On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 09:06:32 +0200, scott wrote:

> Gee, I'd hate to work at your company where the IT people don't even let
> you watch videos or play an odd game of Internet Reversi during a break.
> Actually some of our customers send us video clips of problems
> sometimes, it would be a bit embarrassing if we had to explain how we
> chose an IT system that didn't allow us to watch them...

This is becoming more and more popular in businesses; I worked for a 
Fortune 50 that enforced a special wallpaper so employees would know they 
were working on a company machine.  (I had some involvement in this 
because I created the wallpaper as a lark - thought "wouldn't it be fun 
to create the company's logo as a glass-like texture using POV - and was 
asked by the guy doing the desktop lockdown project if he could get a 
copy of it - next thing I knew, it was on over 10,000 desktops across the 
company).

That was now about 10 years ago (doesn't seem possible it was that long 
ago).  But desktop lockdown and software installation policies are very 
common in corporate IT policies these days, especially with all the 
crapware/malware/spyware that's in the Windows world.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The C declaration of
>>    unsigned int X;
>> does not allocate an integer variable.
> 
>> You wouldn't need signed/unsigned conversion rules if you were working 
>> with integers instead of int's.
> 
>   I may be unusually dense here, but I still can't understand.

I'm assuming you know what an integer is? And what an int is as defined 
by C?  And how they differ?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <noo### [at] nowherecom> wrote:
>> I am fairly certain he simply means that the range of 'int' in C++ is only  
>> a subset of Z (the set of integers).
> 
>   I would like to see the compiler which manages to handle the entire set
> of integers.

They're called UTMs. Universal Turing Machines. ;-)

But yes, what happens when you exceed what the machine can handle is 
*exactly* what we're talking about here. C does a well-defined but 
surprising-to-the-naive method for dealing with integers too large.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> that's one reason why cameras use USB and not LAN or WLAN 

USB *is* a LAN. You mean memory chips? I've seen cameras that do 
wireless LAN too, for (for example) places that take your ID photo and 
print it out for you.

> too hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?

Errrr, nope!  You could get network stacks pretty easily, really. That's 
what the whole NETBIOS was.  Back in the DOS 3.x days, if I recall. Why 
would it be difficult to put a network stack on a DOS machine?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Yep, even on something relatively much simpler, like the radio in a car, 
> it is the software that causes the biggest headaches.  We can develop 
> and test the hardware usually in two or three 6 month blocks, but it 
> always the software that requires *way* more time and is usually the 
> reason for requested hardware changes, extra builds and delays.

Exactly. Now, ask yourself, if the software is that painful, why have 
software at all? Why not implement everything in hardware?

Because it's too complicated to implement in hardware. Software may be 
painful, but it's the *least* painful way of doing something like that. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.

Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old OSes, 
even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's because the 
new OSes provide more services and functionality that the programmers 
like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> The C declaration of
> >>    unsigned int X;
> >> does not allocate an integer variable.
> > 
> >> You wouldn't need signed/unsigned conversion rules if you were working 
> >> with integers instead of int's.
> > 
> >   I may be unusually dense here, but I still can't understand.

> I'm assuming you know what an integer is? And what an int is as defined 
> by C?  And how they differ?

  Why is that relevant? There are no programming languages which can handle
the entire set of integers.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
>> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
> 
> Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old OSes, 
> even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's because the 
> new OSes provide more services and functionality that the programmers 
> like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?

More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency, 
but anyway...

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Exactly. Now, ask yourself, if the software is that painful, why have
> software at all? Why not implement everything in hardware?
> 
> Because it's too complicated to implement in hardware. Software may be
> painful, but it's the *least* painful way of doing something like that. :-)
> 

Software is cheaper, when production hits masses. For instance a volume
control on a car stereo - normal, old-style potentiometer has been
around for decades, it's easy to manufacture, it's easy to use and it's
easy to implement. Still the cheapest hardware use software for the
matter, as it can be done without extra hardware (there's already a DAC
or DSP oslt, which can handle the volume code).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

"Orchid XP v7" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:47230b23$1@news.povray.org...
> Darren New wrote:
> > Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> >> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
> >> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
> >
> > Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old OSes,
> > even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's because the
> > new OSes provide more services and functionality that the programmers
> > like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?
>
> More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency,
> but anyway...

Actually, one of their requirements is backward compatability, at least til
XP. Stuff that ran on 98 should still run on XP. It way require enabling
compat modes, but it should run. That's for stuff that used the APIs as they
were designed to be used. For stuff that used undocumented features and
bugs, all bets are off however

There's a tale about a workaround that was put into one version of the OS (I
think it was win 95) to allow SimCity to work on the newer OS. Simcity had
been depending on a bug that was fixed in the newer version, and hence it
didn't run.

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message 
news:4722aa00$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>> that's one reason why cameras use USB and not LAN or WLAN
>
> USB *is* a LAN. You mean memory chips? I've seen cameras that do wireless 
> LAN too, for (for example) places that take your ID photo and print it out 
> for you.
>
>> too hard/impossible to get a network stack on DOS?
>
> Errrr, nope!  You could get network stacks pretty easily, really. That's 
> what the whole NETBIOS was.  Back in the DOS 3.x days, if I recall. Why 
> would it be difficult to put a network stack on a DOS machine?

Oh gawd, suddenly I remember it all:
The long boot sequence
The 3C509 drivers;
IPConfig;
The ReDiRector

<has a Jason-Bourne-finding-out-he is-really-David-Webb episode>

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/27 05:55:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
>>> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
>>
>> Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old 
>> OSes, even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's 
>> because the new OSes provide more services and functionality that the 
>> programmers like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?
> 
> More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency, 
> but anyway...
No API rearrengement at all, NEW APIs! Some older APIs where also upgraded, but 
they are still called the same way as before and return the same thing. After 
all, they have to make sure that existing softwares designed for win 2K and XP 
continue to run. Whitch in turn, impose that programms made for the win 9x to 
still be able to run on XP and Vista.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Al Gore is proof that Tennessee has a sense of humor.

Post a reply to this message

"Alain" <ele### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:47235a6a$1@news.povray.org...
> Orchid XP v7 nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/10/27 05:55:
> > Darren New wrote:
> >> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> >>> Because almost no software will run on it any more.
> >>> Seriously. I'd still be using WinNT if it wasn't for that.
> >>
> >> Now consider why it might be that new software doesn't run on old
> >> OSes, even tho the old software runs on the new OSes.  Maybe it's
> >> because the new OSes provide more services and functionality that the
> >> programmers like to take advantage of to make their lives easier?
> >
> > More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency,
> > but anyway...

> No API rearrengement at all, NEW APIs! Some older APIs where also
upgraded, but
> they are still called the same way as before and return the same thing.

And some of those new APIs are quicker and easier to use. Hence the lazy
programmers (*) who develop apps for windows will use those over the older
APIs. Hence stuff works on XP that won't work on 98

(*) It has been said that laziness is a desirable trait in programmers. I'm
not making a judgement on everyone who develops

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Why is that relevant?  There are no programming languages which can handle
> the entire set of integers.

Again:
But yes, what happens when you exceed what the machine can handle is 
*exactly* what we're talking about here. C does a well-defined but 
surprising-to-the-naive method for dealing with integers too large.

Programming languages that natively handle unbounded integers don't 
distinguish between signed and unsigned integers, because people don't 
program down to the last bit of an integer. Hence, there's no need to 
define what happens when you combine an unsigned integer that won't fit 
in a signed integer's value range with a signed integer.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> More likely M$ rearranged some API to induce an artificial dependency, 
> but anyway...

Then NT code wouldn't run on XP, which is generally not the case unless 
you go out of your way to make that happen.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

> And some of those new APIs are quicker and easier to use. Hence the lazy
> programmers (*) who develop apps for windows will use those over the older
> APIs. Hence stuff works on XP that won't work on 98

DirectX is a prime example, since V5 it has got easier and easier to use 
with each revision.  In V6 IIRC you needed a huge amount of code to query 
the graphics card for screen modes and types, driver capabilities etc.  Even 
the change from V9 to V10 has simplified a lot of the functions for checking 
driver capabilities, you no longer have to query every function you are 
using to see if it is supported or not...  You'd be silly to use V6 when 
V9/V10 is much easier to use, supports many more features and 99% of people 
can use it.

Post a reply to this message

> That was now about 10 years ago (doesn't seem possible it was that long
> ago).  But desktop lockdown and software installation policies are very
> common in corporate IT policies these days, especially with all the
> crapware/malware/spyware that's in the Windows world.

Yep, and the policy works too.  Where I used to work everyone was using 
Win95 (to start with, they slowly changed to XP when I was leaving) and I 
don't think we ever saw a blue-screen.  This was because we were only 
allowed to use approved software, and IT had tested to death anything that 
was to be used on the system to make sure it was compatible with everything. 
Add to that the fact that they routinely wiped the HDs, it meant a very 
stable computing environment virtually transparent to the user (unless you 
wanted to install some application that was not in the list).

Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to an 
unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

Post a reply to this message

> Sure, manipulating an 8 megapixel photo takes a lot of RAM. But what about 
> while you're *not* manipulating an 8 megapixel photo? Why should it 
> require any more RAM then? (Not to mention CPU time...)

Because it keeps 100 levels of undo data, has code for doing 400 different 
brush types and colour gradients, functions for adjusting colour balance and 
histogram equalisation, red-eye removal, perspective correction, much higher 
resolution and colour depth icons for all the tool-bars, critical parts of 
the code have been optimised for speed (at the expense of RAM usage) now 
that everyone has more RAM, it has loaded lots of stuff to RAM that it 
thinks you *might* use so that it appears to run quicker, etc.

Personally, I like having all that stuff at the expense of it using 1% of my 
RAM instead of 0.1%.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Sure, manipulating an 8 megapixel photo takes a lot of RAM. But what 
>> about while you're *not* manipulating an 8 megapixel photo? Why should 
>> it require any more RAM then? (Not to mention CPU time...)
> 
> Because it keeps 100 levels of undo data, has code for doing 400 
> different brush types and colour gradients, functions for adjusting 
> colour balance and histogram equalisation, red-eye removal, perspective 
> correction, much higher resolution and colour depth icons for all the 
> tool-bars, critical parts of the code have been optimised for speed (at 
> the expense of RAM usage) now that everyone has more RAM, it has loaded 
> lots of stuff to RAM that it thinks you *might* use so that it appears 
> to run quicker, etc.
> 
> Personally, I like having all that stuff at the expense of it using 1% 
> of my RAM instead of 0.1%.

Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I 
can say... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to 
> an unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

Finally, something we can agree on...

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to an 
> unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

  That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
system by installing and changing settings...

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
> system by installing and changing settings...

And what system lets you install applications and change settings that 
*doesn't* let you screw things up?  Last time I ran rpm as a normal 
user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that 
> *doesn't* let you screw things up?

  MacOS X?

>  Last time I ran rpm as a normal 
> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.

  Most unix programs can be installed locally. If some can't, they are
stupid.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:56:44 +0100, scott wrote:

>> That was now about 10 years ago (doesn't seem possible it was that long
>> ago).  But desktop lockdown and software installation policies are very
>> common in corporate IT policies these days, especially with all the
>> crapware/malware/spyware that's in the Windows world.
> 
> Yep, and the policy works too.  Where I used to work everyone was using
> Win95 (to start with, they slowly changed to XP when I was leaving) and
> I don't think we ever saw a blue-screen.  This was because we were only
> allowed to use approved software, and IT had tested to death anything
> that was to be used on the system to make sure it was compatible with
> everything. Add to that the fact that they routinely wiped the HDs, it
> meant a very stable computing environment virtually transparent to the
> user (unless you wanted to install some application that was not in the
> list).

Oh yes, for the company I worked for before coming to Novell, we used 
Novell's ZENworks for application distribution and desktop policy 
management.  There was a team of half a dozen engineers who would test 
applications like mad to make sure the install wouldn't break something 
else.  Compatibility testing was a huge component of that process - will 
app A break app B?

> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to
> an unstable environment and many many IT support calls.

Yep.  BTDTGTTS.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:53:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>>   That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
>> system by installing and changing settings...
> 
> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
> *doesn't* let you screw things up?  Last time I ran rpm as a normal
> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.

"You must be root"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 21:00:10 -0500, Warp wrote:

>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
> 
>   MacOS X?

Bwah!  Yeah, riiiight.

It is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so 
ingenious...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Allowing users to modify settings and install anything usually leads to 
>> an
>> unstable environment and many many IT support calls.
>
>  That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
> system by installing and changing settings...

All modern desktop OSs can be configured to stop users changing settings 
etc, can't they?  Even Win95 allowed this which seemed to work very 
successfully in my previous company, where 10's thousands of people were 
using it.

But yes, if your OS doesn't allow this, then you are certainly using the 
wrong OS in your business.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I can 
> say... ;-)

I think the problem here is that you have a seriously *limited* amount of 
RAM to play with compared to what most other people have :-p  And you try to 
run programs that are not designed to run on 5-year-old hardware, then 
complain when they use too much RAM...

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that 
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
> 
>   MacOS X?

OK, fair enough.  Altho I'd be surprised if you could install 
applications without screwing up your system. See the new Mac OsX trojan 
floating around.

>   Most unix programs can be installed locally. If some can't, they are
> stupid.

I don't know how to do this from an RPM.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:53:12 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   That's because they use the wrong OS, where users can screw up the
>>> system by installing and changing settings...
>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?  Last time I ran rpm as a normal
>> user, it not only didn't work, it gave a really stupid error message.
> 
> "You must be root"?

No, actually. Something like "could not aquire package directory lock". 
If it said "you must be root" I wouldn't have had to try several times 
and wander around looking for where said lock might be in order to 
install the software.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

scott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/04 12:00:
>> Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I 
>> can say... ;-)
> 
> I think the problem here is that you have a seriously *limited* amount 
> of RAM to play with compared to what most other people have :-p  And you 
> try to run programs that are not designed to run on 5-year-old hardware, 
> then complain when they use too much RAM...
> 
> 
Upgrading your RAM is a snap! Power down and unplug, get the memory module, slip 
it in an empty memory slot, power up. And it don't cost that much.

I have 1.5 Gb of RAM, and I don't find that it's to much, just a normal and 
reasonable amount. My computer is about 6 years old.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Drive A: not responding.. .Formating C: instead

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> Upgrading your RAM is a snap! 

Assuming you can still purchase RAM for your old machine, and assuming 
you know what RAM you need for the machine, and assuming you have slots 
free, and assuming the balancing between slots is right (i.e., that 
you're not plugging 1G into one slot and 128M into another slot that 
upsets the BIOS), it's straightforward.

But yah, it's maybe one step harder than replacing your hard drive, with 
the benefit that it's volatile, so every program already accounts for 
losing the data in it. :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:06:16 -0500, Alain wrote:

>  And it don't cost that
> much.

That's all in the eye of the beholder; I just purchased 2 GB of RAM and 
it was about $50 here.  Not terribly expensive, but then again I had an 
extra $50 to spend on the memory.  If you don't have it, of course, then 
$50 is a lot of money to spend.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> No, actually. Something like "could not aquire package directory lock".
> If it said "you must be root" I wouldn't have had to try several times
> and wander around looking for where said lock might be in order to
> install the software.

Oh, right, that is what it says - unable to lock database or unable to 
get exclusive lock.

I hit that every once in a while, but know that it means "yo, idiot, 
you're not root!" - using the YaST software installer prompts you to 
login; using Red Carpet would allow you to set rights, so I'd either use 
rug or yast2 myself...

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:29:27 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> And what system lets you install applications and change settings that
>>> *doesn't* let you screw things up?
>> 
>>   MacOS X?
> 
> OK, fair enough.  Altho I'd be surprised if you could install
> applications without screwing up your system. See the new Mac OsX trojan
> floating around.
> 
>>   Most unix programs can be installed locally. If some can't, they are
>> stupid.
> 
> I don't know how to do this from an RPM.

Generally, you can't - though if you use something like rpm2cpio to 
convert it to a cpio archive, you can then unpack it and configure things 
to run locally.  Alien might also be able to help you out with this as 
well.

This is one thing I like about Autopackage, actually - it will do non-
root installs and set things up for you.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> No, actually. Something like "could not aquire package directory lock".
>> If it said "you must be root" I wouldn't have had to try several times
>> and wander around looking for where said lock might be in order to
>> install the software.
> 
> Oh, right, that is what it says - unable to lock database or unable to 
> get exclusive lock.
> 
> I hit that every once in a while, but know that it means "yo, idiot, 
> you're not root!" - using the YaST software installer prompts you to 
> login; using Red Carpet would allow you to set rights, so I'd either use 
> rug or yast2 myself...

Well, yeah, I do now. I mean, I learned what it meant. Would it really 
have been that hard to put
   if (euid() != 0) {
     fprintf(stderr, "You gotta be root!\n");
     exit(1);
    }
at the start of the code?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escribió:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:30:30 -0800, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> No, actually. Something like "could not aquire package directory lock".
>>> If it said "you must be root" I wouldn't have had to try several times
>>> and wander around looking for where said lock might be in order to
>>> install the software.
>>
>> Oh, right, that is what it says - unable to lock database or unable to 
>> get exclusive lock.
>>
>> I hit that every once in a while, but know that it means "yo, idiot, 
>> you're not root!" - using the YaST software installer prompts you to 
>> login; using Red Carpet would allow you to set rights, so I'd either 
>> use rug or yast2 myself...
> 
> Well, yeah, I do now. I mean, I learned what it meant. Would it really 
> have been that hard to put
>   if (euid() != 0) {
>     fprintf(stderr, "You gotta be root!\n");
>     exit(1);
>    }
> at the start of the code?
> 

Debian's dpkg message:
E: Could not open lock file /var/lib/dpkg/lock - open (13 Permission denied)
E: Unable to lock the administration directory (/var/lib/dpkg/), are you 
root?

Doesn't even check for the userid; but it assumes the most common reason 
for failing to acquire the lock is because of running it as non-root, 
and mentions it.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I 
>> can say... ;-)
> 
> I think the problem here is that you have a seriously *limited* amount 
> of RAM to play with compared to what most other people have :-p  And you 
> try to run programs that are not designed to run on 5-year-old hardware, 
> then complain when they use too much RAM...

And I think the problem here is that software writers *expect* to just 
be able to waste RAM whenever they feel like it because, after all, 
"everybody has lots of RAM now, don't they?"

Post a reply to this message

> And I think the problem here is that software writers *expect* to just be 
> able to waste RAM whenever they feel like it because, after all, 
> "everybody has lots of RAM now, don't they?"

Yup, and in the same way that game writers make 3D models with 200k faces 
instead of 200 faces, just because everyone has a decent 3D card nowadays.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:472ee37c$1@news.povray.org...
> scott wrote:
>>> Well, you must have some serious amounts of RAM to play with is all I 
>>> can say... ;-)
>>
>> I think the problem here is that you have a seriously *limited* amount of 
>> RAM to play with compared to what most other people have :-p  And you try 
>> to run programs that are not designed to run on 5-year-old hardware, then 
>> complain when they use too much RAM...
>
> And I think the problem here is that software writers *expect* to just be 
> able to waste RAM whenever they feel like it because, after all, 
> "everybody has lots of RAM now, don't they?"

If you can't afford to update, fair enough, but then you should accept it's 
simply a fact of life the world will always change and not everyone can stay 
current all the time.  Everyone has different life circumstances and it's 
pointless blaming the rest of the world for not stopping to wait for the guy 
who's 5 years behind just so he can catch up.  Yeah it's disapponting not 
having money to update, but getting frustrated at the world is a totally 
useless emotion, especially as getting cranky at everything isn't going to 
change anything and you'll still have the same problem tomorrow, but with 
even less energy to do anything positive about it.

If the Sunrise in the morning blinds you through the bedroom window every 
morning, you don't get all cranky and yell at the Sun do you?  You know it 
is always like that and you change your house to solve the problem and 
adapt.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> And I think the problem here is that software writers *expect* to just 
>> be able to waste RAM whenever they feel like it because, after all, 
>> "everybody has lots of RAM now, don't they?"
> 
> Yup, and in the same way that game writers make 3D models with 200k 
> faces instead of 200 faces, just because everyone has a decent 3D card 
> nowadays.

No, that's not *wasting* the extra GPU power, that's *using* the extra 
GPU power to do something useful. That's a good thing. (And typically 
you can still run using an older GPU because each mesh usually has 
multiple LOD versions anyway.)

What I object to is software *wasting* resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) just 
because it can. There's really no need for that.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/04 13:34:
> Alain wrote:
>> Upgrading your RAM is a snap! 
> 
> Assuming you can still purchase RAM for your old machine, and assuming 
> you know what RAM you need for the machine, and assuming you have slots 
> free, and assuming the balancing between slots is right (i.e., that 
> you're not plugging 1G into one slot and 128M into another slot that 
> upsets the BIOS), it's straightforward.
Why would that cause any problem? Unless you have dual chanels, you can have all 
different capacity modules without any problem: personal experience with 
different computers, different brand mobos, different brand RAMs.
> 
> But yah, it's maybe one step harder than replacing your hard drive, with 
> the benefit that it's volatile, so every program already accounts for 
> losing the data in it. :-)
> 
I can no longer find DDR266, but 1G DDR400 have no problem coexisting with my 
512M DDR266. Both run as DDR266, one at full speed and 1 is underclocked. As 
long as it can actualy fit in a slot, it does work.
If you have dual channels, then you need to have matched pairs, but the pairs 
from 2 different banks don't need to be matched.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Adult, n.: One old enough to know better.

Post a reply to this message

scott nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/05 07:49:
>> And I think the problem here is that software writers *expect* to just 
>> be able to waste RAM whenever they feel like it because, after all, 
>> "everybody has lots of RAM now, don't they?"
> 
> Yup, and in the same way that game writers make 3D models with 200k 
> faces instead of 200 faces, just because everyone has a decent 3D card 
> nowadays.
> 
> 
Most gamers DO have more than decent 3D cards. The rest have decent cards ;) 
They also have more than enough RAM available.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
Caught Asleep At Your Work Desk

Just in case your boss catches you asleep at your desk, be ready to blurt out 
this excuse #1:  I was working smarter - not harder.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Doesn't even check for the userid; but it assumes the most common reason
> for failing to acquire the lock is because of running it as non-root,
> and mentions it.

Gentoo kicks ass ;).

aero@aerospace:~$ emerge povray
emerge: superuser access is required.

aero@aerospace:~$


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
   http://www.zbxt.net
      aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

> What I object to is software *wasting* resources (CPU, RAM, etc.) just 
> because it can. There's really no need for that.

Even if software did do that, it wouldn't matter because it would just get 
paged out of RAM when necessary and never return (unless it was actually 
used for something, which is highly probable).

Post a reply to this message

Brian Elliott wrote:
> If the Sunrise in the morning blinds you through the bedroom window
> every morning, you don't get all cranky and yell at the Sun do you?
> 

No, you yell at the person who opened the blinds and curtains enough so
that the sun could even get through. Then throw the nearest pillow or,
on second offense, hardback book at said person.

Pity to damage a good book that way, but some times . . .

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:59:34 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> at the start of the code?

Apparently so. ;-)

(Of course, anyone can submit a patch.....<g>)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Alain wrote:
> Why would that cause any problem? Unless you have dual chanels, you can 
> have all different capacity modules without any problem: personal 
> experience with different computers, different brand mobos, different 
> brand RAMs.

I've come across situations where it needed balanced RAM. Not being an 
expert, and not really caring to learn such details, I don't know why.

And we had a machine at work we were going to use as a router that was 
too old to find RAM for. The oldest stuff we could find had physically 
different connectors, so...

Just saying, since it's in response to someone who regularly complains 
about how ancient his machines are... :-)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Brian Elliott wrote:
> If the Sunrise in the morning blinds you through the bedroom window 
> every morning, you don't get all cranky and yell at the Sun do you?

Well, maybe three days in the spring and three in the fall.  We have a 
prismatic crystal hanging in that window, so occasionally I'll get woken 
by a blinding BLUE glare in one eye, or something like that. But it's 
amusing enough to be worth putting up with.


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     Remember the good old days, when we
     used to complain about cryptography
     being export-restricted?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New nous apporta ses lumieres en ce 2007/11/06 00:00:
> Alain wrote:
>> Why would that cause any problem? Unless you have dual chanels, you 
>> can have all different capacity modules without any problem: personal 
>> experience with different computers, different brand mobos, different 
>> brand RAMs.
> 
> I've come across situations where it needed balanced RAM. Not being an 
> expert, and not really caring to learn such details, I don't know why.
> 
> And we had a machine at work we were going to use as a router that was 
> too old to find RAM for. The oldest stuff we could find had physically 
> different connectors, so...
> 
> Just saying, since it's in response to someone who regularly complains 
> about how ancient his machines are... :-)
> 
I don't complain ;) It's just that I know that my machine is ready to get it's 
replacement.

-- 
Alain
-------------------------------------------------
To err is human, to forgive is not our policy.

Post a reply to this message