so your problem is that you know windows tool and do not know the linux ones... so of course everything is hard that way!
process monitor: duh, strace! more complex things you can use perf or eBPF resource monitor: are you talking of htop and atop and many other tools that merge those other tools stats?
No idea what is RamMap, but i suspect it is a GUI for/proc/1/smaps and maybe other proc files
Simple "task manager", htop works fine... you do not have network in there, it is included in the IO as linux have not a easy way to map network usage restricted to process
Or maybe you mean that you do not like text based tools? that is ok, there are some GUI tools too, but sysinternals ones will be just one more
And currently you can use in any linux strace and maybe gdb to find what the app is doing. On newer linux distros you have or multiple extra tools, like perf, ltrace, ftrace, lttng, sysdig, eBPF, systemtap
Probably MS will hook strace and maybe some perf, ltrace and maybe eBPF for more advanced things... lets see how will MS eBPF code will crash the kernel in fun ways!;)
That is why many people say that gnome is the linux "windows", one size fits all, they are always right, everyone else must follow then and even include a registry!:D
all those services are useful... if you use then! Most people do not use most of google services
i can browser the net, use GPS and maps, see my calendar and taks, take pictures, sync my contacts and files... what i'm missing? games? yes, i can also play several games... what else? social network? i personally do not use then, but they are there!
Most of those features are really useless or only needed by some people... talk to the phone? nope, useless to me, but for old people that may be a killer feature
>Someone has to build and maintain those app stores.
You miss the point... there are alternative shops out there, f-droid and Aptoide are 2 of the biggest managed by small teams. Trying to ask phone manufactures or phone operators to bundle their store is impossible, google one is free and known, why risk anything else! Marketing, paying operators, etc is almost impossible, they have to pay for the systems and people, they have no money left for anything else! But if you have to pay 40€... maybe that other free or cheap app store isn't that bad and they may test releasing it on cheap phones. If that works, it may push the market enough so those stores can finally grow their market share. With more money, those shops can also pay their bills and improve the service.
do not even need that, ship with Aptoide (www.Aptoide.com), it is just one of the top alternative app store and almost the only not tied to another big company/manufacturer
Sorry, but i may have explain badly what i mean, i'm not saying that mercury have atmosphere or that insulation is a new thing. I know that comparing the two is hard because so much differences between then. Let me try again: i'm comparing earth CO2 greenhouse effect with Venus runaway greenhouse effect and high temperature... and to avoid the the reply that venus is closer to the sun, so it is normal to be hotter, i also gave the example that mercury is less hot than venus. This also proves that the thick venus atmosphere is the one to blame for high temperature. Nothing that i said is new or amazing discoveries, all this is just because the previous post was saying that it was impossible for the CO2 to make the planet hotter.
the comparison is just to cut the common excuse that venus is closer to the sun... mercury is lot closer and have lower temperature, so proving that atmosphere DO affect the planet surface temperature
Venus have NOW more atmosphere, as the high temperature promotes ebullition and so higher gas quantity. But even before reaching that level, they where for sure very similar, their size and composition is similar... Venus did got hot, triggering more CO2 and other components to be released to atmosphere and deploying a never ending of greenhouse effect (hot, more gas release, more hotter)
As you said mercury have no atmosphere... so you are agreeing that atmosphere do correlate with the surface temperature of a planet...
While simplifying, my description is what happen, but as you are so good, please inform us all about your scientific point of view, Your original description is totally correct, except the part that you assume that higher CO2 can not change the rate of heat dissipated by the planet... based on what you assume that?
Again, where do you place the nuclear waste... remember that they last several THOUSAND OF YEARS!! People that like nuclear always forget about that... someone in the future (thousands of years is a very long future) will for sure find a solution for that problem, right?
But i do agree,Germany using coal is one of the most stupid decisions, yes
You know that in the last 15 years the wind turbine have turn much better than the ones used 20 years ago!
Currently big and modern wind turbines work well, do not fail, produce good amount of energy for the wind level... they are big and expensive, but still much less than other power stations and do not have unknowns anymore, other than how much wind will be at a certain time. But that is also not a problem anymore because experience and data analysis show in average how many days you get without wind and with high winds. You can plan based on that, just as you can play a coal plan based on the average coal price and electricity prices... it can go up, it can go down, but you use that average and error level to map the expected break even/profit time, with a certain level of confidence. It is exactly the same not with wind farms
If you read the summary well, they are comparing a 100% wind setup for USA (something that we all know that is not even desirable, we need several power sources) and they agree that the worse case is a "small" 0.24C increase due a little higher mixing of atmospheric layers... comparing that with the current setup is a clear win, as that value is even less what we get if we could stop using coal and other dirty power sources everywhere.
Yes, everything we do can change things, probably big cities make higher temperature increase due to their skyscrapers and AC systems than wind farms and this paper just try to measure this... and agree that is a better solution.
Sadly people do not really read things, just quickly screen the summary and assume what they want... or even worse, dirty energy lobbies abuse the paper to try to spread FUD.
Sure, you are totally right... and venus is a paradise, with its 400C air temperature (higher than mercury) because CO2 do not generate greenhouse effect and heat a planet
Planets radiate heat they absorb from the sun and the atmosphere absorb some of that heat and with conduction heats the atmosphere and the planet... not only that, but it will also release it back... some will still go to space, but another part will be sent back to the planet... repeat this and you get the greenhouse effect...
this happen for all components in the atmosphere. The problem with CO2 is that it is bigger and can absorb more heat than nitrogen and oxigen. Half of it still goes to space, but the other half will be resent to the earth surface again. And not not forget that conduction will also transfer some of that heat back to earth. That small differences adds up with time.
Limiting the science is a wrong way to do science. You are right in small scale, but in huge planet size scale, small details do make difference, specially over time
northern countries have mountains and water, hydric power is the main power source. Yes, solar will not work there, but it works in the south. Wind, there are months (and places) with lot of wind. And as always, you need redundancies, gas included, so each one can fill any hole left by any other power source. And again, if wind blows when it is not needed, pump water to higher places so you can use it later.
When wind works, it is cheaper than everything else and you can save the coal or gas. Notice that you already have those coal and gas power stations, so you are not investing double... but if you are using coal, you may need to invest to replace then with gas (or a mix of several solutions)
Each country/region need to check the energy potential they have, solar, wind or hydric do not work every place and develop their energy solutions based on that. The idea is to mix several energy sources and lower as much as possible the "dirt" power. What works in a country may not work on another... and even years, the wind tech from 10 years ago is lot worse than current one ( huge wind towers are lot more efficient and less dangerous to birds), solar tech is getting better each year, hydric storage is a "new" thing. Coal also got better, but it still a very dirt power source, even compared with gas... and gas is getting cheaper than coal
why does people do FUD with wind? maybe they don't really understand it... nobody talks about 100% wind, if there is no wind, you still have all other energy sources, like gas, nuclear, hydric.
There are ALWAYS redundant power sources, even nuclear... if one fails, all other will have to fill the hole... yes, wind may fail more, but it works most of the time and it is CHEAPER than other sources. If there is need for more energy, pump the nuclear, gas, hydric power stagings. During the night, make the wind pump the hydric energy storage systems (ie: pump water back to the higher dams so you can recover that energy later when needed)
in all techs, there are many paper designs that are awesome, but then in real live tests they face a never ending material, process and implementation problems.
Yes, molten salt is probably the best solution for future nuclear fission reactors, but they are very hard to implement, to contain and need special material... some alloys are even referred on paper, but do not exist yet. There are many lab tests and test plans, but no real world working station exists yet. Even if the reactor itself is simpler, you still need a chemical plant next to it to process and cleanup the molten salt. Everyone is also testing different materials to sustain the salt and neutron flux without breaking up. All this is slow, each test take years, that is why we listen about molten salt reactors for years and no real working design is here yet. Basically, it will take a long time to get a working design, that will then be refined to reduce costs.
Adding more safeguards to nuclear reactors is always a good idea, but that also adds costs. Lab tests have less safeguards and look "cheap", but then real world and size, those costs quickly scale up. But most of the accidents where caused by humans, either by errors or cutting corners to cut costs and we still didn't had a terrorist attack on a nuclear central. Nuclear accidents are always a huge problem.
Finally, you may blame hippies, or whatever, but there are huge problems in storing nuclear waste. Just because someone accepts money to store nuclear waste, do not make it a good place to store it. Remember that it will have to store all nuclear waste without leaking for several thousand of years... it is easy to dump it somewhere, but even only after 40 years the current containers are already leaking.
Recycling nuclear waste!? everyone agrees, but that is hard, cost a fortune and you still have a very dangerous waste, that either store it - dump it in a good mine - or again try to recycle it - another huge amount of money. Basically all this need lot of waste refining and a nuclear reactor (that eats lots energy) to try to destroy those waste. Even with lot of money, there still no tech to recycle everything
Finally, all this and wind and solar is already cheaper than nuclear... gas is also cheaper, but also have the CO2 waste, yet MUCH better than coal
that is the problem with nuclear... it takes years to cool down and then many more years to disable that nuclear plan, you will get tons of radioactive material and you can't simply forget about it. hell, you will still be do maintenance work on it, to keep it contained. in about 100 years, that place will still be unusable, unless you spend a huge fortune to transfer almost everything of it to another place (that still will be unusable for many years and with health problems to the workers)
The best you can do is to build a new one next to that one, so you can reuse many of the infrastructure, but that's it.
Nuclear looks good until you start talking about the cleanup and disposal (be accidental, EOL, maintenance, fuel, etc)... no one want to look at it because we are talking in several generations doing that cleanup and maintenance, that gets impossible to calculate.
Every nuclear support hope that in the future, people find a way to solve that kind of problems... but unless there is a teleporter, a radiation magnet, or some unknown quantum feature to filter radioactive atoms, it can't really be solved This is not a big structures, its radioactive atoms with huge middle life for decaying, you can't speed up that
just because large company buy shit software (sharepoint, many oracle "business" applications), it doesn't make it good. Yes, you can make then work, but they are always way too complex, hard to control and everyone that have to manage then hate then... but if they are expensive, the boss thinks they are good!
Sorry, i will not be lobotomized like most of those companies already are, simple solutions are always better than overly complex, over-engineering, one size-fits-all solutions
Slashdot Mirror
so your problem is that you know windows tool and do not know the linux ones... so of course everything is hard that way!
process monitor: duh, strace! more complex things you can use perf or eBPF
resource monitor: are you talking of htop and atop and many other tools that merge those other tools stats?
No idea what is RamMap, but i suspect it is a GUI for /proc/1/smaps and maybe other proc files
Simple "task manager", htop works fine... you do not have network in there, it is included in the IO as linux have not a easy way to map network usage restricted to process
Or maybe you mean that you do not like text based tools? that is ok, there are some GUI tools too, but sysinternals ones will be just one more
And currently you can use in any linux strace and maybe gdb to find what the app is doing.
On newer linux distros you have or multiple extra tools, like perf, ltrace, ftrace, lttng, sysdig, eBPF, systemtap
Probably MS will hook strace and maybe some perf, ltrace and maybe eBPF for more advanced things ... lets see how will MS eBPF code will crash the kernel in fun ways! ;)
you already have that in gnome dconf
Just try it, type "dconf-editor"
That is why many people say that gnome is the linux "windows", one size fits all, they are always right, everyone else must follow then and even include a registry! :D
Nethack! and Dwarf fortress!
two of the best games ever made and run perfectly in linux
all those services are useful ... if you use then! Most people do not use most of google services
i can browser the net, use GPS and maps, see my calendar and taks, take pictures, sync my contacts and files ... what i'm missing? games? yes, i can also play several games... what else? social network? i personally do not use then, but they are there!
Most of those features are really useless or only needed by some people... talk to the phone? nope, useless to me, but for old people that may be a killer feature
>Someone has to build and maintain those app stores.
You miss the point... there are alternative shops out there, f-droid and Aptoide are 2 of the biggest managed by small teams. Trying to ask phone manufactures or phone operators to bundle their store is impossible, google one is free and known, why risk anything else! Marketing, paying operators, etc is almost impossible, they have to pay for the systems and people, they have no money left for anything else!
But if you have to pay 40€... maybe that other free or cheap app store isn't that bad and they may test releasing it on cheap phones. If that works, it may push the market enough so those stores can finally grow their market share. With more money, those shops can also pay their bills and improve the service.
do not even need that, ship with Aptoide (www.Aptoide.com), it is just one of the top alternative app store and almost the only not tied to another big company/manufacturer
Almost all modern CPU are vulnerable to spectre, including PowerPC and faster ARM CPUs
Drink water, that is what your body really wants, everything else is a waste of money and a good way to f*ck your body
Sorry, but i may have explain badly what i mean, i'm not saying that mercury have atmosphere or that insulation is a new thing. I know that comparing the two is hard because so much differences between then.
Let me try again:
i'm comparing earth CO2 greenhouse effect with Venus runaway greenhouse effect and high temperature... and to avoid the the reply that venus is closer to the sun, so it is normal to be hotter, i also gave the example that mercury is less hot than venus. This also proves that the thick venus atmosphere is the one to blame for high temperature. Nothing that i said is new or amazing discoveries, all this is just because the previous post was saying that it was impossible for the CO2 to make the planet hotter.
s/same not/same now/
the comparison is just to cut the common excuse that venus is closer to the sun... mercury is lot closer and have lower temperature, so proving that atmosphere DO affect the planet surface temperature
Venus have NOW more atmosphere, as the high temperature promotes ebullition and so higher gas quantity. But even before reaching that level, they where for sure very similar, their size and composition is similar... Venus did got hot, triggering more CO2 and other components to be released to atmosphere and deploying a never ending of greenhouse effect (hot, more gas release, more hotter)
As you said mercury have no atmosphere... so you are agreeing that atmosphere do correlate with the surface temperature of a planet...
While simplifying, my description is what happen, but as you are so good, please inform us all about your scientific point of view, Your original description is totally correct, except the part that you assume that higher CO2 can not change the rate of heat dissipated by the planet... based on what you assume that?
Again, where do you place the nuclear waste ... remember that they last several THOUSAND OF YEARS!!
People that like nuclear always forget about that... someone in the future (thousands of years is a very long future) will for sure find a solution for that problem, right?
But i do agree,Germany using coal is one of the most stupid decisions, yes
You know that in the last 15 years the wind turbine have turn much better than the ones used 20 years ago!
Currently big and modern wind turbines work well, do not fail, produce good amount of energy for the wind level... they are big and expensive, but still much less than other power stations and do not have unknowns anymore, other than how much wind will be at a certain time. But that is also not a problem anymore because experience and data analysis show in average how many days you get without wind and with high winds. You can plan based on that, just as you can play a coal plan based on the average coal price and electricity prices... it can go up, it can go down, but you use that average and error level to map the expected break even/profit time, with a certain level of confidence. It is exactly the same not with wind farms
If you read the summary well, they are comparing a 100% wind setup for USA (something that we all know that is not even desirable, we need several power sources) and they agree that the worse case is a "small" 0.24C increase due a little higher mixing of atmospheric layers... comparing that with the current setup is a clear win, as that value is even less what we get if we could stop using coal and other dirty power sources everywhere.
Yes, everything we do can change things, probably big cities make higher temperature increase due to their skyscrapers and AC systems than wind farms and this paper just try to measure this... and agree that is a better solution.
Sadly people do not really read things, just quickly screen the summary and assume what they want... or even worse, dirty energy lobbies abuse the paper to try to spread FUD.
Sure, you are totally right... and venus is a paradise, with its 400C air temperature (higher than mercury) because CO2 do not generate greenhouse effect and heat a planet
Planets radiate heat they absorb from the sun and the atmosphere absorb some of that heat and with conduction heats the atmosphere and the planet... not only that, but it will also release it back... some will still go to space, but another part will be sent back to the planet... repeat this and you get the greenhouse effect...
this happen for all components in the atmosphere. The problem with CO2 is that it is bigger and can absorb more heat than nitrogen and oxigen. Half of it still goes to space, but the other half will be resent to the earth surface again. And not not forget that conduction will also transfer some of that heat back to earth. That small differences adds up with time.
please read the image to try to understand: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Limiting the science is a wrong way to do science. You are right in small scale, but in huge planet size scale, small details do make difference, specially over time
and still works fine...
northern countries have mountains and water, hydric power is the main power source. Yes, solar will not work there, but it works in the south. Wind, there are months (and places) with lot of wind. And as always, you need redundancies, gas included, so each one can fill any hole left by any other power source. And again, if wind blows when it is not needed, pump water to higher places so you can use it later.
When wind works, it is cheaper than everything else and you can save the coal or gas. Notice that you already have those coal and gas power stations, so you are not investing double... but if you are using coal, you may need to invest to replace then with gas (or a mix of several solutions)
Each country/region need to check the energy potential they have, solar, wind or hydric do not work every place and develop their energy solutions based on that. The idea is to mix several energy sources and lower as much as possible the "dirt" power. What works in a country may not work on another... and even years, the wind tech from 10 years ago is lot worse than current one ( huge wind towers are lot more efficient and less dangerous to birds), solar tech is getting better each year, hydric storage is a "new" thing. Coal also got better, but it still a very dirt power source, even compared with gas... and gas is getting cheaper than coal
why does people do FUD with wind? maybe they don't really understand it... nobody talks about 100% wind, if there is no wind, you still have all other energy sources, like gas, nuclear, hydric.
There are ALWAYS redundant power sources, even nuclear... if one fails, all other will have to fill the hole... yes, wind may fail more, but it works most of the time and it is CHEAPER than other sources. If there is need for more energy, pump the nuclear, gas, hydric power stagings. During the night, make the wind pump the hydric energy storage systems (ie: pump water back to the higher dams so you can recover that energy later when needed)
forgot this, check the latest USA energy expert report for energy cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
in all techs, there are many paper designs that are awesome, but then in real live tests they face a never ending material, process and implementation problems.
Yes, molten salt is probably the best solution for future nuclear fission reactors, but they are very hard to implement, to contain and need special material... some alloys are even referred on paper, but do not exist yet. There are many lab tests and test plans, but no real world working station exists yet. Even if the reactor itself is simpler, you still need a chemical plant next to it to process and cleanup the molten salt. Everyone is also testing different materials to sustain the salt and neutron flux without breaking up. All this is slow, each test take years, that is why we listen about molten salt reactors for years and no real working design is here yet. Basically, it will take a long time to get a working design, that will then be refined to reduce costs.
Adding more safeguards to nuclear reactors is always a good idea, but that also adds costs. Lab tests have less safeguards and look "cheap", but then real world and size, those costs quickly scale up. But most of the accidents where caused by humans, either by errors or cutting corners to cut costs and we still didn't had a terrorist attack on a nuclear central. Nuclear accidents are always a huge problem.
Finally, you may blame hippies, or whatever, but there are huge problems in storing nuclear waste. Just because someone accepts money to store nuclear waste, do not make it a good place to store it. Remember that it will have to store all nuclear waste without leaking for several thousand of years... it is easy to dump it somewhere, but even only after 40 years the current containers are already leaking.
Recycling nuclear waste!? everyone agrees, but that is hard, cost a fortune and you still have a very dangerous waste, that either store it - dump it in a good mine - or again try to recycle it - another huge amount of money. Basically all this need lot of waste refining and a nuclear reactor (that eats lots energy) to try to destroy those waste.
Even with lot of money, there still no tech to recycle everything
Finally, all this and wind and solar is already cheaper than nuclear... gas is also cheaper, but also have the CO2 waste, yet MUCH better than coal
that is the problem with nuclear... it takes years to cool down and then many more years to disable that nuclear plan, you will get tons of radioactive material and you can't simply forget about it. hell, you will still be do maintenance work on it, to keep it contained. in about 100 years, that place will still be unusable, unless you spend a huge fortune to transfer almost everything of it to another place (that still will be unusable for many years and with health problems to the workers)
The best you can do is to build a new one next to that one, so you can reuse many of the infrastructure, but that's it.
Nuclear looks good until you start talking about the cleanup and disposal (be accidental, EOL, maintenance, fuel, etc) ... no one want to look at it because we are talking in several generations doing that cleanup and maintenance, that gets impossible to calculate.
Every nuclear support hope that in the future, people find a way to solve that kind of problems... but unless there is a teleporter, a radiation magnet, or some unknown quantum feature to filter radioactive atoms, it can't really be solved
This is not a big structures, its radioactive atoms with huge middle life for decaying, you can't speed up that
>Good on you. Unfortunately most of our IT people are. *sigh*
i know, i also worked for companies like those for 10 years...and complained all the time, but i was ignored... glad i left! :D
just because large company buy shit software (sharepoint, many oracle "business" applications), it doesn't make it good. Yes, you can make then work, but they are always way too complex, hard to control and everyone that have to manage then hate then... but if they are expensive, the boss thinks they are good!
Sorry, i will not be lobotomized like most of those companies already are, simple solutions are always better than overly complex, over-engineering, one size-fits-all solutions