> On 18/11/12 14:27, Pascal Hambourg wrote:
>> Richard Kettlewell a écrit :
>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>>>> Richard Kettlewell a écrit :
>>>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>>>>>> unruh a écrit :
>>>>>>> It disappears if the computer is switched off.
>>>>>> Swap space contents does not disappear when the computer is switched
>>>>>> off. Even RAM contents does not disappear immediately.
>>>>> The sense in which it disappears is that you're not going to get the
>>>>> contents back when you restore power.
>>>> I would not rely on such assomption if I needed to make sure that the
>>>> data actually disappears.
>>>> E.g. see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_remanence#Data_in_RAM>
>>>> Not to mention the data that were swapped out.
>>> I don't recall anyone saying they did rely on that assumption.
>> I don't recall either anyone saying they did not. So in doubt...
>>> In any
>>> case if your confidential data is sufficiently valuable that this kind
>>> of attack is plausible then you need to do more than just be cautious
>>> about its persistence in RAM after power off. Most people have more
>>> realistic threats to worry about.
>> Nice try. But you were the one who wrote "The sense in which it
>> disappears is that you're not going to get the contents back when you
>> restore power", and that was proved wrong in some occasions. That was my
>> one and only point.
Sorry. Fat finger causes null post.
-- Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
> On 17/11/12 23:14, unruh wrote:
>> On 2012-11-17, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 17/11/12 21:51, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>>> Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> writes:
>>>>> unruh a ??crit :
>>>>>> It disappears if the computer is switched off.
>>>>> Swap space contents does not disappear when the computer is switched
>>>>> off. Even RAM contents does not disappear immediately.
>>>> The sense in which it disappears is that you???re not going to get the
>>>> contents back when you restore power.
>>> ..unless you suspend before switching off, when IIRC the whole RAM area
>>> gets 'swapped out' somewhere.
>> I think you mean hibernate, not suspend.
>>> I love the reboot on the windows VMM..less than 10 seconds from cold to
>>> 'where I last left windows two weeks ago when I used it'
>> You can hibernate Linux as well. and yes, about 10 sec from cold to
>> where I left Linux at 2 hrs ago when I last used it.
> Golly. you go as long as tow hours without using it?
And even two hours. Yes, that is how long the bus ride from work is. I
have even been known to go for a whole day. One problem with hibernation on my laptop is that the computer comes out
of hibernation if the lid is opened ( a small way) I have had the system
come out of hibernation in my case I guess when it got jolted. Now I
briefly remove the battery as well after hibernation to make sure it is
off. (Running a laptop inside a well padded case does not do it any
good.)
Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> The Natural Philosopher conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>> "With additional hardware and software, an Apple LISA could send a
>> rocket to the moon"
> Didn't the first flight to the moon make use of two Commodore C64 > machines?
>> The Natural Philosopher conveyed the following to
>> comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> "With additional hardware and software, an Apple LISA could send a
>>> rocket to the moon"
>> Didn't the first flight to the moon make use of two Commodore C64
>> machines?
> Not unless NASA had a time machine...
You are correct. Wikipedia states that the C64 was introduced in 1982.
I do however maintain that NASA does, indeed, have a time machine. I will however not insist that it would bear any physical resemblance to a DeLorean DMC-12.
-- = Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Aragorn wrote:
> On Sunday 18 November 2012 15:31, The Natural Philosopher conveyed the
> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>> "With additional hardware and software, an Apple LISA could send a
>> rocket to the moon"
> Didn't the first flight to the moon make use of two Commodore C64
> machines?
That's an outright lie, to make NASA look bad.
What really is the case was that the original flight to the moon used computers that were about equivalent to the C64.
NASA had massive mainframes on earth, and likely minicomputers too, and none would amount to much compared with what we have in the home right now, likely wasn't that much better than the C64 that came out 13 years after the first moon landing.
I can't even remember if they had a computer on board Apollo 11. If it was, it would be very minor, likely following a sequence of instructions rather than actually computer.
Later flights, Skylab and maybe the joint US-USSR mission in the seventies, they at least likely had the use of pocket calculators that came along in the interim.
The shuttle's computer came later, but not that much later since the design was frozen long before it made it into space. I seem to recal something like core memory, and it wasn't that great a computer. But once in place, it took tremendous effort to change, likely was risky sine someone might misread something and create software that sent them off on a tangent or something. And it usually does take forever to modify "airplanes", a lot peripheral worry like does it interfere with other things, and needing to fit a preassigned space.
But it wasn't that many years after the shuttle first went up that they took laptops, I guess it was the Grid, which certainly was better than the on board computer, even if it was quite limited compared to what I'm using right now.
On Sunday 18 November 2012 22:00, Michael Black conveyed the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Aragorn wrote:
>> On Sunday 18 November 2012 15:31, The Natural Philosopher conveyed
>> the following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> "With additional hardware and software, an Apple LISA could send a
>>> rocket to the moon"
>> Didn't the first flight to the moon make use of two Commodore C64
>> machines?
> That's an outright lie, to make NASA look bad.
Or to make the Commodore 64 look very good. :-D
> What really is the case was that the original flight to the moon used
> computers that were about equivalent to the C64.
> NASA had massive mainframes on earth, and likely minicomputers too,
> and none would amount to much compared with what we have in the home
> right now, likely wasn't that much better than the C64 that came out
> 13 years after the first moon landing.
> I can't even remember if they had a computer on board Apollo 11. If
> it was, it would be very minor, likely following a sequence of
> instructions rather than actually computer.
Something to that effect, which is why I believed the story about the Commodores. Uhh, the computers, not the band. :p
> Later flights, Skylab and maybe the joint US-USSR mission in the
> seventies, they at least likely had the use of pocket calculators that
> came along in the interim.
> The shuttle's computer came later, but not that much later since the
> design was frozen long before it made it into space. I seem to recal
> something like core memory, and it wasn't that great a computer. But
> once in place, it took tremendous effort to change, likely was risky
> sine someone might misread something and create software that sent
> them off on a tangent or something. And it usually does take forever
> to modify "airplanes", a lot peripheral worry like does it interfere
> with other things, and needing to fit a preassigned space.
> But it wasn't that many years after the shuttle first went up that
> they took laptops, I guess it was the Grid, which certainly was better
> than the on board computer, even if it was quite limited compared to
> what I'm using right now.
Oh, that's not surprising. Any recent cellphone - it doesn't even have to be a smartphone - has more computing power than my dad's pre-owned hard-disk-less [*] XT clone in 1990. ;-)
[*] My brother and I did buy him a hard disk for that machine later on,
but to my dad, that machine was just a toy anyway, not a necessity.
-- = Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
> unruh a crit :
>> On 2012-11-16, Peter Hanke <peter...@andres.net> wrote:
>>> Assume I define in file /etc/fstab a new line for an additional tmpfs filesystem with mount point /tmp
>>> (and mount it either manually of through reboot).
>>> Then I copy some file stuff onto this filesystem dir /tmp
>>> Where are these files physically placed? Does /tmp only exist in memory RAM or inside an existing partition (which ?) on hard disc?
>> In memory Ram.
> No, in virtual memory, i.e. either in system RAM or swap space.
>> It disappears if the computer is switched off.
> Swap space contents does not disappear when the computer is switched
> off. Even RAM contents does not disappear immediately.
But the information about what each swap page represents disappears
when the ram loses its contents.
Michael Black wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Aragorn wrote:
>> On Sunday 18 November 2012 15:31, The Natural Philosopher conveyed the
>> following to comp.os.linux.misc...
>>> "With additional hardware and software, an Apple LISA could send a
>>> rocket to the moon"
>> Didn't the first flight to the moon make use of two Commodore C64
>> machines?
> That's an outright lie, to make NASA look bad.
> What really is the case was that the original flight to the moon used
> computers that were about equivalent to the C64.
> NASA had massive mainframes on earth, and likely minicomputers too, and
> none would amount to much compared with what we have in the home right
> now, likely wasn't that much better than the C64 that came out 13 years
> after the first moon landing.
> I can't even remember if they had a computer on board Apollo 11. If it
> was, it would be very minor, likely following a sequence of instructions
> rather than actually computer.
> Later flights, Skylab and maybe the joint US-USSR mission in the
> seventies, they at least likely had the use of pocket calculators that
> came along in the interim.
> The shuttle's computer came later, but not that much later since the
> design was frozen long before it made it into space. I seem to recal
> something like core memory, and it wasn't that great a computer. But once
> in place, it took tremendous effort to change, likely was risky sine
> someone might misread something and create software that sent them off on
> a tangent or something. And it usually does take forever to modify
> "airplanes", a lot peripheral worry like does it interfere with other
> things, and needing to fit a preassigned space.
> But it wasn't that many years after the shuttle first went up that they
> took laptops, I guess it was the Grid, which certainly was better than the
> on board computer, even if it was quite limited compared to what I'm using
> right now.
> Michael
Not to mention the physical hardness required. Vehicle electrinics on mining trucks is bad enough - but the hardening required for systems on rockets is something else, especially WRT to vibration.
A ZX81 wouldn't survive the door being shut before the trundle out to the launchpad ;->
Michael writes:
> I can't even remember if they had a computer on board Apollo 11. If
> it was, it would be very minor, likely following a sequence of
> instructions rather than actually computer.
Both the command module and the lander had computers. And yes, they
were "real" 16 bit computers, built with RTL integrated circuits.
> The shuttle's computer came later, but not that much later since the
> design was frozen long before it made it into space.
The Shuttle had five 32-bit computers of the 360 architecture. They
used TTL ICs and core memory.
> I guess it was the Grid, which certainly was better than the on board
> computer,
"Better"? Would you trust your life to one?
> I seem to recal something like core memory, and it wasn't that great a
> computer.
It was an _excellent_ computer. It was not a very "powerful" one.
-- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
On 2012-11-18, Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> Oh, that's not surprising. Any recent cellphone - it doesn't even have > to be a smartphone - has more computing power than my dad's pre-owned > hard-disk-less [*] XT clone in 1990. ;-)
As I understand it, the Raspberry Pi is a cell phone cpu. And it is more
powerful than computers available 10 years ago (never mind 20)
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 15:17:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Fat finger causes null post.
> Was that aphorism originally uttered by a Chinese philosopher?
I am not chinese
As far as I know..
-- Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
On 2012-11-18, John Hasler <jhas...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> Michael writes:
>> I can't even remember if they had a computer on board Apollo 11. If
>> it was, it would be very minor, likely following a sequence of
>> instructions rather than actually computer.
> Both the command module and the lander had computers. And yes, they
> were "real" 16 bit computers, built with RTL integrated circuits.
>> The shuttle's computer came later, but not that much later since the
>> design was frozen long before it made it into space.
> The Shuttle had five 32-bit computers of the 360 architecture. They
> used TTL ICs and core memory.
And, core memory _does_ retain its contents without power--at
least that's what was in the literature I quoted in an 8th-grade
research paper for Miss Beuhler's English class.
I read of one practice on the shuttle that took advantage of the
non-volatile nature of core memory. Reportedly, after getting
into orbit, the crew would load the software and data for landing
the shuttle into the computers and power them down. That way, if
the tape readers failed, the bits were already in core.
-- Robert Riches
spamtra...@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
Robert Riches writes:
> I read of one practice on the shuttle that took advantage of the
> non-volatile nature of core memory. Reportedly, after getting into
> orbit, the crew would load the software and data for landing the
> shuttle into the computers and power them down. That way, if the tape
> readers failed, the bits were already in core.
With core memory computers it was routine to simply shut them off with
every expectation that they would just pick up where they left off when
powered up again.
-- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
