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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#340451 — Re: Linux Tmpfs Virtue

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.

Ooooh! If Rodent only had a brain

Support the Ubuntu/Linux DE Standard.

Who says so? Moi does.
--
Je suis Moi, Ubuntu/Linux DE

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#340864

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........

:-)

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

#340992

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.  :)

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

#341143

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.

How else could I display the error without running the command???

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

#341174

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. 

> 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?

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

#341217

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.

>
>> 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.

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

#341221

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.

>>
>>> 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.

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

#341222

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.

>
>>>
>>>> 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?

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

#341234

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?

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

#341250

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 
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.

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

#341259

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."

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

#341323

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

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

#341343

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

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

#341383

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.
-- 
Slimer
EFF & OpenMedia member / IFAW, Mozilla & PETA supporter
"Everything seems to work fine, except that occasionally everything
freezes." - Another one of GNU/Linux's many victims
"Sound wasn't even a gauranteed thing on a PC in the 90s." - Linux
apologist JEDIDIAH explaining why sound never worked/works right in Linux

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

#341392

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.

No need. It isn't, and all your idiocy does not change that

Win95 used DOS as a giant bootloader. Try to get some clue. You might even 
surpass a cockroach in intelligence some day

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

#341394

On 01/22/16 14:33, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 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.
>
> No need. It isn't, and all your idiocy does not change that
>
> Win95 used DOS as a giant bootloader. Try to get some clue. You might even
> surpass a cockroach in intelligence some day

So, you are admitting that you just barely edged out a cockroach for 
intelligence.

Guffaw!!!

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

#341434

On 2016-01-22 4:33 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> 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.
> 
> No need. It isn't, and all your idiocy does not change that
> 
> Win95 used DOS as a giant bootloader. Try to get some clue. You might even 
> surpass a cockroach in intelligence some day

You sure changed your tune, Peter. You'll never admit that you made a
mistake but we all saw what idiotic statements you made at that period
in time and have read your barrage of idiotic statements since then.

Being called an idiot by you is like being called short by a midget; I
can live with the "humiliation."

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

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

#341601

Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Slimer wrote:
>> 
>> Tell us again how Windows 95 is not DOS-based, Peter.
>
>No need. It isn't, and all your idiocy does not change that
>
>Win95 used DOS as a giant bootloader. Try to get some clue. You might even 
>surpass a cockroach in intelligence some day

I love it when they try to "ridicule" us by quoting us being
absolutely correct.  They must hope to fool some stupid and ignorant
readers.

-- 
"The negative feedback kept the circuit stable."  -  trolling fsckwit
"Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display

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

#341604

On 1/25/2016 8:19 AM, shit(I have a BSEE)v wrote:

> I love it when they try to "ridicule" us by quoting us being
> absolutely correct.  They must hope to fool some stupid and ignorant
> readers.

Were you being "absolutely correct" when you said "Windows Vista needs 
4G and 2 fast CPU's to run acceptably well."?

huh, turd?



> -- "The negative feedback kept the circuit stable." - trolling fsckwit
> "Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display


Too bad your shit-for-brains got it all wrong - again.  You need a 
refund from that "university" you claim you attended.

The only source I've seen that supports your idiotic claim about NFB 
is... you.

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

#341629

"DFS" <nospam@dfs.com> wrote in message news:n859k6$n9d$1@dont-email.me...
> On 1/25/2016 8:19 AM, shit(I have a BSEE)v wrote:
>
>> I love it when they try to "ridicule" us by quoting us being
>> absolutely correct.  They must hope to fool some stupid and ignorant
>> readers.
>
> Were you being "absolutely correct" when you said "Windows Vista needs 4G 
> and 2 fast CPU's to run acceptably well."?
>
> huh, turd?

There are dozens of examples of turdv stupidity.

>
>> -- "The negative feedback kept the circuit stable." - trolling fsckwit
>> "Ezekiel", putting his ignorance on display

    "I love it when they try to ridicule us by
    quoting us being absolutely correct."

Yes, negative feedback does keep a circuit stable. This is simply a fact.


> Too bad your shit-for-brains got it all wrong - again.  You need a refund 
> from that "university" you claim you attended.
>
> The only source I've seen that supports your idiotic claim about NFB is... 
> you.
>

Pay no attention to what is actually taught at the top colleges and 
universities in the world. Turdv must believe that if he repeats his 
ignorance enough times that it will magically become correct.

-- 
"I have a BSEE.... Negative feedback has many benefits, but "maintaining 
stability" is not one of them. Just the opposite, in fact."
The turdv idiot and his pretend BSEE degree.


"To make systems stable, we use Negative Feedback"
MIT - http://web.mit.edu/jamwno/Public/UAT/Jim_Feedback.ppt


"Since it’s hard to make the op-amp gain stable over all operating 
conditions *negative feedback* is used to **stabilize** the op-amp"
MIT - http://www.mit.edu/~godoy/6098/study/review_all.pdf


"Negative feedback is a central concept in the design of linear amplifiers. 
It enables them to be designed with predictable, precise and **stable** 
performance."
Oxford University - 
http://www-teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk/practical_course/ELManCh14.pdf


"Black used negative feedback, which reduces the gain but makes the 
amplifier insensitive to variations in tube characteristics. This invention 
made it possible to build *stable* amplifiers with linear 
characteristics..."
Princeton University - http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s9493.pdf


<quote>
(Caltech)
Negative Feedback
A major breakthrough was invention of the feedback amplifier in 1927 by 
Harold S. Black. Black used negative feedback which reduces the gain but 
makes the amplifier very insensitive to variations in tube characteristics. 
This invention made it possible to build **stable amplifiers** with linear 
characteristics.


Positive Feedback
In a system with positive feedback, the increase in some variable or signal 
leads to a situation in which that quantify is further through its dynamics. 
This has a **destabilizing** effect and is usually accompanied by a 
saturation that limits the growth of the quantity.
</quote>
http://www.cds.caltech.edu/~murray/books/AM05/pdf/am06-complete_16Sep06.pdf




<quote>
If we introduce positive, or regenerative, feedback into an amplifier 
circuit, it has the tendency of creating and sustaining oscillations.

Negative feedback, on the other hand, has a "dampening" effect on an 
amplifier. While positive feedback drives an amplifier circuit toward a 
point of instability (oscillations), negative feedback drives it the 
opposite direction: toward a point of stability.
</quote>
http://openbookproject.net/electricCircuits/Semi/SEMI_4.html#xtocid209015


<quote>
OSCILLATORS

We have already talked about FEEDBACK in terms of NEGATIVE FEEDBACK to 
stabilize a circuit. We will now cover a new term called POSITIVE FEEDBACK - 
it changes the performance of circuit completely. It makes the circuit 
OSCILLATE. Negative feedback "kills" a circuits performance - positive 
feedback makes it oscillate.
</quote>
http://www.talkingelectronics.com/projects/TheTransistorAmplifier/TheTransistorAmplifier-P1.html

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web