After the whole system nosedived, I spent more than two hours hitting 'y' in fsck before I decided 'screw it' and reformatted.
You have heard of the -y switch to e2fsck, right? Not that it saves your file system, but it relieves you of pressing 'y' while learning that you are fscked.
I did not see it mentioned that ReiserFS is able to "pack tails", which means that the ending parts of files that do not fill an entire disk block (typically 4KB) are not stored in their own block. Thereby, it does not waste (on average) 2KB per file.
Actually using the disk blocks seems, to me, more appropriate than hiding stuff in them. There is even work in progress of an ext2 version of this technique.
This will open a window with a rot13 version of whatever is in the clipboard. Hence, to get a rotated version of your text, you mark the text that should be rot13'ed and press your bound key. Not too elegant, but not too difficult either.
Quoting the article: "Linux is a kernel, and now we have our kernel, which is an alternative to Linux, and they both work in the context of the overall GNU system, as the kernel alone won't run without the rest of the system," he said.
Linux alone actually runs quite well, though not doing much of interest. But by adding only a few (non-GNU, I believe) tools to the kernel, it is quite capable as, for example, a router.
I am looking forward to running a Hurd system. "Hurd" is much easier to pronounce than "GhNU slash Linux" is. I think that Torvalds guy should give more consideration to how he names his creations, like the GNU guys do.
I saw "Window$" and thought that was really crappy and unprofessional and a sign of typical Linux bigotry.
I also agree, it is not very professional to make fun of the money making done by Microsoft. Especially not in a fundraising plea.
Re:Excellent! But...
on
GTK+ 2.0
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
As the developer and maintainer of a little GTK+-based application (plug, plug),
I was a user of your Gentoo file manager and can highly recommend it (since I am an old Amiga user:-), but I stopped caring to download it all the time. Is there any hope of getting it into Linux distributions?
Also high on my list of applications that ought to be in distributions, but are not, is the visual system monitor qps.
Do distributors have a "suggestion form" that one can fill out to request an application included in new versions?
15% isn't really that much; it is the difference between 2 seconds and 1.7 second. I don't even think you'd notice it most of the time (without a watch).
For substantial differences, I still think you need to rethink your algorithms. Windows might handle for example shared libraries more effeciently than Linux and that could be the reason that Mozilla is reported to be faster on Windows. But that would still be due to better algorithms (though in Windows, not in Mozilla), not the low level optimizations that compiler optimization does.
I think I just realized that the original poster did not limit his question to compiler optimizations, so I am digressing here. I still stand by my claim, though; even though I answered the wrong question:-).
One thing I've always been curious about is the effect of the compiler on performance. VC++ produces fairly quick code. How does GCC code compare?
Generally speaking, compiler optimizations do not matter. For tight, number crunching loops, they might - but most desktop software spends its time in system libraries (when they do not wait for user input).
To optimize, it does not help to call ten library functions slightly faster, the functions will still require the same time; what helps is a redesign where you bring down the need to call functions (for example by caching values). Turning on compiler optimizations will not help you with that, though.
Loadable Kernel Module means you dont have to recompile your kernel, i know for some people (me!!) not having to recompile your kernel is a big importance
Indeed, modules are very nice compared to a kernel patch. You not have to recompile and reboot your kernel and you do not have to keep applying the same patch when you do install a new kernel.
That being said, you probably still have to compile the module itself and therefore still need the kernel source installed (unless someone provides a binary module for your particular kernel revision). And there are limits to what you can do in a module, which is of course the reason that most kernel additions out there are in the form of patch files.
Basically, an addition might go into a module, but modifications to existing beaviour often need to touch the kernel itself.
Even though to my ears.biz sounds incredibly cheap [...]
While I generally agree (but also believe it is a matter of what you are used to), show.biz does have some appeal. Are there other obvious combinations?
Now the question is...will the existing commercial.com'ers migrate over to.biz? I think it will be some time yet before I try a.biz tld before a.com.
Yeah, but when the time comes and.biz gets well-known, you'd better have your company name registered. I think most of the initial registrations will be of the "better safe than sorry" kind than because.biz is thought to be a clever TLD.
The same goes for other of the new TLDs, of course.
Am I right in assuming that this is due to the equivalent of pre-compiled headers and overall better modularization than C(++) allows? Paraphrased: is it the compiler or the language that gives opportunity for these short compile times?
Actually the box model in IE5 was broken, and it has now been fixed in IE6.
Out of curiosity (and because I spent yesterday learning that I could not add a CSS margin/padding to an IMG tag with IE), what is the difference in the box model of the two browser versions?
I know what RSS is! It is short for "resident set size" and if you use for example top to show it, you can get an idea of how much memory a program is using.
Seriously, it is kind of a problem that there are only a little more than 17 thousand three-letter acronyms. I am starting to see lots of duplicates, even just within the small (but acronym-filled) field of computing.
(Incidentally, and far more off-topic, the best graphical top like program that I know is qps which I urge people to try out. For some reason it does not seem to appear in distributions!?) --
There is another example with the Berry paradox. Imagine the smallest number not describable in less than 100
words. But wait a sec - I just described it in less than 100 words!
So the conclusion is that there are no numbers that cannot be described in a hundred words. --
Slashdot Mirror
Check out their FAQ [ystech.com.tw] page for details about how to get a free sample fan for testing and reviewing.
For the record, it is not entirely free - you still have to pay for the delivery.
After the whole system nosedived, I spent more than two hours hitting 'y' in fsck before I decided 'screw it' and reformatted.
You have heard of the -y switch to e2fsck, right? Not that it saves your file system, but it relieves you of pressing 'y' while learning that you are fscked.
I did not see it mentioned that ReiserFS is able to "pack tails", which means that the ending parts of files that do not fill an entire disk block (typically 4KB) are not stored in their own block. Thereby, it does not waste (on average) 2KB per file.
Actually using the disk blocks seems, to me, more appropriate than hiding stuff in them. There is even work in progress of an ext2 version of this technique.
As a workaround, get xclip and bind something like the following command to a key:
xterm -geometry 80x10 -e bash -c "xclip -o|rot;sleep 60"
or
xclip -o|rot|xmessage -file -
This will open a window with a rot13 version of whatever is in the clipboard. Hence, to get a rotated version of your text, you mark the text that should be rot13'ed and press your bound key. Not too elegant, but not too difficult either.
Quoting the article: "Linux is a kernel, and now we have our kernel, which is an alternative to Linux, and they both work in the context of the overall GNU system, as the kernel alone won't run without the rest of the system ," he said.
Linux alone actually runs quite well, though not doing much of interest. But by adding only a few (non-GNU, I believe) tools to the kernel, it is quite capable as, for example, a router.
I am looking forward to running a Hurd system. "Hurd" is much easier to pronounce than "GhNU slash Linux" is. I think that Torvalds guy should give more consideration to how he names his creations, like the GNU guys do.
Oh, wait.
I saw "Window$" and thought that was really crappy and unprofessional and a sign of typical Linux bigotry.
I also agree, it is not very professional to make fun of the money making done by Microsoft. Especially not in a fundraising plea.
As the developer and maintainer of a little GTK+-based application (plug, plug),
I was a user of your Gentoo file manager and can highly recommend it (since I am an old Amiga user :-), but I stopped caring to download it all the time. Is there any hope of getting it into Linux distributions?
Also high on my list of applications that ought to be in distributions, but are not, is the visual system monitor qps.
Do distributors have a "suggestion form" that one can fill out to request an application included in new versions?
15% isn't really that much; it is the difference between 2 seconds and 1.7 second. I don't even think you'd notice it most of the time (without a watch).
For substantial differences, I still think you need to rethink your algorithms. Windows might handle for example shared libraries more effeciently than Linux and that could be the reason that Mozilla is reported to be faster on Windows. But that would still be due to better algorithms (though in Windows, not in Mozilla), not the low level optimizations that compiler optimization does.
I think I just realized that the original poster did not limit his question to compiler optimizations, so I am digressing here. I still stand by my claim, though; even though I answered the wrong question :-).
One thing I've always been curious about is the effect of the compiler on performance. VC++ produces fairly quick code. How does GCC code compare?
Generally speaking, compiler optimizations do not matter. For tight, number crunching loops, they might - but most desktop software spends its time in system libraries (when they do not wait for user input).
To optimize, it does not help to call ten library functions slightly faster, the functions will still require the same time; what helps is a redesign where you bring down the need to call functions (for example by caching values). Turning on compiler optimizations will not help you with that, though.
One thing is that I immediately think "IP" when I read "packets". But why did I have to misread "twisted paths" as "twisted pair"?
Loadable Kernel Module means you dont have to recompile your kernel, i know for some people (me!!) not having to recompile your kernel is a big importance
Indeed, modules are very nice compared to a kernel patch. You not have to recompile and reboot your kernel and you do not have to keep applying the same patch when you do install a new kernel.
That being said, you probably still have to compile the module itself and therefore still need the kernel source installed (unless someone provides a binary module for your particular kernel revision). And there are limits to what you can do in a module, which is of course the reason that most kernel additions out there are in the form of patch files.
Basically, an addition might go into a module, but modifications to existing beaviour often need to touch the kernel itself.
Even though to my ears .biz sounds incredibly cheap [...]
While I generally agree (but also believe it is a matter of what you are used to), show.biz does have some appeal. Are there other obvious combinations?
Now the question is...will the existing commercial .com'ers migrate over to .biz? I think it will be some time yet before I try a .biz tld before a .com.
Yeah, but when the time comes and .biz gets well-known, you'd better have your company name registered. I think most of the initial registrations will be of the "better safe than sorry" kind than because .biz is thought to be a clever TLD.
The same goes for other of the new TLDs, of course.
From the article: Torvalds is close to handing over the stable 2.4 kernel to Cox.
...and I thought that Marcelo Tosatti was going to maintain 2.4.
[Delphi] compiles instantaneously.
Am I right in assuming that this is due to the equivalent of pre-compiled headers and overall better modularization than C(++) allows? Paraphrased: is it the compiler or the language that gives opportunity for these short compile times?
Actually the box model in IE5 was broken, and it has now been fixed in IE6.
Out of curiosity (and because I spent yesterday learning that I could not add a CSS margin/padding to an IMG tag with IE), what is the difference in the box model of the two browser versions?
I know what RSS is! It is short for "resident set size" and if you use for example top to show it, you can get an idea of how much memory a program is using.
Seriously, it is kind of a problem that there are only a little more than 17 thousand three-letter acronyms. I am starting to see lots of duplicates, even just within the small (but acronym-filled) field of computing.
(Incidentally, and far more off-topic, the best graphical top like program that I know is qps which I urge people to try out. For some reason it does not seem to appear in distributions!?)
--
I think you are mistaking being slashdotted for ordinary downtime.
linuxtoday ought to be used to the load caused by slashdot.
--
Is IBM onto something here? No, I don't think so.
--
As long as you do not let ESR drive the submarine. Imagine: Geeks with torpedoes.
--
Okay, so there might be plenty of numbers that cannot be described in a hundred words, but neither of them is the smallest one?
--
No, the conclusion is that there is no smallest number that cannot be described in less than 100 words.
Without a smallest one, I believe the set of numbers is empty. Is that not true?
--
So the conclusion is that there are no numbers that cannot be described in a hundred words.
--
Perhaps he meant that programmers are free to modify Linux, although it is not phrased well in that case.
--