Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #352338 > unrolled thread
| Started by | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-04-28 02:35 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-04-28 02:43 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 61 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 02:35 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 19:47 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 04:56 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:04 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 05:12 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:43 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-28 09:59 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-28 09:33 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Takuya Saitoh <taka0038@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 04:15 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-28 13:50 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-28 16:20 +0100
Shut up rodent, Tricks are for Kids, NOT rabbits John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 12:31 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-28 23:16 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-28 15:58 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 09:30 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-04-29 10:24 +0100
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 13:25 +0200
Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-29 17:06 -0600
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:14 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:28 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 02:58 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 03:15 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 03:37 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 04:00 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 04:39 +0200
Re: Linux Technology meat <meat.stretcher@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-30 13:29 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-30 15:51 +0200
Re: Linux Technology meat <meat.stretcher@linuxmail.org> - 2016-04-30 14:10 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-30 09:47 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-29 18:34 -0700
Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-30 17:21 -0600
Re: Linux Technology GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-04-30 17:23 -0600
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-30 19:33 -0700
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 09:20 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 15:44 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2016-04-29 08:32 -0700
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 12:07 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 09:13 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 18:50 +0200
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 13:41 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 18:24 +0200
Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-29 22:09 +0000
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-29 18:58 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-04-29 23:26 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-29 10:40 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-29 22:51 +0200
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-01 16:11 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-02 00:07 +0200
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-18 17:01 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-05-18 23:30 +0200
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-05-28 10:10 -0400
Re: Linux Technology JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2016-06-01 22:00 -0500
Re: Linux Technology DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-06-02 00:02 -0400
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-06-01 21:28 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 10:29 -0700
Re: Linux Technology Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-28 05:07 +0200
Re: Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 03:33 +0000
Re: Linux Technology vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-28 03:13 +0000
Re: Linux Technology Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-04-27 20:42 -0700
Re: Linux Technology John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:42 -0700
Re: Linux Technology John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-04-28 02:43 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 18:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ng01ll$d0k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352676 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/29/2016 9:44 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/29/2016 3:30 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>> >>>> The linux box is doing the compile of a *very* large project (more >>>> than 200.000 lines of source code) >>> >>> >>> 200K lines of code? Sounds huge. Years-long project? >> >> Yes. It is a project I started in the early 90th and which I have >> rewritten from scratch about 8 years ago and all the time extended and >> perfected. >> >> The first version was windows only, written in Borlands C++ >> It needed to be redone because the external supplier of a printing >> library went out of business and all the printing had to be redone from >> scratch (one of the dangers of using closed source. You can be certain I >> will not make that false decision ever again. You get into dependencies >> you don't want to ever have) >> >> I rewrote it completely fromn scratch using Qt C++, and by that gained >> source code compatibility across windows, OSX and linux. The same source >> compiles on all of those platforms, getting programs which behave exactly >> the same and use the same data formats and DBs (MySQL), yet have the look >> and feel of the native platform. >> >> I naturally had the advantage of knowing what had to be done, which >> design errors were made the first time, and naturally what could be made >> better on rewrite. Most important was that I could reuse the (very >> complex) mathematical routines for evaluation from the first version >> without changes. That saved considerable amounts of time as those had not >> to be tested again with lots of test-data, but all the rest had to be >> rewritten completely which took 2 years for the first (new) version >> (still *extremely* fast for that amount of code. Well, it was about >> 160.000 lines then) >> >> It is a project where psychological tests (made online and coded answers >> are sent by eMail automatically) are evaluated. The project has currently >> 14 different psychological tests, and it is available in 17 languages. >> Next languages which will be added are arabic and hebrew. Also 1 language >> has been dropped for the time being (Thai), as the tests have to be >> adapted heavily for souther asian people. They "tick" differently than >> europeans >> >> Note that the languages change nothing on the project itself, as the >> translations are made on the fly by the Qt built in translation engine >> after the original language has been worked on by a profesional >> translator > > > Sounds like a good project. > > My Dad's a shrink. I've taken MANY psych tests thru the years, from him > and in job interviews etc. I always played a game: I looked for them to > use the same question several times, but phrased differently to try and > check your honesty. I'm sure your math routines do regression testing > and ferret out things like that. You can bet on that. Additionally, the questions are asked in a random fashion, so people can't get a "cookbook recipe" Also the social competence test is dtermining if someone answers in a way to look "socially desirable", answers contradictory or has avoided a definite response > Here in the US, Janus Assoc. is a big industrial psych testing company. > Ever heard of them? Yes > I took their tests when applying for work at Delta > Airlines. > > Who did the db behind your system? I did The math routines were also done by me, after the heads behind the statistics had determined what should be computed how (lots and lots of papers with computing stuff) The tests are evaluated and rated by universities according to some standards created for these grounds > In the past, I designed a 45-table survey system (plus created all the > front-end) for a client who used it to do post-opening franchise visits, > interface it back to their guest satisfaction and revenue mgmt systems, > etc. > > It had a master list of questions from which you could pick to combine > create new surveys, use different answer scales, question categories, > screen and report ordering, etc. Similar to your survey system I would > guess. Yes, similar to one new test I am designing now. It consists of a mix of already present tests where the client can opt which factors should be tested (not totally free, as some factors correlate with others)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng0m1s21vhp@news7.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #352676 |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:07:46 -0400, DFS wrote: > > My Dad's a shrink. > What does this have to do with Linux advocacy? Psychiatry is the most chicken-shit medical specialty, as well as being thoroughly pseudo-scientific and riddled with controversy and political infiltration. (I knew a guy in college, a total dumb-fuck idiotic asshole, who is now a psychiatric resident.) EVERY practicing psychiatrist is a technical loser who just couldn't muster the intellectual demands and disciplines of a REAL scientific or medical profession. The average head shrinker can do little else for ANY ailment or complaint other then scribble out a prescription for Prozac (their psychic panacea). All we can say in response is: Like father, like son. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 18:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ng0oo1$9f4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352742 |
On 4/29/2016 6:09 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 12:07:46 -0400, DFS wrote: > >> >> My Dad's a shrink. >> > > > What does this have to do with Linux advocacy? > > Psychiatry is the most chicken-shit medical specialty, as well as being thoroughly > pseudo-scientific and riddled with controversy and political infiltration. > > (I knew a guy in college, a total dumb-fuck idiotic asshole, who is now > a psychiatric resident.) a total dumb-fuck idiotic asshole? That's you, numbskull. > EVERY practicing psychiatrist is a technical loser who just couldn't muster > the intellectual demands and disciplines of a REAL scientific or medical profession. My Dad was a double-major in math in college. He's /extremely/ bright, as is my uncle who taught philosophy and symbolic logic at a large state university. > The average head shrinker can do little else for ANY ailment or complaint other > then scribble out a prescription for Prozac (their psychic panacea). Now your personality makes sense: you're off your meds. > All we can say in response is: > > Like father, like son. > > Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! At best, your father is a septic tank "technician". It's why you have diarrhea of the mouth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 23:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ng0qjn114v6@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #352754 |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:58:20 -0400, DFS wrote: > > My Dad was a double-major in math in college. He's /extremely/ bright, > as is my uncle who taught philosophy and symbolic logic at a large state > university. > These things tend to skip a generation. Maybe there's hope for your dad's grandchildren, but YOU are a pre-programmed idiot and fool. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D348EA9E.715E6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352612 |
On 4/29/16, 12:30 AM, in article nfv2bi$ms3$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted: > >> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> >>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that? >>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX. >>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a >>>>> snail on tranquilizers >>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though. >>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times >>>> >>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in accessing >>>> the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to tell the >>>> difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are delivered, a >>>> difference of a few milliseconds is going to be completely unnoticed. >>> >>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast. >>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the hardware. >>> The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage bin, not on >>> computers. >> >> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I >> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400 RPM >> drives! That is insane! > > > Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than > with a HD? Naturally. > > Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so. The > linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a SSD. > Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into their box > > And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor speed. The > Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the compile > of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source code) *3 times* > as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I boot linux on the Mac > (I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around that shitty OSX I look forward to seeing your evidence. Remember, when others do not show it you deem them to be making things up. Same rules apply to you. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-29 22:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ng0h9f$9mj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352697 |
Snit wrote: > On 4/29/16, 12:30 AM, in article nfv2bi$ms3$1@dont-email.me, "Peter > Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> The lying imbecile Snit Michael Glasser snotted: >> >>> On 4/28/16, 2:16 PM, in article nftudr$jh4$1@dont-email.me, "Peter >>> Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >>> >>>>>> Are you really certain that you want to claim that? >>>>>> OSX is by far the slowest OS of the 3 linux, windows and OSX. >>>>>> Especially with its prehistoric filesystem HFS, which is as slow as a >>>>>> snail on tranquilizers >>>>>> Windows is not that much faster, though. >>>>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times >>>>> >>>>> That old chestnut again? Seriously, I doubt in a blind test in >>>>> accessing the same file from any of those filesystems you'd be able to >>>>> tell the difference. So long as your pictures of lederhosen are >>>>> delivered, a difference of a few milliseconds is going to be >>>>> completely unnoticed. >>>> >>>> Those "few miliseconds" tend to add up quite fast. >>>> There is a reason OSX is so incredibly slow, and it is not the >>>> hardware. The OS is crap, and its filesystem belongs in the garbage >>>> bin, not on computers. >>> >>> There may be some truth to that (though you will never support it) but I >>> think the bigger issue is Apple ships their iMacs and minis with 5400 >>> RPM drives! That is insane! >> >> >> Idiot. I have a SSD in my Mac. Does it help? Certainly. Is it faster than >> with a HD? Naturally. >> >> Is it anywhere the same speed as a linux box with a HD? Not nearly so. >> The linux box with a HD is *faster* on file access than the Mac with a >> SSD. Granted, this is a fast HD, not a crappy one like apple plugs into >> their box >> >> And I run a linux box with the same model SSD, similar processor speed. >> The Mac gets *trounced* in file access times. The linux box is doing the >> compile of a *very* large project (more than 200.000 lines of source >> code) *3 times* as fast as the comparable Mac. The same is true when I >> boot linux on the Mac (I have it dualbooting). Linux runs circles around >> that shitty OSX > > I look forward to seeing your evidence. I look forward to you kissing asses, lying imbecile
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-01 16:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ng5nmq$hlm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352531 |
On 4/28/2016 5:16 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also outdated > and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems are faster up to > 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences do matter. Liar. Copy 2 large files: Windows 44.4 seconds, Linux 57.7 seconds Windows/NTFS 23% faster Copy 16 large files: Windows 85 seconds, Linux 91 seconds Windows/NTFS 7% faster What Linux lacks in speed it makes up for in shittiness. On the other hand: * copy 10,484 files in 889 folders: Windows 38.2 sec, Linux 19.4 sec Linux/ext4 50% faster. * copy from one filesystem to another (same drive) one 1.48GB file: - Linux from NTFS to ext4 = 14.115 seconds - Windows from ext4 to NTFS = 15.184 seconds Windows 7.6% slower > There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar tasks. Which tasks? Show us the exact steps to do the exact tasks, or it's more of your lying, unsubstantiated horseshit. Which is pretty much your entire cola posting history. I don't recall you one time proving your claims. Not once.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-02 00:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ng5ug8$cvp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #353077 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/28/2016 5:16 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also >> outdated and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems are >> faster up to 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences do >> matter. > > Liar. > http://fsi-viewer.blogspot.de/2011/10/filesystem-benchmarks-part-i.html This benchmark does not include OSX HFS. But that is irrelevant, it is by far the slowest and shittiest of all filesystems in use these days This benchmark shows also that NTFS scales *extremely* bad. Quote: NTFS on Windows Server 2008 RS makes no good impression concerning overall performance and scaling compared to the file systems on Linux. In the end, there is no other current possibility for Windows Server 2008 RS available, so one must be content with the performance of this file system. It would be interesting to compare different benchmarks to Linux, but this will not be part of this article. Altogether, a bad impression of NTFS regarding I/O performance remains. Optimizations via disablelastaccess did not increase the performance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 17:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nhil02$7ai$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #352409 |
On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. from a different post of yours: > Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also > outdated and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems > are faster up to 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences > do matter. > There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar > tasks. OSX does not even need to apply I doubt this, too. Rex Ballard used to claim "A Linux box does 6x the work of a Windows box". When asked for evidence, he ran away. Just like you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-18 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nhimm1$f0g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #355935 |
DFS wrote: > On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times > > I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. > Feel free to doubt it as much as you want And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks > > > from a different post of yours: > >> Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also >> outdated and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems >> are faster up to 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences >> do matter. > >> There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar >> tasks. OSX does not even need to apply > > I doubt this, too. Feel free to do that. You are not worthy to be given yet another link to prove the claims. There have been so many already, and all you widiots do is ignoring them > Rex Ballard used to claim "A Linux box does 6x the > work of a Windows box". When asked for evidence, he ran away. Just > like you. It is true, depending on tasks. Linux generally is faster on everything OS centric than windows is. Partly because the linux filesystems are way ahead of NTFS, partly becuase the linux kernel is much faster. It will rarely be twice as fast as windows, but it will be nearly always faster
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-05-28 10:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nic8lk$gsh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #355942 |
On 5/18/2016 5:30 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > DFS wrote: > >> On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >> >>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times >> >> I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. >> > Feel free to doubt it as much as you want > And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks It's your claim - you provide the evidence. The last benchmark you posted (on filesystem speed) was bull.shit. I did a variety of file copy comparisons on my own computer, and Windows\NTFS is significantly faster to copy large files (1GB to 4GB) than Linux. Linux was significantly faster to copy a directory with lots of subdirectories and files. >> from a different post of yours: >> >>> Windows isn't that much better, though. Its NTFS filesystem is also >>> outdated and slow, just not as slow as HFS. Still, linux filesystems >>> are faster up to 10x the performance of NTFS. And those differences >>> do matter. >> >>> There is a reason why linux runs circles around windows for similar >>> tasks. OSX does not even need to apply >> >> I doubt this, too. > > Feel free to do that. You are not worthy to be given yet another link to > prove the claims. There have been so many already, and all you widiots do is > ignoring them I don't ignore anything, but I don't believe all the bullshit you Linux wacks sling, either. >> Rex Ballard used to claim "A Linux box does 6x the >> work of a Windows box". When asked for evidence, he ran away. Just >> like you. > > It is true, depending on tasks. Linux generally is faster on everything OS > centric than windows is. Partly because the linux filesystems are way ahead > of NTFS, partly becuase the linux kernel is much faster. > > It will rarely be twice as fast as windows, but it will be nearly always > faster So bring the evidence. State the task, time it on your multi-boot computer, and post it with all details (and code if necessary). Or run away like you have for years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 22:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnkv8ab.bkd.jedi@nomad.mishnet> |
| In reply to | #355942 |
On 2016-05-18, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times
>>
>> I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course.
>>
> Feel free to doubt it as much as you want
> And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks
Besides, "speed" isn't what I care about. As I've said before. This isn't
the 80s and we are talking about Commodore 64s here. I expect to be able to do
many things at once. I have little interest in 80s style artificial benchmarks.
[deletia]
I have been torturing machines since the 80s and nothing from Microsoft
has ever been anything more than disappointing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-02 00:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <niob4n$hqc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #358164 |
On 6/1/2016 11:00 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote: > On 2016-05-18, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times >>> >>> I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. >>> >> Feel free to doubt it as much as you want >> And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks > > Besides, "speed" isn't what I care about. As I've said before. This isn't > the 80s and we are talking about Commodore 64s here. I expect to be able to do > many things at once. I have little interest in 80s style artificial benchmarks. > > [deletia] > > I have been torturing machines since the 80s and nothing from Microsoft > has ever been anything more than disappointing. Great evidence, JED. As usual.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-01 21:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D37503E8.74531%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #358164 |
On 6/1/16, 8:00 PM, in article slrnnkv8ab.bkd.jedi@nomad.mishnet, "JEDIDIAH" <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > On 2016-05-18, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: >> DFS wrote: >> >>> On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: >>> >>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times >>> >>> I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. >>> >> Feel free to doubt it as much as you want >> And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks > > Besides, "speed" isn't what I care about. As I've said before. This isn't > the 80s and we are talking about Commodore 64s here. I expect to be able to do > many things at once. I have little interest in 80s style artificial > benchmarks. > > [deletia] > > I have been torturing machines since the 80s and nothing from Microsoft > has ever been anything more than disappointing. I would love to see some desktop tasks where you think Linux serves you better than the competition. -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-03 10:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4bc4e64-0a66-4056-a8b7-a3e5a9fe6192@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #358191 |
On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 10:28:15 PM UTC-6, Snit wrote: > On 6/1/16, 8:00 PM, in article slrnnkv8ab.bkd.jedi@nomad.mishnet, "JEDIDIAH" > <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote: > > > On 2016-05-18, Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: > >> DFS wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/28/2016 7:50 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote: > >>> > >>>> And both windows and OSX get trounced by linux file access times > >>> > >>> I doubt it. And you provide no evidence of course. > >>> > >> Feel free to doubt it as much as you want > >> And prove that you are too damn stupid to find the benchmarks > > > > Besides, "speed" isn't what I care about. As I've said before. This isn't > > the 80s and we are talking about Commodore 64s here. I expect to be able to do > > many things at once. I have little interest in 80s style artificial > > benchmarks. > > > > [deletia] > > > > I have been torturing machines since the 80s and nothing from Microsoft > > has ever been anything more than disappointing. > > I would love to see some desktop tasks where you think Linux serves you > better than the competition. And what would you do with this knowledge as you 'lie' in your lonely room? <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2743160695_7582d3f457.jpg>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 05:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20160428050745.193e820b@maxa-pc> |
| In reply to | #352338 |
On 28 Apr 2016 02:35:36 GMT vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they > refer to, instead of symlinks. > > In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file > that had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file > open. > > Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from > the command line or the gui. > No need for hardlink, file is preserved until fd is closed... I think you can cp it to new location no problem, unless process exits or closes that fd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dodek6Fa99lU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #352349 |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 05:07:45 +0200, Melzzzzz wrote: > On 28 Apr 2016 02:35:36 GMT vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > >> I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer >> to, instead of symlinks. >> >> In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that >> had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open. >> >> Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the >> command line or the gui. >> >> > No need for hardlink, file is preserved until fd is closed... > I think you can cp it to new location no problem, unless process exits > or closes that fd. Actually, if you remove the file, it is unlinked from the filesystem. The only reference to the inode is in the kernel at that point -- you can't get at it with the old filename. -- -v Do not overtax your powers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 03:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <doddf3Fa99lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #352338 |
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:35:36 +0000, vallor wrote: > I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer > to, instead of symlinks. > > In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that > had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open. > > Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the > command line or the gui. I just tested, and lo and behold -- the "symlinks" in /proc/X/fd act like hard links, where once you've deleted the file they refer to, you can still retrieve the file through the ~/fd directory entry. In other words, the earlier observed behavior came back. As it should, it is useful when you need it. -- -v Don't plan any hasty moves. You'll be evicted soon anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-27 20:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D346D4D1.712F8%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #352352 |
On 4/27/16, 8:13 PM, in article doddf3Fa99lU1@mid.individual.net, "vallor" <vallor@cultnix.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 02:35:36 +0000, vallor wrote: > >> I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer >> to, instead of symlinks. >> >> In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that >> had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open. >> >> Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the >> command line or the gui. > > I just tested, and lo and behold -- the "symlinks" in /proc/X/fd act like > hard links, where once you've deleted the file they refer to, you can > still retrieve the file through the ~/fd directory entry. > > In other words, the earlier observed behavior came back. As it should, > it is useful when you need it. Can you use it to do what I show on OS X here: <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>? If so, do you know of any programs that show this behavior? -- * OS X / Linux: What is a file? <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI> * Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu: <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE> * Mint KDE working with folders: <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0> * Mint KDE creating files: <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8> * Mint KDE help: <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8> * Mint KDE general navigation: <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI> * Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs? <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA> * Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux: <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk> * OS / Word Processor Comparison: <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-28 02:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7fd6c4d9-e15f-4e8f-b102-58cdc8e1bd78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #352338 |
On Wednesday, April 27, 2016 at 10:35:39 PM UTC-4, vallor wrote: > I miss the files in /proc/X/fd being hard links to the files they refer > to, instead of symlinks. > > In the old days, they were hard links, so you could rescue a file that > had been deleted, just as long as a process still had the file open. > > Still, /proc/X/fd is a handy feature to have, whether accessed from the > command line or the gui. Behold mental illness is a private affair. NOTIC
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web