Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #130172
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" |
| Date | 2018-05-04 16:24 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <pchqec$mo5$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <hjVGC.71534$%L2.25238@fx40.am4> <pchhg4$rrs$1@dont-email.me> <K8YGC.117546$uL.12634@fx15.am4> <pchmlh$ti0$1@dont-email.me> <ZmZGC.90269$EL2.33897@fx37.am4> |
On 04/05/18 15:38, bartc wrote: > On 04/05/2018 14:19, David Brown wrote: >> On 04/05/18 14:14, bartc wrote: > >>> I've no idea what any of those buzz-words mean, but you clearly know >>> what you're talking about as you say it so confidently, so it must all >>> be true. >> >> I know a bit about HPC - but only in theory, not practice. Still, I >> know enough to give some of the reasons why in the current TOP500 list, >> /all/ of the systems run Linux, and Windows has never been above 1% >> share. (Cost is another reason, of course.) > > Another reason might be students being blackmailed into using Linux, and > only Linux workstations being provided in universities. Then they > wouldn't know anything else. It might have been a reason - but I really don't think so. This kind of thing certainly does happen in the software world - but it is primarily an effect of large vendors of expensive software giving extremely large discounts on student or academic versions of their software in order to get students hooked. You see it in CAD and electronic design software, in the DTP world (Adobe puts a lot of effort into this, and it is one reason for their market position), and of course MS is not shy about trying to get students hooked on their software. It is harder to argue that it is "blackmail" when the software is free. MS put a fair bit of effort into trying to make a HPC version of Windows a few years back. It never caught on. > >>> All my meagre experience tells me about Linux is that takes 1-2 minutes >>> to boot it from flash-drive, on a 0.7GHz 500MB 32-bit ARM (as used on >>> early Raspberry Pi), compared with the 1.5 seconds it took to load up >>> our CP/M clone from floppy on a 0.004GHz 0.062MB 8-bit Z80. >>> >> >> That is as helpful as noting the tricycle I had when I was 5 weighs a >> lot less than the car I have now. >> >> I have seen Linux systems that boot in a couple of seconds (to the point >> where they start looking for DHCP leases). And I've seen Windows >> systems that take 15 minutes to boot. So what? I could equally well >> give examples of fast Windows booting and slow Linux booting. > > The menial tasks that people with consumer machines might want to do now > are probably not much different from 35 years ago: write a letter, print > it, do their accounts. > > But if you took all the stuff that modern OSes, including Windows, has > to do to get started, and tried to run it on an early 80s machine, then > if someone were to turn the machine on in the morning, it would still be > churning away starting up by the time it came to go home. > > (And actually, it might still be at it a month later.) I've seen reports of people using an 8-bit AVR running an emulator of an ARM to boot Linux - taking several hours to do so, but not a month. Until about 8-10 years ago, one of our servers was running Linux on a 66 MHz Pentium with 64 MB ram. It was not a fast server by any means, but was fine for a file server for rarely used "archive" files. It is still quite possible to do a lot of work with little hardware. > > Modern OSes are /very/ heavyweight and that version of Linux on the Pi > was no exception. > The original Pi has always been too slow to be very usable as a desktop or interactive machine (with desktop software current with the device). The Pi 3 is far more practical for that kind of thing. But the original Pi is absolutely fine for control applications, server work, etc., as long as you don't want a gui on it. But Wirth's law seems unbreakable - software gets slower faster than hardware gets faster.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:21 -0500
"C Is Not a Low-level Language" Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2018-05-02 16:35 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 02:07 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" 1alvinalbrecht1@gmail.com - 2018-05-02 21:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 02:14 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:45 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 02:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:14 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:12 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 21:18 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-06 15:44 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-06 19:45 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-07 09:47 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 13:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-07 22:03 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 06:46 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-05-08 20:59 -0400
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-09 10:03 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-08 07:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-05-18 20:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-19 15:49 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 05:58 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 10:58 +0100
Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-03 14:41 +0000
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 16:02 +0100
Re: Some course material (was Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language") Steven Petruzzellis <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 10:25 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-03 17:39 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 11:40 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:59 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-05-04 03:18 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:59 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" supercat@casperkitty.com - 2018-05-04 08:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-07 12:27 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:15 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:13 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-05-04 11:45 -0500
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 17:31 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 11:10 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 11:48 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-07 17:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-08 00:11 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-06 23:28 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-05-08 20:01 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-08 13:20 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-08 20:34 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-05-09 06:15 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-08 02:12 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 10:42 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:44 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-04 18:11 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 17:47 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-05-04 10:57 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-05-05 14:57 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-04 15:05 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 10:01 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 13:51 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 13:14 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 15:19 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-05-04 14:38 +0100
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2018-05-04 13:56 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 16:24 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 07:36 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 06:01 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-05-04 14:57 +0000
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-05 06:49 +1200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-05 10:55 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 10:10 +0200
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-05-04 04:51 -0700
Re: "C Is Not a Low-level Language" David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-05-04 14:37 +0200
csiph-web