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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #340451 > unrolled thread

Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-01-13 05:31 -0800
    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-18 10:34 +0000
      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-19 09:48 +0000
        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-20 15:07 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-20 19:23 +0000
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 09:44 +0000
              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 10:48 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 11:05 +0000
                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 13:11 +0000
                    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-21 16:52 +0000
                      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-21 18:30 +0000
                        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-22 09:47 +0000
                          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 14:11 +0100
                            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-22 12:59 -0500
                              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-22 22:33 +0100
                                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-22 15:22 -0700
                                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-23 09:34 -0500
                                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2016-01-25 07:19 -0600
                                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 08:59 -0500
                                    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 10:22 -0500
                              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 14:58 +0000
                                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 11:23 -0500
                                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-01-25 18:38 +0100
                                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 12:52 -0500
                                    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-01-25 16:58 -0500
                                      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2016-01-25 17:35 -0500
                                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 18:39 +0000
                            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2016-03-22 11:35 -0700
        Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 10:24 -0500
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-01-25 15:36 +0000
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-25 11:18 -0500
              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:58 +0000
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:16 +0000
          Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 15:54 +0000
            Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-01-26 14:09 -0500
              Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 21:16 +0000
                Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> - 2016-01-26 17:17 -0500
                  Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-26 23:20 +0000
                    Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> - 2016-01-27 12:11 -0700
                      Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-01-27 21:26 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#341625

On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/01/2016 18:30, owl wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 21/01/2016 13:11, owl wrote:
>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21/01/2016 10:48, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 20/01/2016 19:23, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 19/01/2016 09:48, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speedy compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storage for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [/mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                missing codepage or helper program, or other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                error (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                you might need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                program) In some cases useful info is found in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                syslog - try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e. 1G for one gigabyte.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux
>>>>>>>>>>>>> master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On a throw away isolated VM based system? You find that
>>>>>>>>>>> entertaining? How odd.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I find it entertaining that you did this on what appears to be a
>>>>>>>>>> mail
>>>>>>>>>> server.  Even if it's just a lab VM for testing, it's probably more
>>>>>>>>>> important than a "throw away," and you shouldn't just blindly run
>>>>>>>>>> a command on it as root if you don't understand what the command
>>>>>>>>>> does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Calling a machine "bigdick" doesn't make it a dildo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You gave a hostname of "mail" to a machine that is not a mail server?
>>>>>>>> Yeah, sure you did.  LOL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whatever, the name tells you SFA about the function and the fact still
>>>>>>> remains that it was an isolated VM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it a mail server?  Yes or no.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How else could I display the error without running the command???
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You wouldn't get the error message if you had read the man page.
>>>>>>>>>> Or did you think that size was given in Roman numerals?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reading the man page doesn't give a error output to illustrate an
>>>>>>>>> incorrect command line.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really expect a man page to illustrate the myriad ways a
>>>>>>>> command
>>>>>>>> might be mistyped?  The program itself gave you an error output.  The
>>>>>>>> man page describes the return codes, which you can check with `echo
>>>>>>>> $?`.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Most importantly to this case though, the man page also tells you how
>>>>>>>> the "size=" option is used.  No mention of Roman numerals though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you deliberately missing the point just so you can have an
>>>>>>> argument?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you deliberately being Snittish in your refusal to just admit that
>>>>>> you ran a command as root without understanding what the command does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran a command that I am familiar with as root on an isolated VM system
>>>>
>>>> On a mail server VM.  Your refusal to admit this makes me wonder
>>>> if it really even is a VM.
>>>>
>>>>> to provide a detailed output error to illustrate the incorrect nature of
>>>>> an example given by a poster. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything
>>>>> else is in your imagination or is pure supposition/assumption or a
>>>>> deliberate attempt to miss the point to create conflict where none
>>>>> exists.
>>>>
>>>> You keep claiming the example was "wrong."  The example was not "wrong"
>>>> just because "XG" was used to represent the size.  That's like saying
>>>> that this rsync example:
>>>>
>>>>      rsync -av host:file1 :file2 host:file{3,4} /dest/
>>>>
>>>> "doesn't work" as is on your system and therefore the commandline
>>>> is "wrong."
>>>>
>>>> Your analysis of his example:
>>>>
>>>> <quote>
>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>> ...
>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>> </quote>
>>>>
>>>> Funny but it looks like you changed the mount point in his example
>>>> from /mount-point to /mnt/tmpfs, and of course created the /mnt/tmpfs
>>>> directory, or it would not have worked as given anyway.  One wonders why
>>>> after going to all that trouble that you did not also make the change
>>>> from "size=XG" to a value that would work if, as you say, it is a command
>>>> that you "are familiar with."
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with your assumptions.
>>>
>>> EOT
>>
>> Spoken like a true Snit. When caught lying and pretending to be
>> knowledgeable, you pretend that you are "not interested"
>>
>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>
> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>


Owl made a lot of assumptions most of which were wrong. Of course it's 
impossible for me to prove them so there is little point continuing the 
conversation as there is no way to resolve it.

Unfortunately COLA trolls such as Peter have SFA to do all day other 
than insult people which makes them feel big and important.

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

#341646

"Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message 
news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>
>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>
>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>

I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't 
consider Win95 to be DOS based either.

Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of 
memory per app.
Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.

The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS and 
used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own 
native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking, printing, 
memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.

Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility so 
nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But supporting 
legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."

If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s) of 
Win95 used DOS to function?

> Owl made a lot of assumptions most of which were wrong. Of course it's 
> impossible for me to prove them so there is little point continuing the 
> conversation as there is no way to resolve it.
>

Is this still about mounting a tmpfs? I like tmpfs and it's pretty cool how 
this is relatively transparent on Linux. It's not 100% perfect but it's 
close. (Example - you can't create a Postgres instance on tmpfs)

-- 
"Knowing 'Word or Excel' is a hindrance."

<KLJcr.103621$4c4.97437@news.usenetserver.com>

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

#341657

Ezekiel wrote:

> 
> 
> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message
> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>
>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>
> 
> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't
> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
> 
> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of
> memory per app.
> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
> 
> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS
> and used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own
> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking,
> printing, memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
> 
> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility
> so nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But
> supporting legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
> 
> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s)
> of Win95 used DOS to function?

DOS device drivers. That was all which ran from MSDOS in W95
If no DOS device drivers were used, DOS was not needed at all except to boot 
the machine.

DOS itself was run in virtual x86 mode, it was run inside W95, not the other 
way around

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

#341660

On 2016-01-25 11:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>
>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>
> 
> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't 
> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
> 
> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of 
> memory per app.
> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
> 
> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS and 
> used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own 
> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking, printing, 
> memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
> 
> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility so 
> nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But supporting 
> legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
> 
> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s) of 
> Win95 used DOS to function?

We've been over this an experts of the time had already, in numerous
publications, supported my statement that it is indeed DOS-based.

< snip >

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

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

#341685

"Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n85n6q$f3d$2@dont-email.me...
> On 2016-01-25 11:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>>
>>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>>
>>
>> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't
>> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
>>
>> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
>> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
>> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of
>> memory per app.
>> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
>> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
>> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
>>
>> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS 
>> and
>> used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own
>> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking, 
>> printing,
>> memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
>>
>> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility 
>> so
>> nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But supporting
>> legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
>>
>> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s) 
>> of
>> Win95 used DOS to function?
>
> We've been over this an experts of the time had already, in numerous
> publications, supported my statement that it is indeed DOS-based.
>
> < snip >
>

It's going to depend on how someone wants to define "DOS based."

Because it's not 100% pure and every last vestige of DOS hasn't been 
expunged from the source base doesn't make it "DOS based" to me.

-- 
"Hey, Kook, does one need to be a gymnast, to recognize that someone is a 
complete klutz that can't even stand on the balance beam?"

The clueless turdv and his pathetic failed attempt to rationalize that a 
anyone can judge source-code quality because a non-gymnast can recognize the 
obvious error of falling off a balance beam.

Message-ID: <roufg817il0s1pi9pq95a43rsgj7qa7mmq@4ax.com>

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

#341693

On 2016-01-25 4:58 PM, Ezekiel wrote:
> "Slimer" <.m@nsn.s> wrote in message news:n85n6q$f3d$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 2016-01-25 11:23 AM, Ezekiel wrote:
>>> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>>>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't
>>> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
>>>
>>> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
>>> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
>>> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of
>>> memory per app.
>>> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
>>> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
>>> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
>>>
>>> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS 
>>> and
>>> used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own
>>> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking, 
>>> printing,
>>> memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
>>>
>>> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility 
>>> so
>>> nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But supporting
>>> legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
>>>
>>> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s) 
>>> of
>>> Win95 used DOS to function?
>>
>> We've been over this an experts of the time had already, in numerous
>> publications, supported my statement that it is indeed DOS-based.
>>
>> < snip >
>>
> 
> It's going to depend on how someone wants to define "DOS based."
> 
> Because it's not 100% pure and every last vestige of DOS hasn't been 
> expunged from the source base doesn't make it "DOS based" to me.

Well, whatever rocks your boat I guess. I'll go with the articles from
experts and my own experience which suggested very strongly that DOS
played a large part in the product.

-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

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

#341784

Ezekiel <zeke@nosuchemail.com> wrote:
> 
> "Desk Rabbit" <me@example.com> wrote in message 
> news:n85d20$5a3$1@deskrabbit.motzarella.org...
>> On 22/01/2016 17:59, Slimer wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-22 8:11 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you
>>>
>>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>>>
> 
> I don't know what the background/context for this argument is but I don't 
> consider Win95 to be DOS based either.
> 
> Win95 used a flat memory model, DOS used a segmented memory model.
> Win95 was a 32-bit OS. DOS was 16 bits.
> DOS was limited to ~640k per app. Win95 apps could use up to 2-gigs of 
> memory per app.
> Win95 supported virtual memory. DOS only supports physical memory.
> Win95 ran in protected (or 386 enhanced) mode. DOS ran in real mode.
> Win95 had both threads and preemptive multitasking. DOS did not.
> 
> The term "DOS based" implies that Win95 was somehow built on top of DOS and 
> used the DOS "int 21" for its services. Fact is that Win95 had its own 
> native 32-bit device drivers for the kernel, graphics, networking, printing, 
> memory management, file-system and pretty much everything else.
> 
> Microsoft always went to great lengths to support backward compatibility so 
> nearly all legacy DOS apps could still be run from Win95. But supporting 
> legacy DOS apps doesn't mean that Win95 was "DOS based."
> 
> If people are going to claim that Win95 was "DOS based" then what part(s) of 
> Win95 used DOS to function?
> 
>> Owl made a lot of assumptions most of which were wrong. Of course it's 
>> impossible for me to prove them so there is little point continuing the 
>> conversation as there is no way to resolve it.
>>
> 
> Is this still about mounting a tmpfs?

It's about him running from the fact that he ran a command as root
on a mail server without knowing what the command does.

> I like tmpfs and it's pretty cool how 
> this is relatively transparent on Linux. It's not 100% perfect but it's 
> close. (Example - you can't create a Postgres instance on tmpfs)
> 

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

#347219

On 1/22/16, 6:11 AM, in article n7t9lo$nf8$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann"
<peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>> Funny but it looks like you changed the mount point in his example
>>> from /mount-point to /mnt/tmpfs, and of course created the /mnt/tmpfs
>>> directory, or it would not have worked as given anyway.  One wonders why
>>> after going to all that trouble that you did not also make the change
>>> from "size=XG" to a value that would work if, as you say, it is a command
>>> that you "are familiar with."
>>> 
>> 
>> I'm not going to waste any further time arguing with your assumptions.
>> 
>> EOT
> 
> Spoken like a true Snit. When caught lying and pretending to be
> knowledgeable, you pretend that you are "not interested"
> 
> TypicaL behaviour of a lying dimwitted coward, eg you

People do not own you an infinite number of responses as you twist what they
say. Look at you and how you twisted my noting how Apple owns WebKit and
CUPS. They do. They and they alone decide what is included in it and what is
not. Does not mean they own the code, but you twisted my words to say I
meant that.

We went around and around with you twisting the truth... and you now say you
get to deem yourself correct if people stop correcting your twists and lies.

No dice. You lied. Deal with it.


-- 
* 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]

#341631

On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>
>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>> the command:
>>>>>
>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>
>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>
>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>
>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>
>>>
>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>
>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>
>> This should be good........
>>
>> :-)
>>
>
> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
> scrutinizing it first.  :)

mount needs "scrutinizing"?

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

#341632

On 25/01/2016 15:24, DFS wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>
>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G
>>>>> for
>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have
>>>> been self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>
>>> This should be good........
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>
> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>
>

A true Linux user of course compiles every command from source having 
first scrutinized it for any errors.

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

#341643

On 1/25/2016 10:36 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 15:24, DFS wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have
>>>>> been self-explanatory.
>>>>
>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>
>>>> This should be good........
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>
>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>
>>
>
> A true Linux user of course compiles every command from source having
> first scrutinized it for any errors.


So you took size=XG literally?  No harm, no foul.

And mount usually has to be run as root, anyway.  owl's meds were 
wearing off.

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

#341755

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 1/25/2016 10:36 AM, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>> On 25/01/2016 15:24, DFS wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have
>>>>>> been self-explanatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>
>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A true Linux user of course compiles every command from source having
>> first scrutinized it for any errors.
> 
> 
> So you took size=XG literally?  No harm, no foul.
> 

Not unless you then claim that the example command was "wrong" because
you took it literally. 

> And mount usually has to be run as root, anyway.  owl's meds were 
> wearing off.
> 
 
But you're still high.
 

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

#341776

Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
> On 25/01/2016 15:24, DFS wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have
>>>>> been self-explanatory.
>>>>
>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>
>>>> This should be good........
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>
>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>
>>
> 
> A true Linux user of course compiles every command from source having 
> first scrutinized it for any errors.

Ah, a smokescreen.

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

#341751

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>
>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>           missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>           (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>           need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>           In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>           dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>
>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>
>>> This should be good........
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>
>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
> 
> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
> 

You be the judge.

root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
/dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
/dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
cat: /foo: No such file or directory
root@lowtide:~# echo "nah" > /mnt/blah/foo
root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
nah
root@lowtide:~#

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

#341790

On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>            missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>            (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>            need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>            In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>            dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>
>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>
>>>> This should be good........
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>
>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>
>
> You be the judge.
>
> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah" > /mnt/blah/foo
> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
> nah
> root@lowtide:~#


geeekkkk!!!!

Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario. 
Back to the basement you go.

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

#341803

DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>            missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>            (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>            need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>>            In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>            dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>
>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>
>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>
>>
>> You be the judge.
>>
>> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
>> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
>> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah" > /mnt/blah/foo
>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>> nah
>> root@lowtide:~#
> 
> 
> geeekkkk!!!!
> 
> Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario. 
> Back to the basement you go.
> 

Not bogus.  If the intent was to mount /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/blah,
not scrutinizing the mount command could lead to disaster. 
 

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

#341805

On 2016-01-26 4:16 PM, owl wrote:
> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>>            missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>>            (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>>            need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>>>            In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>>            dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>>
>>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You be the judge.
>>>
>>> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
>>> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
>>> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah" > /mnt/blah/foo
>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>> nah
>>> root@lowtide:~#
>>
>>
>> geeekkkk!!!!
>>
>> Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario. 
>> Back to the basement you go.
>>
> 
> Not bogus.  If the intent was to mount /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/blah,
> not scrutinizing the mount command could lead to disaster. 

Thought you'd be interested in this:
<http://www.ronpaul.com/2016-01-25/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/>


-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Conservative Party of Canada, Mozilla &
PETA supporter

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

#341814

Slimer <a.m@unseen.is.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-01-26 4:16 PM, owl wrote:
>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>>>            missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>>>            (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>>>            need a /sbin/mount.<type> helper program)
>>>>>>>>>            In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>>>            dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>>>
>>>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You be the judge.
>>>>
>>>> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
>>>> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
>>>> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah" > /mnt/blah/foo
>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>> nah
>>>> root@lowtide:~#
>>>
>>>
>>> geeekkkk!!!!
>>>
>>> Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario. 
>>> Back to the basement you go.
>>>
>> 
>> Not bogus.  If the intent was to mount /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/blah,
>> not scrutinizing the mount command could lead to disaster. 
> 
> Thought you'd be interested in this:
> <http://www.ronpaul.com/2016-01-25/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/>
> 

They're just calling Obama's bluff.  He asked for a new AUMF.  He won't
do anything.  Merkel won't let him.
 

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

#341906

On 01/26/16 16:20, owl wrote:
> Slimer<a.m@unseen.is.invalid>  wrote:
>> On 2016-01-26 4:16 PM, owl wrote:
>>> DFS<nospam@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>> DFS<nospam@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit<me@example.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>>>>             missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>>>>             (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>>>>             need a /sbin/mount.<type>  helper program)
>>>>>>>>>>             In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>>>>             dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You be the judge.
>>>>>
>>>>> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
>>>>> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>>> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>>> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
>>>>> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah">  /mnt/blah/foo
>>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>>> nah
>>>>> root@lowtide:~#
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> geeekkkk!!!!
>>>>
>>>> Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario.
>>>> Back to the basement you go.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not bogus.  If the intent was to mount /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/blah,
>>> not scrutinizing the mount command could lead to disaster.
>>
>> Thought you'd be interested in this:
>> <http://www.ronpaul.com/2016-01-25/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/>
>>
>
> They're just calling Obama's bluff.  He asked for a new AUMF.  He won't
> do anything.  Merkel won't let him.
>
With a narcissist, I think its the other way around.  Obamas already 
black mailed her.

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

#341937

GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> On 01/26/16 16:20, owl wrote:
>> Slimer<a.m@unseen.is.invalid>  wrote:
>>> On 2016-01-26 4:16 PM, owl wrote:
>>>> DFS<nospam@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>>>> On 1/26/2016 10:54 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>> DFS<nospam@dfs.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/19/2016 4:48 AM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>> Desk Rabbit<me@example.com>  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/2016 13:31, John Gohde wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 6:51:01 AM UTC-5, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/01/2016 19:58, Vile Strong wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> One of the highly useful capabilities of the Linux OS is
>>>>>>>>>>>> the tmpfs, which is a temporary file system located entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>> in RAM.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The user can invoke a tmpfs any time and of any size with
>>>>>>>>>>>> the command:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mount-point
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> A tmpfs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as the speedy
>>>>>>>>>>>> compile of a large program or a very quick "scratch" storage
>>>>>>>>>>>> for very large data processing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Does Microsoft Windows have this capability?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FUCK NO!!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's another testament to the superiority of Linux over
>>>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And of course, your given example doesn't work
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> [root@mail ~]# mount -t tmpfs -o size=XG,mode=0777 tmpfs /mnt/tmpfs
>>>>>>>>>>> mount: wrong fs type, bad option, bad superblock on tmpfs,
>>>>>>>>>>>             missing codepage or helper program, or other error
>>>>>>>>>>>             (for several filesystems (e.g. nfs, cifs) you might
>>>>>>>>>>>             need a /sbin/mount.<type>  helper program)
>>>>>>>>>>>             In some cases useful info is found in syslog - try
>>>>>>>>>>>             dmesg | tail  or so
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's the size=XG that's wrong, you need to specify a number i.e. 1G for
>>>>>>>>>>> one gigabyte.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OR IF YOU HAD A BRAIN, rodent, the ue of an "X" script should have been self-explanatory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oh do explain what an "X" script is in this context great Linux master.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This should be good........
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can't possibly be as good as you running a command as root without
>>>>>>>> scrutinizing it first.  :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mount needs "scrutinizing"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You be the judge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> root@lowtide:~# mount |grep sda1
>>>>>> /dev/sda1 on / type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>>>> /dev/sda1 on /mnt/blah type ext4 (rw,relatime,errors=remount-ro,data=ordered)
>>>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>>>> cat: /foo: No such file or directory
>>>>>> root@lowtide:~# echo "nah">  /mnt/blah/foo
>>>>>> root@lowtide:~# cat /foo
>>>>>> nah
>>>>>> root@lowtide:~#
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> geeekkkk!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Plus, you pulled a twerp move and contrived a bogus mount scenario.
>>>>> Back to the basement you go.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not bogus.  If the intent was to mount /dev/sdb1 under /mnt/blah,
>>>> not scrutinizing the mount command could lead to disaster.
>>>
>>> Thought you'd be interested in this:
>>> <http://www.ronpaul.com/2016-01-25/congress-is-writing-the-president-a-blank-check-for-war/>
>>>
>>
>> They're just calling Obama's bluff.  He asked for a new AUMF.  He won't
>> do anything.  Merkel won't let him.
>>
> With a narcissist, I think its the other way around.  Obamas already 
> black mailed her.
> 

He fears a great Eurotard frowning if he does anything.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web