Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #1554 > unrolled thread

Good Linux to start with

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Good Linux to start with Halberstam Reader <joe.snod@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:40 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-03 20:53 -0500
    Re: Good Linux to start with bosco <boscopelone@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 21:16 -0600
      Re: Good Linux to start with bruce.sinclair@NOSPAMORELSEagresearch.NOTco.NOTnz (Bruce Sinclair) - 2011-07-04 04:07 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2011-07-04 03:28 +0000
      Re: Good Linux to start with Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-07-04 12:04 -0400
        Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-04 23:07 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-07-04 10:15 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with Bob Henson <rh547477@gmail.com> - 2011-07-04 10:00 +0100
    Re: Good Linux to start with Torsten Mueller <dev-null@shared-files.de> - 2011-07-04 11:10 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-07-04 16:11 +0530
    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kimber <richardkimber@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 06:59 -0500
      Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-04 13:35 +0100
        Re: Good Linux to start with David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2011-07-04 15:25 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-05 11:41 +0100
    Re: Good Linux to start with jmclnx@SPAMisBADgmail.com (Jack McCue) - 2011-07-04 12:50 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> - 2011-07-04 07:47 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with ray <ray@zianet.com> - 2011-07-04 14:50 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Stefan Patric <not@this.address.com> - 2011-07-04 17:23 +0000
      Re: Good Linux to start with Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2011-07-05 07:39 +0200
        Re: Good Linux to start with JohnT <john@example.com> - 2011-07-05 07:52 +0000
          Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-05 15:51 +0000
          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 03:46 +0200
            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 22:35 +0200
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 23:06 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 13:44 +0200
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 08:58 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-13 09:41 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 10:07 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 12:46 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 13:47 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 14:20 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 15:26 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2011-07-13 07:37 -0500
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 14:16 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-13 14:35 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Hans Georg Schaathun <hg@schaathun.net> - 2011-07-13 15:13 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-13 16:36 +0100
              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-08 08:53 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:09 +0200
    Re: Good Linux to start with Anton Meyninger <anton.meyninger@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 13:07 +0200
      Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 03:52 +0200
        Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 12:16 +0100
          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-06 19:10 +0200
            Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-06 18:30 +0100
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 01:57 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 03:26 +0000
                  Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:48 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Balwinder S Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> - 2011-07-07 11:15 +0530
                    Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 07:14 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:45 +0100
                Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 09:53 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-07 10:41 +0100
                    Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-07 11:32 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 13:49 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-07 15:01 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 15:16 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 23:04 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-08 08:58 +0100
                                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:19 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-08 13:44 +0100
                                Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-11 09:39 +0100
                        Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:02 +0000
                      Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 19:01 +0000
              Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 03:16 +0000
                Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-07 05:47 +0100
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-07 05:00 +0000
            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-07 22:42 +0200
              Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-07 23:41 +0200
                Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-08 14:07 +0200
                  Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-09 02:05 +0200
                    Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-09 21:10 +0200
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-10 02:16 +0200
                        Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 10:42 +0100
                          Re: Good Linux to start with Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2011-07-11 05:03 +0200
                            Re: Good Linux to start with The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2011-07-11 08:23 +0100
                              Re: Good Linux to start with Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> - 2011-07-11 09:52 +0100
                            Re: Good Linux to start with Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-07-11 11:16 +0100
                      Re: Good Linux to start with Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2011-07-10 03:49 +0000
                        Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-11 13:56 +0200
                          Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:31 +0000
                            Re: Good Linux to start with "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> - 2011-07-12 15:30 +0200
                              Re: Good Linux to start with blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:28 +0000
    Re: Good Linux to start with Feranija <feranija@net...> - 2011-07-06 11:37 -0700
    Re: Good Linux to start with TJ <TJ@noneofyour.business> - 2011-07-18 09:35 -0400

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

#1586

Am 04.07.2011 03:40, schrieb Halberstam Reader:
>
> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
> the next best?

Like some users before said, this will cause a giant discussion. In my 
opinion, you should have a look at Ubuntu or Linux Mint. They are both 
pretty similar and as a Windows-User, you will be able to work with it 
within a week or less.

Those systems are designed for the average home user, but by having a 
Terminal, you always have the "full power" of Linux and will be able to 
become a Linux-geek (if you want to).

And later, you might want to have a look at other distros like Arch or 
Slackware, which force you to do everything manually.

At least that is my experience ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615

On Tuesday 05 July 2011 13:07 in comp.os.linux.misc, Anton Meyninger 
enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> Am 04.07.2011 03:40, schrieb Halberstam Reader:
>>
>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
>> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
>> the next best?
> 
> Like some users before said, this will cause a giant discussion. In my
> opinion, you should have a look at Ubuntu or Linux Mint. They are both
> pretty similar and as a Windows-User, you will be able to work with it
> within a week or less.

But without that the (ex-)Windows user learns to adopt the UNIX 
paradigm.  As an ad hoc solution, Ubuntu works, but in the long run, it 
caters to the Windows paradigm, where a computer is a single-user 
appliance.

> Those systems are designed for the average home user, [...]

No, they are designed for the Windows user.  It may seem like only a 
small nuance, but there's a significant difference there, and especially 
if you consider that Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, are not a 
charitable organization.  Ubuntu is freely available for download at no 
cost, but Canonical is a business, seeking to compete with Microsoft 
over the same market share.  That's why they're targeting Windows users.

Of course, Canonical isn't the only distribution vendor to do so.  Just 
about all commercial entities that release a GNU/Linux distribution have 
the same objectives.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1621

Aragorn wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 13:07 in comp.os.linux.misc, Anton Meyninger 
> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> 
>> Am 04.07.2011 03:40, schrieb Halberstam Reader:
>>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best, but
>>> a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it.  What's
>>> the next best?
>> Like some users before said, this will cause a giant discussion. In my
>> opinion, you should have a look at Ubuntu or Linux Mint. They are both
>> pretty similar and as a Windows-User, you will be able to work with it
>> within a week or less.
> 
> But without that the (ex-)Windows user learns to adopt the UNIX 
> paradigm.  As an ad hoc solution, Ubuntu works, but in the long run, it 
> caters to the Windows paradigm, where a computer is a single-user 
> appliance.
> 
>> Those systems are designed for the average home user, [...]
> 
> No, they are designed for the Windows user.  It may seem like only a 
> small nuance, but there's a significant difference there, and especially 
> if you consider that Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, are not a 
> charitable organization.  Ubuntu is freely available for download at no 
> cost, but Canonical is a business, seeking to compete with Microsoft 
> over the same market share.  That's why they're targeting Windows users.
> 
> Of course, Canonical isn't the only distribution vendor to do so.  Just 
> about all commercial entities that release a GNU/Linux distribution have 
> the same objectives.
> 

I totally agree except I don't see the huge issue ..since I run behind a 
firewall on my own secure network.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1633

On Wednesday 06 July 2011 13:16 in comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural 
Philosopher enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 13:07 in comp.os.linux.misc, Anton Meyninger
>> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>> 
>>> Am 04.07.2011 03:40, schrieb Halberstam Reader:
>>>
>>>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>>>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best,
>>>> but a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it. 
>>>> What's the next best?
>>>
>>> Like some users before said, this will cause a giant discussion. In
>>> my opinion, you should have a look at Ubuntu or Linux Mint. They are
>>> both pretty similar and as a Windows-User, you will be able to work
>>> with it within a week or less.
>> 
>> But without that the (ex-)Windows user learns to adopt the UNIX
>> paradigm.  As an ad hoc solution, Ubuntu works, but in the long run,
>> it caters to the Windows paradigm, where a computer is a single-user
>> appliance.
>> 
>>> Those systems are designed for the average home user, [...]
>> 
>> No, they are designed for the Windows user.  It may seem like only a
>> small nuance, but there's a significant difference there, and
>> especially if you consider that Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, are
>> not a charitable organization.  Ubuntu is freely available for
>> download at no cost, but Canonical is a business, seeking to compete
>> with Microsoft over the same market share.  That's why they're
>> targeting Windows users.
>> 
>> Of course, Canonical isn't the only distribution vendor to do so. 
>> Just about all commercial entities that release a GNU/Linux
>> distribution have the same objectives.
> 
> I totally agree except I don't see the huge issue ..since I run behind
> a firewall on my own secure network.

Well, from an ad hoc point of view, there isn't a huge issue if you are 
indeed behind a firewall and on your own secure network.  However, my 
concerns are (a) "technologically ideological", and (b) of a "more 
visionary" nature.

See, GNU/Linux is UNIX - okay, it may not bare the UNIX trademark and an 
Open Group SUS certification, but still.  And the tendency to want to 
turn GNU/Linux (and thus a fully-fledged UNIX-family operating system) 
into a Windows clone - whereas the Windows paradigm is by definition a 
recipe for disaster - is insidious.  It's the creeping and subliminal 
danger of making something that works perfectly well for the 
information-tecnical biosphere we are currently living in into something 
that was never designed for the hazards and circumstances of this 
biosphere for the sake of pleasing those who have become addicted to the 
unsuitable system.

Or perhaps I should put it differently...  UNIX is a multiuser paradigm.  
It works.  Windows is a single-user paradigm, which does not work [*].  
So people are trying to turn something that works into something that 
doesn't work, because they're addicted to the paradigm of the latter.

Ad hoc thinking never works.  That's what the whole political system is 
based upon.  Politicians think ad hoc, not longterm.  After all, their 
only concerns with matters are for the duration of their term, and for a 
possibly extension of that term, in which case they will use ad hoc 
thinking again.  That's why problems never get solved.


[1] I'm not talking of the Windows platform not technically working [2]. 
    I am talking of the single user paradigm not working in the
    multiuser, networked ecosystem of today.

[2] Although there is something to be said about that as well, of
    course.  Microsoft Windows is a technical abomination in every
    sense of the word, from design through paradigm all the way up
    to code quality and code maturity.

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1635

Aragorn wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2011 13:16 in comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural 
> Philosopher enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> 
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday 05 July 2011 13:07 in comp.os.linux.misc, Anton Meyninger
>>> enlightened humanity with the following words...:
>>>
>>>> Am 04.07.2011 03:40, schrieb Halberstam Reader:
>>>>
>>>>> Which is a good Linux distro for a competent (non-Linux) computer
>>>>> person to install on a computer.  I've heard that Debian is best,
>>>>> but a major pain to install, and that a newbie should avoid it. 
>>>>> What's the next best?
>>>> Like some users before said, this will cause a giant discussion. In
>>>> my opinion, you should have a look at Ubuntu or Linux Mint. They are
>>>> both pretty similar and as a Windows-User, you will be able to work
>>>> with it within a week or less.
>>> But without that the (ex-)Windows user learns to adopt the UNIX
>>> paradigm.  As an ad hoc solution, Ubuntu works, but in the long run,
>>> it caters to the Windows paradigm, where a computer is a single-user
>>> appliance.
>>>
>>>> Those systems are designed for the average home user, [...]
>>> No, they are designed for the Windows user.  It may seem like only a
>>> small nuance, but there's a significant difference there, and
>>> especially if you consider that Canonical, the makers of Ubuntu, are
>>> not a charitable organization.  Ubuntu is freely available for
>>> download at no cost, but Canonical is a business, seeking to compete
>>> with Microsoft over the same market share.  That's why they're
>>> targeting Windows users.
>>>
>>> Of course, Canonical isn't the only distribution vendor to do so. 
>>> Just about all commercial entities that release a GNU/Linux
>>> distribution have the same objectives.
>> I totally agree except I don't see the huge issue ..since I run behind
>> a firewall on my own secure network.
> 
> Well, from an ad hoc point of view, there isn't a huge issue if you are 
> indeed behind a firewall and on your own secure network.  However, my 
> concerns are (a) "technologically ideological", and (b) of a "more 
> visionary" nature.
> 
> See, GNU/Linux is UNIX - okay, it may not bare the UNIX trademark and an 

'bear' as in 'grizzly' nmeaning to carry, rather than to render naked..

> Open Group SUS certification, but still.  And the tendency to want to 
> turn GNU/Linux (and thus a fully-fledged UNIX-family operating system) 
> into a Windows clone - whereas the Windows paradigm is by definition a 
> recipe for disaster - is insidious.  It's the creeping and subliminal 
> danger of making something that works perfectly well for the 
> information-tecnical biosphere we are currently living in into something 
> that was never designed for the hazards and circumstances of this 
> biosphere for the sake of pleasing those who have become addicted to the 
> unsuitable system.

Yes, and no. For the average single user/administrator I consider that 
its no big deal.

The actual mumber of computers that have multiple user logins is 
vanishingly small today.

Accepted that servers and desktops need daemons running with restricted 
privileges..


> 
> Or perhaps I should put it differently...  UNIX is a multiuser paradigm.  
> It works.  Windows is a single-user paradigm, which does not work [*].  
> So people are trying to turn something that works into something that 
> doesn't work, because they're addicted to the paradigm of the latter.
> 

I dont see it in that light. I see it as making the switch from 'user' 
to 'administrator' reasonably secure and seamless and easy..

Agreed it was never even there on early windows systems.

What we are really looking at is a way that a user become admin simply 
and easily, with the choice or a password, or not, if that's the way 
they want it.

And that random daemons that might be compromised do not of themselves 
have the ability to compromise the system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1640

On Wednesday 06 July 2011 19:30 in comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural 
Philosopher enlightened humanity with the following words...:

> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> See, GNU/Linux is UNIX - okay, it may not bare the UNIX trademark
>> [...
> 
> 'bear' as in 'grizzly' nmeaning to carry, rather than to render
> naked..

Yes, I know that, but it was either a typo - I type without looking at 
my keyboard, and the characters are the same, albeit in a different 
order - or else my fatigue-related dyslexia kicking in.

In addition to that, I'm not a native English speaker.  Well, for all 
intents and purposes I am, but I mean that I was not raised in English.  
And even people who were raised in English will still make those 
mistakes.  "Bear" and "bare" are homonyms, and I do not think in terms 
of written language, but rather in terms of phonetics.

>> ...] the tendency to want to turn GNU/Linux (and thus a fully-fledged
>> UNIX-family operating system) into a Windows clone - whereas the
>> Windows paradigm is by definition a recipe for disaster - is
>> insidious.  It's the creeping and subliminal danger of making
>> something that works perfectly well for the information-tecnical
>> biosphere we are currently living in into something that was never
>> designed for the hazards and circumstances of this biosphere for the
>> sake of pleasing those who have become addicted to the unsuitable
>> system.
> 
> Yes, and no. For the average single user/administrator I consider that
> its no big deal.

I'm not saying that it would be, for them.  I'm saying that it is, for 
the future of the operating system itself as a platform.  Many of the 
people currently developing for GNU/Linux come from the Windows world, 
whereas twenty years ago, they came from the UNIX world.

>> Or perhaps I should put it differently...  UNIX is a multiuser
>> paradigm.  It works.  Windows is a single-user paradigm, which does
>> not work [*]. So people are trying to turn something that works into
>> something that doesn't work, because they're addicted to the paradigm
>> of the latter.
> 
> I dont see it in that light. I see it as making the switch from 'user'
> to 'administrator' reasonably secure and seamless and easy..

I know you do, which is why I said that your vision is ad hoc - no 
insult intended -  whereas mine is with concern for the further 
direction of development of the operating system.

> Agreed it was never even there on early windows systems.

Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in 
early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything 
simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity 
operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the 
rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.

Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows 
version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if 
you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)

-- 
Aragorn
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1644

On 2011-07-06, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> ...
>
> Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in 
> early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything 
> simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity 
> operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the 
> rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.
>
> Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows 
> version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if 
> you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)

Properly done, bytecode doesn't have to be much slower than
native code.  A few years ago, I coded up bubble, insertion, and
shell sorts in C++ and Java.  The design and coding was done with
an emphasis of making an equitable comparison.  In all three
cases, Java was ~20% faster than unoptimized (no -O option) C++.
Optimized (-O option) C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java.

-- 
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1647

Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2011-07-06, Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in 
>> early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything 
>> simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity 
>> operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the 
>> rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.
>>
>> Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows 
>> version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if 
>> you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
> 
> Properly done, bytecode doesn't have to be much slower than
> native code.  A few years ago, I coded up bubble, insertion, and
> shell sorts in C++ and Java.  The design and coding was done with
> an emphasis of making an equitable comparison.  In all three
> cases, Java was ~20% faster than unoptimized (no -O option) C++.
> Optimized (-O option) C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java.
> 
those sorts of languages do well on computational intesnive stuff, but 
worse on general code.

Especially string processing it seems.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1650

On 07/07/2011 08:56 AM, Robert Riches wrote:
> On 2011-07-06, Aragorn<stryder@telenet.be.invalid>  wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in
>> early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything
>> simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity
>> operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the
>> rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.
>>
>> Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows
>> version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if
>> you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
>
> Properly done, bytecode doesn't have to be much slower than
> native code.  A few years ago, I coded up bubble, insertion, and
> shell sorts in C++ and Java.  The design and coding was done with
> an emphasis of making an equitable comparison.  In all three
> cases, Java was ~20% faster than unoptimized (no -O option) C++.
> Optimized (-O option) C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java.

"Optimized C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java", so Java/VM is not much 
slower than native code? How about option -O2 and, or -O3?

-- 
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1651

Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:
> On 07/07/2011 08:56 AM, Robert Riches wrote:
>> On 2011-07-06, Aragorn<stryder@telenet.be.invalid>  wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in
>>> early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything
>>> simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity
>>> operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the
>>> rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.
>>>
>>> Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows
>>> version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if
>>> you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
>>
>> Properly done, bytecode doesn't have to be much slower than
>> native code.  A few years ago, I coded up bubble, insertion, and
>> shell sorts in C++ and Java.  The design and coding was done with
>> an emphasis of making an equitable comparison.  In all three
>> cases, Java was ~20% faster than unoptimized (no -O option) C++.
>> Optimized (-O option) C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java.
> 
> "Optimized C++ was 1.25-2.3X faster than Java", so Java/VM is not much 
> slower than native code? How about option -O2 and, or -O3?
> 
and was any attempt made to write decent C code at all?

There is an apocryphal story about Gary Kildall (CP/M) who rewrote a 
bunch of assembler in Fortran, and it ran 80% FASTER. Because he knew 
how to code.

I wouldn't use C++ for speed anyway. to much invisible memory management 
going on. I'd write straight C.


Bet I could do a bubble sort 20 x faster than Java..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1645

Aragorn wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 July 2011 19:30 in comp.os.linux.misc, The Natural 
> Philosopher enlightened humanity with the following words...:
> 
>> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> See, GNU/Linux is UNIX - okay, it may not bare the UNIX trademark
>>> [...
>> 'bear' as in 'grizzly' nmeaning to carry, rather than to render
>> naked..
> 
> Yes, I know that, but it was either a typo - I type without looking at 
> my keyboard, and the characters are the same, albeit in a different 
> order - or else my fatigue-related dyslexia kicking in.
> 
> In addition to that, I'm not a native English speaker.  Well, for all 
> intents and purposes I am, but I mean that I was not raised in English.  
> And even people who were raised in English will still make those 
> mistakes.  "Bear" and "bare" are homonyms, and I do not think in terms 
> of written language, but rather in terms of phonetics.
> 
>>> ...] the tendency to want to turn GNU/Linux (and thus a fully-fledged
>>> UNIX-family operating system) into a Windows clone - whereas the
>>> Windows paradigm is by definition a recipe for disaster - is
>>> insidious.  It's the creeping and subliminal danger of making
>>> something that works perfectly well for the information-tecnical
>>> biosphere we are currently living in into something that was never
>>> designed for the hazards and circumstances of this biosphere for the
>>> sake of pleasing those who have become addicted to the unsuitable
>>> system.
>> Yes, and no. For the average single user/administrator I consider that
>> its no big deal.
> 
> I'm not saying that it would be, for them.  I'm saying that it is, for 
> the future of the operating system itself as a platform.  Many of the 
> people currently developing for GNU/Linux come from the Windows world, 
> whereas twenty years ago, they came from the UNIX world.
> 
>>> Or perhaps I should put it differently...  UNIX is a multiuser
>>> paradigm.  It works.  Windows is a single-user paradigm, which does
>>> not work [*]. So people are trying to turn something that works into
>>> something that doesn't work, because they're addicted to the paradigm
>>> of the latter.
>> I dont see it in that light. I see it as making the switch from 'user'
>> to 'administrator' reasonably secure and seamless and easy..
> 
> I know you do, which is why I said that your vision is ad hoc - no 
> insult intended -  whereas mine is with concern for the further 
> direction of development of the operating system.
> 

But this is all at the GUI level anyway, its not really an OS thing. 
There are ways to subvert root access for ease of use, but they don't 
have to be used.




>> Agreed it was never even there on early windows systems.
> 
> Not even the separation between userspace and kernelspace was there in 
> early windows systems.  Up until Windows Millenium Edition, everything 
> simply ran in ring 0, alias kernel mode.  And in Microsoft's Singularity 
> operating system, only the hardware drivers run in kernel mode, and the 
> rest of the system, kernel included, runs in userspace... as bytecode.
> 
> Rumor has it that Singularity will become the basis for a future Windows 
> version - possibly Windows 8 - so that should be a hoot.  Especially if 
> you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1654

Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> Especially if you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)

A couple of years back I did a comparison between some simple integer
computation-heavy C (compiled with gcc -O2 for then-current GCC) and the
equivalent C# compiled to CIL bytecode.

The C#/CIL version ran measurably faster.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1656

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 09:53:45 +0100, Richard Kettlewell
<rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
>> Especially if you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
>
>A couple of years back I did a comparison between some simple integer
>computation-heavy C (compiled with gcc -O2 for then-current GCC) and the
>equivalent C# compiled to CIL bytecode.
>
>The C#/CIL version ran measurably faster.

I guess YMMV applies.  Some code to parse & validate messages was
ported from C to Java and it runs considerably slower and uses a lot
more memory.
-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1657

Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:

>>> Especially if you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
>>
>> A couple of years back I did a comparison between some simple integer
>> computation-heavy C (compiled with gcc -O2 for then-current GCC) and the
>> equivalent C# compiled to CIL bytecode.
>>
>> The C#/CIL version ran measurably faster.
>
> I guess YMMV applies.  Some code to parse & validate messages was
> ported from C to Java and it runs considerably slower and uses a lot
> more memory.

The point is that the implication that bytecodes are inherently slow is
simply wrong.  The fact that you can construct a Java program that's
slower than a functionally equivalent C program is neither here nor
there; one could construct two functionally equivalent C programs with
very different performance characteristics, too.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1662

Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> writes:
>> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> writes:
> 
>>>> Especially if you know how slow bytecode is.  Just look at Java. ;-)
>>> A couple of years back I did a comparison between some simple integer
>>> computation-heavy C (compiled with gcc -O2 for then-current GCC) and the
>>> equivalent C# compiled to CIL bytecode.
>>>
>>> The C#/CIL version ran measurably faster.
>> I guess YMMV applies.  Some code to parse & validate messages was
>> ported from C to Java and it runs considerably slower and uses a lot
>> more memory.
> 
> The point is that the implication that bytecodes are inherently slow is
> simply wrong.  The fact that you can construct a Java program that's
> slower than a functionally equivalent C program is neither here nor
> there; one could construct two functionally equivalent C programs with
> very different performance characteristics, too.
> 
Exactly so.

Imagine a loop that recursively calls a subroutine that instead of using 
the stack to allocate temporary variable space so it CAN recurse, uses 
the heap and calls malloc() instead.

My biggest problem with interpreted higher level languages is the way 
most of them use some form of automagic not under program control memory 
allocation, and that means garbage collection at some stage.

Plus loose typing, that means the interpreter has to interpret the 
context before it can allocate it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1663

On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:49:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>My biggest problem with interpreted higher level languages is the way 
>most of them use some form of automagic not under program control memory 
>allocation, and that means garbage collection at some stage.

This is supposed to me an advantage (in that you don't need to
explictly "free" memory).  However you do have to rely on GC which
doesn't always free things up quickly enough.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1664

Mark wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:49:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> My biggest problem with interpreted higher level languages is the way 
>> most of them use some form of automagic not under program control memory 
>> allocation, and that means garbage collection at some stage.
> 
> This is supposed to me an advantage (in that you don't need to
> explictly "free" memory).  However you do have to rely on GC which
> doesn't always free things up quickly enough.
> 
Precisely. Whereas if you take care at the coding stage to exactly 
specify local storage in a strongly typed language, garbage collection 
is simply a matter of resetting the stack pointer (or a separate heap 
pointer, if the CPU architecture makes that sane)

Its a one machine cycle 'free()'

Consider the problems of - ay - adding two variables together ins 
lossely type high level an possibly interpreted language.

First you have to identify what they are, then preform any implicit 
casts, then invoke the correct subroutine to stick them together, 
allocating memory for the result.

At laest in 'C' when you add two strings together you know that you have 
to use e.g. strcat to do it, and you have to allocate memory for the 
result.

The pain of having to do your own memory management is offset by the 
fact that is a very low overhead addition.

If 90% of all memory allocation is ad hoc and temporary, this is hugely 
more efficient than

work out the length of the combined strings
allocate that memory
add the two strings together and put them in the new memory
free the old memory.

The penalty being that you or the compiler have to get that right at 
compile time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1678

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
> Mark wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:49:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> My biggest problem with interpreted higher level languages is the way 
>>> most of them use some form of automagic not under program control memory 
>>> allocation, and that means garbage collection at some stage.
>> 
>> This is supposed to me an advantage (in that you don't need to
>> explictly "free" memory).  However you do have to rely on GC which
>> doesn't always free things up quickly enough.
>> 
> Precisely. Whereas if you take care at the coding stage to exactly 
> specify local storage in a strongly typed language, garbage collection 
> is simply a matter of resetting the stack pointer (or a separate heap 
> pointer, if the CPU architecture makes that sane)
>
> Its a one machine cycle 'free()'
[...]
> The penalty being that you or the compiler have to get that right at 
> compile time.

That's a big penalty. While you can usually rely on the compiler to get
it right, relying on the programmer for stuff that can easily be
automated is a bad idea. Humans are sloppy. And for most applications
that kind of micro-optimization doesn't help performance: If the program
is waiting for the user or some I/O most of the time, reducing CPU usage
doesn't help, and if the CPU is the bottleneck, the programmer can
probably gain a more by improving the algorithm than by
micro-optimizing.

There are situations where C has its place and there are programmers who
can use C well, but for the average program the average programmer is
better off with a different language.

	hp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1687

On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:04:01 +0200, "Peter J. Holzer"
<hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> schrieb:
>> Mark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:49:05 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> My biggest problem with interpreted higher level languages is the way 
>>>> most of them use some form of automagic not under program control memory 
>>>> allocation, and that means garbage collection at some stage.
>>> 
>>> This is supposed to me an advantage (in that you don't need to
>>> explictly "free" memory).  However you do have to rely on GC which
>>> doesn't always free things up quickly enough.
>>> 
>> Precisely. Whereas if you take care at the coding stage to exactly 
>> specify local storage in a strongly typed language, garbage collection 
>> is simply a matter of resetting the stack pointer (or a separate heap 
>> pointer, if the CPU architecture makes that sane)
>>
>> Its a one machine cycle 'free()'
>[...]
>> The penalty being that you or the compiler have to get that right at 
>> compile time.
>
>That's a big penalty. While you can usually rely on the compiler to get
>it right, relying on the programmer for stuff that can easily be
>automated is a bad idea. Humans are sloppy. And for most applications
>that kind of micro-optimization doesn't help performance: If the program
>is waiting for the user or some I/O most of the time, reducing CPU usage
>doesn't help, and if the CPU is the bottleneck, the programmer can
>probably gain a more by improving the algorithm than by
>micro-optimizing.

Genally true.  But in pretty much all languages there will be multiple
ways of achieving the same thing.  Therefore it could be possible to
micro-optimize with great success.  I've done this with Java on
several occasions.

>There are situations where C has its place and there are programmers who
>can use C well, but for the average program the average programmer is
>better off with a different language.

I must not be an "average" programmer then ;-)  I generally prefer C
over other languages as it not too high level and you can easily see
what is actually going on.  But then it's the language I have most
experience in using.

-- 
(\__/)  M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there.  If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1694

On 2011-07-08 07:58, Mark <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 23:04:01 +0200, "Peter J. Holzer"
><hjp-usenet2@hjp.at> wrote:
>>There are situations where C has its place and there are programmers who
>>can use C well, but for the average program the average programmer is
>>better off with a different language.
>
> I must not be an "average" programmer then ;-)  I generally prefer C

Just because you prefer it doesn't mean that you write better code in C
than you would in another language (given a similar amount of
experience).

	hp

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web