Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153592 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300 |
| Last post | 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 216 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers
Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 15:53 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 13:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:28 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-30 15:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-30 09:05 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:25 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-01 20:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-31 08:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:01 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:34 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:49 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:59 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:19 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-07 10:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 06:20 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 09:16 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-07 07:38 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-07 10:13 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-08 10:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:04 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-10 22:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 15:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-11 12:21 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-11 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:37 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:45 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-12 17:47 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bernd Felsche <berfel@innovative.iinet.net.au> - 2015-11-15 22:58 +0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-10 19:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 10:41 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-11 16:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-11 14:18 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:41 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-11 21:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-12 11:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2015-11-12 12:34 +0200
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-12 09:11 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 20:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-12 11:47 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-12 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-13 12:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-13 15:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-11-11 11:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2015-11-11 10:36 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Ingo Paschke <ipaschke@lpclabs.de> - 2015-11-08 11:46 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:23 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-08 13:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-11-08 19:14 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:26 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-08 12:45 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 08:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-09 00:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-09 06:13 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2015-11-09 13:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 21:09 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 10:01 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 15:55 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-11-10 17:40 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-10 13:15 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 06:24 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-08 17:45 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-09 11:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-09 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-09 14:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:01 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-09 12:08 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-09 14:49 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 13:40 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-09 09:48 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2015-11-09 14:19 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 08:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-10 12:10 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-10 16:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-10 17:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2015-11-10 12:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-10 07:57 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-10 14:16 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 15:32 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-07 19:32 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 13:06 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 06:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:59 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2015-11-03 17:29 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 18:39 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-30 19:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2015-10-30 20:27 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) - 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-31 12:02 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:43 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-03 23:46 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 04:31 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-04 07:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:28 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 03:49 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:23 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 04:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:24 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2015-11-04 09:55 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 12:42 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 14:57 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-11-04 11:29 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 16:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 17:55 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 18:04 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-04 18:48 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-04 13:05 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-04 11:52 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 19:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 21:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-04 21:35 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Kees Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> - 2015-11-04 21:07 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-03 23:52 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-04 02:56 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-04 11:05 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> - 2015-11-04 03:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-04 10:02 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 11:48 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-08 11:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Andreas Eder <a_eder_muc@web.de> - 2015-11-08 15:33 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2015-11-04 10:36 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-05 11:39 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-11-05 20:44 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2015-11-06 06:19 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-06 07:02 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? "John Jackson" <jj@nospam.com> - 2015-11-05 09:01 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-11-05 00:09 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-04 11:03 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Bob Eager <news0005@eager.cx> - 2015-11-04 21:25 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-11-05 08:01 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:49 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-30 06:56 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 14:43 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:05 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-30 15:21 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 11:58 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:18 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 10:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 07:08 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:27 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-31 10:51 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? Stephen Wolstenholme <steve@easynn.com> - 2015-10-31 15:30 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2015-10-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-31 13:10 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:24 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-30 17:01 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:19 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:39 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 16:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? pechter@S20.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2015-10-30 16:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:22 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-30 13:37 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-30 18:26 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2015-10-30 17:40 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-11-07 07:12 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-10-30 20:28 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-10-31 15:09 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 11:11 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-31 14:57 +0300
Re: Are we just running in place? Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-10-31 10:19 -0400
Re: Are we just running in place? "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> - 2015-10-31 16:28 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? wje@acm.org (Bill Evans) - 2015-10-31 04:14 -0700
Re: Are we just running in place? Rikishi42 <skunkworks@rikishi42.net> - 2015-11-01 18:52 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 13:11 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 03:18 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-02 15:36 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-11-02 11:15 +0100
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 06:56 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2015-11-02 13:51 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2015-11-02 14:27 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-11-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2015-11-02 10:53 -0600
Re: Are we just running in place? "78lp" <78lp@nospam.com> - 2015-11-03 07:19 +1100
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 09:50 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2015-11-02 09:59 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-11-02 10:30 -0800
Re: Are we just running in place? Mike Lander <mkl2379@gmail.com> - 2015-11-02 21:00 +0000
Re: Are we just running in place? Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2015-11-11 12:24 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-11-11 19:10 -0500
Re: Are we just running in place? Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-03 11:24 -0500
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10io4$k1t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153650 |
In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: > > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message > > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... > >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes > > > > Why? > > > Because it is from another era? If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* -r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat to this. Bruce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87wpu4jbmo.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #153654 |
bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes:
> If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated:
>
> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95*
> -r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm
^ ^^^^
...what?
> -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm*
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm*
>
> Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat
> to this.
>
> Bruce
--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 04:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n11f92$ntb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153657 |
In article <87wpu4jbmo.fsf@mantic.terraraq.uk>, Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: > > If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: > > > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* > > -r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm > ^ ^^^^ > > ...what? Perhaps also from another era. A smaller security hole than: -rws--x--x 1 root wheel 244536 Jan 4 2005 xterm-static* Bruce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 14:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #153654 |
bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes >> > >> > Why? >> > >> Because it is from another era? > >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: > >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* >-r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* > >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat >to this. Except that they are, wait for it, shared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1827k$6s0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153777 |
In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: > bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: > >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, > >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: > >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message > >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... > >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes > >> > > >> > Why? > >> > > >> Because it is from another era? > > > >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: > > > >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* > >-r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm > >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* > >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* > > > >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat > >to this. > > Except that they are, wait for it, shared. That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat. Their bloat is mostly in time, but sometimes it is in space too. Both programs and libraries are normally shared if either is active or cached. But programs usually have better locality than libraries, so the sharing works better for them. It takes only about 5 active instances of the FreeBSD sh for it to take less physical memory due to not using shared libraries. The version without shared libraries starts about 3.5 times faster in the usual case where the programs are and shared libraries mostly cached (although not necessarily active. The above understates the size of fvwm2. It always had many standard extensions: -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 149388 Jan 4 2005 FvwmBanner* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 41384 Jan 4 2005 FvwmButtons* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 38200 Jan 4 2005 FvwmIconBox* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 31236 Jan 4 2005 FvwmPager* -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 35440 Jan 4 2005 FvwmTaskBar* [Ones smaller than 30K not shown] Perhaps the version of size 800+K is large because it has most of these are compiled in -- the opposite of shared libraries. Bruce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n186dh$ko2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153793 |
bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: > In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>, > Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: >> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, >> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: >> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message >> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... >> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes >> >> > >> >> > Why? >> >> > >> >> Because it is from another era? >> > >> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: >> > >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* >> >-r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* >> >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* >> > >> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat >> >to this. >> >> Except that they are, wait for it, shared. > > That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat. Their bloat is mostly > in time, but sometimes it is in space too. Both programs and libraries are > normally shared if either is active or cached. But programs usually have > better locality than libraries, so the sharing works better for them. It > takes only about 5 active instances of the FreeBSD sh for it to take less > physical memory due to not using shared libraries. The version without > shared libraries starts about 3.5 times faster in the usual case where > the programs are and shared libraries mostly cached (although not > necessarily active. > > The above understates the size of fvwm2. It always had many standard > extensions: > > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 149388 Jan 4 2005 FvwmBanner* Only run at start up. Entirely optional. > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 41384 Jan 4 2005 FvwmButtons* > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 38200 Jan 4 2005 FvwmIconBox* > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 31236 Jan 4 2005 FvwmPager* > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 35440 Jan 4 2005 FvwmTaskBar* You can run one, none, or all. The TaskBar and Buttons are redundant, you'd normally run one or the other. I run none of them. I run FvwmAnimate but just for fun. > [Ones smaller than 30K not shown] > > Perhaps the version of size 800+K is large because it has most of these > are compiled in -- the opposite of shared libraries. None of these are compiled into Fvwm. The whole idea is to get things users may not want out of required memory. Looking at executable size is, of course, wrong. I have massively higher numbers on my 64bit system. My RES number out of top is 4776. I may have debug enabled, and the binary is not stripped. Not that RES is perfect either. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 19:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rBOZx.13293$9Q.2428@fx01.iad> |
| In reply to | #153793 |
bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: >In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>, >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: >> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, >> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: >> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: >> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message >> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... >> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes >> >> > >> >> > Why? >> >> > >> >> Because it is from another era? >> > >> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: >> > >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* >> >-r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* >> >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* >> > >> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat >> >to this. >> >> Except that they are, wait for it, shared. > >That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat. Their bloat is mostly Added GOT/PLT may increase the memory utilization a bit, but it's still significantly less than the static version would be. There will also be an imperceptable performance hit from the symbol lookup the first time a shared object function is called or shared global variable is accessed. Subsequent accesses pay a simple indirection penalty which is obviated by the microarchitecture of most modern processors. The key is that the big shared objects (such as libc or the graphics libraries, for example) are shared amongst _all_ processes, not just instances of the shell.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 21:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n18kbp$kpu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153816 |
In article <rBOZx.13293$9Q.2428@fx01.iad>, Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: > bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: > >In article <giKZx.6499$CP7.3911@fx11.iad>, > >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: > >> >In article <5633c494$0$23758$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, > >> >Dirk T. Verbeek <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> wrote: > >> >> Op 30-10-15 om 20:22 schreef gareth: > >> >> > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message > >> >> > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... > >> >> >> The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes > >> >> > > >> >> > Why? > >> >> > > >> >> Because it is from another era? > >> > > >> >If it were from another era, then it wouldn't be so bloated: > >> > > >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 124616 Jan 4 2005 fvwm95* > >> >-r-xr-sr-x 1 root kmem 403716 Apr 29 2004 icewm > >> >-r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 235384 Jan 4 2005 mwm* > >> >-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 137384 Jan 4 2005 twm* > >> > > >> >Shared libraries and other dynamic extensions add a lot of runtime bloat > >> >to this. > >> > >> Except that they are, wait for it, shared. > > > >That is one of the reasons why they increase bloat. Their bloat is mostly > > Added GOT/PLT may increase the memory utilization a bit, but it's still > significantly less than the static version would be. There will also be That is not the main reason. Shared libraries decrease locality. This costs 100-200K per active program (thread) in small programs. Static linkage of small programs with non-bloated libraries costs less than that per program and the cost is not repeated for active program. But normally the libraries are bloated, so small programs when statically linked bloat to several times 100-200K, so it takes running several of them for their memory use to be smaller. > an imperceptable performance hit from the symbol lookup the first time > a shared object function is called or shared global variable is accessed. > Subsequent accesses pay a simple indirection penalty which is obviated > by the microarchitecture of most modern processors. The performance hit is perceptible at 3.5 times slower startup and exit for /bin/sh (starting from a statically linked shell; more for all-dynamic). This is with /bin/sh linked to only 3 libraries. The slowness is from a combinatation of mapping the libraries, dynamic linking to them, and later cleaning up larger threads on exit. All-dynamic gives additional slowness from forking larger threads. Indirections from the GOT/PLT cost relatively less. > The key is that the big shared objects (such as libc or the graphics > libraries, for example) are > shared amongst _all_ processes, not just instances of the shell. Part of the bloat is that the data is not shareable and tends to have poor locality. This ends up more than doubling the physical memory use for each extra instance for the version of /bin/sh that I tested. All versions had relatively small physical memory use --- just 124K extra for shared linkage. It only takes 32 variables scattered across 32 4K pages in shared libraries instead of packed into 1 page in static data to cost 124K. This effect is smaller for large programs, Bruce
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <W83_x.21750$Fe.6565@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #153833 |
bde@besplex.bde.org (Bruce Evans) writes: >In article <rBOZx.13293$9Q.2428@fx01.iad>, >Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote: >> Added GOT/PLT may increase the memory utilization a bit, but it's still >> significantly less than the static version would be. There will also be > >That is not the main reason. Shared libraries decrease locality. This Spatial or temporal? Modern processors have cache and TLB structures to address spatial locality issues. >costs 100-200K per active program (thread) in small programs. Static 100-200K what? If I were running in 1MB of memory, I'd be concerned. With 16GB, 200k is in the noise, particularly with 64k page sizes (armv8, e.g.).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 21:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10med$72b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153648 |
In comp.misc gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote: > "Rich" <rich@example.invalid> wrote in message > news:n10dgn$uk2$2@dont-email.me... > > The fvwm2 executable is 862,808 bytes > Why? Ambigious question - did you mean: Why is it only that big? Maybe because it is free of the bloat that infests so much other software that tries to be the kitchen sink plus everything else in the house, all at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 20:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n10ii4$t2$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #153606 |
On 2015-10-30, Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Simple cure. Run Linux. > Don't use any of the highfalutin desktops, just a basic WM. > Conceptually, what I do on my Core Duo (2G RAM) isn't much different than what I did on a Pentium III (128M RAM) over a decade ago (one exception: video transcoding with Handbrake). That PIII started feeling slow when Linux systems moved from ISO-8859-X and friends to Unicode. Seems like Unicode required more RAM and therefore a bit of new hardware seemed worthwhile. Obviously that RAM is now much appreciated when ripping DVDs to MKVs. Other than that, I could probably go back to that Pentium and do most of what I do today with little alteration. Windowmaker is my sweetspot for low resource WMs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Johnny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-30 19:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wUPYx.3731$Z55.1234@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #153593 |
On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:43:47 +0000, gareth wrote: > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/ junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > > > Very well said. > > Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a > retina display, > but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can > control from the ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a > PDP-11/20 back in 1971. > > I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > progressed, I feel more and more divorced from the computers that I > love. That pretty well echoes my own experience with Microsoft windows from win95osr2 and windows 2000 on. To my mind, win2k (classic desktop with open each folder in its own window option) was the epitome of 'connectedness' to the computer hardware which MSFT has been eroding with each successive release of its successor OSes. In my own case, I solved that problem by simply not "upgrading" from win2k. However, that strategy finally failed me with a recent (and long overdue) hardware upgrade which forced me to finally upgrade the host OS to Linux Mint 17.1 KDE 64 bit (the least retro/klunky option I could see available to fit my needs). As much as typical windows users might think win7 is now the best option out of the current OS offerings from MSFT, that's not the case for me, hence my migration to a *nix based solution. Despite the major downsides to using a Linux DE, I feel the situation with MSFT's offerings has reached such a new low that I'd rather face the disappointments of Linux than suffer at the hands of MSFT, especially in view of their latest privacy policy enshrined in windows 10 now being pushed onto win7/8 users as a "Free Upgrade". TBH, until win10, I think MSFT demonstrated a high level of integrity in regard of their customers' privacy. Looking at the traffic analysis of the "telemetry" that was published recently, it's hard to decide whether it was commercial pressure to compete with Google et al in data mining their cash cow resource or pressure from the NSA and GCHQ as the motivating force behind this 'change of heart'. I suspect it was a combination of both. The bad news for everyone, expert computer user and mere consumer alike, is that the increasing sophistication and complexity of the support chips (including CPUs) used in PCs and smart phones and tablets is allowing for more sophisticated 'traitorware' to be embedded within the very fabric of those electronic devices to the point where the choice of OS will make absolutely no difference to the security of your personal and private data. If anyone is naive enough to think that the use of retro pre-traitorous hardware (eg Pentium 2 based PC kit) will make a difference in your 'visibility' to your nation's security services, think again. Even if you stay disconnected from the internet with your retro computing activities, the advent of social media means that your immediate friends and relatives will be 'ratting you out' to the authorities simply as a side effect of their own lack of interest in what others know about themselves. That, and the fact that pretty well everything your government needs to know about you is now stored and accessed electronically means your life remains an open book to those with the wherewithal and a motive to take a close look at your profile and more recent activities. Trying to 'stay off grid' will likely make you look like an interesting target worthy of closer scrutiny simply because of your failure to follow the herd mentality. Leaving that depressing view of our current situation to one side for the time being to get back on topic, it's always struck me, since the days of windows 95, that MSFT's mission statement could accurately be restated as "Never allow hardware developments to be reflected back to the user as improvements in system responsiveness." They seem to have seen it as their duty to bloat the OS and apps just sufficiently to maintain the user experience typical of 1995 in spite of all the potential performance gains in successive generations of PC hardware over the past two decades. Quite obviously, the result of the MSFT/OEMs cartel's desire to drive the sales of new PC hardware. This 'cartel effect' is so blatantly obvious as to have been informally given the name "Wintel". The only hardware improvement that has escaped MSFT's attention being the advent of SSD storage devices which have not only improved responsiveness but also sidelined the 'rapid ageing' effect of a bunch of invented pagefile options designed to accelerate the performance sapping effects of runaway FS fragmentation induced by the kakamaimee defaults in the single huge partition, 'all your eggs in one basket' setup of the typical OEM configured windows PC. In short, the answer to the question posed by this thread's subject line is a resounding "Hell, yes!" (at least as far as windows afflicted PC hardware is concerned). -- Johnny B Good
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 12:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <70c460e2aea2a25-9ee56@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #153651 |
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:53:00PM +0000, Johnny B Good wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:43:47 +0000, gareth wrote: > > > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/ > junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > > > > > > Very well said. > > > > Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a > > retina display, > > but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can > > control from the ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a > > PDP-11/20 back in 1971. > > > > I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > > progressed, I feel more and more divorced from the computers that I > > love. > > That pretty well echoes my own experience with Microsoft windows from > win95osr2 and windows 2000 on. To my mind, win2k (classic desktop with > open each folder in its own window option) was the epitome of > 'connectedness' to the computer hardware which MSFT has been eroding with > each successive release of its successor OSes. > > In my own case, I solved that problem by simply not "upgrading" from > win2k. However, that strategy finally failed me with a recent (and long > overdue) hardware upgrade which forced me to finally upgrade the host OS > to Linux Mint 17.1 KDE 64 bit (the least retro/klunky option I could see > available to fit my needs). > > As much as typical windows users might think win7 is now the best option > out of the current OS offerings from MSFT, that's not the case for me, > hence my migration to a *nix based solution. Despite the major downsides > to using a Linux DE, I feel the situation with MSFT's offerings has > reached such a new low that I'd rather face the disappointments of Linux > than suffer at the hands of MSFT, especially in view of their latest > privacy policy enshrined in windows 10 now being pushed onto win7/8 users > as a "Free Upgrade". > > TBH, until win10, I think MSFT demonstrated a high level of integrity in > regard of their customers' privacy. Looking at the traffic analysis of > the "telemetry" that was published recently, it's hard to decide whether > it was commercial pressure to compete with Google et al in data mining > their cash cow resource or pressure from the NSA and GCHQ as the > motivating force behind this 'change of heart'. I suspect it was a > combination of both. > > The bad news for everyone, expert computer user and mere consumer alike, > is that the increasing sophistication and complexity of the support chips > (including CPUs) used in PCs and smart phones and tablets is allowing for > more sophisticated 'traitorware' to be embedded within the very fabric of > those electronic devices to the point where the choice of OS will make > absolutely no difference to the security of your personal and private > data. > > If anyone is naive enough to think that the use of retro pre-traitorous > hardware (eg Pentium 2 based PC kit) will make a difference in your > 'visibility' to your nation's security services, think again. Even if you > stay disconnected from the internet with your retro computing activities, > the advent of social media means that your immediate friends and > relatives will be 'ratting you out' to the authorities simply as a side > effect of their own lack of interest in what others know about > themselves. That, and the fact that pretty well everything your > government needs to know about you is now stored and accessed > electronically means your life remains an open book to those with the > wherewithal and a motive to take a close look at your profile and more > recent activities. Trying to 'stay off grid' will likely make you look > like an interesting target worthy of closer scrutiny simply because of > your failure to follow the herd mentality. > Ditto. The average consumer completely fails to understand the significance of all of their personal information to the designs of malicious interests. They naively assume that "the government" or large corporate interests have no interest in amassing psychometric dossiers on the entirety of the population, and that they presumed innocuous nature of their lives and interests provide sufficient protection from abuses of power. It may be true that most people will never have their information abused for criminal or quasi-criminal purposes, but the mere fact of the existence of their personal information in clandestine files and databases is a latent threat at best. In Canada the RCMP desperately wants to classify environmental activists in the same category as terrorists. (Never mind that large numbers of the RCMP are themselves criminals and terrorists in their own right.) Universities are full of spies and recruited informers, and commercial corporations are increasingly becoming partners with intelligence agencies where they are not outright front organizations. The casualty figures may be in the fractional percentage range, but it is very clear that police and intelligence agencies are making war on civilian populations in the West and they are leveraging large scale data mining operations in support. The assumption that people commonly make, "I've done nothing wrong; I have nothing to hide", is incorrect when the motivation for one or another form of attack is to make someone take actions against their interests for political purposes. The industrialization of financial fraud and certain other forms of property crime is made much easier for those who have access to great masses of information about the public, and if anyone thinks the people involved in the intelligence community are above that they should bloody well think again. > Leaving that depressing view of our current situation to one side for > the time being to get back on topic, it's always struck me, since the > days of windows 95, that MSFT's mission statement could accurately be > restated as "Never allow hardware developments to be reflected back to > the user as improvements in system responsiveness." > > They seem to have seen it as their duty to bloat the OS and apps just > sufficiently to maintain the user experience typical of 1995 in spite of > all the potential performance gains in successive generations of PC > hardware over the past two decades. Quite obviously, the result of the > MSFT/OEMs cartel's desire to drive the sales of new PC hardware. This > 'cartel effect' is so blatantly obvious as to have been informally given > the name "Wintel". > > The only hardware improvement that has escaped MSFT's attention being > the advent of SSD storage devices which have not only improved > responsiveness but also sidelined the 'rapid ageing' effect of a bunch of > invented pagefile options designed to accelerate the performance sapping > effects of runaway FS fragmentation induced by the kakamaimee defaults in > the single huge partition, 'all your eggs in one basket' setup of the > typical OEM configured windows PC. > > In short, the answer to the question posed by this thread's subject line > is a resounding "Hell, yes!" (at least as far as windows afflicted PC > hardware is concerned). It is probably fair to say that in many ways, the art of software engineering is going backwards. Rather than a continued refinement of best practices what we too often see is the accretion of needless technical debt and a great squandering of finite resources. To the last the most critical loss is the resource of productive man years. -- The practitioners of Freemasonry are the rabid Islamic extremists of Christiandom. Heroin makes them invincible and all-knowing, and therefore superior to mere mortals. Their primary distinguishing characteristic is the habit of Orwellian doublethink which permits them to be uncivilized while faking participation in civil society. Pound for pound they are umatched for sheer density of stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 17:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n185qg281d@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #153748 |
On 2015-11-01, Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> wrote: > In Canada the RCMP desperately wants to classify environmental > activists in the same category as terrorists. Is it the RCMP or Stephen Harper? Now that he's gone, time will tell. > It is probably fair to say that in many ways, the art of software > engineering is going backwards. Rather than a continued refinement of > best practices what we too often see is the accretion of needless > technical debt and a great squandering of finite resources. To the > last the most critical loss is the resource of productive man years. The reason for this becomes clear when you realize that the purpose of companies like M$ is not to build quality software but to make money. And if making money is the criterion of success, their crap has made them one of the most successful companies in history. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-31 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f874ff78-b13c-464b-acc9-19d5923433ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #153593 |
On Friday, October 30, 2015 at 9:43:49 AM UTC-4, gareth wrote: > Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a retina > display, > but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can control > from the > ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in > 1971. > > I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > progressed, I feel more > and more divorced from the computers that I love. Most lay computers effectively do not have any control over their software, and thus their hardware. Some folks have suggested various configurations, but that assumed the user is skilled enough and interested enough to do so. It's like making personal mods to an automobile; it's not something for everyone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n14mlp$ll4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #153593 |
"gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message news:n0vs2g$58m$1@dont-email.me... > "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message > news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/ > Very well said. > Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a > retina display, > but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can control > from the > ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in > 1971. > I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has > progressed, I feel more > and more divorced from the computers that I love. In particular, I want absolute control and knowledge of every Internet communication.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-01 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005237ACBAE328A@aca42838.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #153725 |
gareth wrote: > "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message > news:n0vs2g$58m$1@dont-email.me... >> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message >> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_y ou_under/ >> Very well said. >> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a >> retina display, >> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can control >> from the >> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in >> 1971. >> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >> progressed, I feel more >> and more divorced from the computers that I love. > > In particular, I want absolute control and knowledge of every Internet > communication. Get a 4800 baud external modem. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 12:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <d9ntivFmmv4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #153728 |
"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message news:PM0005237ACBAE328A@aca42838.ipt.aol.com... > gareth wrote: >> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >> news:n0vs2g$58m$1@dont-email.me... >>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message >>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_y > ou_under/ >>> Very well said. >>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a >>> retina display, >>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can >>> control >>> from the >>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in >>> 1971. >>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >>> progressed, I feel more >>> and more divorced from the computers that I love. >> >> In particular, I want absolute control and knowledge of every Internet >> communication. > > Get a 4800 baud external modem. Stupid way to get that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-02 11:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <f5pjgc-od3.ln1@sambook.reistad.name> |
| In reply to | #153754 |
In article <d9ntivFmmv4U1@mid.individual.net>, Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"jmfbahciv" <See.above@aol.com> wrote in message >news:PM0005237ACBAE328A@aca42838.ipt.aol.com... >> gareth wrote: >>> "gareth" <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:n0vs2g$58m$1@dont-email.me... >>>> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message >>>> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_y >> ou_under/ >>>> Very well said. >>>> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a >>>> retina display, >>>> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can >>>> control >>>> from the >>>> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in >>>> 1971. >>>> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has >>>> progressed, I feel more >>>> and more divorced from the computers that I love. >>> >>> In particular, I want absolute control and knowledge of every Internet >>> communication. >> >> Get a 4800 baud external modem. > >Stupid way to get that. Go get an OpenBSD (or FreeBSD) firewall, using pf. And use wireshark and/or tcpdump extensively (on the firewall) to see what hosts are indeed contacted from your device. And use pf to block, log or remap the calls you see as suspicious. A squid on a gateway host can also help a lot, there you can remap on the urls; you don't need to get the hosts. I still trust those, even if I don't trust Linux any longer due to the insane bloat of libraries. The BSDs are still trustworthy because of the "thousand eyes" effect, IMNSHO, on a rather smaller and more organised code base. I do this with my home network, and have travelling hosts on a separate network, both physical and wifi; so they cannot directly contaminate my internal hosts. (Yes, I do write this on a travelling host). This way you can see a lot more than on a 4800 baud modem, and you can filter and block whatever you don't like. I even use a squid plugin to analyse the downloads, and drop the ones that seem unsafe. This drops around 90% of the flash animated advertisements; and I get chastised by lots of web sites for running an ad blocker. No, I don't block them because they are ads, but because they have the signs of compromised code. I did a consulting job for a large newspaper about what the ads they linked to contained. That was a huge wakeup call for both me and them. Now they run all ads served inhouse, and do a solid wash of the files being uploaded, and do flash strips and jpeg compression to make them safe and also a LOT smaller. They save around 1 gigabit just from this, from a top load of 6-7. Barb: Yes, there was a time when a 4800 baud modem with a protocol analyser was state of the art. That was when there were still more PDP10s to be announced, the VAX was just out, and Prime had just come out with workable 50-series machines. -- mrr
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Waldek Hebisch <hebisch@math.uni.wroc.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-03 22:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n1bb5v$4u$1@z-news.wcss.wroc.pl> |
| In reply to | #153593 |
In alt.folklore.computers gareth <no.spam@thank.you.invalid> wrote:
> "RS Wood" <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote in message
> news:d9h7ivF1apvU1@mid.individual.net...
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/15/junk_your_it_now_before_it_drags_you_under/
>
>
> Very well said.
>
> Give me a machine with GHz speed, and astronmical sized hard disk, a retina
> display,
> but otherwise completely lacking in system software, so that I can control
> from the
> ground up, just as I did with my first experience of a PDP-11/20 back in
> 1971.
>
> I always revelled in close contact with the machine, and as time has
> progressed, I feel more
> and more divorced from the computers that I love.
>
Plying devils advocate: much of software bloat is forced by
hardware. A simple example is hard dirives. Random access
time to hard drives improved maybe 5 times compared to 196x
era. At the same time sequential read speed improved about
1000 times and capacity about 10^5 times. Note that simple
operation "read the whole drive" now takes _much more_ time
than in the past (capacity increased faster than read speed).
Basically, without disk cache and large block transfers you
will get speed only slightly better than PDP-11/20.
If you look at USB you will see that the specification
actually forces rather complicated implementation. Some
folks are very critial about USB. But face it: USB can
do several transfers to different devices without any
CPU activity during transfers -- you set up transactions,
let USB do its work and then collect results. And USB
support wide range of peripherials, with ability to hot
plug and autoconfigure devices. Would you like to
run sysgen every time before you insert a USB gadget?
Or have a setup were USB socket number 1 is dedicated
to keyboard, number 2 to mouse, number 3 to your specific
pendrive, etc. and trying to insert different device or
inserting device in wrong slot does not work.
In MSDOS era hardware drivers could be simple, because
driver frequently would take over machine for duration
of the whole operation. More advanced version would
work with interrupts. But taking an interrupt (or
several) for transfer would lead to very bad speed on
modern machines -- modern hard drives and network cards
can transfer several dectors (or packets) per interupt.
On different level, users now demand computers working
in their native language. So you either have each
country developinig their own national software (clearly
unfeasible) or some configurables codepages (workable
but messy) or Unicode. Now, Unicode has more than 10^6
potential characters and more than 10^5 assigned, with
useful charactes spread out in several blocks. The
old school text software would use tables with 128
entries (one for each ASCII code) to make decision.
Even several tables fits in few kB of memory. Naively
using the same approach with Unicode leads to tens
of MB memory use. Worse, some tables may need to be
initialized at runtime and than it leads to huge
slowdown. So someting smarter is meeded. But this
leads to much more complicated code which is still
slower than ASCII version. And this is just at very
basic level. On top of that you need to handle
varying text directions, complicated sorting
rules, etc. Basically you need large tables to
describe rules of various languages and special
libraries.
An extra anecdote: some time ago I looked why Linux kernel
after boot took that much memory (more than 10 MB). Then
I realised that to manage memory Linux has tables with
entries per each pago of physical memory. Compared to
memory present in the machine the tables are tiny. And
they were "always" present -- simply on small machines
kernel code took much larger percentage of available
memory and memory usage of tables did not stand out.
In old days operating sytem would take sizable part
of available memory, frequently more than half. Modern
Linux kernel takes only tiny part of memory, so
relative overhead is quite small.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers
csiph-web