Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Linux PC Upgrades
28 views
Skip to first unread message
7
May 11, 2012, 7:06:49 PM5/11/12
to
Linux PC Upgrades
-----------------
I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
didn't get no nothin.
My 4 year old dual core pentium with SSD still boots in under 20 seconds
and opens gazillions of documents and tools in under 2 seconds
compared to minutes for windummies who got the Xeons but
thats not the point:
1. Sure Linux is blazingly fast on old computers, but it could
go faster on faster computers increasing productivity beyond
what you might be paying for in terms of machines.
2. The hardware is gathering dust and debris and would likely fail
sooner than later if for 4 years it has already delivered
rock solid operation thanks to Linux and its low power demand
on the CPU and low disk thrashing demands of the hard disk.
Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
All those theories about disks being backed up and filed
away in some hole ready to pounce to the rescue on a rainy day
is mostly fiction. Even today, one of the computers
that got zapped came back with a classic question:
It looks like your ethernet card is not working, would you
like to go online and search for drivers?!!!!!!!!!
Yes I @$@£$$ %&@~$$}>!!!
-----------------
I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
didn't get no nothin.
My 4 year old dual core pentium with SSD still boots in under 20 seconds
and opens gazillions of documents and tools in under 2 seconds
compared to minutes for windummies who got the Xeons but
thats not the point:
1. Sure Linux is blazingly fast on old computers, but it could
go faster on faster computers increasing productivity beyond
what you might be paying for in terms of machines.
2. The hardware is gathering dust and debris and would likely fail
sooner than later if for 4 years it has already delivered
rock solid operation thanks to Linux and its low power demand
on the CPU and low disk thrashing demands of the hard disk.
Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
All those theories about disks being backed up and filed
away in some hole ready to pounce to the rescue on a rainy day
is mostly fiction. Even today, one of the computers
that got zapped came back with a classic question:
It looks like your ethernet card is not working, would you
like to go online and search for drivers?!!!!!!!!!
Yes I @$@£$$ %&@~$$}>!!!
DFS
May 11, 2012, 7:52:55 PM5/11/12
to
On 5/11/2012 7:06 PM, 7 wrote:
> Linux PC Upgrades
> -----------------
>
> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>
> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> didn't get no nothin.
You're not worth a $1000 PC to your company? I agree.
> Linux PC Upgrades
> -----------------
>
> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>
> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> didn't get no nothin.
> My 4 year old dual core pentium with SSD still boots in under 20 seconds
> and opens gazillions of documents and tools in under 2 seconds
> compared to minutes for windummies who got the Xeons but
> thats not the point:
Homer
May 11, 2012, 11:42:23 PM5/11/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
for 10. In that time there's been just one hardware fault - the internal
PSU blew up. I couldn't find an exact replacement, so I used a full-size
PSU externally, and left the case open. The system has powered off about
half a dozen times in 10 years, either due to being moved, or power cuts
that outlasted the UPS. The only software failure I've witnessed on that
machine was x264 segfaulting due to architectural incompatibilities, and
it didn't affect any other part of the system (The VIA C3 lacks the CMOV
instruction, but the x264 binary was built --march=i686). At only 533MHz
the server is not exactly a speed-demon, but it's more than fast enough,
and provides 21 primary services to the rest of my network, including an
IMAP email server, a VPN, a firewall, a file server, a DLNA/uPnP server,
a Usenet server, a time server, a MySQL server, a Web server, an optical
media ripping and transcoding service, and a file backup service for the
entire network, including the server itself.
Not bad for a decade-old, 533MHz, second-hand PC, purchased for £35.
I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 94 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
>
> Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
> the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
> blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
> an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
The PC I'm using now is 12 years old, although I've only personally been
> Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
> the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
> blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
> an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
for 10. In that time there's been just one hardware fault - the internal
PSU blew up. I couldn't find an exact replacement, so I used a full-size
PSU externally, and left the case open. The system has powered off about
half a dozen times in 10 years, either due to being moved, or power cuts
that outlasted the UPS. The only software failure I've witnessed on that
machine was x264 segfaulting due to architectural incompatibilities, and
it didn't affect any other part of the system (The VIA C3 lacks the CMOV
instruction, but the x264 binary was built --march=i686). At only 533MHz
the server is not exactly a speed-demon, but it's more than fast enough,
and provides 21 primary services to the rest of my network, including an
IMAP email server, a VPN, a firewall, a file server, a DLNA/uPnP server,
a Usenet server, a time server, a MySQL server, a Web server, an optical
media ripping and transcoding service, and a file backup service for the
entire network, including the server itself.
Not bad for a decade-old, 533MHz, second-hand PC, purchased for £35.
I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 94 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
Foster
May 12, 2012, 8:20:54 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
> Linux PC Upgrades
> -----------------
>
> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>
> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> didn't get no nothin.
A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
> Linux PC Upgrades
> -----------------
>
> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>
> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> didn't get no nothin.
Foster
May 12, 2012, 8:22:04 AM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 04:42:23 +0100, Homer wrote:
> I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
Something that can't be said of you [homer] when your lungs
> I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
disappear in a cloud of smoke.
7
May 12, 2012, 3:14:19 PM5/12/12
to
Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
>> the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
>> blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
>> an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
>
> The PC I'm using now is 12 years old, although I've only personally been
> using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
> for 10. In that time there's been just one hardware fault - the internal
> PSU blew up. I couldn't find an exact replacement, so I used a full-size
> PSU externally, and left the case open. The system has powered off about
> half a dozen times in 10 years, either due to being moved, or power cuts
> that outlasted the UPS. The only software failure I've witnessed on that
> machine was x264 segfaulting due to architectural incompatibilities, and
> it didn't affect any other part of the system (The VIA C3 lacks the CMOV
> instruction, but the x264 binary was built --march=i686). At only 533MHz
> the server is not exactly a speed-demon, but it's more than fast enough,
> and provides 21 primary services to the rest of my network, including an
> IMAP email server, a VPN, a firewall, a file server, a DLNA/uPnP server,
> a Usenet server, a time server, a MySQL server, a Web server, an optical
> media ripping and transcoding service, and a file backup service for the
> entire network, including the server itself.
>
> Not bad for a decade-old, 533MHz, second-hand PC, purchased for £35.
>
> I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
I dare not wait that long.
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
>> the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
>> blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
>> an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
>
> The PC I'm using now is 12 years old, although I've only personally been
> using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
> for 10. In that time there's been just one hardware fault - the internal
> PSU blew up. I couldn't find an exact replacement, so I used a full-size
> PSU externally, and left the case open. The system has powered off about
> half a dozen times in 10 years, either due to being moved, or power cuts
> that outlasted the UPS. The only software failure I've witnessed on that
> machine was x264 segfaulting due to architectural incompatibilities, and
> it didn't affect any other part of the system (The VIA C3 lacks the CMOV
> instruction, but the x264 binary was built --march=i686). At only 533MHz
> the server is not exactly a speed-demon, but it's more than fast enough,
> and provides 21 primary services to the rest of my network, including an
> IMAP email server, a VPN, a firewall, a file server, a DLNA/uPnP server,
> a Usenet server, a time server, a MySQL server, a Web server, an optical
> media ripping and transcoding service, and a file backup service for the
> entire network, including the server itself.
>
> Not bad for a decade-old, 533MHz, second-hand PC, purchased for £35.
>
> I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
Some of the products I develop are directly measuring mains and it
ain't no fun watching the surges and dealing with vaporized circuits.
I know all about the rubbish that comes down the mains and how
impossible it is to protect against it all.
So my policy is to give PC power supplies a sporting chance
for 2 to 3 years and then get new machines boards, hard disc etc.
Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
Foster
May 12, 2012, 3:30:53 PM5/12/12
to
every house in your slum when you turn them on.
You're a fraud Joseph Michael = 7.
Homer
May 12, 2012, 3:45:14 PM5/12/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>
>
> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
I'll get all the excitement I need from the puff of blue smoke coming
> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
from my mobo in 20 or 30 years time, and even then I'll probably just
change the caps instead of buying a replacement.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
Foster
May 12, 2012, 3:52:37 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 20:45:14 +0100, Homer wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>
> I'll get all the excitement I need from the puff of blue smoke coming
> from my mobo in 20 or 30 years time, and even then I'll probably just
> change the caps instead of buying a replacement.
You're a complete idiot......
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>>
>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>
> I'll get all the excitement I need from the puff of blue smoke coming
> from my mobo in 20 or 30 years time, and even then I'll probably just
> change the caps instead of buying a replacement.
Chris Ahlstrom
May 12, 2012, 4:44:14 PM5/12/12
to
After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
Heh.
--
Conservative estimates suggest that we can save more than $10,000 per
classroom by increasing class size by just four pupils. If we pay some of
that money to our best teachers for taking in more students, we accomplish
three goals at once – we save money, we get more students in classrooms
with highly effective teachers, and we give our best teachers a real raise,
not just for being good, but for taking on more work.
-- Bill Gates (19 Nov 2010)
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/Pages/bill-gates-2010-ccsso.aspx
> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
--
Conservative estimates suggest that we can save more than $10,000 per
classroom by increasing class size by just four pupils. If we pay some of
that money to our best teachers for taking in more students, we accomplish
three goals at once – we save money, we get more students in classrooms
with highly effective teachers, and we give our best teachers a real raise,
not just for being good, but for taking on more work.
-- Bill Gates (19 Nov 2010)
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/Pages/bill-gates-2010-ccsso.aspx
Foster
May 12, 2012, 4:44:35 PM5/12/12
to
On Sat, 12 May 2012 16:44:14 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
>> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
>> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
>> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
>
> Heh.
Go get em' hoover!!
> After swilling some grog, 7 belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
>> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
>> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
>> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
>
> Heh.
Slurp!
GreyCloud
May 12, 2012, 5:17:26 PM5/12/12
to
dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
Nix
May 12, 2012, 7:25:02 PM5/12/12
to
On 12 May 2012, 7 outgrape:
The shortest I have ever used a machine for is six years (counting
already-decommissioned machines only). They don't always die fast
(though it is probably a good idea to replace them faster than I do, if
just because new machines these days are more power-efficient than old
ones, thus in the end pay for themselves).
> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
Glass at room temperature does not flow at appreciable rates under the
influence of gravity[1]. This canard was based on the shape of medieval
windows, but has no basis in fact: medieval windows were shaped with the
bottom larger than the top deliberately -- they had no way of making the
glass's width consistent throughout, and since one edge is going to be
thicker than the other, of course you'd put that edge at the bottom to
increase the glass's structural strength in that position.
Glass only flows as fast as it does because of its crystal structure,
or, rather, lack of it. It is not meaningful to say that silicon flows
'like' glass, since glass *is* primarily composed of silicon. Silicon
chips are largely composed of polycrystalline silicon on top of
monocrystalline silicon, and flow much much less than glass, though
more, I suppose, than diamond. "Faster than diamond" is still not a very
impressive flow rate.
Vaguely flow-like aging effects *are* seen in silicon chips, but you'd
need to handwave very fast to define time-dependent dielectric breakdown
as a flow, any more than you could describe the formation of a dam by
the flowing of a river as a 'flow of rocks'.
[1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
per 200,000 years. This is much too slow to explain anything about
the shape of windows. For that matter, *all* solid objects flow at a
very low rate due to random thermal motions and at an even slower
rate due to quantum effects: over enormous spans of time these
marginal effects will dominate. See Dyson's classic 1979 paper _Time
Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe_. Actually, if
you haven't read it already, read it anyway: it'll blow your mind.
> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
No they aren't. Thank goodness.
> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
Look to thy capacitors.
> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
You must be made of money. My work machines here are older than that and
are still far, far more powerful than I need (though admittedly that
amounts to 'can compile stuff fast and have lots of RAM'). Their end is
in sight but they have several years left in them before that happens.
--
NULL && (void)
> So my policy is to give PC power supplies a sporting chance
> for 2 to 3 years and then get new machines boards, hard disc etc.
FWIW, one of my systems ran for over fourteen years with no failures.
> for 2 to 3 years and then get new machines boards, hard disc etc.
The shortest I have ever used a machine for is six years (counting
already-decommissioned machines only). They don't always die fast
(though it is probably a good idea to replace them faster than I do, if
just because new machines these days are more power-efficient than old
ones, thus in the end pay for themselves).
> Even if a system could last 10 years, thats the most it can last reliably
> because silicon like glass flows like a liquid under gravity and so whatever
influence of gravity[1]. This canard was based on the shape of medieval
windows, but has no basis in fact: medieval windows were shaped with the
bottom larger than the top deliberately -- they had no way of making the
glass's width consistent throughout, and since one edge is going to be
thicker than the other, of course you'd put that edge at the bottom to
increase the glass's structural strength in that position.
Glass only flows as fast as it does because of its crystal structure,
or, rather, lack of it. It is not meaningful to say that silicon flows
'like' glass, since glass *is* primarily composed of silicon. Silicon
chips are largely composed of polycrystalline silicon on top of
monocrystalline silicon, and flow much much less than glass, though
more, I suppose, than diamond. "Faster than diamond" is still not a very
impressive flow rate.
Vaguely flow-like aging effects *are* seen in silicon chips, but you'd
need to handwave very fast to define time-dependent dielectric breakdown
as a flow, any more than you could describe the formation of a dam by
the flowing of a river as a 'flow of rocks'.
[1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
per 200,000 years. This is much too slow to explain anything about
the shape of windows. For that matter, *all* solid objects flow at a
very low rate due to random thermal motions and at an even slower
rate due to quantum effects: over enormous spans of time these
marginal effects will dominate. See Dyson's classic 1979 paper _Time
Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe_. Actually, if
you haven't read it already, read it anyway: it'll blow your mind.
> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
are still far, far more powerful than I need (though admittedly that
amounts to 'can compile stuff fast and have lots of RAM'). Their end is
in sight but they have several years left in them before that happens.
--
NULL && (void)
7
May 12, 2012, 8:05:54 PM5/12/12
to
Features on a chip are a lot smaller than that.
Smallest features on a chip these days are about 32nm or about 8 months
before something has moved an unwanted mile inside a chip.
> This is much too slow to explain anything about
> the shape of windows. For that matter, *all* solid objects flow at a
> very low rate due to random thermal motions and at an even slower
> rate due to quantum effects: over enormous spans of time these
> marginal effects will dominate. See Dyson's classic 1979 paper _Time
> Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe_. Actually, if
> you haven't read it already, read it anyway: it'll blow your mind.
>
>> circuit boards you have are slowly flowing away into oblivion.
>
> No they aren't. Thank goodness.
>
>> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
>
> Look to thy capacitors.
and for electrolytics getting the chemistry correct
to prevent electrolyte leakage is important.
>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>
> You must be made of money.
But critical items like power supplies and hard disks, I buy new.
Working with technology earns the pennies, so like workmen
investing in their tools, I invest a sizable percentage of income on
computers and gadgets even if I never get around to using them
to full potential. Its just good business to keep oneself at the
bleeding edge.
-hh
May 12, 2012, 8:21:08 PM5/12/12
to
On May 11, 11:42 pm, Homer <use...@slated.org> wrote:
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>
>
>
> > Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
> > the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
> > blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
> > an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
>
> The PC I'm using now is 12 years old, although I've only personally been
> using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
> for 10.
...as does also your underwear, come from the used bin at the local
> Verily I say unto thee that 7 spake thusly:
>
>
>
> > Those two considerations alone should be sufficient to get
> > the PC replaced before its hard disk or some other vitals
> > blow taking with it more valuable data or causing
> > an unwanted IT department coffee break disruption.
>
> The PC I'm using now is 12 years old, although I've only personally been
> using it for about two years. My server is 11 years old, and I've had it
> for 10.
GoodWill Store too.
But seriously, there's nothing wrong with continuing to use stuff that
has nothing wrong with it. Of course, the issue is that with Moore's
Law over the past decade, one can't legitimately claim that you're
doing anything particularly "powerful" with it by contemporary (or
even 5 years ago) standards.
> At only 533MHz
> the server is not exactly a speed-demon, but it's more than fast enough,
> and provides 21 primary services to the rest of my network, including an
> IMAP email server, a VPN, a firewall, a file server, a DLNA/uPnP server,
> a Usenet server, a time server, a MySQL server, a Web server, an optical
> media ripping and transcoding service, and a file backup service for the
> entire network, including the server itself.
>
> Not bad for a decade-old, 533MHz, second-hand PC, purchased for £35.
Linux, BTW) can do much (all?) of the same at an even lower price ...
and while consuming far less power and a fraction of the space ... it
would appear that you're simply jumping through all of these hoops for
the personal fun/challenge of doing so, not because you're interested
in just getting some other work done.
> I'll replace it if and when it vaporises into a cloud of smoke.
as to not be inconvenienced.
-hh
DFS
May 12, 2012, 10:31:20 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 8:05 PM, 7 wrote:
> I bought 10 computers on Ebay for £200.
>...
> I bought 10 computers on Ebay for £200.
> Its just good business to keep oneself at the
> bleeding edge.
Good self-nuke, Fraud 7!
> bleeding edge.
7
May 13, 2012, 5:45:02 AM5/13/12
to
is to quote the original 7 lines:
"
I bought 10 computers on Ebay for £200.
But critical items like power supplies and hard disks, I buy new.
Working with technology earns the pennies, so like workmen
investing in their tools, I invest a sizable percentage of income on
computers and gadgets even if I never get around to using them
to full potential. Its just good business to keep oneself at the
Working with technology earns the pennies, so like workmen
investing in their tools, I invest a sizable percentage of income on
computers and gadgets even if I never get around to using them
bleeding edge.
"
Hadron
May 13, 2012, 6:54:58 AM5/13/12
to
happened to your 49 vidtual desktops?
You're a fraud little man.
DFS
May 13, 2012, 11:40:20 AM5/13/12
to
Foster
May 13, 2012, 11:42:02 AM5/13/12
to
something Star Trek related.
It's their form of heroin.
DFS
May 13, 2012, 11:46:08 AM5/13/12
to
And cola is ours...
Foster
May 13, 2012, 11:54:40 AM5/13/12
to
Hadron
May 13, 2012, 1:35:48 PM5/13/12
to
Nix
May 13, 2012, 3:04:47 PM5/13/12
to
On 13 May 2012, 7 said:
> Nix wrote:
>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>> per 200,000 years.
>
> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
> Features on a chip are a lot smaller than that.
> Smallest features on a chip these days are about 32nm or about 8 months
> before something has moved an unwanted mile inside a chip.
Silicon chips are not made of glass (as I explained).
>>> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
>>
>> Look to thy capacitors.
>
> Capacitors last for decades - but does depend on material
> and for electrolytics getting the chemistry correct
> to prevent electrolyte leakage is important.
You hadn't heard of the unfortunate case of industrial espionage in
Taiwan (I think it was) which led to a 'capacitor plague' of
rapidly-failing electrolytic capacitors? (Many of these were used in
PSUs, which could explain your distrust of them: a plagued PSU would
indeed fail in three years or so. I lost one machine to the plague:
unfortunately the cap was on the motherboard, so not really worth
replacing.)
--
NULL && (void)
> Nix wrote:
>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>> per 200,000 years.
>
> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
> Features on a chip are a lot smaller than that.
> Smallest features on a chip these days are about 32nm or about 8 months
> before something has moved an unwanted mile inside a chip.
>>> One morning you switch on, and it goes bang for no reason.
>>
>> Look to thy capacitors.
>
> Capacitors last for decades - but does depend on material
> and for electrolytics getting the chemistry correct
> to prevent electrolyte leakage is important.
Taiwan (I think it was) which led to a 'capacitor plague' of
rapidly-failing electrolytic capacitors? (Many of these were used in
PSUs, which could explain your distrust of them: a plagued PSU would
indeed fail in three years or so. I lost one machine to the plague:
unfortunately the cap was on the motherboard, so not really worth
replacing.)
--
NULL && (void)
Alec Ross
May 13, 2012, 5:01:43 PM5/13/12
to
...
>>
>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>> per 200,000 years.
>
>Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
Hmm... I do recall a former colleague mentioning that when a glass
>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>> per 200,000 years.
>
>Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
front pane of his father's shop was replaced, it had a noticeable
pear-shaped bulge in its lower part. And that this was attributed to
the effects of pressure from supporting the glass above it. If this
explanation were correct - and not, say, something from its manufacture
- then the flow rate could be significantly more than that quoted above.
--
Alec Ross
Chris Ahlstrom
May 13, 2012, 8:57:20 PM5/13/12
to
After swilling some grog, Alec Ross belched this bit o' wisdom:
When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
anyway, about 100 years old).
You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made when
you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the bottom.
--
...we must counterpose the overwhelming judgment provided by consistent
observations and inferences by the thousands. The earth is billions of
years old and its living creatures are linked by ties of evolutionary
descent. Scientists stand accused of promoting dogma by so stating, but
do we brand people illiberal when they proclaim that the earth is neither
flat nor at the center of the universe? Science *has* taught us some
things with confidence! Evolution on an ancient earth is as well
established as our planet's shape and position. Our continuing struggle
to understand how evolution happens (the "theory of evolution") does not
cast our documentation of its occurrence -- the "fact of evolution" --
into doubt.
- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer,
Vol XII No. 2
anyway, about 100 years old).
You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made when
you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the bottom.
--
...we must counterpose the overwhelming judgment provided by consistent
observations and inferences by the thousands. The earth is billions of
years old and its living creatures are linked by ties of evolutionary
descent. Scientists stand accused of promoting dogma by so stating, but
do we brand people illiberal when they proclaim that the earth is neither
flat nor at the center of the universe? Science *has* taught us some
things with confidence! Evolution on an ancient earth is as well
established as our planet's shape and position. Our continuing struggle
to understand how evolution happens (the "theory of evolution") does not
cast our documentation of its occurrence -- the "fact of evolution" --
into doubt.
- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Verdict on Creationism", The Skeptical Inquirer,
Vol XII No. 2
Snit
May 13, 2012, 9:51:25 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/13/12 5:57 PM, in article jopl95$2ba$1...@dont-email.me, "Chris Ahlstrom"
evidence:
<http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/physics.htm>
-----
"The idea that glass is a fluid is a very widespread myth,"
says Yvonne Stokes, a mathematician and spoilsport at the
University of Adelaide in Australia. "I was told it as a fact
by my adviser. And once, a class of schoolchildren came into
the lab, and one of them told me the very san-re thing. If
you want to talk microscopically, then you can call glass a
fluid. But people understandably tend to think that if it's a
fluid, it flows. It's that notion that's false."Stokes has
recently proved with detailed calculations that old windows
could not have flowed perceptibly.
-----
<http://goo.gl/Gq2YD>
-----
The Antique Windowpanes Story
The question of antique windowpanes has been addressed by
Plumb, 1989[2]. He noted the following:
[...W]hy are the panes of antique window glass thicker on the
bottom than the top? There really are observable variations
in thickness, although there seem to have been no statistical
studies that document the frequency and magnitudes of such
variations. This author believes that the correct explanation
lies in the process by which window panes were manufactured
at that time: the Crown glass process.
In other words, while some antique windowpanes are thicker at
the bottom, there are no statistical studies to show that all
or most antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom than at
the top. The variations in thickness of antique windowpanes
has nothing to do with whether glass is a solid or a liquid;
its cause lies in the glass manufacturing process employed at
the time, which made the production of glass panes of
constant thickness quite difficult.
------
<http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html>
-----
The "Glass Flows" Myth
The idea that glass after being formed is in a state of flux
concerns the belief, held by many, that because glass is a
"super cooled liquid" it actually has a degree of "flow" at
temperatures you and I find comfortable. Those who believe
this urban legend point to the fact that the windows in
colonial homes and in old stained glass windows are thicker
at the bottom than at the top. There was a time, in the dim
dark past that, in my ignorance I believed in the myth of
glass flow. Without question I accepted the idea of glass
flow. My blind acceptance of what I thought passed for fact
should not be a trait of the curious mind. What could I have
been thinking when I accepted the "fact" that the Rose Window
would soon spill out of the confines of the lead cames that
have held it in place all these years.
...
I was made aware of the fallacy of the glass flows myth many
years ago by the late great glass chemist, Nick Labino. Nick
offered this simple analogy, "...if the windows found in
early Colonial American homes were thicker at the bottom than
the top because of "flow" then the glass found in Egyptian
Tombs should be a puddle." And there's this one from
Wikipedia, "If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to
be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then the effect
should be noticeable in antique telescopes. Any slight
deformation in the antique telescopic lenses would lead to a
dramatic decrease in optical performance, a phenomenon that
is not observed". I just love real world examples! For those
of you that are still skeptical I cite research that tells us
that although 1/2 of the glass in old stained glass windows
is thicker at the bottom, take three guesses where the other
half are thicker and the first two guesses don't count. You
got it, sides and top.
-----
Feel free to try to find any even somewhat reasonable page that show
otherwise... it is simply a myth about the reason some windows are thicker
at the bottom.
--
🙈🙉🙊
<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Alec Ross belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>>>> per 200,000 years.
>>>
>>> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
>>
>> Hmm... I do recall a former colleague mentioning that when a glass
>> front pane of his father's shop was replaced, it had a noticeable
>> pear-shaped bulge in its lower part. And that this was attributed to
>> the effects of pressure from supporting the glass above it. If this
>> explanation were correct - and not, say, something from its manufacture
>> - then the flow rate could be significantly more than that quoted above.
>
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
>
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made when
> you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the bottom.
Still, the idea that this is from glass flowing is an urban legend with no
> After swilling some grog, Alec Ross belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>>>> per 200,000 years.
>>>
>>> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
>>
>> Hmm... I do recall a former colleague mentioning that when a glass
>> front pane of his father's shop was replaced, it had a noticeable
>> pear-shaped bulge in its lower part. And that this was attributed to
>> the effects of pressure from supporting the glass above it. If this
>> explanation were correct - and not, say, something from its manufacture
>> - then the flow rate could be significantly more than that quoted above.
>
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
>
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made when
> you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the bottom.
evidence:
<http://www.glasslinks.com/newsinfo/physics.htm>
-----
"The idea that glass is a fluid is a very widespread myth,"
says Yvonne Stokes, a mathematician and spoilsport at the
University of Adelaide in Australia. "I was told it as a fact
by my adviser. And once, a class of schoolchildren came into
the lab, and one of them told me the very san-re thing. If
you want to talk microscopically, then you can call glass a
fluid. But people understandably tend to think that if it's a
fluid, it flows. It's that notion that's false."Stokes has
recently proved with detailed calculations that old windows
could not have flowed perceptibly.
-----
<http://goo.gl/Gq2YD>
-----
The Antique Windowpanes Story
The question of antique windowpanes has been addressed by
Plumb, 1989[2]. He noted the following:
[...W]hy are the panes of antique window glass thicker on the
bottom than the top? There really are observable variations
in thickness, although there seem to have been no statistical
studies that document the frequency and magnitudes of such
variations. This author believes that the correct explanation
lies in the process by which window panes were manufactured
at that time: the Crown glass process.
In other words, while some antique windowpanes are thicker at
the bottom, there are no statistical studies to show that all
or most antique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom than at
the top. The variations in thickness of antique windowpanes
has nothing to do with whether glass is a solid or a liquid;
its cause lies in the glass manufacturing process employed at
the time, which made the production of glass panes of
constant thickness quite difficult.
------
<http://www.glassnotes.com/WindowPanes.html>
-----
The "Glass Flows" Myth
The idea that glass after being formed is in a state of flux
concerns the belief, held by many, that because glass is a
"super cooled liquid" it actually has a degree of "flow" at
temperatures you and I find comfortable. Those who believe
this urban legend point to the fact that the windows in
colonial homes and in old stained glass windows are thicker
at the bottom than at the top. There was a time, in the dim
dark past that, in my ignorance I believed in the myth of
glass flow. Without question I accepted the idea of glass
flow. My blind acceptance of what I thought passed for fact
should not be a trait of the curious mind. What could I have
been thinking when I accepted the "fact" that the Rose Window
would soon spill out of the confines of the lead cames that
have held it in place all these years.
...
I was made aware of the fallacy of the glass flows myth many
years ago by the late great glass chemist, Nick Labino. Nick
offered this simple analogy, "...if the windows found in
early Colonial American homes were thicker at the bottom than
the top because of "flow" then the glass found in Egyptian
Tombs should be a puddle." And there's this one from
Wikipedia, "If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to
be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then the effect
should be noticeable in antique telescopes. Any slight
deformation in the antique telescopic lenses would lead to a
dramatic decrease in optical performance, a phenomenon that
is not observed". I just love real world examples! For those
of you that are still skeptical I cite research that tells us
that although 1/2 of the glass in old stained glass windows
is thicker at the bottom, take three guesses where the other
half are thicker and the first two guesses don't count. You
got it, sides and top.
-----
Feel free to try to find any even somewhat reasonable page that show
otherwise... it is simply a myth about the reason some windows are thicker
at the bottom.
--
🙈🙉🙊
High Plains Thumper
May 14, 2012, 12:53:25 AM5/14/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
>
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
> bottom.
I think a more likely explanation is that given the manufacturing
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
>
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
> bottom.
methods over 100 years ago, glass was not uniform in thickness as it is
today. Therefore, the glazier installed the windows with the thicker
portion at the bottom for the stability of the window pane.
Whereas, PC hardware creep is more common, so fatter versions of Windows
can run, LOL.
--
HPT
Dev
May 14, 2012, 3:40:26 AM5/14/12
to
In article <jopl95$2ba$1...@dont-email.me>, Chris Ahlstrom
the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large flattish
circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes. The glass was
thicker towards the centre of the original plate and thinner towards
the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven thickness. It made sense
when glazing to set the thicker edge to the bottom of the frame. (The
"bull's-eyes" were the central portion of the disc, used because glass
was very expensive.) Later methods of glass sheet manufacture still
tended to uneven thickness and it is not until modern rolling methods
were introduced that uniformity of thickness could be guaranteed.
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Bhagavaye namaha
<ahls...@xzoozy.com> wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Alec Ross belched this bit o' wisdom:
> >>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is
> >>> approximately 1cm per 200,000 years.
> >>
> >>Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
> >
> > Hmm... I do recall a former colleague mentioning that when a glass
> > front pane of his father's shop was replaced, it had a noticeable
> > pear-shaped bulge in its lower part. And that this was attributed
> > to the effects of pressure from supporting the glass above it. If
> > this explanation were correct - and not, say, something from its
> > manufacture - then the flow rate could be significantly more than
> > that quoted above.
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
> bottom.
The "bulls's-eye" found in very old windows (not the modern copy) is
> After swilling some grog, Alec Ross belched this bit o' wisdom:
> >>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is
> >>> approximately 1cm per 200,000 years.
> >>
> >>Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
> >
> > Hmm... I do recall a former colleague mentioning that when a glass
> > front pane of his father's shop was replaced, it had a noticeable
> > pear-shaped bulge in its lower part. And that this was attributed
> > to the effects of pressure from supporting the glass above it. If
> > this explanation were correct - and not, say, something from its
> > manufacture - then the flow rate could be significantly more than
> > that quoted above.
> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
> anyway, about 100 years old).
> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
> bottom.
the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large flattish
circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes. The glass was
thicker towards the centre of the original plate and thinner towards
the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven thickness. It made sense
when glazing to set the thicker edge to the bottom of the frame. (The
"bull's-eyes" were the central portion of the disc, used because glass
was very expensive.) Later methods of glass sheet manufacture still
tended to uneven thickness and it is not until modern rolling methods
were introduced that uniformity of thickness could be guaranteed.
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Bhagavaye namaha
Peter Köhlmann
May 14, 2012, 3:59:04 AM5/14/12
to
flowing across molten tin. As molten tin is much cooler than molten glass,
but also much heavier, the glass stays on top of the tin and is cooling
down. The surface is much smoother than by standard rolling methods
Anthony Frost
May 14, 2012, 6:39:28 AM5/14/12
to
In message <528fa0dae...@no.spam.invalid>
been thrown back in with the melt for the next batch, glass may have
been expensive but it was (and still is) also trivial to recycle it.
Anthony
Dev <spam...@no.spam.invalid> wrote:
> The "bulls's-eye" found in very old windows (not the modern copy) is
> the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large flattish
> circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes. The glass was
> thicker towards the centre of the original plate and thinner towards
> the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven thickness. It made sense
> when glazing to set the thicker edge to the bottom of the frame. (The
> "bull's-eyes" were the central portion of the disc, used because glass
> was very expensive.)
Using bullseyes is a modern affectation. Originally they'd have just
> The "bulls's-eye" found in very old windows (not the modern copy) is
> the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large flattish
> circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes. The glass was
> thicker towards the centre of the original plate and thinner towards
> the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven thickness. It made sense
> when glazing to set the thicker edge to the bottom of the frame. (The
> "bull's-eyes" were the central portion of the disc, used because glass
> was very expensive.)
been thrown back in with the melt for the next batch, glass may have
been expensive but it was (and still is) also trivial to recycle it.
Anthony
Chris Ahlstrom
May 14, 2012, 6:15:42 AM5/14/12
to
After swilling some grog, High Plains Thumper belched this bit o' wisdom:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
>> anyway, about 100 years old).
>>
>> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
>> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
>> bottom.
>
> I think a more likely explanation is that given the manufacturing
> methods over 100 years ago, glass was not uniform in thickness as it is
> today. Therefore, the glazier installed the windows with the thicker
> portion at the bottom for the stability of the window pane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass
The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended
periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical
analysis (see viscosity of amorphous materials).
Whattaya know, another myth busted.
> Whereas, PC hardware creep is more common, so fatter versions of Windows
> can run, LOL.
--
Nihilism should commence with oneself.
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> When I was a kid, we lived in an old house (old by U.S. standards,
>> anyway, about 100 years old).
>>
>> You could tell the glass was thinner at the top... the sound made
>> when you tapped it was higher in pitch than when you tapped it at the
>> bottom.
>
> I think a more likely explanation is that given the manufacturing
> methods over 100 years ago, glass was not uniform in thickness as it is
> today. Therefore, the glazier installed the windows with the thicker
> portion at the bottom for the stability of the window pane.
The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended
periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical
analysis (see viscosity of amorphous materials).
Whattaya know, another myth busted.
> Whereas, PC hardware creep is more common, so fatter versions of Windows
> can run, LOL.
--
Dev
May 14, 2012, 7:27:09 AM5/14/12
to
In article <40c3ab8f52%Vu...@kerrier.vulch.org>, Anthony Frost
I agree that today, "bull's-eyes" are but a modern affectation but were
your assertion correct that they were never used in old glazing then
there would be no tradition of using "bull's-eyes" and no concept of
glazing with them for there to be such a modern affectation; for modern
window glass production methods simply do not produce them.
It might be trivial to recycle glass but doing so costs both extra
labour and heating materials. Utilising the central portion would be
much cheaper and, when only the well off could afford to glaze,
possibly make the difference between being able to have glass in a
window or not.
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Ahirbhudnyaya namaha
your assertion correct that they were never used in old glazing then
there would be no tradition of using "bull's-eyes" and no concept of
glazing with them for there to be such a modern affectation; for modern
window glass production methods simply do not produce them.
It might be trivial to recycle glass but doing so costs both extra
labour and heating materials. Utilising the central portion would be
much cheaper and, when only the well off could afford to glaze,
possibly make the difference between being able to have glass in a
window or not.
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Ahirbhudnyaya namaha
chrisv
May 14, 2012, 8:44:45 AM5/14/12
to
Nix wrote:
> 7 wrote:
>>
>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>
>You must be made of money.
A rather hasty conculusion, don't you think? If you stay-away from
the higher-end hardware, PC's are not very expensive...
--
'You might need to educate a few Gnome developers then you are
claiming they need to move to some third world shit hole to live on
their OSS "donations".' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
> 7 wrote:
>>
>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>
>You must be made of money.
the higher-end hardware, PC's are not very expensive...
--
'You might need to educate a few Gnome developers then you are
claiming they need to move to some third world shit hole to live on
their OSS "donations".' - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Nix
May 14, 2012, 10:36:08 AM5/14/12
to
On 14 May 2012, chr...@nospam.invalid uttered the following:
> Nix wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>>
>>You must be made of money.
>
> A rather hasty conculusion, don't you think? If you stay-away from
> the higher-end hardware, PC's are not very expensive...
I was assuming it would be likely to be costly if it were to be
exciting. Perhaps this was unjustified :)
--
NULL && (void)
> Nix wrote:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>> Its cheaper to file away old disks and PCs and run with the excitement
>>> of new machine as soon as 3 years are up.
>>
>>You must be made of money.
>
> A rather hasty conculusion, don't you think? If you stay-away from
> the higher-end hardware, PC's are not very expensive...
exciting. Perhaps this was unjustified :)
--
NULL && (void)
Folderol
May 14, 2012, 2:43:40 PM5/14/12
to
On Mon, 14 May 2012 09:59:04 +0200
Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Usually today window glass isn't rolled anymore. Instead the molten glass is
> flowing across molten tin. As molten tin is much cooler than molten glass,
> but also much heavier, the glass stays on top of the tin and is cooling
> down. The surface is much smoother than by standard rolling methods
Indeed. Hence the term 'float glass'
Peter Köhlmann <peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Usually today window glass isn't rolled anymore. Instead the molten glass is
> flowing across molten tin. As molten tin is much cooler than molten glass,
> but also much heavier, the glass stays on top of the tin and is cooling
> down. The surface is much smoother than by standard rolling methods
--
Will J G
Folderol
May 14, 2012, 2:47:11 PM5/14/12
to
--
Will J G
Curlytop
May 14, 2012, 3:52:18 PM5/14/12
to
7 set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum:
> It looks like your ethernet card is not working, would you
> like to go online and search for drivers?!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Yes I @$@£$$ %&@~$$}>!!!
Update of "Keyboard error or no keyboard connected. Press F1 to continue."
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
> It looks like your ethernet card is not working, would you
> like to go online and search for drivers?!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> Yes I @$@£$$ %&@~$$}>!!!
Update of "Keyboard error or no keyboard connected. Press F1 to continue."
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Dev
May 14, 2012, 4:05:07 PM5/14/12
to
In article <joqe0l$c75$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Köhlmann
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
and haven't even got to grips with the second half yet! ;-)
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Trilo-keshaya namaha
<peter-k...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Dev wrote:
> >
> > The "bulls's-eye" found in very old windows (not the modern copy)
> > is the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large
> > flattish circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes.
> > The glass was thicker towards the centre of the original plate and
> > thinner towards the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven
> > thickness. It made sense when glazing to set the thicker edge to
> > the bottom of the frame. (The "bull's-eyes" were the central
> > portion of the disc, used because glass was very expensive.) Later
> > methods of glass sheet manufacture still tended to uneven thickness
> > and it is not until modern rolling methods were introduced that
> > uniformity of thickness could be guaranteed.
> >
> Usually today window glass isn't rolled anymore. Instead the molten
> glass is flowing across molten tin. As molten tin is much cooler
> than molten glass, but also much heavier, the glass stays on top of
> the tin and is cooling down. The surface is much smoother than by
> standard rolling methods
My only excuse is that I was born in the first half of the last century
> >
> > The "bulls's-eye" found in very old windows (not the modern copy)
> > is the giveaway. Window glass was originally spun into large
> > flattish circular plates before being cut into rectangular panes.
> > The glass was thicker towards the centre of the original plate and
> > thinner towards the edge, and this resulted in panes of uneven
> > thickness. It made sense when glazing to set the thicker edge to
> > the bottom of the frame. (The "bull's-eyes" were the central
> > portion of the disc, used because glass was very expensive.) Later
> > methods of glass sheet manufacture still tended to uneven thickness
> > and it is not until modern rolling methods were introduced that
> > uniformity of thickness could be guaranteed.
> >
> Usually today window glass isn't rolled anymore. Instead the molten
> glass is flowing across molten tin. As molten tin is much cooler
> than molten glass, but also much heavier, the glass stays on top of
> the tin and is cooling down. The surface is much smoother than by
> standard rolling methods
and haven't even got to grips with the second half yet! ;-)
--
Dev
Om Namah Shivaya | Om Trilo-keshaya namaha
Homer
May 14, 2012, 4:57:28 PM5/14/12
to
Verily I say unto thee that Nix spake thusly:
The Raspberry Pi is pretty exciting, and it's only 20 quid.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 97 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
--
K. | "You see? You cannot kill me. There is no flesh
http://slated.org | and blood within this cloak to kill. There is
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on šky | only an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 97 days | ~ V for Vendetta.
7
May 14, 2012, 5:45:43 PM5/14/12
to
Nix wrote:
> On 13 May 2012, 7 said:
>
>> Nix wrote:
>>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>>> per 200,000 years.
>>
>> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
>> Features on a chip are a lot smaller than that.
>> Smallest features on a chip these days are about 32nm or about 8 months
>> before something has moved an unwanted mile inside a chip.
>
> Silicon chips are not made of glass (as I explained).
Not strictly correct as processing changes the chemistry to endless
> On 13 May 2012, 7 said:
>
>> Nix wrote:
>>> [1] caveat: glass *does* flow, but its rate of flow is approximately 1cm
>>> per 200,000 years.
>>
>> Thats 1 micron every 20 years.
>> Features on a chip are a lot smaller than that.
>> Smallest features on a chip these days are about 32nm or about 8 months
>> before something has moved an unwanted mile inside a chip.
>
> Silicon chips are not made of glass (as I explained).
intermediates.
Regardless, the structures still flows and so too does the diffusion
compounds. 10 Years is about what you can expect from consumer grade
electronics before something goes bang.
I do have gadgets 10 years old and working, but 20 years - none.
Nix
May 14, 2012, 7:54:30 PM5/14/12
to
On 14 May 2012, 7 spake thusly:
> Regardless, the structures still flows
This has in fact been disproven, as repeatedly stated in this thread.
Solid silicate compounds do not flow at appreciable rates, regardless of
their crystal structure.
> and so too does the diffusion
> compounds.
You really are just babbling phrases without knowledge, aren't you?
Diffusion *gradients* were the word you were looking for, but those
cannot be said to 'flow' in any sense I am aware of.
> I do have gadgets 10 years old and working, but 20 years - none.
I just powered on my ZX81 (manufacturing date: 1982). It worked. (This
was quite surprising: I didn't really expect the capacitors to have
lasted. The chips, though, yeah, they'd last, not least because the
machine spent most of the intervening years powered off and because the
feature size on a Z80A is pretty gigantic by modern standards. Most chip
wear phenomena require the chip to be powered on to act, but electrolyte
will evaporate out of capacitors, albeit at reduced rate, while the
machine is powered down and sitting at room temperature.)
--
NULL && (void)
> Regardless, the structures still flows
Solid silicate compounds do not flow at appreciable rates, regardless of
their crystal structure.
> and so too does the diffusion
> compounds.
Diffusion *gradients* were the word you were looking for, but those
cannot be said to 'flow' in any sense I am aware of.
> I do have gadgets 10 years old and working, but 20 years - none.
was quite surprising: I didn't really expect the capacitors to have
lasted. The chips, though, yeah, they'd last, not least because the
machine spent most of the intervening years powered off and because the
feature size on a Z80A is pretty gigantic by modern standards. Most chip
wear phenomena require the chip to be powered on to act, but electrolyte
will evaporate out of capacitors, albeit at reduced rate, while the
machine is powered down and sitting at room temperature.)
--
NULL && (void)
DFS
May 14, 2012, 8:12:25 PM5/14/12
to
On 5/14/2012 7:54 PM, Nix wrote:
> On 14 May 2012, 7 spake thusly:
>
>> Regardless, the structures still flows
>
> This has in fact been disproven, as repeatedly stated in this thread.
> Solid silicate compounds do not flow at appreciable rates, regardless of
> their crystal structure.
>
>> and so too does the diffusion
>> compounds.
>
> You really are just babbling phrases without knowledge, aren't you?
You're onto him. Fraud 7 is one of cola's resident loonie-tunes who
> On 14 May 2012, 7 spake thusly:
>
>> Regardless, the structures still flows
>
> This has in fact been disproven, as repeatedly stated in this thread.
> Solid silicate compounds do not flow at appreciable rates, regardless of
> their crystal structure.
>
>> and so too does the diffusion
>> compounds.
>
> You really are just babbling phrases without knowledge, aren't you?
have lost touch with reality.
See his bogus website at www.enemygadgets.com
Davey
May 14, 2012, 8:22:49 PM5/14/12
to
sure if I can use it any more. How will I survive, I wonder?
--
Davey.
JEDIDIAH
May 14, 2012, 10:17:20 PM5/14/12
to
On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>> -----------------
>>>
>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>
>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>
>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>
> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
So? That's one of many options available.
Clearly you have a disdain for free choice.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>> -----------------
>>>
>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>
>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>
>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>
> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
So? That's one of many options available.
Clearly you have a disdain for free choice.
--
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club! |||
/ | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 1:09:00 AM5/15/12
to
On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>> -----------------
>>>>
>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>
>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>
>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>
>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>
> So? That's one of many options available.
>
Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>> -----------------
>>>>
>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>
>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>
>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>
>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>
> So? That's one of many options available.
>
environment tho. The processors are too slow.
Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
is the users choice.
> Clearly you have a disdain for free choice.
>
A bit fewer with Apple as well.
Peter Köhlmann
May 15, 2012, 3:27:15 AM5/15/12
to
GreyCloud wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>
>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>
>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>
>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>
> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
Patiently wrong.
> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>
>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>
>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>
>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>
> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
The new KDE version for example uses *less* resources if you configure it
similarly to the old KDE3 standards.
It only uses more resources if you configure it to use all the eye candy
> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
> is the users choice.
fonts" since several years
William Poaster
May 15, 2012, 5:33:49 AM5/15/12
to
about.
--
When the universe is divided by zero, black holes occur.
I think we blew it!
-- Robert E. Lee after Gettysburg.--
Nix
May 15, 2012, 9:18:46 AM5/15/12
to
On 15 May 2012, da...@example.invalid verbalised:
to DisplayPort converter, I suppose). It would still be tricky because
none of these machines are expecting widescreen output: I guess the
converter would have to synthesise an image with black bars on either
side.
It would probably not be particularly cheap :(
--
NULL && (void)
> I also have a ZX81, but it is configured for US TV sets, so I'm not
> sure if I can use it any more. How will I survive, I wonder?
What we need is a PAL to DVI converter at reasonable price (also a PAL
> sure if I can use it any more. How will I survive, I wonder?
to DisplayPort converter, I suppose). It would still be tricky because
none of these machines are expecting widescreen output: I guess the
converter would have to synthesise an image with black bars on either
side.
It would probably not be particularly cheap :(
--
NULL && (void)
Foster
May 15, 2012, 9:49:36 AM5/15/12
to
insightful.
A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
members no matter how extreme the member may be.
chris
May 15, 2012, 11:13:43 AM5/15/12
to
On 15/05/2012 01:22, Davey wrote:
> I also have a ZX81, but it is configured for US TV sets, so I'm not
> sure if I can use it any more. How will I survive, I wonder?
I know this was a rhetorical question, but here goes anyway...
> I also have a ZX81, but it is configured for US TV sets, so I'm not
> sure if I can use it any more. How will I survive, I wonder?
By 'configured for US TV sets' do you mean it outputs an NTSC signal? If
so, I'm pretty sure that many modern UK TVs will happily accept an NTSC
signal and display it properly.
chrisv
May 15, 2012, 11:26:15 AM5/15/12
to
chris wrote:
>By 'configured for US TV sets' do you mean it outputs an NTSC signal? If
>so, I'm pretty sure that many modern UK TVs will happily accept an NTSC
>signal and display it properly.
Never The Same Color, man! 8)
>By 'configured for US TV sets' do you mean it outputs an NTSC signal? If
>so, I'm pretty sure that many modern UK TVs will happily accept an NTSC
>signal and display it properly.
--
"It has been shown time and time again that consumers dont want/need
Linux." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
Nix
May 15, 2012, 11:51:06 AM5/15/12
to
On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
--
NULL && (void)
> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
> insightful.
>
> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
> insightful.
>
> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
--
NULL && (void)
chrisv
May 15, 2012, 12:06:20 PM5/15/12
to
Nix wrote:
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
>
>Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
>some time.
Of course, the troll "Flatfish" (calling itself "Foster" today) is, as
usual, lying.
Every one of the cola advocates would agree that 7 is often silly and
not always to be taken seriously.
Still, he's far better than the lying Wintrolls...
--
"Video : a mess. The average user has NO idea how to edit xorg.conf"
> mentally-ill troll wrote:
>>
>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
>
>Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
>some time.
usual, lying.
Every one of the cola advocates would agree that 7 is often silly and
not always to be taken seriously.
Still, he's far better than the lying Wintrolls...
--
"Video : a mess. The average user has NO idea how to edit xorg.conf"
Chris Ahlstrom
May 15, 2012, 12:36:25 PM5/15/12
to
After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>> insightful.
He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
notwithstanding.
>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
7, extreme? Nah. He's head-and-shoulders above clowns like "Foster"
and "DFS" (to name just a couple).
> Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
> some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
> crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
> damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
I dunno, I think people suss 7 out pretty quickly. He's a troll, but
he's a happy troll, not a nasty, family-member-insulting, potty-mouthed,
nym-shifting, Holocaust-survivor name-borrowing, calling-you-vermin
troll, like "Foster".
--
No. I never said that. You're either too stupid to read or a liar.
Which is it?
-- Larry Qualig, http://www.groupsrv.com/linux/about102659.html
> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>> insightful.
original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
notwithstanding.
>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
and "DFS" (to name just a couple).
> Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
> some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
> crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
> damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
he's a happy troll, not a nasty, family-member-insulting, potty-mouthed,
nym-shifting, Holocaust-survivor name-borrowing, calling-you-vermin
troll, like "Foster".
--
No. I never said that. You're either too stupid to read or a liar.
Which is it?
-- Larry Qualig, http://www.groupsrv.com/linux/about102659.html
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 2:01:07 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 10:36 AM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
> notwithstanding.
>
>>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
>
> 7, extreme? Nah. He's head-and-shoulders above clowns like "Foster"
> and "DFS" (to name just a couple).
>
>> Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
>> some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
>> crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
>> damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
>
> I dunno, I think people suss 7 out pretty quickly. He's a troll, but
> he's a happy troll, not a nasty, family-member-insulting, potty-mouthed,
> nym-shifting, Holocaust-survivor name-borrowing, calling-you-vermin
> troll, like "Foster".
>
Well, Peter sure did a nice hack on him.
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
> notwithstanding.
>
>>> A perfect example of how the herd will not turn on one of it's own
>>> members no matter how extreme the member may be.
>
> 7, extreme? Nah. He's head-and-shoulders above clowns like "Foster"
> and "DFS" (to name just a couple).
>
>> Yeah, right. I've been convinced he's a babbler without sense for quite
>> some time. I suspect a lot of other ucol residents, tired of his endless
>> crossposting, are of similar opinions. He's the sort of advocate who
>> damages the general perception of Linux. I wish he'd stop it.
>
> I dunno, I think people suss 7 out pretty quickly. He's a troll, but
> he's a happy troll, not a nasty, family-member-insulting, potty-mouthed,
> nym-shifting, Holocaust-survivor name-borrowing, calling-you-vermin
> troll, like "Foster".
>
The only thing I give 7 credit for is trying to think on his own outside
the box. Unfortunately, he gets a lotta crap for that.
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 2:03:19 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 1:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>>
>>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>>
>>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>>>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>>
>>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>>
>> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
>> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
>
> Patiently wrong.
> The new KDE version for example uses *less* resources if you configure it
> similarly to the old KDE3 standards.
> It only uses more resources if you configure it to use all the eye candy
>
Not till you tie in X11, a networked paradigm. I've seen how slow X11
> GreyCloud wrote:
>
>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>>
>>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>>
>>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs like
>>>> dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>>
>>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>>
>> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
>> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
>
> Patiently wrong.
> The new KDE version for example uses *less* resources if you configure it
> similarly to the old KDE3 standards.
> It only uses more resources if you configure it to use all the eye candy
>
is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
>> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
>> is the users choice.
>
> What "jagged fonts"? About what era are you babbling? There were not "jagged
> fonts" since several years
jaggies.
Foster
May 15, 2012, 2:53:34 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:36:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
You can't bring yourself to admit he is a liar can you?
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
You can't bring yourself to admit he is a fraud can you?
You are spineless Chris Ahlstrom.
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
> notwithstanding.
That's the opinion you portray to COLA where you walk on eggshells.
I don't believe for a minute you actually believe what you just
said.
You know full well 7 = Joseph Michael is a liar and a fraud.
Same for Rex Ballard.
Same for [Homer].
Why not grow a spine and redeem yourself?
Foster
May 15, 2012, 2:54:30 PM5/15/12
to
the Linturds all of a sudden now admit it was true.
See how they LIE for LIEnux?
Peter Köhlmann
May 15, 2012, 3:11:44 PM5/15/12
to
GreyCloud wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 1:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs
>>>>> like dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>>>
>>>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>>>
>>> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
>>> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
>>
>> Patiently wrong.
>> The new KDE version for example uses *less* resources if you configure it
>> similarly to the old KDE3 standards.
>> It only uses more resources if you configure it to use all the eye candy
>>
>
> Not till you tie in X11, a networked paradigm. I've seen how slow X11
> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
You are even dumber than Hadron Snit Larry, GreyClod
> On 5/15/2012 1:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
>>>>>>> didn't get no nothin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A sure sign you are headed for the unemployment line.
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny that they yap about choice, yet hang on to their old slow PCs
>>>>> like dog with an old bone buried in the back yard.
>>>>
>>>> So? That's one of many options available.
>>>>
>>> Won't do you much good if you want to use the latest KDE or Gnome
>>> environment tho. The processors are too slow.
>>
>> Patiently wrong.
>> The new KDE version for example uses *less* resources if you configure it
>> similarly to the old KDE3 standards.
>> It only uses more resources if you configure it to use all the eye candy
>>
>
> Not till you tie in X11, a networked paradigm. I've seen how slow X11
> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
X does *not* run networked on a local machine. you criminelly incompetent
cretin. When will you start to get even the simplest things about linux
correct, you Snit?
>>> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
>>> is the users choice.
>>
>> What "jagged fonts"? About what era are you babbling? There were not
>> "jagged fonts" since several years
>
> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
> jaggies.
dumb Snit
Rex Ballard
May 15, 2012, 3:34:59 PM5/15/12
to
On Friday, May 11, 2012 7:52:55 PM UTC-4, DFS wrote:
I'm still confused. Xeons are usually found in servers. Is his Linux box a desktop? A laptop? or a Server?
> > My 4 year old dual core pentium with SSD still boots in under 20 seconds
> > and opens gazillions of documents and tools in under 2 seconds
> > compared to minutes for windummies who got the Xeons but
> > thats not the point:
> The point is you're a lying idiot, Fraud 7.
Linux can boot to a command line in about 20 seconds, which wouldn't be unusual for a Linux server.
Any time someone says gazilions - that's an obvious exaggeration.
On the other hand, a dual-core Pentium with SSD would easily be able to open and load a document in 2 seconds (SSD is about 20 times faster than 5400 RPM drives, and Linux EXT3 or EXT4 is about 5 times faster than NTFS for typical operations, and Linux will load full files more efficiently.). I wouldn't be surprised if he could load a document about 50-100 times faster than on Windows.
As for the Xeon processors, the only way that makes sense is if they are doing Windows in the cloud?
Typically, the desktop and workstation processors are the i3, i5, and i7 processors. The i7 processor would have 4 cores and 16 hyperthreads (acts like 16 processors). For Windows, an i3 should be more than adaquate for anything other than video games - because Windows performance is constrained by disk I/O bandwidth rather than CPU performance. On Linux however, the i5 and i7 will give substantially improved performance, especially if you have 8 gig of RAM and want to run an XP or Win7 VM image - you'd still be able to run another Linux image or two as well.
> On 5/11/2012 7:06 PM, 7 wrote:
> > Linux PC Upgrades
> > -----------------
> > I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
> > The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> > didn't get no nothin.
> You're not worth a $1000 PC to your company? I agree.
> > Linux PC Upgrades
> > -----------------
> > I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
> > The company bought a ton of PCs and everyone got Xeons, but I
> > didn't get no nothin.
I'm still confused. Xeons are usually found in servers. Is his Linux box a desktop? A laptop? or a Server?
> > My 4 year old dual core pentium with SSD still boots in under 20 seconds
> > and opens gazillions of documents and tools in under 2 seconds
> > compared to minutes for windummies who got the Xeons but
> > thats not the point:
> The point is you're a lying idiot, Fraud 7.
Linux can boot to a command line in about 20 seconds, which wouldn't be unusual for a Linux server.
Any time someone says gazilions - that's an obvious exaggeration.
On the other hand, a dual-core Pentium with SSD would easily be able to open and load a document in 2 seconds (SSD is about 20 times faster than 5400 RPM drives, and Linux EXT3 or EXT4 is about 5 times faster than NTFS for typical operations, and Linux will load full files more efficiently.). I wouldn't be surprised if he could load a document about 50-100 times faster than on Windows.
As for the Xeon processors, the only way that makes sense is if they are doing Windows in the cloud?
Typically, the desktop and workstation processors are the i3, i5, and i7 processors. The i7 processor would have 4 cores and 16 hyperthreads (acts like 16 processors). For Windows, an i3 should be more than adaquate for anything other than video games - because Windows performance is constrained by disk I/O bandwidth rather than CPU performance. On Linux however, the i5 and i7 will give substantially improved performance, especially if you have 8 gig of RAM and want to run an XP or Win7 VM image - you'd still be able to run another Linux image or two as well.
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 3:45:25 PM5/15/12
to
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 3:49:11 PM5/15/12
to
Here is another fine example of linux advocacy.
So, you support this kind of advocacy??
>
> X does *not* run networked on a local machine. you criminelly incompetent
> cretin. When will you start to get even the simplest things about linux
> correct, you Snit?
much more slower than on a machine that doesn't use X?
The X11 protocol was designed for the network from the very beginning.
It doesn't mean you have to go thru the network to display a local image
on an X server... it is just that the server paradigm in this instance
is slower for display. Far too much overhead.
You should have gotten an education from a decent university that could
teach X.
>
>>>> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
>>>> is the users choice.
>>>
>>> What "jagged fonts"? About what era are you babbling? There were not
>>> "jagged fonts" since several years
>>
>> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
>> jaggies.
>
> Noticed the "tiny linux", you idiot? It is tiny for a reason, you bastardly
> dumb Snit
>
chrisv
May 15, 2012, 3:57:08 PM5/15/12
to
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>
>> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
>> jaggies.
>
>Noticed the "tiny linux", you idiot? It is tiny for a reason, you bastardly
>dumb Snit
Whining about fonts in a distro designed be have the tiniest footprint
possible. What a jackasshole.
--
'The right to pirate other people's work by freeloaders like you is
not "internet freedom" - it's simple piracy.' - trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", attacking an opponent of SOPA/PIPA
> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>
>> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
>> jaggies.
>
>Noticed the "tiny linux", you idiot? It is tiny for a reason, you bastardly
>dumb Snit
possible. What a jackasshole.
--
'The right to pirate other people's work by freeloaders like you is
not "internet freedom" - it's simple piracy.' - trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", attacking an opponent of SOPA/PIPA
DFS
May 15, 2012, 3:58:17 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 2:53 PM, Foster wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:36:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>>> insightful.
>>
>> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
>> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a liar can you?
> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a fraud can you?
A serious fraud, too. Claims all kinds of bullshit fantasy inventions
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:36:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>>> insightful.
>>
>> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
>> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a liar can you?
> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a fraud can you?
on www.enemygadgets.com. Most of it violates the laws of nature.
He talks about a non-existent plastic versions of a non-existent
electric motor that can power a Formula 1 car. "Fractal operating
systems". "magnetic pulse wave detonation engine". And Fraud 7 asks
for 50,000 Euros for some of these vapor products?!
Hell, the nutjob used to ask for $1 million for a license to his
non-existent "fractal, shape-changing, self-repairing nanobots".
> You are spineless Chris Ahlstrom.
>
>> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
>> notwithstanding.
>
> I really don't believe you.
> That's the opinion you portray to COLA where you walk on eggshells.
> I don't believe for a minute you actually believe what you just
> said.
>
> You know full well 7 = Joseph Michael is a liar and a fraud.
> Same for Rex Ballard.
> Same for [Homer].
>
> Why not grow a spine and redeem yourself?
12 or so. His parents did that to him.
Fraud 7 and Creepy Chris Ahlstrom are the kind of people that "advocate"
Linux.
Nix
May 15, 2012, 5:23:32 PM5/15/12
to
On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
that make 486s look like supercomputers?
(How you can estimate the CPU requirements of KDE while excluding X11 is
beyond me. It requires substantial research effort -- on the order of
writing your own windowing system -- just to distinguish between delay
caused by things KDE would need to do anyway but is getting the X server
to do on its behalf, and delay caused by something specific to X11. I
don't believe you have done this.)
KDE4 has substantial CPU requirements above and beyond anything to do
with X, in any case.
>>> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
>>> is the users choice.
>>
>> What "jagged fonts"? About what era are you babbling? There were not "jagged
>> fonts" since several years
>
> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old jaggies.
Really? Tiny Linux is using core X fonts, or has compiled antialiasing
out of FreeType? Seems very unlikely to me. What are they doing, using
Gtk1 or something terrifyingly obsolete like that?
--
NULL && (void)
> Not till you tie in X11, a networked paradigm. I've seen how slow X11
> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
You do realise that X11 was designed and run and was fast on machines
> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
that make 486s look like supercomputers?
(How you can estimate the CPU requirements of KDE while excluding X11 is
beyond me. It requires substantial research effort -- on the order of
writing your own windowing system -- just to distinguish between delay
caused by things KDE would need to do anyway but is getting the X server
to do on its behalf, and delay caused by something specific to X11. I
don't believe you have done this.)
KDE4 has substantial CPU requirements above and beyond anything to do
with X, in any case.
>>> Of course if you want an older distro, along with the jagged fonts, that
>>> is the users choice.
>>
>> What "jagged fonts"? About what era are you babbling? There were not "jagged
>> fonts" since several years
>
> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old jaggies.
out of FreeType? Seems very unlikely to me. What are they doing, using
Gtk1 or something terrifyingly obsolete like that?
--
NULL && (void)
Nix
May 15, 2012, 5:50:18 PM5/15/12
to
On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud spake thusly:
comp.os.linux.advocacy, let's benchmark it (facts! figures! things we
fine upstanding fellows in uk.comp.os.linux learned at our mother's
knees). Benching the core protocol is quite easy: x11perf exists to do
exactly that.
The easiest way to benchmark protocol overheads is to look at the
overhead required for a noop request, which exists precisely for this
purpose: it tells us the overhead of serialization, deserialization, and
server protocol handling. All benchmarks were done on a nearly-idle
X.org 1.10 server, with a Radeon HD 4870 running the free drivers.
Local timings, over the Unix-domain socket:
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21900000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21600000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21700000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
Local timings, over 127.0.0.1:
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22500000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22500000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22900000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
(actually faster, interesting, obviously TCP/IP is more aggressively
optimized than AF_UNIX these days).
Remote timings, over a gigabit Ethernet link, unencrypted:
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19300000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19300000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19200000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
(Slightly slower, but not enough for anyone to care about. The link
saw 80000Kb/s of TCP traffic during the benchmark, much of the Gb
link's theoretical max capacity.)
During all these tests, the X server pretty much maxed out one core:
x11perf used about 35% of one core. So it is clear that it is *possible*
to max out the X server CPU-wise just via protocol overhead -- but you
have to do a *hell* of a lot of operations for that. This machine is
only 2.2GHz, so it's coming in at under a thousand clock ticks of
overhead per X protocol message. I'd call that impressive efficiency.
(Of course batching and the like will reduce this overhead even more in
practice.)
What about printing a dot, the simplest possible graphical operation?
(albeit not one much optimized for these days.)
Local:
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8740000.0/sec): Dot
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8740000.0/sec): Dot
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8670000.0/sec): Dot
About a third the speed of a nop. Remote timings are *absolutely
identical* and the link is no longer saturated, suggesting that protocol
and network overheads are relatively insignificant even for the most
trivial operations. (At least one third of the time taken to display a
single pixel is taken up by protocol overheads: it may be more because
the protocol request will be more complex than for a no-op.)
So let's try some core text display, -ftext.
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1350000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1340000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1340000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
... and the same timings for remote display, and for TCP/IP sockets
locally. Perhaps 6% of the overhead of core text display is accounted
for by protocol overheads.
What about antialiasing? Let's try -aa4trap1, displaying core text and
then antialiasing it (since x11perf can't do render protocol timings):
Local and remote look identical:
800000 reps @ 0.0071 msec (142000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
800000 reps @ 0.0072 msec (140000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
800000 reps @ 0.0070 msec (142000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
142,000 per second. That's a hell of a lot less than the 22 million
no-ops we can do per second, which is the only proportion we can
definitely say is protocol overhead. An overhead of perhaps 0.6% in
fact.
Yep, the server paradigm is simply terrible. Far too much overhead.
It is safe to say that if your argument can be disproved by benchmarking
tools that have been freely available for decades and take five minutes
to install, your argument is not very good. Now maybe the protocol
overhead *is* significant -- it may be that the overhead for text
display is far higher than that for no-op -- but I can't see any
evidence of it here.
--
NULL && (void)
> Moron. What part of X server do you not understand??? And why is it so
> much more slower than on a machine that doesn't use X? The X11
> protocol was designed for the network from the very beginning. It
> doesn't mean you have to go thru the network to display a local image
> on an X server... it is just that the server paradigm in this instance
> is slower for display. Far too much overhead.
So. Rather than frothing at the mouth like a bunch of rejects from
> much more slower than on a machine that doesn't use X? The X11
> protocol was designed for the network from the very beginning. It
> doesn't mean you have to go thru the network to display a local image
> on an X server... it is just that the server paradigm in this instance
> is slower for display. Far too much overhead.
comp.os.linux.advocacy, let's benchmark it (facts! figures! things we
fine upstanding fellows in uk.comp.os.linux learned at our mother's
knees). Benching the core protocol is quite easy: x11perf exists to do
exactly that.
The easiest way to benchmark protocol overheads is to look at the
overhead required for a noop request, which exists precisely for this
purpose: it tells us the overhead of serialization, deserialization, and
server protocol handling. All benchmarks were done on a nearly-idle
X.org 1.10 server, with a Radeon HD 4870 running the free drivers.
Local timings, over the Unix-domain socket:
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21900000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21600000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (21700000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
Local timings, over 127.0.0.1:
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22500000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22500000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
200000000 reps @ 0.0000 msec (22900000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
(actually faster, interesting, obviously TCP/IP is more aggressively
optimized than AF_UNIX these days).
Remote timings, over a gigabit Ethernet link, unencrypted:
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19300000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19300000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
100000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (19200000.0/sec): X protocol NoOperation
(Slightly slower, but not enough for anyone to care about. The link
saw 80000Kb/s of TCP traffic during the benchmark, much of the Gb
link's theoretical max capacity.)
During all these tests, the X server pretty much maxed out one core:
x11perf used about 35% of one core. So it is clear that it is *possible*
to max out the X server CPU-wise just via protocol overhead -- but you
have to do a *hell* of a lot of operations for that. This machine is
only 2.2GHz, so it's coming in at under a thousand clock ticks of
overhead per X protocol message. I'd call that impressive efficiency.
(Of course batching and the like will reduce this overhead even more in
practice.)
What about printing a dot, the simplest possible graphical operation?
(albeit not one much optimized for these days.)
Local:
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8740000.0/sec): Dot
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8740000.0/sec): Dot
50000000 reps @ 0.0001 msec (8670000.0/sec): Dot
About a third the speed of a nop. Remote timings are *absolutely
identical* and the link is no longer saturated, suggesting that protocol
and network overheads are relatively insignificant even for the most
trivial operations. (At least one third of the time taken to display a
single pixel is taken up by protocol overheads: it may be more because
the protocol request will be more complex than for a no-op.)
So let's try some core text display, -ftext.
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1350000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1340000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
7200000 reps @ 0.0007 msec (1340000.0/sec): Char in 80-char line (6x13)
... and the same timings for remote display, and for TCP/IP sockets
locally. Perhaps 6% of the overhead of core text display is accounted
for by protocol overheads.
What about antialiasing? Let's try -aa4trap1, displaying core text and
then antialiasing it (since x11perf can't do render protocol timings):
Local and remote look identical:
800000 reps @ 0.0071 msec (142000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
800000 reps @ 0.0072 msec (140000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
800000 reps @ 0.0070 msec (142000.0/sec): Char in 80-char aa core line (Courier 12)
142,000 per second. That's a hell of a lot less than the 22 million
no-ops we can do per second, which is the only proportion we can
definitely say is protocol overhead. An overhead of perhaps 0.6% in
fact.
Yep, the server paradigm is simply terrible. Far too much overhead.
It is safe to say that if your argument can be disproved by benchmarking
tools that have been freely available for decades and take five minutes
to install, your argument is not very good. Now maybe the protocol
overhead *is* significant -- it may be that the overhead for text
display is far higher than that for no-op -- but I can't see any
evidence of it here.
--
NULL && (void)
Roger Gammans
May 15, 2012, 5:59:09 PM5/15/12
to
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.comp.os.linux.]
Given we are talking about a ZX81 , it isn't strictly PAL or NTSC as they
where monochrome out only. 525/60 , or 625/50 is probably to only thing
you need to know (although modern propents may describe them with an
extra '/2' to designate the interlace scheme. There are all sort
of other stuff encoded into the ITU designations[1][2] - like sound
carrier etc, but the ZX81 didn't modulate sound (intentionally) either.
I'm not sure a Monochrome Video -> HDMI would be that expensive in terms
of parts, I would have thought it would easily fit into an FPGA , not that
that really narrows it down much , these days the ARM fits into the corner
of an FPGA.
But whether there is enough of a market to recoupe the sunk design
costs with the device at a reasonble price is a difficult question. But
I guess that what kickstarter is for. ;-).
[1] System I, for the Uk, System M for the US (PAL-M being hybrid and a
mis-nomer)
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_television_systems
--
Roger.
where monochrome out only. 525/60 , or 625/50 is probably to only thing
you need to know (although modern propents may describe them with an
extra '/2' to designate the interlace scheme. There are all sort
of other stuff encoded into the ITU designations[1][2] - like sound
carrier etc, but the ZX81 didn't modulate sound (intentionally) either.
I'm not sure a Monochrome Video -> HDMI would be that expensive in terms
of parts, I would have thought it would easily fit into an FPGA , not that
that really narrows it down much , these days the ARM fits into the corner
of an FPGA.
But whether there is enough of a market to recoupe the sunk design
costs with the device at a reasonble price is a difficult question. But
I guess that what kickstarter is for. ;-).
[1] System I, for the Uk, System M for the US (PAL-M being hybrid and a
mis-nomer)
[2] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_television_systems
--
Roger.
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 7:00:56 PM5/15/12
to
I had an old IBM with an AMD 350Mhz processor in it running old Win98.
Then I partitioned the hard drive and installed RedHat linux.
Believe me, the desktop on Linux was way SLOOOOOOWWWEEEERRRRR than win98
windowing environment.
Today, you don't even notice it on the newer Intels or AMDs.
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 7:01:42 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/2012 1:57 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
>>> jaggies.
>>
>> Noticed the "tiny linux", you idiot? It is tiny for a reason, you bastardly
>> dumb Snit
>
> Whining about fonts in a distro designed be have the tiniest footprint
> possible. What a jackasshole.
>
See Folks. Another worthless advocate and his worthless post.
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>> some piece of shit that calls itself "GreyCloud" wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone posted the tiny linux url and the fonts were back to the old
>>> jaggies.
>>
>> Noticed the "tiny linux", you idiot? It is tiny for a reason, you bastardly
>> dumb Snit
>
> Whining about fonts in a distro designed be have the tiniest footprint
> possible. What a jackasshole.
>
GreyCloud
May 15, 2012, 7:03:15 PM5/15/12
to
So what good is it?
Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear
as you can get it.
Foster
May 15, 2012, 7:25:55 PM5/15/12
to
Semantics.
Although I admit I didn't read the entire thread so maybe there are
other claims I did not see.
Foster
May 15, 2012, 7:29:10 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 15:58:17 -0400, DFS wrote:
> On 5/15/2012 2:53 PM, Foster wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:36:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>>>> insightful.
>>>
>>> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
>>> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>>
>> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a liar can you?
>> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a fraud can you?
>
>
> A serious fraud, too. Claims all kinds of bullshit fantasy inventions
> on www.enemygadgets.com. Most of it violates the laws of nature.
Nothing new.
> On 5/15/2012 2:53 PM, Foster wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:36:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>
>>> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>>>> insightful.
>>>
>>> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
>>> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>>
>> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a liar can you?
>> You can't bring yourself to admit he is a fraud can you?
>
>
> A serious fraud, too. Claims all kinds of bullshit fantasy inventions
> on www.enemygadgets.com. Most of it violates the laws of nature.
Years ago it was gold making machines.
Turning water into platinum.
Making $20.00 bills from $1.00 bills and so forth.
Con artists have been around since the Bible.
> He talks about a non-existent plastic versions of a non-existent
> electric motor that can power a Formula 1 car. "Fractal operating
> systems". "magnetic pulse wave detonation engine". And Fraud 7 asks
> for 50,000 Euros for some of these vapor products?!
He could be in serious trouble if a single person gave him a single
dime.
> Hell, the nutjob used to ask for $1 million for a license to his
> non-existent "fractal, shape-changing, self-repairing nanobots".
Scotland Yard would be very interested.
>
>
>
>> You are spineless Chris Ahlstrom.
>>
>>> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
>>> notwithstanding.
>>
>> I really don't believe you.
>> That's the opinion you portray to COLA where you walk on eggshells.
>> I don't believe for a minute you actually believe what you just
>> said.
>>
>> You know full well 7 = Joseph Michael is a liar and a fraud.
>> Same for Rex Ballard.
>> Same for [Homer].
>>
>> Why not grow a spine and redeem yourself?
>
> Far too late for that. Linosuck was creepy and wimpy by the time he was
> 12 or so. His parents did that to him.
>
> Fraud 7 and Creepy Chris Ahlstrom are the kind of people that "advocate"
> Linux.
Total, self esteem challenged losers.
Hadron
May 16, 2012, 8:14:42 AM5/16/12
to
Chris Ahlstrom <ahls...@xzoozy.com> writes:
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
> notwithstanding.
You're a liar and somewhat pathetic. And I stand by that.
> After swilling some grog, Nix belched this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On 15 May 2012, Foster verbalised:
>>> But Chris Ahlstrom, a Linux advocate, thinks 7 is a genius and
>>> insightful.
>
> He is. He's also a nutcase. But, in spite of that, he has written more
> original and useful ideas than any anti-Linux troll has every written.
>
> That's my opinion, and I stand by it, the Google-seeding of "Foster"
> notwithstanding.
Nowhere will you find foster, myself , zeke or DFS making stupid claims
about being the european inventor of the year or having invented nano
robots which can morph into solar gliding space birds etc.
7 does nothing but babble nonsense and make ludicrous claims. One look
at this web site is enough to prove that. That and he fucking stupid
claims about having written a real time transaction manager using mysql
and Gambas which can process all the worlds banking transactions in real
time on a standard desktop pc type machine.
Nix
May 16, 2012, 9:39:14 AM5/16/12
to
On 16 May 2012, GreyCloud verbalised:
So your response to actual numbers is...
> I had an old IBM with an AMD 350Mhz processor in it running old Win98.
> Then I partitioned the hard drive and installed RedHat linux.
> Believe me, the desktop on Linux was way SLOOOOOOWWWEEEERRRRR than win98 windowing environment.
... an anecdote. Sorry, you lose. Unless you can measure a thing, you
cannot take steps to improve it. if you ignore measurements because they
do not fit your preconceptions, you have trapped yourself in a box from
which there is no escape. Pitiable, really. I'm going to stay in
reality. Have fun in your paranoid dreamworld.
--
NULL && (void)
> I had an old IBM with an AMD 350Mhz processor in it running old Win98.
> Then I partitioned the hard drive and installed RedHat linux.
> Believe me, the desktop on Linux was way SLOOOOOOWWWEEEERRRRR than win98 windowing environment.
cannot take steps to improve it. if you ignore measurements because they
do not fit your preconceptions, you have trapped yourself in a box from
which there is no escape. Pitiable, really. I'm going to stay in
reality. Have fun in your paranoid dreamworld.
--
NULL && (void)
Nix
May 16, 2012, 9:40:32 AM5/16/12
to
On 16 May 2012, GreyCloud outgrape:
You never bothered to provide a link to a screenshot.
> Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear as you can get it.
iPhone displays have a far, far higher pixel density, for starters.
Nothing the graphical environment can do is going to change attributes
of the hardware like that.
--
NULL && (void)
> Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear as you can get it.
Nothing the graphical environment can do is going to change attributes
of the hardware like that.
--
NULL && (void)
GreyCloud
May 16, 2012, 1:45:49 PM5/16/12
to
Hence, you'll need a faster processor and a faster graphics card.
The observation of just how slow X can be can be demonstrated by looking
at win98 response vs any Linux distro with a WM... and in this case the
AMD 350Mhz really shows it. X is really slow in comparison.
GreyCloud
May 16, 2012, 1:46:42 PM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/2012 7:40 AM, Nix wrote:
> On 16 May 2012, GreyCloud outgrape:
>
>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>> Really? Tiny Linux is using core X fonts, or has compiled antialiasing
>>> out of FreeType? Seems very unlikely to me. What are they doing, using
>>> Gtk1 or something terrifyingly obsolete like that?
>>
>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>
> You never bothered to provide a link to a screenshot.
>
But the OP did.
> On 16 May 2012, GreyCloud outgrape:
>
>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>> Really? Tiny Linux is using core X fonts, or has compiled antialiasing
>>> out of FreeType? Seems very unlikely to me. What are they doing, using
>>> Gtk1 or something terrifyingly obsolete like that?
>>
>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>
> You never bothered to provide a link to a screenshot.
>
That is why I responded to it. Jaggies.
>> Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear as you can get it.
>
> iPhone displays have a far, far higher pixel density, for starters.
> Nothing the graphical environment can do is going to change attributes
> of the hardware like that.
>
JEDIDIAH
May 18, 2012, 6:24:23 PM5/18/12
to
Then again, I actually ran all of that stuff and didn't just Google it yesterday.
I could put it under a full load too and it would still be more responsible than
Windows on the same hardware doing nothing. That continued to be true over the years
as thinks like the Pentium and Athlon came and went.
Linux not only runs faster but runs faster (and more responsive) when doing actual work.
--
cat /dev/video0 > tivo-sucks.mpg & |||
mplayer tivo-sucks.mpg / | \
JEDIDIAH
May 18, 2012, 6:25:55 PM5/18/12
to
do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
it actually turns out that it is.
You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
GreyCloud
May 18, 2012, 10:09:39 PM5/18/12
to
> That's funny. I always managed to get better performance out of my 486.
>
> Then again, I actually ran all of that stuff and didn't just Google it yesterday.
>
You still have to have a fast graphics card however.
Even the Sun sparc stations had the expensive graphics cards if you
wanted to run OpenWin on them.
> I could put it under a full load too and it would still be more responsible than
> Windows on the same hardware doing nothing. That continued to be true over the years
> as thinks like the Pentium and Athlon came and went.
>
> Linux not only runs faster but runs faster (and more responsive) when doing actual work.
>
GreyCloud
May 18, 2012, 10:10:53 PM5/18/12
to
It is even a tad bit sharper and more defined than Apples displays. But
only just a bit.
Foster
May 18, 2012, 10:16:28 PM5/18/12
to
himself.
Personally, I think Apple sets the standard but Windows 7 is really
good, no jagged fonts.
Linux?
Bwaaaaaa!
Looks like something from Windows 98.
DFS
May 18, 2012, 10:54:43 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
Love your evidence. As usual.
> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
> With all the whining that you losers
> do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
> it actually turns out that it is.
> You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
Nix
May 19, 2012, 7:14:07 AM5/19/12
to
On 16 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
Personally I do all my work in a little font with jagged edges
(jmk-neep-alt). That's 'cos when you're working in 8pt fonts on a
display with desktop-PCI DPI, you've got a choice of jagged or a single
lump of blur.
> Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear
> as you can get it.
The display is about five times the DPI of a desktop PC. No OS change
can fix that (though Windows's faults led to the DPI sticking at this
low value, because so many programs assumed that a given number of
pixels equalled a given font point size equalled a given DPI that they
had to lie about the DPI from that day on: even X is doing it now,
depressing).
--
NULL && (void)
(jmk-neep-alt). That's 'cos when you're working in 8pt fonts on a
display with desktop-PCI DPI, you've got a choice of jagged or a single
lump of blur.
> Yet you look at an iPhone display and everything is as sharp and clear
> as you can get it.
can fix that (though Windows's faults led to the DPI sticking at this
low value, because so many programs assumed that a given number of
pixels equalled a given font point size equalled a given DPI that they
had to lie about the DPI from that day on: even X is doing it now,
depressing).
--
NULL && (void)
Folderol
May 19, 2012, 12:41:47 PM5/19/12
to
On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:16:28 -0400
Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He hasn't or he wouldn't be saying that and making an ass of
> himself.
> Personally, I think Apple sets the standard but Windows 7 is really
> good, no jagged fonts.
>
> Linux?
>
> Bwaaaaaa!
>
> Looks like something from Windows 98.
And the leader of the pack is...
Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> He hasn't or he wouldn't be saying that and making an ass of
> himself.
> Personally, I think Apple sets the standard but Windows 7 is really
> good, no jagged fonts.
>
> Linux?
>
> Bwaaaaaa!
>
> Looks like something from Windows 98.
The Acorn Archimedes, which from 1992 had full anti-aliasing as well as hinting.
For pure document processing it *still* gives the latecomers a run for their
money.
--
Will J G
Chris Ahlstrom
May 19, 2012, 1:41:10 PM5/19/12
to
After swilling some grog, Folderol belched this bit o' wisdom:
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:16:28 -0400
> Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> He hasn't or he wouldn't be saying that and making an ass of
>> himself.
>> Personally, I think Apple sets the standard but Windows 7 is really
>> good, no jagged fonts.
>>
>> Linux?
>>
>> Bwaaaaaa!
>>
>> Looks like something from Windows 98.
Obviously, this clown has never run Compiz or KDE.
> And the leader of the pack is...
>
> The Acorn Archimedes, which from 1992 had full anti-aliasing as well
> as hinting. For pure document processing it *still* gives the
> latecomers a run for their money.
All OS's have good anti-aliasing these days. It's stock technology.
--
A chance for Liarnut and Peter to contribute perchance? I would love to
see Ahlstrom telling Linus that ptr->field is ok when ptr is NULL. (For
those that don't know, the Linux kernel is in C not C++).
But wait! What's this?
Huh? Security holes? Say it aint so!
Still, all the COLA freetards can pick up the reigns. Right guys? Erm
Guys??? Guys?!?!?!?!
<sound of echo as doors slam and freetards slink back to their basements
and torrent downloads>
-- "Hadron", a bona fide Usenet crank <h4s8e5$qps$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
> On Fri, 18 May 2012 22:16:28 -0400
> Foster <frankf...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> He hasn't or he wouldn't be saying that and making an ass of
>> himself.
>> Personally, I think Apple sets the standard but Windows 7 is really
>> good, no jagged fonts.
>>
>> Linux?
>>
>> Bwaaaaaa!
>>
>> Looks like something from Windows 98.
> And the leader of the pack is...
>
> The Acorn Archimedes, which from 1992 had full anti-aliasing as well
> as hinting. For pure document processing it *still* gives the
> latecomers a run for their money.
--
A chance for Liarnut and Peter to contribute perchance? I would love to
see Ahlstrom telling Linus that ptr->field is ok when ptr is NULL. (For
those that don't know, the Linux kernel is in C not C++).
But wait! What's this?
Huh? Security holes? Say it aint so!
Still, all the COLA freetards can pick up the reigns. Right guys? Erm
Guys??? Guys?!?!?!?!
<sound of echo as doors slam and freetards slink back to their basements
and torrent downloads>
-- "Hadron", a bona fide Usenet crank <h4s8e5$qps$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
GreyCloud
May 19, 2012, 1:51:18 PM5/19/12
to
the .39mm dot pitch, blurred the font shapes. Viewing these same fonts
on a new LCD monitor shows up how the fonts dots were layed out to give
the appearance of a decent font back then. Newer display algorithms
have been developed to over come that problem. Go to any Apple and
bring up the terminal program and shut off anti-aliasing and you'll see
what I mean.
And then there were the ultra expensive displays, stroke generators,
that put up some rather nice looking fonts way back then.
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 2:50:33 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 4:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-15, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>>> On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
[deletia]
> On 5/18/2012 4:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-15, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>>> On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
>>>
>>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>>> So what good is it?
>>
>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies. With all the whining that you losers
>> do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
>> it actually turns out that it is.
>>
>> You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
>>
> No, obviously you haven't run win7.
When confronted with an inconvenient truth, you create a fantasy land for yourself.
>>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>>> So what good is it?
>>
>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies. With all the whining that you losers
>> do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
>> it actually turns out that it is.
>>
>> You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
>>
> No, obviously you haven't run win7.
--
...of course if you are forced against your will to use Windows in |||
the day time your bound to have a lot to vent about in the evening. / | \
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 2:51:19 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-19, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>
> Love your evidence. As usual.
It's called firsthand testimony.
> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>
> Love your evidence. As usual.
You should try it sometime.
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 2:49:24 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>
>> Then again, I actually ran all of that stuff and didn't just Google it yesterday.
>>
>
> I couldn't even get a full version of linux with X to even run on a 486.
[deletia]
Don't try to tell stupid lies. Some of us were actually there.
GreyCloud
May 23, 2012, 3:23:54 PM5/23/12
to
X is a heavy resource. And X is pretty old. All that has been done to
X is trying to sweeten it up a bit and clean up the bugs. Even IBM
hasn't left X11R5 and they've been cleaning up those bugs for decades
now. As for performance... over a network, you have the network to deal
with.
>>
>>> Then again, I actually ran all of that stuff and didn't just Google it yesterday.
>>>
>>
>> I couldn't even get a full version of linux with X to even run on a 486.
>
> So you're a sad and pathetic loser. No real surprise there.
>
So don't spread your lies here, as I don't buy that BS.
> [deletia]
>
> Don't try to tell stupid lies. Some of us were actually there.
>
GreyCloud
May 23, 2012, 3:24:37 PM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/2012 12:50 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2012 4:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-15, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>>>> On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>>>> So what good is it?
>>>
>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies. With all the whining that you losers
>>> do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
>>> it actually turns out that it is.
>>>
>>> You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
>>>
>> No, obviously you haven't run win7.
>
> When confronted with an inconvenient truth, you create a fantasy land for yourself.
>
Guffaw!!! The only fantasy land is between your ears... and it is a
> On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2012 4:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>> On 2012-05-15, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/15/2012 3:23 PM, Nix wrote:
>>>>> On 15 May 2012, GreyCloud uttered the following:
> [deletia]
>>>>
>>>> Didn't you look at the screen shot?? The fonts are jagged.
>>>> So what good is it?
>>>
>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies. With all the whining that you losers
>>> do about fonts in Linux I would have expected it to be much better than
>>> it actually turns out that it is.
>>>
>>> You sound like you are reading from a 10 year old FUD playbook.
>>>
>> No, obviously you haven't run win7.
>
> When confronted with an inconvenient truth, you create a fantasy land for yourself.
>
wasteland.
DFS
May 23, 2012, 3:25:40 PM5/23/12
to
LMAO!
GreyCloud
May 23, 2012, 3:25:16 PM5/23/12
to
On 5/23/2012 12:51 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On 2012-05-19, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>>
>> Love your evidence. As usual.
>
> It's called firsthand testimony.
>
> You should try it sometime.
>
From liars like you???
> On 2012-05-19, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>
>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>>
>> Love your evidence. As usual.
>
> It's called firsthand testimony.
>
> You should try it sometime.
>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!
Linux land is full of suckers these days.
Foster
May 23, 2012, 3:51:01 PM5/23/12
to
He's like Terry "telnet" Porter only I suspect he may be more
ignorant.
GreyCloud
May 23, 2012, 4:48:45 PM5/23/12
to
And yet he claims to have used UNIX.
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 4:34:18 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 12:49 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2012 4:24 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-16, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2012 5:25 PM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:11:44 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2012 1:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
[deletia]
> On 5/23/2012 12:49 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2012 4:24 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>> On 2012-05-16, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/15/2012 5:25 PM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 21:11:44 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/15/2012 1:27 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>>>> GreyCloud wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/2012 8:17 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2012-05-12, GreyCloud<mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2012 6:20 AM, Foster wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 00:06:49 +0100, 7 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux PC Upgrades
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I noticed a problemette today with company upgrade policy.
>>>>>>>> Not till you tie in X11, a networked paradigm. I've seen how slow X11
>>>>>>>> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are even dumber than Hadron Snit Larry, GreyClod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> X does *not* run networked on a local machine. you criminelly incompetent
>>>>>>> cretin. When will you start to get even the simplest things about linux
>>>>>>> correct, you Snit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it runs OVER a network.
>>>>>> Semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I admit I didn't read the entire thread so maybe there are
>>>>>> other claims I did not see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding a more fancier WM on top of X will always require more resources.
>>>>> Hence, you'll need a faster processor and a faster graphics card.
>>>>> The observation of just how slow X can be can be demonstrated by looking
>>>>> at win98 response vs any Linux distro with a WM... and in this case the
>>>>> AMD 350Mhz really shows it. X is really slow in comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was RedHat 5.2 with X.
>>>
>>>> That's funny. I always managed to get better performance out of my 486.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not with X you won't.
>>
>> Don't try to tell stupid lies. Some of us were actually there.
>>
>
> It isn't... it is you turkeys that don't know much of anything about X.
Pretending that we don't know anything won't change the facts.
>>>>>>>> is on a 486. And to get the fonts cleaned up requires a stronger cpu.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are even dumber than Hadron Snit Larry, GreyClod
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> X does *not* run networked on a local machine. you criminelly incompetent
>>>>>>> cretin. When will you start to get even the simplest things about linux
>>>>>>> correct, you Snit?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it runs OVER a network.
>>>>>> Semantics.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Although I admit I didn't read the entire thread so maybe there are
>>>>>> other claims I did not see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding a more fancier WM on top of X will always require more resources.
>>>>> Hence, you'll need a faster processor and a faster graphics card.
>>>>> The observation of just how slow X can be can be demonstrated by looking
>>>>> at win98 response vs any Linux distro with a WM... and in this case the
>>>>> AMD 350Mhz really shows it. X is really slow in comparison.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was RedHat 5.2 with X.
>>>
>>>> That's funny. I always managed to get better performance out of my 486.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not with X you won't.
>>
>> Don't try to tell stupid lies. Some of us were actually there.
>>
>
> It isn't... it is you turkeys that don't know much of anything about X.
It also will not alter all of our own personal firsthand experiences that
flatly contradict all of your nonsense. If you couldn't get X running on a 486
then that's your own stupid incomptetent fault.
Despite legends to the contrary, it wasn't even that hard.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 4:30:10 PM5/23/12
to
JEDIDIAH
May 23, 2012, 4:31:47 PM5/23/12
to
On 2012-05-23, GreyCloud <mi...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 5/23/2012 12:51 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On 2012-05-19, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>>>
>>> Love your evidence. As usual.
>>
>> It's called firsthand testimony.
>>
>> You should try it sometime.
>>
> From liars like you???
An accusation from the prince of lies?
>> On 2012-05-19, DFS<nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/18/2012 6:25 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>>
>>>> Win7 is horrible about jaggies.
>>>
>>> Love your evidence. As usual.
>>
>> It's called firsthand testimony.
>>
>> You should try it sometime.
>>
> From liars like you???
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages