Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>  tho a shell prompt would be even nicer <grin>
>> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that 
>> machine is out of the question.
> 
>   A prompt is not a gui. A gui is not the only way of using a computer.
> 
Are you sure this is a relevant remark?
AFAICS it does not shed light on the meaning of the remark by Chris
And that is apart from being so bloody obvious that if you made this 
remark to somebody else I wouldn't blame him/her if he reacted angry.

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that 
> machine is out of the question.

if you mean 'gui' as in 'interactive access', yes I understand that -
however there must be a staging system where cross-compilation or otherwise
preparation of binaries are done. specifically, the ability to be able to
run tests (even if by batch) and recompile the binary to see where
optimizations may be made would be handy - though of course there is the
issue that probably installation of such binary would have to be done by an
admin (I presume).

anyhow, I wasn't really serious: I simply don't have the time to pursue
this sort of thing, even if it were possible.

-- Chris

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that 
>> machine is out of the question.
> 
> if you mean 'gui' as in 'interactive access', yes I understand that -
> however there must be a staging system where cross-compilation or otherwise
> preparation of binaries are done. 

I think it runs a version of linux, but I'll check.

> specifically, the ability to be able to
> run tests (even if by batch) and recompile the binary to see where
> optimizations may be made would be handy - though of course there is the
> issue that probably installation of such binary would have to be done by an
> admin (I presume).
> 
> anyhow, I wasn't really serious: I simply don't have the time to pursue
> this sort of thing, even if it were possible.
> 
> -- Chris

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >   A prompt is not a gui. A gui is not the only way of using a computer.
> > 
> Are you sure this is a relevant remark?

  Yes. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what prompt access to a
computer means. Chris was not asking for a gui access.

> AFAICS it does not shed light on the meaning of the remark by Chris
> And that is apart from being so bloody obvious that if you made this
> remark to somebody else I wouldn't blame him/her if he reacted angry.

  People get angry all the time because they continuously interpret
text posted in the internet in the worst possible way. I have long time
ago stopped caring about this. If someone really wants to interpret
what I write in the worst possible way, he is completely free to do so.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>   A prompt is not a gui. A gui is not the only way of using a computer.
>>>
>> Are you sure this is a relevant remark?
> 
>   Yes. You seem to have a misunderstanding of what prompt access to a
> computer means. Chris was not asking for a gui access.
> 
Let me put it this way: what on earth did suggest to you that I though 
Chris was asking for gui access? And why did that not trigger a switch 
to reread that sentence because you know I have nearly 30 years of 
experience with programming computers? If you had paid attention over 
the years you might even have known that I have used punched cards to 
program computers, not really a gui.

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Let me put it this way: what on earth did suggest to you that I though 
> Chris was asking for gui access?

  This:

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> >  tho a shell prompt would be even nicer <grin>
> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that
> machine is out of the question.


> And why did that not trigger a switch 
> to reread that sentence because you know I have nearly 30 years of 
> experience with programming computers? If you had paid attention over 
> the years you might even have known that I have used punched cards to 
> program computers, not really a gui.

  Then why, when Chris asked for shell prompt access you responded with
"a gui on that machine is out of the question"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Let me put it this way: what on earth did suggest to you that I though 
>> Chris was asking for gui access?
> 
>   This:
> 
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>  tho a shell prompt would be even nicer <grin>
>> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that
>> machine is out of the question.
> 
> 
>> And why did that not trigger a switch 
>> to reread that sentence because you know I have nearly 30 years of 
>> experience with programming computers? If you had paid attention over 
>> the years you might even have known that I have used punched cards to 
>> program computers, not really a gui.
> 
>   Then why, when Chris asked for shell prompt access you responded with
> "a gui on that machine is out of the question"?
> 

Because I did not understand his remark "tho a shell prompt would be 
even nicer <grin>" and said so. Why would one wants a shell prompt for 
POV? so I tried to ask if he wanted interactive sessions for POV, 
pointing out that the system is not interactive but only batch driven.

(thinking about it a few days later, I think he meant he did not want 
*POV* on a prompt, he wanted access to the beast for *himself*).

If you understood that immediately, you might have told me, in stead you 
choose to address me like I am a 12 year old with no computer experience 
at all, which IMHO makes you look a bit stupid. ;)

Post a reply to this message

andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Because I did not understand his remark "tho a shell prompt would be 
> even nicer <grin>" and said so. Why would one wants a shell prompt for 
> POV?

  POV-Ray (at least the unix version) can be run from a shell prompt in
a text terminal. It does not need a windowing system nor any support for
graphics. (In fact, that's how POV-Ray was originally designed to work,
and still does. The GUI in the Windows and Mac versions are just add-ons
added much later.)

  I'm pretty sure that he half-seriously asked if he would be granted
an account with a shell prompt in that computer so that he could log in
and run povray himself.

> (thinking about it a few days later, I think he meant he did not want 
> *POV* on a prompt, he wanted access to the beast for *himself*).

  I think that what he wanted is to be able to log in into the computer
and run povray himself, which would be the easiest way to run many tests.
(Of course he was probably not asking it seriously because granting
accounts in such supercomputers is not something done lightly.)

> If you understood that immediately, you might have told me, in stead you 
> choose to address me like I am a 12 year old with no computer experience 
> at all, which IMHO makes you look a bit stupid. ;)

  It just looked a lot like you had some kind of confusion between shell
prompts and graphical user interfaces...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> Because I did not understand his remark "tho a shell prompt would be 
>> even nicer <grin>" and said so. Why would one wants a shell prompt for 
>> POV?
> 
>   POV-Ray (at least the unix version) can be run from a shell prompt in
> a text terminal. It does not need a windowing system nor any support for
> graphics. (In fact, that's how POV-Ray was originally designed to work,
> and still does. The GUI in the Windows and Mac versions are just add-ons
> added much later.)
> 
>   I'm pretty sure that he half-seriously asked if he would be granted
> an account with a shell prompt in that computer so that he could log in
> and run povray himself.
> 
>> (thinking about it a few days later, I think he meant he did not want 
>> *POV* on a prompt, he wanted access to the beast for *himself*).
> 
>   I think that what he wanted is to be able to log in into the computer
> and run povray himself, which would be the easiest way to run many tests.
> (Of course he was probably not asking it seriously because granting
> accounts in such supercomputers is not something done lightly.)
BTW I'll talk to this colleague soon, he will be back in amsterdam. Of 
course the real test would be to test the multiprocessor stuff. I think 
I will come back to that when I know there is at least some possibility 
of running a POV benchmark on this super.
> 
>> If you understood that immediately, you might have told me, in stead you 
>> choose to address me like I am a 12 year old with no computer experience 
>> at all, which IMHO makes you look a bit stupid. ;)
> 
>   It just looked a lot like you had some kind of confusion between shell
> prompts and graphical user interfaces...
> 
Yes I figured out that you were thinking along that line. But seriously 
how likely was that? And it did suggest, at least to me, that you were 
thinking prompt and gui are the only two options.

Post a reply to this message

Chris Cason wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I don't understand what you mean. Access is all by batch, a gui on that 
>> machine is out of the question.
> 
> if you mean 'gui' as in 'interactive access', yes I understand that -
> however there must be a staging system where cross-compilation or otherwise
> preparation of binaries are done. specifically, the ability to be able to
> run tests (even if by batch) and recompile the binary to see where
> optimizations may be made would be handy - though of course there is the
> issue that probably installation of such binary would have to be done by an
> admin (I presume).
> 
The system apparently runs linux and there is another much simpler 
system with 4 processors or so that is used for testing and compilation. 
If it all works you place the job in a batch and when enough resources 
become available the jub is run on the big machine. The good news is 
that my collague has enough time on the machine and good enough contacts 
with the sysadmins that compiling POV on that machine and running a 
benchmark may be possible. Especially if we can find a good enough 
explanation why it would be useful for our research. ;)

Post a reply to this message