I'm pulling no punches here. I have no respect for folks who come into this
form and insult us ...

"lavender" <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost
> every where. If programs are not written for networks they might as well
> stay in dos. They will not be of use. Povray is know for doing things that

Fascinating point of view. A non-networked program is not of use ? Wow. I
guess I had better throw out my non-networked version of Photoshop, the
non-networked C++ compiler I use, the non-networked word processor, the non-
networked utilities, and probably 90% of the other software on my machine.

After all, you said they 'will not be of use' and you couldn't possibly be
wrong ... could you ?????

> other programs can not yet. But Povray in all of its power can not even
> brake up the image into chunks and pass those to nodes to render and return

What do brakes have to do with rendering ?

> the part of the image. This IS a simple venture.

Really ? And you're an expert on the subject I see ... how many raytracers
have you written so far ? Can you point me to some URL's or binaries ? I
would like to understand how 'simple' this is by seeing your quality work ...

> Even simpler is to send frames out to different systems.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Come back when you understand
the subject.

> povray team should have already done. I know the program is free but honer
> and pride in work along with integraty should have driven them to write a

Don't presume to tell us what we should do with our time. You have no right
whatsoever to belittle us and suggest that our integrity is blemished because
we haven't done something that YOU think is easy.

We see people like you come along from time to time. They know little but
say much, and presume to insult us because we don't do things that they
want us to.

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:52:07 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:
>I'm pulling no punches here. 
[extremely fine rant elided]

Seconded.  Couldn'a said it better myself.

-- 
Ron Parker   http://www2.fwi.com/~parkerr/traces.html
My opinions.  Mine.  Not anyone else's.

Post a reply to this message

In article <slr### [at] linuxparkerrfwicom> , 
ron### [at] povrayorg (Ron Parker) wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 13:52:07 +1000, Chris Cason wrote:
>>I'm pulling no punches here.
> [extremely fine rant elided]
>
> Seconded.  Couldn'a said it better myself.

I agree.


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg

I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Ron Parker <ron### [at] povrayorg> wrote:
: So 9x and NT are mostly preemptive, but they still have a cooperative 
: system inside for legacy apps.

  That's why they are only partly pre-emptive.
  I can make a program that completely steals all the CPU time in windows.
  I can't do this in Unix. I can make a program that steals _most_ of the
CPU time, but still it just can't lock up the system; other programs can
still run and, for example, kill the resource-stealing program if necessary.
In windows, however, it is possible to make a program that locks up the
system completely.
  I don't know about win2k or NT.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general lavender <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
: Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost 
: every where. If programs are not written for networks they might as well 
: stay in dos.

  Not true. Multitasking (and of course memory protection) is a very important
feature even in a 1-processor computer. Of course one sole program will not
benefit from multitasking in a 1-processor computer, but you need only two
programs running at the "same" time to get the benefits (not to talk about
the tens or even hundres of processes running in a typical multitasking
environment).
  If you have several computers connected to each other, a program could
benefit from this and make each one of them perform an independent task of
the program.
  Usually this needs direct support in the program itself, but luckily
povray is not one of those. Since povray supports partial renders you can
run povray in each computer and render one part of the image.
  With proper tools you can automatize this task (without having to patch
povray itself). Of course a proper operating system will help providing these
tools by itself or allowing to make them rather easily (either with some
scripting language or easy support to a programming language like C).
  Unfortunately Windows is not one of these operating systems.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: There will be a rewrite for 4.0 using C++, but consider that we do it in our
: spare time, don't get paid $10000/month and work 50 hours/week for POV-Ray.

  On the other hand you don't have deadline pressures, market pressures,
competition pressures ("must have this product out before competitors").
Which means that if you are not happy with the current version, you just don't
publish it and that's it. You publish it when it's ready, and then it will
certainly be a lot higher quality program.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"lavender" <lav### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:8F617F84Elavendersmith@204.213.191.228...
> Computers have been networked not for a long time. The internet is almost
> .....

Hmm, I smell a rat - or am I just being naive in thinking that no one could
be this idiotic and insulting accidentally?

> ... As for money they can talk to me about that.

I hereby appoint myself financial director in the lavender/POV-team
endevour. Send me money. Initially, it will be spent on a new Pentium III PC
for myself, as I wish to render all contracts with radiosity and photons on
iso-surface paper.

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general Chris Cason <nospam@noemail> wrote:
:> Even simpler is to send frames out to different systems.

: You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Come back when you understand
: the subject.

  Please try to understand that it is not so easy to know the difficulties
of multithreading and multitasking unless you have studied it or tried to
make lots of programs using it.
  I didn't have a clue about multithreading and multitasking (and their
problems) until I had several courses about the matter here (Tampere university
of technology).
  A layman can easily think that it's just a piece of cake to make
multitasked systems and multithreaded programs. It's only when you try to
do it or when you are taught about it that you realize how problematic it
really is. Some problems are so deep, that even the most modern science have
not solved them in a fool-proof manner.
  One could think that if it's so problematic, how come there are countless
operating systems and programs using it without problems?
  Operating systems have more than 30 years of experience about multitasking
behind them and they use well-known algorithms. These algorithms are often
extremely complicated, specially if the OS tries to achieve the multitasking
effectively, without too much overhead (multitasking is _never_ free; it
always consumes some resources). This is the reason why some systems don't
have multitasking at all and some others have only extremely poor versions
of them.
  A multithreaded program is not any luckier (if anything, it's the other
way around, ie. it can have even more problems). There are very serious
and complicated problems here, like mutual exclusion problems, communication
(between threads) problems, problems about sharing of resources, and so on.
Some operating systems offer system tools for these tasks (like semaphores,
monitors, etc), others don't.
  The big problem about these is that they are incredibly malicious. You can
have a mutual exclusion bug in your program which doesn't happen to you no
matter how many test runs you make. However when thousands of people start
to use the program, the bug can arise.
  These mutual exclusion (and other similar) bugs usually happen in only
certain conditions. These conditions are usually extremely rare and extremely
hard to reproduce (you'll have to reproduce the entire series of events that
lead to that bug, and this can be near to impossible since it may depend
on what the operating system was doing at that exact time).
  There's one adjective to describe this type of behaviour: Non-deterministic.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:395b1a0a@news.povray.org...
>   Please try to understand that it is not so easy to know the difficulties
> of multithreading and multitasking unless you have studied it or tried to
> make lots of programs using it.
>...
>   A layman can easily think that it's just a piece of cake to make
> multitasked systems and multithreaded programs.

<dumb>
Gosh, you lot do try and complicate things. Multi-tasking is easy - you just
wire up a load of CPUs in series. Alternatively, if you wish your system to
go longer without crashing, you can wire them up in parallel.
</dumb>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I can make a program that completely steals all the CPU time in windows.

But not in NT.

>   I don't know about win2k or NT.

Aha.

Markus

Post a reply to this message