
ZnU
Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > In article <h1gtna$8ge$00$2...@news.t-online.com>,
I never implied that it was. Your reading comprehension problems are
causing trouble for you.
The above is a reply to the implicit argument that because many programs
use multiple threads, they actually benefit from multiple cores. They
often don't, because they're often using threads as described above,
rather that meaningfully distributing their workloads between threads.
> > In most of these cases the developer *could* keep the app
> > single-threaded, and simply run the long-running calculation in
> > chunks, checking for and responding to user events in between
> > processing those chunks. This is precisely what developers did in
> > the days before desktop systems commonly supported preemptively
> > scheduled threads. But this is annoying. It's simply easier to
> > write a multi-threaded app....
>
> It is *not* automatically easier to write multi-threaded. Depending
> on app threads need to be synchronized. Make some error in that
> synchronization, and you are in for some very bad surprises.
>
> I take it you never had to debug apps which locked up or behaved
> weird in certain situations, which strangely enough seem to be
> difficult to replicate in the debugging session. Ever heard of
> "dead-lock" or "deadly embrace"?
Most developers writing apps for modern systems would, when faced with
the scenario above, use threads. And yes, I have dealt with these
issues, and threads can be tricky. But threads are simply a more logical
(and generally better performing) way to structure something like this
than the alternative.
[snip]
Gregory Shearman
>
> I'm trying to figure out why unplugging one Windows Server 2003 Enterprise
> (WS2E) server's interconnect using a "public" adapter would (just this one
> time) severely screwup the "clustering" (a Microsoft Misnomer) with a peer
> WS2E server, which is managed by another "private" adapter. And why this
> unplugging of the public adapter would cause a "cluster" rollover in the
> first place. At least I got some "Performance" data while this happened.
Can't help you there.
Last week, I turned on my laptop and it couldn't find my wireless, ie
couldn't find ath0. Of course when this happens, tap0 (my VPN tunnel),
shorewall, ntp, etc all have the heeby jeebies and fail.
I used genlop to find the culprit in my last update.... udev had to be
it... Looks like the bloody developers decided to rename ath0 to
wlan0... so... chase up all the scripts that have ath0 in them... and
change them to wlan0... everything is again sweet!
Bloody hell... this stuff is easy! All you need are the tools to do the
job.
Hans Lister
Ugggghh....
Average Joe doesn't stand a chance....
Which is why he doesn't use Linux in the first place.
Rick
That's not why he doesn't use Linux in the first place.
--
Rick
Ezekiel
"Peter K�hlmann" <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:h1jnaf$jk3$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
It was never claimed that threads need several cores. So why are you
bringing it up?
> Windows and linux have been multithreaded well before
> multi-CPU/multi-core
> systems were common
>
>> In most of these cases the developer *could* keep the app
>> single-threaded, and simply run the long-running calculation in chunks,
>> checking for and responding to user events in between processing those
>> chunks. This is precisely what developers did in the days before desktop
>> systems commonly supported preemptively scheduled threads. But this is
>> annoying. It's simply easier to write a multi-threaded app....
>
> It is *not* automatically easier to write multi-threaded.
Nice strawman. It was never claimed that it's "automatically easier."
> Depending on app threads need to be synchronized. Make some error in that
> synchronization, and you are in for some very bad surprises.
Sure. Race conditions are a pain to troubleshoot often because unlike many
other types of software errors they are heavily timing dependent. The code
might nearly always work on system-A but on system-B it will fail once
every 50 times.
> I take it you never had to debug apps which locked up or behaved weird in
> certain situations, which strangely enough seem to be difficult to
> replicate in the debugging session. Ever heard of "dead-lock" or "deadly
> embrace"?
Dead-lock/deadly-embrace is not much of a problem. At least it shouldn't
be. It's a trivial problem to solve and if you're still having issues with
it then somebody isn't doing their job properly. I haven't had thread
related dead-lock in years. Race conditions on the other hand....
>>> Quite some howlers our resident contestant for "dumbest poster ever"
>>> pours from his ass
>>
>> Don't worry, I think you've got that contest all locked up.
>>
>
> Don't worry, I understood quite well that you have never written any
> software in your life
Ah yes... once again you think you are the all-knowing only smart person
here. Which explains why you often know nothing about software development.
Hadron
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:58:38 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>>>> Way to go!
>>>>>
>>>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>>>> machines!!
>>>>
>>>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>>>> with current laptop models.
>>>
>>> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
>>
>> Poor choice of words.
>> Power management.
>> Hibernate, suspend etc...
>
> IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
> sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
> state of power management in Linux.
Err, power management is crap. You know it, I know it. Suspend and
resume still don't work on my Thinkpad. The linux developers have
acknowledge it.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
Hadron
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:13:43 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:00:12 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:58:38 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>>>>>> Way to go!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>>>>>> machines!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>>>>>> with current laptop models.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
>>>>
>>>> Poor choice of words.
>>>> Power management.
>>>> Hibernate, suspend etc...
>>>
>>> IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
>>> sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
>>> state of power management in Linux.
>>
>> It's a mess...
>
> Compared to what?
>
>
>> Check the forums and see how many people have troubles with
>> laptops and suspend or hibernate etc.
>
> So you trawl the forums for problems to post here. Now there's a
> scientific way to compare operating systems.
>
> Do you actually have any idea if suspend/resume problems are more common
> on Linux than on, say, Windows? No, you do not have the foggiest
> notion. You have done no actual comparisons. All you have is some
> complaints posted to some unamed forums.
>
> I'm quite sure there are Windows users who have trouble with that stuff
> too if only because some of the problems are due to BIOS bugs. Are
> there more of them, percentage-wise than with Linux? I don't know, and
> apparently neither do you.
>
> Like I said, you're just tossing stuff out there to see what sticks with
> no real knowledge of anything.
>
>
>> You can call it whatever you wish but when people close the lid
>> on their laptop and then open it 20 minutes later and it doesn't
>> resume but instead requires a hard reset, then it's a problem.
>
> Of course that never, ever, happens with Windows, right? If you
> believe that I've got a bridge for sale.
>
> If I needed a hobby I might take up trawling Windows forums for common
> problems and post them here to try to make it look like everything in
> Windows is a mess.
>
> On second thought that would be a pretty boring hobby.
I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
certainly my Debian Lenny).
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>
Just quit pretending that you run it.
And no, you should not use a kernel from the last century
--
Support bacteria -- it's the only culture some people have!
Ezekiel
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:h1l82j$h9t$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
It doesn't work on my Dell Inspiron laptop - at least not the last time
that I tried it. It would suspend okay but after a "resume" the laptop
would get all confused and reboot in which case it saved me nothing at all.
In all fairness I haven't tried it in over a year so maybe it's been fixed.
This is the laptop that my wife normally uses to it's default state is to
suspend in Windows mode so that she can use it.
The Dell Mini 9 is only used by me. Suspend/resume works fine with the
Ubuntu install but I don't use it very often. When suspended the battery
only lasts for about 12 hours before going dead. The machine boots fast
enough where I'm better off simply shutting off the machine when I'm done
and turning it back on when needed.
Rick
Suspend/resume seems to work for me on my Meso G, running Ubuntu NBR 8.04.
--
Rick
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:20:58 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
Nope. That's why Average Joe doesn't use Gentoo in the first place ;->
> That's not why he doesn't use Linux in the first place.
Indeed. If OEMs could extricate themselves from their deadly embrace with
Microsoft, and provide Linux systems which they give 1/2 the time and
trouble they give to Windows systems, Average Joe would be quite happy with
Linux.
--
You'll feel devilish tonight. Toss dynamite caps under a flamenco dancer's
heel.
Hans Lister
> Bob Hauck <postm...@avalanche.org> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:24:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:58:38 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:02:19 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:51:38 GMT, 7 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
>>>>>> Way to go!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And still the battery life will be longer than present
>>>>>> machines!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Hopefully Linux has figured out to do APM better than it does
>>>>> with current laptop models.
>>>>
>>>> There are current laptop models that still use APM?
>>>
>>> Poor choice of words.
>>> Power management.
>>> Hibernate, suspend etc...
>>
>> IOW you're just making stuff up and throwing it out there to see what
>> sticks. You don't actually know or care anything about the current
>> state of power management in Linux.
>
> Err, power management is crap. You know it, I know it. Suspend and
> resume still don't work on my Thinkpad. The linux developers have
> acknowledge it.
Like I said in another message, you know you are dealing with
rabid Linux zealots when they defend power management and pulse
audio /Linux audio.
The two absolutely worst parts of Linux, by far.
Hans Lister
Linux is how I learned about the hidden little red button at the
rear of one of my Thinkpads.
Close the lid, and that's it.
No way to get it back.
I had to press a little red reset switch on the rear panel that
I didn't even know was there because when I used Windows, I
never had to use it.
With my T42, Linux sometimes works and other times does not and
requires holding down the power button to bring it back to life.
I never have problems with Windows and power management and
haven't in years.
Hans Lister
You're delusional.
People *try* Linux all the time.
Don't you see the various distribution makers announcing xxxyyy
million downloads etc ?
So where are all thee Linux users?
I'll tell you where.
They try Linux and run into stuff like Shearman posted and they
give up because Linux just isn't worth wasting their time over.
Rick
Ah.. too bad. My Sylvanina netbook and NBR resumes fine. And yes, I'll be
expecting a bunch of anti Linux rants from you.
>
>
>> The Dell Mini 9 is only used by me. Suspend/resume works fine with the
>> Ubuntu install but I don't use it very often. When suspended the
>> battery only lasts for about 12 hours before going dead. The machine
>> boots fast enough where I'm better off simply shutting off the machine
>> when I'm done and turning it back on when needed.
oops... oops .. more mabybe you should have gotten the Dell ...
--
Rick
Bob Hauck
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:39:38 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:h1l82j$h9t$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>>
>> It doesn't work on my Dell Inspiron laptop - at least not the last time
>> that I tried it.
> Linux is how I learned about the hidden little red button at the
> rear of one of my Thinkpads.
Nice little circle-jerk you guys have going here.
Hadron says suspend doesn't work with Debian Lenny. Yet I have Lenny on
two laptops (a Dell D420 and an IBM T22) where it works fine. So Lenny
must work on _some_ laptops.
Zeke says suspend doesn't work on his Inspiron. Yet until two weeks ago
I had an Inspiron 700m and Lenny worked fine on that. So I guess it
must work on at least _some_ Inspirons.
And now Flatfish chimes in to say his Thinkpad T42 locks up. Yet you
can find HOWTO's all over the net that explain how to make that very
model work properly.
Since we're doing anecdotes, from the late 90's I've owned three
different laptops and have had two different ones assigned to me at
work. I've helped friends set up Linux on two other models. In every
case suspend and resume could be made to work correctly.
So who am I to believe, you FUDsters or my lying eyes?
The fact is, suspend and resume works for most people. There are indeed
some laptops where it doesn't work so well. But that isn't a coding
error or a design flaw, it is a lack of vendor support flaw that cannot
be fixed by the Linux developers. And it isn't as common as you claim.
> I never have problems with Windows and power management and haven't in
> years.
Do you think it might make a difference that you bought Windows pre-
installed on the machine? Do you think that maybe if you bought a
machine with Linux pre-installed it would also "just work"? Maybe?
Once again you are trying to compare a pre-install set up by experts
with a self-install by a clueless user (i.e. you). That is not a fair
comparison and you know it.
If you want the ease of a pre-install then get one. There are vendors
who sell laptops with Linux pre-installed. Go to one of them and then
it will be just as easy as Windows.
But then you'd have to find new material for your "trash Linux" hobby.
>> The Dell Mini 9 is only used by me. Suspend/resume works fine with the
>> Ubuntu install but I don't use it very often.
Well there you go proving my point. If you buy a thing that is known to
work well with Linux, and is a pre-set from the vendor, then Linux works
well. Amazing!
--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Hadron
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:56:02 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:39:38 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h1l82j$h9t$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>>>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>>>
>>> It doesn't work on my Dell Inspiron laptop - at least not the last time
>>> that I tried it.
>
>> Linux is how I learned about the hidden little red button at the
>> rear of one of my Thinkpads.
>
> Nice little circle-jerk you guys have going here.
>
> Hadron says suspend doesn't work with Debian Lenny. Yet I have Lenny on
> two laptops (a Dell D420 and an IBM T22) where it works fine. So Lenny
> must work on _some_ laptops.
Huh? WTF are you talking about? Lenny works on my laptop. But
suspend/hibernate doesn't. No one said it (suspend/hibernate) doesn't
work on ALL laptops.
Mart van de Wege
> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:56:02 -0400, Hans Lister <stym...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 08:39:38 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:h1l82j$h9t$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>>>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>>>
>>> It doesn't work on my Dell Inspiron laptop - at least not the last time
>>> that I tried it.
>
>> Linux is how I learned about the hidden little red button at the
>> rear of one of my Thinkpads.
>
> Nice little circle-jerk you guys have going here.
>
> Hadron says suspend doesn't work with Debian Lenny. Yet I have Lenny on
> two laptops (a Dell D420 and an IBM T22) where it works fine. So Lenny
> must work on _some_ laptops.
A Latitude D820 and a Panasonic CF-18 here. Both work just fine.
My HP omnibook 6100 and 6200 before that worked just fine as well.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
Gregory Shearman
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Rick belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 01:20:58 -0400, Hans Lister wrote:
>>> On 21 Jun 2009 05:11:44 GMT, Gregory Shearman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I used genlop to find the culprit in my last update.... udev had to be
>>>> it... Looks like the bloody developers decided to rename ath0 to
>>>> wlan0... so... chase up all the scripts that have ath0 in them... and
>>>> change them to wlan0... everything is again sweet!
>>>>
>>>> Bloody hell... this stuff is easy! All you need are the tools to do the
>>>> job.
>>>
>>> Ugggghh....
>>> Average Joe doesn't stand a chance.... Which is why he doesn't use Linux
>>> in the first place.
>
> Nope. That's why Average Joe doesn't use Gentoo in the first place ;->
The trolls intentionally "misunderstand" and misrepresent what I'm on
about. I post here my fun with Gentoo, in the hope of attracting other
Linux users... I don't want to attract newbies.. there are plenty of
good distros for them.
Linux is about choice. Tinkerers and Linux experts have distros to suit
them... newbies have distros to suit them, engineers running server
farms have distros to suit them.
With windows... you get.... windows.
>> That's not why he doesn't use Linux in the first place.
>
> Indeed. If OEMs could extricate themselves from their deadly embrace with
> Microsoft, and provide Linux systems which they give 1/2 the time and
> trouble they give to Windows systems, Average Joe would be quite happy with
> Linux.
Microsoft won't allow that to happen. The company has a big stranglehold
on the industry.
William Poaster
of the trolls Bob Hauck was heard to say:
Good post, Bob. :-)
--
It IS because of him and two other useless people in particular
(CBFalconer and Harold "old school" Stevens (probably both Willy nyms)
that I started to drift from the Ubuntu fan boy zone.
Hadron - Message-ID: <gdl55d$lc2$1...@registered.motzarella.org>
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
I agree completely. It's perverse and damaging.
--
You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, but only because your
brakes are defective.
wispygalaxy
>
> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
> certainly my Debian Lenny).
No offense, Hadron, but.... it works for me! :P
Seriously, it does. All I have to do is close the lid, and my laptop
suspends. When I open the lid, it awakens. I know I have different
hardware from you.
Gregory Shearman
Quark's hardware is all in its mind. It gets its linux "problems" from
google.
Peter Köhlmann
He is doing the flatfish shuffle and the DFS wank: He googles for hardware
with the most problems, for linux software with known issues with certain
hardware and a combination thereof, and BLAMM: This is exactly what he
has. He then also claims this to be a very common combination, with
"oodles of people" having exactly that
If some of those issues are old and don't exist anymore (his bad rerading
comprehension did not alert him to that fact), he claims to still have
them
--
Experience is what causes a person to make new mistakes instead of
old ones.
chrisv
> Hadron quacked:
>>
>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>
>No offense, Hadron, but.... it works for me! :P
I don't think it's possible to offend that pile of vomit.
>Seriously, it does. All I have to do is close the lid, and my laptop
>suspends. When I open the lid, it awakens. I know I have different
>hardware from you.
Plus, unlike Quack, between your ears you have something other than a
moldy lump of shit.
Hadron
> wispygalaxy wrote:
>
>> Hadron quacked:
>>>
>>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>>
>>No offense, Hadron, but.... it works for me! :P
>
> I don't think it's possible to offend that pile of vomit.
Why would something working for someone else on different HW offend me?
Are you insane?
But also how it helps others for whom it does not work is quite beyond
me.
>
>>Seriously, it does. All I have to do is close the lid, and my laptop
>>suspends. When I open the lid, it awakens. I know I have different
>>hardware from you.
>
> Plus, unlike Quack, between your ears you have something other than a
> moldy lump of shit.
>
"I know I have different HW from you"
Fortunately others realise the importance of this.
Hans Lister
> chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> wispygalaxy wrote:
>>
>>> Hadron quacked:
>>>>
>>>> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
>>>> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>>>
>>>No offense, Hadron, but.... it works for me! :P
>>
>> I don't think it's possible to offend that pile of vomit.
>
> Why would something working for someone else on different HW offend me?
>
> Are you insane?
>
> But also how it helps others for whom it does not work is quite beyond
> me.
That's the mind of a Linux zealot at work.
These guys are just plain crazy.
>>
>>>Seriously, it does. All I have to do is close the lid, and my laptop
>>>suspends. When I open the lid, it awakens. I know I have different
>>>hardware from you.
>>
>> Plus, unlike Quack, between your ears you have something other than a
>> moldy lump of shit.
>>
>
> "I know I have different HW from you"
>
> Fortunately others realise the importance of this.
These freetards in COLA sure don't.
Just the fact that they are scrambling around trying to defend
Linux audio and power management is more than enough to see how
bogus most of them are.
Anybody who spends more than a couple of hours with Linux knows
that these are two of Linux's biggest problems.
wispygalaxy
> On 2009-06-23, wispygalaxy <wispygal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 21, 8:11 am, Hadron <hadronqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I hate to tell you, but suspend/resume is a KNOWN issue with Linux (or
> >> certainly my Debian Lenny).
>
> > No offense, Hadron, but.... it works for me! :P
>
> > Seriously, it does. All I have to do is close the lid, and my laptop
> > suspends. When I open the lid, it awakens. I know I have different
> > hardware from you.
>
> Quark's hardware is all in its mind. It gets its linux "problems" from
> google.
Hadron is lying to us? :( I guess he didn't listen to my advice.
wispygalaxy
I wish Hadron will understand that being nice means that others will
listen to him. I tried giving him a chance, but he has disappointed
me.
To Hadron- make me happy and try becoming more like an advocate. Post
positive things, and that will be proof enough for me.
wispygalaxy
I wish Hadron will understand that being nice means that others will
wispygalaxy
I wish Hadron will understand that being nice means that others will
wispygalaxy
I wish Hadron will understand that being nice means that others will
Gregory Shearman
I know it's a big shock WG.... but I'm sure you'll get over it.
synapsis le synaptic
> ARM going dual core for netbooks and smartbooks
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> ARM will soon be dual core for netbooks and smartbooks.
> Way to go!
>
> And still the battery life will be longer than present
> machines!!
>
> more than double.
>
> Powerful processors like that would also improve the
> overal specifications for embedded devices
> like hard disk recorders to flat TV. It is up to the retailers
> to start specifying what other features they want in
> their embedded Linux gadgets to make use of this power
> so that embedded Linux companies can make them and ship them for retail as
> soon as possible.
>
> I mean if you want hard disk recorders that use SSDs
> and WiFI to connect with netbooks and their WiFI to transfer files,
> then you got it!
>
> Or if you want a powerful 4 phone asterisk server to answer phone calls
> and record everything to the TV networked hard disk recorder, then you got
> it! Whatever extra features you want to use as a talking point
> to sell the product on the retail floor, then just get out there to the
> linux product development companies and someone will mix and mash the open
> source code to make the product you specify and bring it in to sell
> to your customers at lowest possible cost and maximum profit.
>
> Why wait?
>
> Thats what Linux is all about!!
Personally I think its great hat Linux is getting so involved into
this new device because for the OS it seems like theres only more and
more gain, while the big titans are still fighing to keep the monopoly
they have in certain aspects. Anyways, take a look at http://www.smartbook.asia
as it tracks all the news on this device