Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #58520 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-04-13 12:07 -0400 |
| Last post | 2014-04-19 16:37 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 84 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 12:07 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-13 17:57 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 15:35 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-13 14:50 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-13 21:18 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 15:55 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-13 15:37 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-13 15:51 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-04-13 19:35 -0700
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-14 16:34 +1200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-14 16:30 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 10:53 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-20 09:27 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-14 07:51 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-16 13:35 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-14 16:30 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-14 17:36 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-14 18:06 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 09:15 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression me@home.spamsucks.ca (Király) - 2014-04-15 06:01 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-16 16:54 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 09:11 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-20 09:24 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-15 02:10 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Rick Jones <rick.jones2@hp.com> - 2014-04-14 23:32 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-14 19:58 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 09:45 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-20 09:26 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-04-15 00:38 -0700
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-16 16:58 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-16 13:32 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-16 17:04 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-17 00:04 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 15:15 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-17 21:29 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-17 21:29 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 15:48 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-17 21:58 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 16:07 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-19 16:06 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 12:37 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-19 17:27 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 08:33 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-20 09:13 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-18 05:55 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 10:00 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-17 15:30 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 16:02 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression android <here@there.was> - 2014-04-17 22:10 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 16:33 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-17 21:54 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-17 18:13 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-17 23:59 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 17:59 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-04-19 17:27 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-19 14:15 -0700
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 18:06 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2014-04-19 17:16 -0700
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-19 20:32 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-19 21:40 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-04-20 15:45 +1200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-18 05:46 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 09:44 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-18 21:06 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-18 17:21 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 17:30 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-04-18 18:49 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-19 16:33 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 08:53 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-20 09:22 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-21 03:49 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-04-18 17:24 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-18 17:25 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-19 03:09 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-19 15:21 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-19 16:01 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 10:47 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-21 03:52 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-04-21 04:26 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-04-22 04:07 +0000
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-22 08:15 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2014-04-21 08:44 -0400
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-04-20 10:42 +0200
Re: 10.9 - disabling memory compression billy@MIX.COM - 2014-04-19 16:37 +0000
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-20 15:45 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <200420141545534639%YourName@YourISP.com> |
| In reply to | #58689 |
In article <myeh0sx3bm.fsf@Sunburn.Stanford.EDU>, Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> wrote: > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes: > > On 2014.04.19, 17:15 , Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu wrote= > > > Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes: > > >> On 2014.04.17, 19:59 , Jolly Roger wrote: > > >>> On 2014-04-17, Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:= > > >> > > >>>> either an app called RamDisk (from "Un cadavre exquis"[1]) which > > >>>> "protects" it - won't allow eject unless done via the app. But > > >>>> sometimes it refuses to start correctly - (a couple times since > > >>>> Mavericks) - so then I use a command line to set one up: > > >>>> > > >>>> diskutil erasevolume HFS+ 'RamDisk' `hdiutil attach -nomount ram://2= > > 00> 00000` > > >>>> > > >>>> But that one can be ejected easily so you can lose the contents > > >>>> in a jiffy if you're careless in the finder sidebar. > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] Yes - that means what you think it means. > > >>> > > >>> Cool, thanks. I've created them in the past from the command line. > > >> > > >> Oops - the app RamDisk does not protect from eject - but it does > > >> immediately remount the drive with the same name if you do eject it. > > > > > > With or without the data that was on the RAM disk before the eject??? > > > > Blown away. > > OK, that's what I would have expected. Your comment about immediately > remounting it hinted that maybe that could save the data. > > So RamDisk makes an accidental ejecting look like a mysterious > erasure. Not a whole lot of benefit in that. Might be quicker than deleting lots of files from it, but that's about the only potential benefit I can see. As for RAM disks ... geez, talk about ressurecting the past. I remember using those way back on the original Mac and Mac Plus (partly to save continual swapping of floppy disks). Probably still have the software for it on a floppy disk in the pile here :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 05:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnll1f12.1v7.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58600 |
In message <lZednfcNMN_dtc3OnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.04.16, 20:04 , Lewis wrote: >> In message <ivGdnYspFZvkbdPOnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2014.04.16, 09:32 , Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <hrWdnZbK8t3VK9fOnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ sysctl -a vm.compressor_mode >>>>> vm.compressor_mode: 4 >>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ >>>> >>>>> Compressor mode: 4 is "on". >>>> >>>>> To set it to 1 (off): >>>> >>>>> sudo nvram boot-args="vm_compressor=1" >>>> >>>>> So I'm now running in that mode. >>>> >>>> Don't do this. It's stupid, there's absolutely no reason for it, it will >>>> probably (if not likely) fuck something up down the line and then you'll >>>> be complaining about how your computer is acting weird or something and >>>> you'll think it's OS X's fault instead of your own dumb fault (or Alan's >>>> by proxy). >> >>> 1. I've done it. >> >> I still say it's a stupid thing to do. > Without any firm reason to say so. That's incorrect. I gave a perfectly good reason, it is changing the way the system expects to be configured. That is generally a bad idea, and sometimes a very bad idea. > Just because Apple added it (and > really, for laptops running on batteries - which is their largest > market), does not mean it is required. Were it bad then selecting the > mode as I did would have been disabled. There are many modes you can select that are certainly bad when you start looking at sysctl and kernel settings. > And yes, there is a gain by turning it off. Compression, even as cpu > efficient as the technique used, does use cpu cycles. Actually, that is also incorrect. The compression, much like the encryption in FileVault 2, doesn’t even go through the CPU. >>> 3. It is unlikely to affect anything down the road - and if it does, it >>> is easily remedied. >> >> You have no idea what it might affect down the road, and you will >> probably have no idea that the thing it does affect is affected by this, >> and are also unlikely to even remember you did this. For no reason. For >> no benefit at all. > Why is it important to you that I do as you say rather than as I want? I don't care what YOU do, I care that you are recommending it to others. > Out of several people who have replied, you're the only one saying it's > a stupid thing (and for no founded reason). > And again I have my reasons (you present "fears") and there is a benefit > (even if it's not much). >>> 4. As usual you shade things with ad hominem's. Grow up. >> >> You need to look that up, there was no ad hominem in my post. > Really, please explain, above: QUOTE instead of your own dumb fault (or > Alan's by proxy). UNQUOTE Yes? And? Mentioning your name doesn't make it ad hominem. Saying the idea is stupid because you have purple spots and drink rotted pig's blood would be ad hominem. > Every time you reply to someone saying they are doing something "stupid" > it is an attack on them. Then there is your childish "by proxy" jibe). You are an ignorant fool. Saying that something someone is doing is stupid is not ad hominem. Saying it is stupid BECAUSE they are doing it is. Saying nothing about the idea at all and simply saying that the person presenting the idea has bad breath and therefore should be ignored, that would also be ad hominem. Calling you an ignorant fool is also not ad hominen, it is simply a statement of fact. And since your foolish ignorance is not my reason for saying your idea is stupid, no ad hominem at all. I never said YOU were stupid anyway, I said what you are doing is stupid. I am not directing the argument AT THE MAN, I am directing it at the idea, the action, the behavior. > I don't mind reasoned debate, Yes you do. Changing system settings, especially low-level ones, is dangerous and foolish and yes, even stupid. You claim there is a benefit, but show no evidence of this. Unless you are using the iOS 6 virtual machine in XCode, there is absolutely no benefit to changing this setting. None. There is very great risk. Maybe not now, maybe not tomorrow. But almost certainly at some point. You have repeatedly ignored this reasoned argument and instead dismissed it with hand-wavery. -- 'And stars don't care what you wish, and magic don't make things better, and no-one doesn't get burned who sticks their hand in a fire.'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 09:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jeidnWFQ9arUsczOnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58618 |
On 2014.04.18, 01:46 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <lZednfcNMN_dtc3OnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.16, 20:04 , Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <ivGdnYspFZvkbdPOnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2014.04.16, 09:32 , Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <hrWdnZbK8t3VK9fOnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ sysctl -a vm.compressor_mode
>>>>>> vm.compressor_mode: 4
>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$
>>>>>
>>>>>> Compressor mode: 4 is "on".
>>>>>
>>>>>> To set it to 1 (off):
>>>>>
>>>>>> sudo nvram boot-args="vm_compressor=1"
>>>>>
>>>>>> So I'm now running in that mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't do this. It's stupid, there's absolutely no reason for it, it will
>>>>> probably (if not likely) fuck something up down the line and then you'll
>>>>> be complaining about how your computer is acting weird or something and
>>>>> you'll think it's OS X's fault instead of your own dumb fault (or Alan's
>>>>> by proxy).
>>>
>>>> 1. I've done it.
>>>
>>> I still say it's a stupid thing to do.
>
>> Without any firm reason to say so.
>
> That's incorrect. I gave a perfectly good reason, it is changing the way
> the system expects to be configured. That is generally a bad idea, and
> sometimes a very bad idea.
That's not "reason". That's "opinion".
>> Just because Apple added it (and
>> really, for laptops running on batteries - which is their largest
>> market), does not mean it is required. Were it bad then selecting the
>> mode as I did would have been disabled.
>
> There are many modes you can select that are certainly bad when you
> start looking at sysctl and kernel settings.
>
>> And yes, there is a gain by turning it off. Compression, even as cpu
>> efficient as the technique used, does use cpu cycles.
>
> Actually, that is also incorrect. The compression, much like the
> encryption in FileVault 2, doesn’t even go through the CPU.
The memory compression is run by the CPU.
>
>>>> 3. It is unlikely to affect anything down the road - and if it does, it
>>>> is easily remedied.
>>>
>>> You have no idea what it might affect down the road, and you will
>>> probably have no idea that the thing it does affect is affected by this,
>>> and are also unlikely to even remember you did this. For no reason. For
>>> no benefit at all.
>
>> Why is it important to you that I do as you say rather than as I want?
>
> I don't care what YOU do, I care that you are recommending it to
> others.
Where did I recommend it?
>
>> Out of several people who have replied, you're the only one saying it's
>> a stupid thing (and for no founded reason).
>
>> And again I have my reasons (you present "fears") and there is a benefit
>> (even if it's not much).
>
>>>> 4. As usual you shade things with ad hominem's. Grow up.
>>>
>>> You need to look that up, there was no ad hominem in my post.
>
>> Really, please explain, above: QUOTE instead of your own dumb fault (or
>> Alan's by proxy). UNQUOTE
>
> Yes? And? Mentioning your name doesn't make it ad hominem. Saying the
> idea is stupid because you have purple spots and drink rotted pig's
> blood would be ad hominem.
Your ad hominem's come in the form of your own lack of reasoned
argument: you can't make your case on logic so you append "stupid" to
shade your opinion of others.
>
>> Every time you reply to someone saying they are doing something "stupid"
>> it is an attack on them. Then there is your childish "by proxy" jibe).
>
> You are an ignorant fool. Saying that something someone is doing is
> stupid is not ad hominem. Saying it is stupid BECAUSE they are doing it
> is. Saying nothing about the idea at all and simply saying that the
> person presenting the idea has bad breath and therefore should be
> ignored, that would also be ad hominem.
>
> Calling you an ignorant fool is also not ad hominen, it is simply a
> statement of fact. And since your foolish ignorance is not my reason for
> saying your idea is stupid, no ad hominem at all.
>
> I never said YOU were stupid anyway, I said what you are doing is
> stupid. I am not directing the argument AT THE MAN, I am directing it at
> the idea, the action, the behavior.
>
>> I don't mind reasoned debate,
>
> Yes you do. Changing system settings, especially low-level ones, is
> dangerous and foolish and yes, even stupid. You claim there is a
Dangerous? How? Will nuclear weapons be launched?
Foolish? How? Will it turn my computer into a vampire?
Stupid? How? It was a reasoned decision based on what I read in a few
places.
> benefit, but show no evidence of this. Unless you are using the iOS 6
> virtual machine in XCode, there is absolutely no benefit to changing
> this setting. None. There is very great risk. Maybe not now, maybe not
> tomorrow. But almost certainly at some point.
>
> You have repeatedly ignored this reasoned argument and instead dismissed
> it with hand-wavery.
>
You gave no reasoned argument - just opinion and insults. As usual.
The sign of the loser, desperate now to roar and intimidate.
I'd say you're a tragic case - but I don't care.
Done with you. When you don't agree with what someone does you come out
attacking like a cornered rat. Really strange.
This is a mac system group - this is a system issue. And no harm will
come of it to me or anyone.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 21:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnll34tq.j24.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58621 |
In message <jeidnWFQ9arUsczOnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: > On 2014.04.18, 01:46 , Lewis wrote: >> In message <lZednfcNMN_dtc3OnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com> >> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>> On 2014.04.16, 20:04 , Lewis wrote: >>>> In message <ivGdnYspFZvkbdPOnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>> On 2014.04.16, 09:32 , Lewis wrote: >>>>>> In message <hrWdnZbK8t3VK9fOnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com> >>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ sysctl -a vm.compressor_mode >>>>>>> vm.compressor_mode: 4 >>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ >>>>>> >>>>>>> Compressor mode: 4 is "on". >>>>>> >>>>>>> To set it to 1 (off): >>>>>> >>>>>>> sudo nvram boot-args="vm_compressor=1" >>>>>> >>>>>>> So I'm now running in that mode. >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't do this. It's stupid, there's absolutely no reason for it, it will >>>>>> probably (if not likely) fuck something up down the line and then you'll >>>>>> be complaining about how your computer is acting weird or something and >>>>>> you'll think it's OS X's fault instead of your own dumb fault (or Alan's >>>>>> by proxy). >>>> >>>>> 1. I've done it. >>>> >>>> I still say it's a stupid thing to do. >> >>> Without any firm reason to say so. >> >> That's incorrect. I gave a perfectly good reason, it is changing the way >> the system expects to be configured. That is generally a bad idea, and >> sometimes a very bad idea. > That's not "reason". That's "opinion". >>> Just because Apple added it (and >>> really, for laptops running on batteries - which is their largest >>> market), does not mean it is required. Were it bad then selecting the >>> mode as I did would have been disabled. >> >> There are many modes you can select that are certainly bad when you >> start looking at sysctl and kernel settings. >> >>> And yes, there is a gain by turning it off. Compression, even as cpu >>> efficient as the technique used, does use cpu cycles. >> >> Actually, that is also incorrect. The compression, much like the >> encryption in FileVault 2, doesn’t even go through the CPU. > The memory compression is run by the CPU. I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact. I can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost. > Your ad hominem's come in the form of your own lack of reasoned > argument: you can't make your case on logic so you append "stupid" to > shade your opinion of others. Your ignorance on the definition of ad hominem is quite spectacular. Calling an idea stupid is not an ad hominem attack. Anyway, I'm done with you. If you continue to post stupid hacks, I will continue to reply to them warning others not to try them, but this thread has passed the point of anything useful. Feel free to fuck up your own computer however you want. Don't you have a bit of a history of having weird behavior on your Macs? Strange problems no one else has? Hmmm... -- I laugh in the face of danger. Then I hide until it goes away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 17:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53519765$0$61394$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58627 |
On 14-04-18 17:06, Lewis wrote: > I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact. I > can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by > cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost. Compression is done by the CPU. There is no "encryption chip". You are correct that for the average workload, not all cores are used, so the compression and decompression can use an otherwise idle core. However, this causes that core to "wake up" and use power. However, when you app that is on core 1 need memory that is in a compressed "blob", it must wait for core #2 to coomplete the decompression and insert the now valid page back into the virtualy memroy for that process. Apple argued that with current CPUs this is now faster than waiting for disk to read data. What is not clear to me is whether the compression kicks in whenever there is memory that is found to be idle, or whether it only kicks in when the system realises it is short of RAM and needs to free some. In the former case, system slowdown would be "seen" (even if not felt) on a system with plenty of free memory, at which point it makes sense to disable it. But in the later case, compression would not kick in as long as memory is ample, so there would be no penalty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 17:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eI-dnUSPSasPBMzOnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58628 |
On 2014.04.18, 17:21 , JF Mezei wrote:
> What is not clear to me is whether the compression kicks in whenever
> there is memory that is found to be idle, or whether it only kicks in
> when the system realises it is short of RAM and needs to free some.
Since it compresses small amounts (10 -100 MB worth) on my system even
when there is over 10 GB available I assume it compresses on any
opportunity to do so and not solely because there is a pressing need.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 18:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <180420141849468507%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #58628 |
In article <53519765$0$61394$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Apple argued that with current CPUs this is now faster than waiting for > disk to read data. it has been for a while. apple added compressed files several years ago and has now extended it to memory. 20 years ago, connectix had a product called ramdoubler. it's not a new concept. it's faster to move a smaller chunk of compressed data and uncompress it than it is to move a larger uncompressed chunk.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-19 16:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <liu8g1$pcm$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #58628 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> writes:
> Compression is done by the CPU. There is no "encryption chip".
I was wondering about that.
> You are correct that for the average workload, not all cores are used,
> so the compression and decompression can use an otherwise idle core.
Half of mine are asleep most of the time.
> However, this causes that core to "wake up" and use power.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-20 08:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kg7c2b-c0u2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #58628 |
On 2014-04-18, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-04-18 17:06, Lewis wrote: > >> I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact. I >> can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by >> cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost. > > > Compression is done by the CPU. There is no "encryption chip". > > You are correct that for the average workload, not all cores are used, > so the compression and decompression can use an otherwise idle core. > However, this causes that core to "wake up" and use power. I am running VMware Fusion and am wondering how it deals with multiple cores. Does it try to utilise these "intelligently" by spreading the load across cores, for example? > However, when you app that is on core 1 need memory that is in a > compressed "blob", it must wait for core #2 to coomplete the > decompression and insert the now valid page back into the virtualy > memroy for that process. > > Apple argued that with current CPUs this is now faster than waiting for > disk to read data. Hmm. My Mac mini is the 2011 model, which isn't strictly speaking a "current CPU". I'm probably being way too picky there. > What is not clear to me is whether the compression kicks in whenever > there is memory that is found to be idle, or whether it only kicks in > when the system realises it is short of RAM and needs to free some. > > In the former case, system slowdown would be "seen" (even if not felt) > on a system with plenty of free memory, at which point it makes sense to > disable it. But in the later case, compression would not kick in as long > as memory is ample, so there would be no penalty. Given the way that Apple have steadily improved OS X memory management over the years, they are probably paying close attention to this area and I would not be surprised to see further improvements. -- Paul Sture The final step of #heartbleed recovery is to call your mother, and advise her to change her maiden name -- @gojomo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-20 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <B9qdnXizWLSsV87OnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58706 |
On 2014.04.20, 02:53 , Paul Sture wrote:
> On 2014-04-18, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 14-04-18 17:06, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact. I
>>> can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by
>>> cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost.
>>
>>
>> Compression is done by the CPU. There is no "encryption chip".
>>
>> You are correct that for the average workload, not all cores are used,
>> so the compression and decompression can use an otherwise idle core.
>> However, this causes that core to "wake up" and use power.
>
> I am running VMware Fusion and am wondering how it deals with multiple
> cores. Does it try to utilise these "intelligently" by spreading the load
> across cores, for example?
In Fusion, in "Virtual Machine" settings, you set how many cores the VM
can use (when the VM is not running). From there I believe the OS (OS
X) and/or the processor spread the load automatically. Likewise assign
the memory the VM can use. AFAICT from the meters, assigning 4 cores to
a VM, the load is spread evenly-ish.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-21 03:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnll95a0.1k5e.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58706 |
In message <kg7c2b-c0u2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-04-18, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: >> On 14-04-18 17:06, Lewis wrote: >> >>> I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact. I >>> can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by >>> cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost. >> >> >> Compression is done by the CPU. There is no "encryption chip". >> >> You are correct that for the average workload, not all cores are used, >> so the compression and decompression can use an otherwise idle core. >> However, this causes that core to "wake up" and use power. > I am running VMware Fusion and am wondering how it deals with multiple > cores. Does it try to utilise these "intelligently" by spreading the load > across cores, for example? Yes, if you allow it to. Apple has a technology in recent OS X versions called GCD (Grand Central Dispatch, IIRC) which manages multiple processors and cores for applications without those applications having to be thread-safe (or even thread-aware). It's one of the cooler new underpinnings in OS X and it works astonishingly well. While I often see a single core on my i7 windows machine at 100% and all the other 7 cores idle, that never happens on the Mac, processor cycles are spread much more evenly. -- Yes, I do happen to believe that love is mainly about pushing chocolate covered candies and, y'know, in some cultures, a chicken. You can call me a sucker, I don't care, because I do believe in it. Bottom line: it's couples who are truly right for each other that wade through the same crap as everybody else, but the big difference is they don't let it take them down. One of those two people will stand up and fight for that relationship every time. If it's right, and they're real lucky, one of them will say something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 17:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QpudnQ55s5puCszOnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #58627 |
On 2014.04.18, 17:06 , Lewis wrote:
> In message <jeidnWFQ9arUsczOnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2014.04.18, 01:46 , Lewis wrote:
>>> In message <lZednfcNMN_dtc3OnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2014.04.16, 20:04 , Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <ivGdnYspFZvkbdPOnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2014.04.16, 09:32 , Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <hrWdnZbK8t3VK9fOnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com>
>>>>>>> Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$ sysctl -a vm.compressor_mode
>>>>>>>> vm.compressor_mode: 4
>>>>>>>> AlansMac:~ alanbrowne$
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Compressor mode: 4 is "on".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To set it to 1 (off):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sudo nvram boot-args="vm_compressor=1"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So I'm now running in that mode.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't do this. It's stupid, there's absolutely no reason for it, it will
>>>>>>> probably (if not likely) fuck something up down the line and then you'll
>>>>>>> be complaining about how your computer is acting weird or something and
>>>>>>> you'll think it's OS X's fault instead of your own dumb fault (or Alan's
>>>>>>> by proxy).
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. I've done it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I still say it's a stupid thing to do.
>>>
>>>> Without any firm reason to say so.
>>>
>>> That's incorrect. I gave a perfectly good reason, it is changing the way
>>> the system expects to be configured. That is generally a bad idea, and
>>> sometimes a very bad idea.
>
>> That's not "reason". That's "opinion".
>
>
>>>> Just because Apple added it (and
>>>> really, for laptops running on batteries - which is their largest
>>>> market), does not mean it is required. Were it bad then selecting the
>>>> mode as I did would have been disabled.
>>>
>>> There are many modes you can select that are certainly bad when you
>>> start looking at sysctl and kernel settings.
>>>
>>>> And yes, there is a gain by turning it off. Compression, even as cpu
>>>> efficient as the technique used, does use cpu cycles.
>>>
>>> Actually, that is also incorrect. The compression, much like the
>>> encryption in FileVault 2, doesn’t even go through the CPU.
>
>> The memory compression is run by the CPU.
>
> I am pretty sure it is run by the encryption chip, in point of fact.
And you remain wrong. And it's odd that you assert that it is h/w here,
yet in your other post you point out (via quotation) that it is done by
the CPU. Not even self consistent in your wrongness. But then I didn't
expect better, so don't sweat it.
I
> can't find the documentation on it though. Regardless, it is run by
> cycles that would otherwise be idle. So, zero cost.
That's not esp. so. It does it whenever there is memory that is idle
and can be packed away to make room for other things - that is not
exclusive to the CPU having (or not) other things to do.
>
>> Your ad hominem's come in the form of your own lack of reasoned
>> argument: you can't make your case on logic so you append "stupid" to
>> shade your opinion of others.
>
> Your ignorance on the definition of ad hominem is quite spectacular.
> Calling an idea stupid is not an ad hominem attack.
The way you use it is - you write in a way that implies anyone trying
something you don't agree with as stupid.
>
> Anyway, I'm done with you. If you continue to post stupid hacks, I will
> continue to reply to them warning others not to try them, but this
Funny that nobody else has objected.
> thread has passed the point of anything useful. Feel free to fuck up
> your own computer however you want.
Nothing is fucked up. Works fine. And will for a long time, I'm sure.
>
> Don't you have a bit of a history of having weird behavior on your Macs?
> Strange problems no one else has?
Nothing others don't experience - I find others with the same/similar
issues - solutions are a different thing.
Recently the first Mavericks update 10.9.1 resulted in many odd things -
but then a lot of people reported similar and different odd things at
the same time.
--
"Big data can reduce anything to a single number,
but you shouldn’t be fooled by the appearance of exactitude."
-Gary Marcus and Ernest Davis, NYT, 2014.04.07
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-18 17:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <53519858$0$32630$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58627 |
In article <slrnll34tq.j24.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > > Anyway, I'm done with you. If you continue to post stupid hacks, I will > continue to reply to them warning others not to try them, but this > thread has passed the point of anything useful. Feel free to fuck up > your own computer however you want That's the stupidest thing I've read (well, you know, outside of the stuff in AUK) in ages. It's not a "stupid hack," it's part of how the system works. What you're saying is that we should accept our Holy Blessed OS as it comes from The Blessed Factory and Make No Changes Ever or else the Sanctified Rectum of Steve (SRS) might, I dunno, pucker, or transmogrify or summat. Don't log in as root. No don't. Not ever. Aw geez, aw geez, aw geez; ya didn't did ya? Warren "sudo su" Oates.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-19 03:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnll3q6c.rkv.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58630 |
In message <53519858$0$32630$c3e8da3$dbd57e7@news.astraweb.com> Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > In article <slrnll34tq.j24.g.kreme@amelia.local>, > Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: >> >> Anyway, I'm done with you. If you continue to post stupid hacks, I will >> continue to reply to them warning others not to try them, but this >> thread has passed the point of anything useful. Feel free to fuck up >> your own computer however you want > That's the stupidest thing I've read (well, you know, outside of the > stuff in AUK) in ages. It's not a "stupid hack," it's part of how the > system works. What you're saying is that we should accept our Holy > Blessed OS as it comes from The Blessed Factory and Make No Changes Ever > or else the Sanctified Rectum of Steve (SRS) might, I dunno, pucker, or > transmogrify or summat. That is not at all what I said. Or anything like what I said. > Don't log in as root. No don't. Not ever. Aw geez, aw geez, aw geez; ya > didn't did ya? No, never have. Why would I? It's a silly thing to do and it is *never* needed. > Warren "sudo su" Oates. sudo -s is better, I think. -- Vampires have risen from the dead, the grave and the crypt, but have never managed it from the cat. --Witches Abroad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | billy@MIX.COM |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-19 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <liu4a8$kp1$1@reader2.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #58635 |
Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> writes:
> > Warren "sudo su" Oates.
This gives you the bash shell.
> sudo -s is better, I think.
This gives you whatever's in $SHELL.
I usually use 'sudo su -' as I want
a root login shell. Neither of the
above two do that.
Billy Y..
--
sub #'9+1 ,r0 ; convert ascii byte
add #9.+1 ,r0 ; to an integer
bcc 20$ ; not a number
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-19 16:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5352d61f$0$19027$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58660 |
In article <liu4a8$kp1$1@reader2.panix.com>, billy@MIX.COM wrote: > I usually use 'sudo su -' as I want > a root login shell. Neither of the > above two do that. That's the one I meant though. I was too busy being cute. -- Where's the Vangelis music? Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her. They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene. -- notes for Blade Runner
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-20 10:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <16ec2b-0kv2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> |
| In reply to | #58630 |
On 2014-04-18, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: > > Don't log in as root. No don't. Not ever. Aw geez, aw geez, aw geez; ya > didn't did ya? > > Warren "sudo su" Oates. :-) I do log in as root on Linux boxes and it really isn't a problem _for me_ because I've been working with fully privileged command line stuff for more than 35 years. -- Paul Sture The final step of #heartbleed recovery is to call your mother, and advise her to change her maiden name -- @gojomo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-21 03:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnll95fq.1k5e.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58711 |
In message <16ec2b-0kv2.ln1@news.chingola.ch> Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote: > On 2014-04-18, Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Don't log in as root. No don't. Not ever. Aw geez, aw geez, aw geez; ya >> didn't did ya? >> >> Warren "sudo su" Oates. >:-) > I do log in as root on Linux boxes and it really isn't a problem _for me_ > because I've been working with fully privileged command line stuff for more > than 35 years. So have I. Well, not 35 years, but a lon long time. I still prefer the safety of running as a normal user account and using sudo to execute commands that need root privileges. It is safer. And yeah, sure, sometimes I use sudo -s to invoke a root shell, but I try to avoid this and I also will set my terminal setting to a red background when I do. -- 'You've got the loudest silences I ever did hear from anyone who wasn't dead!' --Lords and Ladies
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-21 04:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5354d640$0$1325$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #58746 |
On 14-04-20 23:52, Lewis wrote: > I still prefer the safety of running as a normal user account and using > sudo to execute commands that need root privileges. It is safer. I use X windows and Xterm. For system management, I have am Xterm logged into root. For all other stuff, I have different Xterms logged into unprivileged accounts. The window title is set to indicate so. (I very rarely use root on my desktop, but I have a X-serve root displayed on my desktop (with Xterm it is easy to get the terminal window to pop up on your desktop or laptop, assuming permissions are set properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-04-22 04:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnllbqoq.rqg.g.kreme@amelia.local> |
| In reply to | #58755 |
In message <5354d640$0$1325$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 14-04-20 23:52, Lewis wrote: >> I still prefer the safety of running as a normal user account and using >> sudo to execute commands that need root privileges. It is safer. > I use X windows and Xterm. For system management, I have am Xterm logged > into root. For all other stuff, I have different Xterms logged into > unprivileged accounts. XTerm? Ugh. WHY? Terminal is so much nicer. And if not, then iTerm. XTerm sucked when it was cool. > (I very rarely use root on my desktop, but I have a X-serve root > displayed on my desktop (with Xterm it is easy to get the terminal > window to pop up on your desktop or laptop, assuming permissions are set > properly. ssh via key exchange and screen for me. -- A: You can never go too far. B: If I'm gonna get busted, it is *not* gonna be by a guy like *that*.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web