Sounds like someone got jealous of Powershell and decided to a "me too!" shell for the other OSs. Meh.
Bzzzt. Sorry, Charlie. Next time you want to render opinion, it might pay to have, or at least make some attempt to acquire, a basic familiarity with the subject matter. Just a suggestion.
Powershell is not even in the same class as xonsh. One of the two is not joined at the hip to the architecture of an oddball operating system. The other one will never make anyone using a real operating system jealous. You figure out which is which. If you can.
I've been playing with both xonsh and ipython for no more than a few hours. They both blow every other command shell I've seen all to hell.
It takes time to spin up those threads, to schedule them, and to swap threads in and out of the core running them.
* "Spinning up" threads is a negligible overhead - a few microseconds to start them and then they run for seconds or minutes * "Scheduling" threads and "swapping" threads in and out of cores is not necessary - that's the whole point of multicore - they all run literally concurrently
I split it up so that 10 threads worked on it at the same time. Instead of taking only 1 minute to complete, it took just over 2 minutes
Then you're obviously doing something grossly wrong.
Workstation boards that accept Xeons are less common and server-oriented motherboards are often not great for desktop systems.
It doesn't matter how "common" they are. All you need is one good source. Just go here and tick the checkbox "Socket 2011-3" or "Socket 1151", depending on which family of up-to-date Xeons you want to use. These are superb for desktop systems and don't suffer from any of the drawbacks you note: * Boot as fast as any other desktop * No IPMI[*] or other management features which you "don't need" * Good PCIe slottage * Ordinary PSU connectors * Good sound hardware * Work just dandy with normal linux drivers
They also give you 8 or more SATA3 ports, as well as genuine Intel high-quality and well-supported gigabit ports, USB3 (often lacking from servers), firewire and Thunderbolt (almost always missing on servers), and you can use EITHER ECC or non-ECC RAM as you prefer.
You can also find server boards and boards supporting prior (and cheaper) Xeon generations there, which can be a great choice for server and workstation use.
[*] Actually some of them do have IPMI, and it's very nice to have.
How many compilers support multi-threaded compiling?
With respect, I think your approach to the puzzle of how to parallelize things needs more fundamental thought. (I speak from a position of one who has been in this situation!) The compiler doesn't need any "support" for parallelism whatsoever. Any project of non-trivial scale consists of many separate modules. All you do is run "make -j10" instead of "make". WHATEVER compilers make invokes are then run 10 at a time instead of one after another.
Of course I'm thinking in terms of working in a serious environment such as Unix, BSD, linux, or OSX. A toy plaything like Windows may possibly have tools of comparable sophistication, but I leave that inquiry to someone who cares.
A thousand times this. Once again Poettering with systemd is "fixing" things that WEREN'T NEVER BUSTED DAMMIT making up new trendy fad ways to do things.
Linux is also better for cell phones, tablet, WiFi routers, super computers, embedded systems. There is not much left for BSD, it's mostly used as a toy.
Most crime is opportunistic, not planned. If you remove the opportunity, you prevent the crime. There is no "law of conservation of crime", so better deterrence does not cause a fixed amount of crime to shift to other areas. The opposite is true: Lower crime in one area allows resources to be refocused in other areas, and lower crime leads to a positive feedback loop of economic recovery, more jobs, and stronger communities, in both the immediate area, and in surrounding neighborhoods.
It sure must be nice living in whatever imaginary world you inhabit.
Well, my big file server just paniced after a 6.7->6.8 upgrade. The ONLY reason to stick with CentOS6 was stability and long lifetime. Since that is now out the window, switching to Ubuntu 16.04 (with the huge advantage of having ZFS precompiled) is back on my burner.
The good news is it doesn't look like I lost any of my 24 TB of ZFS data, despite panics, reset switches, and power buttons.
Let's call it what it is: FRAUD. The "X" symbol in the top right corner of a window has been used to close a window since windows has existed.
Hardly fraud. The window TELLS you that the upgrade has been scheduled and will happen. The "X" does EXACTLY what UI norms call for it to do - dismiss the window. So you've dismissed a notification telling you that something is going to happen. And you expect that to stop the thing from happening? When the "low oil pressure" warning light turns on in your car, is your corrective action to unscrew the bulb so you can continue to drive without being bothered by it?
The whole process on Microsoft's part may be a bit manipulative, but it's not deceptive. The behavior of that notification is NOT fraudulent or even tricky. You can make a case that there shouldn't BE an "X", and that the action buttons should be labeled "OK", "Just do it right now", and "Cancel".
One day someone will get so pissed at Microsoft that they are going postal there.
That is certainly a possibility, but it would save people a lot of grief if they simply stopped using Windows. There are far superior alternatives, some of which are free as in beer.
It wasn't the fault of the non-admin 9 year old that the admin turned on automatic updates.
No, it's the fault of the lazy, thoughtless bastard who turned on "automatically install recommended updates". I assume that wasn't the son?
If somebody with clear ulterior motives decides to "recommend" that you take a teaspoon dose of the contents of a plain white box they mail to you, do you do it? What if they send you a sheet of paper saying "for description of contents, go to this site to read bulletin"? That description might or might not reveal that the contents of the box are potassium cyanide, and what the effects of ingesting potassium cyanide are.
Excellent points, to which one more not widely realized should be added: there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
hydrogen isn't an energy source-- it's an energy storage medium
At the risk of being pedantic, the same is true of fossil fuel. It's just that the fossil fuel is pre-packaged for us by nature. Crude oil is comparatively cheap and easy to refine into motor fuel. Natural gas and coal are literally grabbed and burned with next to no processing.
Actually hydrogen is packaged in rich form, mixed only with some helium, for us too. Just not on Earth, and very expensive to gather and transport to Earth.
For that matter, solar power comes from nuclear processes in the Sun using up the Sun's stored matter. Wind and hydro power are just one step away piggy-backed onto solar. And geothermal comes ultimately from processes in the Earth using up the Earth's stored matter and energy.
[The] only way that you get hydrogen requires you to pour energy into [hydrogen compounds] to break it from the chemical bonds.
Essentially correct, obviously. There is a very small concentration of hydrogen in the atmosphere, but mechanically extracting it is economically prohibitive.
Electrolysis is the most common method.
Utter nonsense. 96% of all hydrogen produced comes from reforming fossil fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. Only 4% comes from electrolysis of water. Electrolysis is very uneconomical.
Units fail. Passengers per mile is just as utterly meaningless a unit as kilowatts per hour. That's why nobody but you is talking about it. Hint - it's passenger-miles, same as it's kWh.
Why? It's a cruise ship. It doesn't really go anywhere in specific
There are party boats that only sail out of the harbor for a sunset or moonlight excursion, but I think you'd have some trouble selling tickets for cruise ships that just sailed out in circles in the open ocean. Of course they are going to specific places - holiday spots - and include shore excursions. They are also selling the panache of getting there, so yes, there is entertainment value in the travel time.
But you can book a 14-day cruise to the Bahamas and back, or you can fly to the Bahamas in a few hours, spend 13 days there, and fly back in a few hours. Either way you are buying 14 days' worth of vacation targeting the Bahamas. Passenger-miles is the measure productivity.
If you just wanted a 14-day vacation by itself, you would book a nice hotel in town and some entertainment.
1377 gallons per hour PER ENGINE. regardless his maths is wrong, but so is yours (at least you used the wrong numbers
Having a bad day are we? Need more caffeine? I SPECIFICALLY made the point that it was 3x1377 gph - plus another 3x1033 gph for the OTHER three engines.
It's a good proposal. I'll give you an even better one. OPEN SOURCE WINDOWS XP (or 2000, or 4.0; I don't care, any of them would be golden, but XP has a better starting point for supporting newer classes of devices). If Microsoft is too goddam flaming stupid and helpless to carry forward support and patching and implementing support for newer devices, to hell with the bastards. Let the community do it.
OK, look, I know why they would never do it. They bloody well know they couldn't sell their shitty newer OSs, because XP is far superior, whether or not it is free as in beer.
For anyone who is having trouble, I did just that. You're absolutely right. The cruise ship figure is 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile. If his and your 747 figures are right, that is 0.0152 gallons per passenger per mile.
The problem is pretty obvious. The 747 is carrying (on takeoff) a gross mass of roughly 1900 pounds per passenger, but the cruise ship is dragging around over 30,000 pounds of gross mass per passenger. (Note: the displacement is a little over 100,000 tons; the oft-quoted figure of 225,000 tons or so is GROSS TONNAGE - a measure of enclosed space in units of 100 cy ft; not a measure of mass at all).
The comparison does pivot the opposite way when you compare cargo rather than passengers.
Total occupants is 8880. That means it burns 0.16 Gallons/(hour person).
1. Your math is wrong. It's actually 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour. 2. As others have noted, the measure of productivity is passengers per mile, not total occupants including crew per hour. 3. The true figures are here.
Slashdot Mirror
Bzzzt. Sorry, Charlie. Next time you want to render opinion, it might pay to have, or at least make some attempt to acquire, a basic familiarity with the subject matter. Just a suggestion.
Powershell is not even in the same class as xonsh. One of the two is not joined at the hip to the architecture of an oddball operating system. The other one will never make anyone using a real operating system jealous. You figure out which is which. If you can.
I've been playing with both xonsh and ipython for no more than a few hours. They both blow every other command shell I've seen all to hell.
Hmm, what do these two cesspools have in common? Oh yeah. They're both living in the dark ages.
* "Spinning up" threads is a negligible overhead - a few microseconds to start them and then they run for seconds or minutes
* "Scheduling" threads and "swapping" threads in and out of cores is not necessary - that's the whole point of multicore - they all run literally concurrently
Then you're obviously doing something grossly wrong.
It doesn't matter how "common" they are. All you need is one good source. Just go here and tick the checkbox "Socket 2011-3" or "Socket 1151", depending on which family of up-to-date Xeons you want to use. These are superb for desktop systems and don't suffer from any of the drawbacks you note:
* Boot as fast as any other desktop
* No IPMI[*] or other management features which you "don't need"
* Good PCIe slottage
* Ordinary PSU connectors
* Good sound hardware
* Work just dandy with normal linux drivers
They also give you 8 or more SATA3 ports, as well as genuine Intel high-quality and well-supported gigabit ports, USB3 (often lacking from servers), firewire and Thunderbolt (almost always missing on servers), and you can use EITHER ECC or non-ECC RAM as you prefer.
You can also find server boards and boards supporting prior (and cheaper) Xeon generations there, which can be a great choice for server and workstation use.
[*] Actually some of them do have IPMI, and it's very nice to have.
With respect, I think your approach to the puzzle of how to parallelize things needs more fundamental thought. (I speak from a position of one who has been in this situation!) The compiler doesn't need any "support" for parallelism whatsoever. Any project of non-trivial scale consists of many separate modules. All you do is run "make -j10" instead of "make". WHATEVER compilers make invokes are then run 10 at a time instead of one after another.
Of course I'm thinking in terms of working in a serious environment such as Unix, BSD, linux, or OSX. A toy plaything like Windows may possibly have tools of comparable sophistication, but I leave that inquiry to someone who cares.
Fine. Then you bloody well deserve the hell you are going to go through.
Perhaps you would like to rephrase that? Because it's unintelligible gibberish the way it's written.
A thousand times this. Once again Poettering with systemd is "fixing" things that WEREN'T NEVER BUSTED DAMMIT making up new trendy fad ways to do things.
Bull. I stopped reading right there.
Ignoramus' opinion is worth squat.
It sure must be nice living in whatever imaginary world you inhabit.
And it is as stupid a practice as trying to flush towels down the toilet!
Well, my big file server just paniced after a 6.7->6.8 upgrade. The ONLY reason to stick with CentOS6 was stability and long lifetime. Since that is now out the window, switching to Ubuntu 16.04 (with the huge advantage of having ZFS precompiled) is back on my burner.
The good news is it doesn't look like I lost any of my 24 TB of ZFS data, despite panics, reset switches, and power buttons.
Hardly fraud. The window TELLS you that the upgrade has been scheduled and will happen. The "X" does EXACTLY what UI norms call for it to do - dismiss the window. So you've dismissed a notification telling you that something is going to happen. And you expect that to stop the thing from happening? When the "low oil pressure" warning light turns on in your car, is your corrective action to unscrew the bulb so you can continue to drive without being bothered by it?
The whole process on Microsoft's part may be a bit manipulative, but it's not deceptive. The behavior of that notification is NOT fraudulent or even tricky. You can make a case that there shouldn't BE an "X", and that the action buttons should be labeled "OK", "Just do it right now", and "Cancel".
That is certainly a possibility, but it would save people a lot of grief if they simply stopped using Windows. There are far superior alternatives, some of which are free as in beer.
No, it's the fault of the lazy, thoughtless bastard who turned on "automatically install recommended updates". I assume that wasn't the son?
If somebody with clear ulterior motives decides to "recommend" that you take a teaspoon dose of the contents of a plain white box they mail to you, do you do it? What if they send you a sheet of paper saying "for description of contents, go to this site to read bulletin"? That description might or might not reveal that the contents of the box are potassium cyanide, and what the effects of ingesting potassium cyanide are.
Excellent points, to which one more not widely realized should be added: there is more hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline than there is in a gallon of liquid hydrogen.
At the risk of being pedantic, the same is true of fossil fuel. It's just that the fossil fuel is pre-packaged for us by nature. Crude oil is comparatively cheap and easy to refine into motor fuel. Natural gas and coal are literally grabbed and burned with next to no processing.
Actually hydrogen is packaged in rich form, mixed only with some helium, for us too. Just not on Earth, and very expensive to gather and transport to Earth.
For that matter, solar power comes from nuclear processes in the Sun using up the Sun's stored matter. Wind and hydro power are just one step away piggy-backed onto solar. And geothermal comes ultimately from processes in the Earth using up the Earth's stored matter and energy.
FTFS:
Essentially correct, obviously. There is a very small concentration of hydrogen in the atmosphere, but mechanically extracting it is economically prohibitive.
Utter nonsense. 96% of all hydrogen produced comes from reforming fossil fuels: oil, coal, and natural gas. Only 4% comes from electrolysis of water. Electrolysis is very uneconomical.
Units fail. Passengers per mile is just as utterly meaningless a unit as kilowatts per hour. That's why nobody but you is talking about it. Hint - it's passenger-miles, same as it's kWh.
There are party boats that only sail out of the harbor for a sunset or moonlight excursion, but I think you'd have some trouble selling tickets for cruise ships that just sailed out in circles in the open ocean. Of course they are going to specific places - holiday spots - and include shore excursions. They are also selling the panache of getting there, so yes, there is entertainment value in the travel time.
But you can book a 14-day cruise to the Bahamas and back, or you can fly to the Bahamas in a few hours, spend 13 days there, and fly back in a few hours. Either way you are buying 14 days' worth of vacation targeting the Bahamas. Passenger-miles is the measure productivity.
If you just wanted a 14-day vacation by itself, you would book a nice hotel in town and some entertainment.
Having a bad day are we? Need more caffeine? I SPECIFICALLY made the point that it was 3x1377 gph - plus another 3x1033 gph for the OTHER three engines.
It's a good proposal. I'll give you an even better one. OPEN SOURCE WINDOWS XP (or 2000, or 4.0; I don't care, any of them would be golden, but XP has a better starting point for supporting newer classes of devices). If Microsoft is too goddam flaming stupid and helpless to carry forward support and patching and implementing support for newer devices, to hell with the bastards. Let the community do it.
OK, look, I know why they would never do it. They bloody well know they couldn't sell their shitty newer OSs, because XP is far superior, whether or not it is free as in beer.
For anyone who is having trouble, I did just that. You're absolutely right. The cruise ship figure is 0.0438 gallons per passenger per mile. If his and your 747 figures are right, that is 0.0152 gallons per passenger per mile.
The problem is pretty obvious. The 747 is carrying (on takeoff) a gross mass of roughly 1900 pounds per passenger, but the cruise ship is dragging around over 30,000 pounds of gross mass per passenger. (Note: the displacement is a little over 100,000 tons; the oft-quoted figure of 225,000 tons or so is GROSS TONNAGE - a measure of enclosed space in units of 100 cy ft; not a measure of mass at all).
The comparison does pivot the opposite way when you compare cargo rather than passengers.
1. Your math is wrong. It's actually 1.14 gallons per passenger per hour.
2. As others have noted, the measure of productivity is passengers per mile, not total occupants including crew per hour.
3. The true figures are here.