It's generally agreed that it's the limited number of available registers and how the available registers may be used (limited number of general purpose). The limited number of registers is one of the reasons why it's generally considered slightly harder to heavily optimize for x86 than many other CPUs. IMOHO, any complaints beyond what's being described above is simple CPU-bias.
YES! You just as bad as any other cheater! That robber only steals from the rich. Is he any less of a robber? Shouldn't he be jailed just the same? YES! You should be banned from playing!
I do not use ShowEQ to benefit myself at the expense of others.
But you are! You are cheating other player's gaming experience. An experience they paid for. Just because you're paying for it does not mean you have the right to cheat. If you wanna cheat, run your own server.
When the packet decryption was working, I would use ShowEQ to avoid monsters that would assuredly kill me (I'm not a melee class.)
One of the worst kinds of cheats. If the monster would easily kill you, common sense dictates you're in a place your experience wouldn't otherwise allow (thus further ruining the experience for non-cheating players) or you should learn how to socialize and travel with friends (a social objective of the game). Either way, you're anti-social, selfish and a cheater.
[...]is that I use ShowEQ as a GPS
Learn hwo to play the game or game with people that can. Wow...a social skill. That's one of the lamest excusive I've heard.
This game is absolutely worthless to me if I can't figure out where the hell I am.
If you can't figure out how to play with other people, they don't need your business. You're selfish and deluded. You're a cheater.
[...]if Verant made the game a bit easier for me to figure out where the heck I was, I wouldn't need ShowEQ.
Or, you could play with other people. Wow, that fixed pretty much all of your problems. So why are you still using SEQ? Oh, that's right, you're a cheating loser that's deluded your self into believing that SEQ is a required evil. Fact of the matter is, YOU'RE the only evil and the scum of all online games. Don't kid your self, either you're a cheater like any other or you're not. If you use SEQ, you are a cheater.
If Verant wants to lose me as a customer[...]
For every loser like you that they lose, they'll gain even more legit users that actually want to have a FAIR and fun gaming experience. In the mean time, you're just as guilty as any member of a linch-mob, even if you didn't actually "string him up."
[...]not for my own score and glorification, but as a basic aid to help myself and others.
So now you're evil is suddenly made better because you help others cheat too. Wow. He's not a thrief! He stole that so he could give it to me. Wow. Sure that gets used a lot on court.
If you are going to start talking about vapor features then what about postgresql's plans to support point in time recoveries (pitr), redo logs, savepoints, and full clustering with multiple masters.
PITR, was planned for 7.3 but was delayed for 7.4 because of some other internal changes but they didn't wish to delay 7.3 for it. It's now scheduled for 7.4.
Clustering is such an overloaded word. Nonetheless, multi-master (IIRC) replication is already underworks.
Distributed quiries is something that comes up from time to time. Not sure what the actual work effort is, however, I do know the protocol is being significantly enhanced to allow for replication and distributed queries.
IIRC, the other sticky part of that was, corporations were not allowed to collect fees or fines for law enforcement. In other words, it clearly was not their domain to enforce or track.
No, I don't think you're trying to be a jerk, however, I do believe that you're being unreasonable. Most distros come with a half dozen window managers....and maybe a half dozen different themes for each. Furthermore, sites like themes.org make obtaining new themes a no brainer (mostly).
With the number of options available out of the box (with tons of room for tweaking of each) and the number of possibilities that can be downloaded and tested in a matter of minutes, I just can't see how anyone can complain that their Unix/Linux/X desktop isn't usable.
I've never actually met anyone that didn't find something they liked out of the box. That doesn't mean they didn't later go to to customize and/or tweak...but as a rule of thumb, the options that simply come out of the box should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person.
Meanwhile I do recall seeing such a graph much like, if not that graph, by Open Bench Labs (name my not be correct -- it's been a while). Not only that, but the graph EXACTLY matches known expectations on a common Linux AIO Linux implementation (which is purely userland). This is why kernel level AIO implementations have been underway for some time now.
In other words, you may not like the message but it EXACLY matches the current state of some AIO implementations on Linux. Call is a lie if you like, meanwhile those of us that know, will simply nod, move on, and occationally laugh at those that continue to hide their heads in the sand.
Believe it or not, Linux isn't the be-all, end-all of OS's. If it were, there wouldn't be a need for the 2.6 kernel.
I've tried manually patching XFS, O(1) and a couple of other odds and ends (latency, preempt) and wind up with something that doesn't even boot or crashes/panics right after words.
So thanks...that pretty much confirms that it's not something I'm doing...;)
Most supposed performance problems with X11 seem to be due to the toolkits and desktop environment used. Gnome or KDE on X11 can be a bit sluggish on low-end machines Tweaking hint: use a different desktop environment.
This is very true. Remember, GTK+ sits on top of a device abstration layer. So, as an example, you have:
Gnome GTK+ GDK
GDK Abstraction Xt X - protocol
That's a lot of layers and overhead there.
I always wondered how worth while it would be for someone to create a replacement or Xt. That is, something that wasn't as low level.
X - and the rest of the GUI - is one of the main things keeping me from using *ix on my desktop.
Ahh...okay....that really doesn't make such sense but I'll hear ya out...
But on my desktop, I'll only use one that I find intuitive and elegant. X is neither to me.
Ummm...X isn't your "desktop" The fact that you seem to think it is only shows that you're either biased or ignorant of the facts.
A polished, intuitive, and pretty GUI is one of the best ways to win people over, and keep them once they're there.
Except that modern desktops that use X already can be configured to allow for just about anything you can imagine. The simple fact of the matter is, if you haven't found something you like that sits on top of X, you simply never looked.
AFAIC, your post is a troll, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Which is to say,I'm betting you're simply uninformed about the facts.
Fact is, anyone that heavily uses their Linux box will see some difference. It's just that the heavier your box gets used, the bigger difference you'll see.:)
Those that do little serious multitasking may see "smoother" multitasking but little more. Those that perform concurrent compiles, heavy CPU or I/O database servers, big time-share systems, etc, will see larger and larger note worthy gains.
Hello moderators! This is not a troll. He pointed out something that has a nice graph to support what he's saying. Not only that, but it's very well known. AIO on Linux has never been stellar...but should be soon enough.
Someone, please mod the partent back up. He wasn't trolling and was simply stating fact!
The only nearly-unique feature of Exchange is the collaboration aspect, and even that is much better done with SamsungContact nee hp-OpenMail.
Except that Outlook is doing 98%+ of everything that people attribute Exchange doing. Exchange really does very little. It's basically a data store (database) and an MTA. That's it.
This is a very commonly done. In fact, one of the tactics that is used to prevent a bill from passing is to add on things that they know people don't want.
As an example, add a bill that requires every house or dwelling to set a mouse free in it. Of course, no one would want a mouse running around their dwelling. Since you can't veto part of a bill, the entire bill gets tossed. Of course, the example is silly but proves the point just the same.
The inverse is also true. Adding funding for pet projects is also common. This is one of the reasons you see so much funding abuse and "buying" of votes. That is, things like, "you let me add this and not veto it, then I'll do x, y, z for you". This is why lobbiest are so powerful and go out of their way to have their "pocket men" to have strings to pull.
These are why laws often get passed which make no sense and are certainly not in the interest of the public, rather, they are a means to an end for someone's political agenda.
which is the first real advance in scehdulng tech for about 15 years...
IIRC, BSD has had a O(1) scheduler for a very long time now. Many RT OS's have also had them. This is evolutionary for Linux and is not a "real advance in scheduling tech". It is, however, a real advance on an evolutionary basis, for Linux.
The point is, it does nothing to address context switches. Switching to another thread still requires a complete context change. Period. While the O(1) schedule allows for more timely (thus lower latency), it does nothing to prevent the actual required context change. Other thread models, given *some types* of workloads, can continue to out scale 1:1 implementations (where the inverse is also true). This is especially true when the threaded workloads exceed available hardware. The result is the same amount of work with fewer context switches. This can result in improved cached hits as well as the obvious gain of work from not having to switch process/thread context.
So your POINT is actually incorrect. The correct statement is that the 2.6 kernel when using a 1:1 model will allow for greater scalability than it's previous implementation but has yet to prove it addresses all workloads better than all other threading models. In fact, it's expected that M:N will still have it's place for some types of workloads even after 2.6 is released.
I personally expect that 1:1 and M:N will both become more common and that there is a time and place for both.
"Here's a list of pending AIO ops, give me, now, a list of all the completed or errored-out ones".
Because there's no need. Since AIO functions on the concept of callbacks, your callback will be called when the operation completes. Completion may be "errored-out" or it may be "completed". Adding the house-keeping for these is a no brainer should you really need to have them. After all, you already have to track AIO context to some degree (buffers and perhaps state). Keeping track of your desired information is trival at this point.
LOL! Why did this get modded up? He provided a link to the exact same link and he's modded up? It's not as if it's another unique link...it's the exact same link.
Slashdot Mirror
It's generally agreed that it's the limited number of available registers and how the available registers may be used (limited number of general purpose). The limited number of registers is one of the reasons why it's generally considered slightly harder to heavily optimize for x86 than many other CPUs. IMOHO, any complaints beyond what's being described above is simple CPU-bias.
Sounds like you need to re-read the original message. I don't think you comprehended what was being said.
Why was this modded "overrated?"
Guess some SEQ cheaters had some mod points today and didn't like being told the truth. How very sad.
Total junk!
I use ShowEQ. Does this make me a cheater?
YES! You just as bad as any other cheater! That robber only steals from the rich. Is he any less of a robber? Shouldn't he be jailed just the same? YES! You should be banned from playing!
I do not use ShowEQ to benefit myself at the expense of others.
But you are! You are cheating other player's gaming experience. An experience they paid for. Just because you're paying for it does not mean you have the right to cheat. If you wanna cheat, run your own server.
When the packet decryption was working, I would use ShowEQ to avoid monsters that would assuredly kill me (I'm not a melee class.)
One of the worst kinds of cheats. If the monster would easily kill you, common sense dictates you're in a place your experience wouldn't otherwise allow (thus further ruining the experience for non-cheating players) or you should learn how to socialize and travel with friends (a social objective of the game). Either way, you're anti-social, selfish and a cheater.
[...]is that I use ShowEQ as a GPS
Learn hwo to play the game or game with people that can. Wow...a social skill. That's one of the lamest excusive I've heard.
This game is absolutely worthless to me if I can't figure out where the hell I am.
If you can't figure out how to play with other people, they don't need your business. You're selfish and deluded. You're a cheater.
[...]if Verant made the game a bit easier for me to figure out where the heck I was, I wouldn't need ShowEQ.
Or, you could play with other people. Wow, that fixed pretty much all of your problems. So why are you still using SEQ? Oh, that's right, you're a cheating loser that's deluded your self into believing that SEQ is a required evil. Fact of the matter is, YOU'RE the only evil and the scum of all online games. Don't kid your self, either you're a cheater like any other or you're not. If you use SEQ, you are a cheater.
If Verant wants to lose me as a customer[...]
For every loser like you that they lose, they'll gain even more legit users that actually want to have a FAIR and fun gaming experience. In the mean time, you're just as guilty as any member of a linch-mob, even if you didn't actually "string him up."
[...]not for my own score and glorification, but as a basic aid to help myself and others.
So now you're evil is suddenly made better because you help others cheat too. Wow. He's not a thrief! He stole that so he could give it to me. Wow. Sure that gets used a lot on court.
Get a life. Stop playing or stop using SEQ.
Shesh....what a loser.
[Shatner's voice]
It's only a game...get a life!
If you are going to start talking about vapor features then what about postgresql's plans to support point in time recoveries (pitr), redo logs, savepoints, and full clustering with multiple masters.
PITR, was planned for 7.3 but was delayed for 7.4 because of some other internal changes but they didn't wish to delay 7.3 for it. It's now scheduled for 7.4.
Clustering is such an overloaded word. Nonetheless, multi-master (IIRC) replication is already underworks.
Distributed quiries is something that comes up from time to time. Not sure what the actual work effort is, however, I do know the protocol is being significantly enhanced to allow for replication and distributed queries.
Tablespaces. Mostly for performance, I think - we just keep all the indexes in a different tablespace on a different array for less disk seeking.
Planned for 7.4 IIRC.
Good Win32 support.
Planned for 7.4. Seems code is already available, it's just being cleaned up prior toward merge.
IIRC, the other sticky part of that was, corporations were not allowed to collect fees or fines for law enforcement. In other words, it clearly was not their domain to enforce or track.
No, I don't think you're trying to be a jerk, however, I do believe that you're being unreasonable. Most distros come with a half dozen window managers....and maybe a half dozen different themes for each. Furthermore, sites like themes.org make obtaining new themes a no brainer (mostly).
With the number of options available out of the box (with tons of room for tweaking of each) and the number of possibilities that can be downloaded and tested in a matter of minutes, I just can't see how anyone can complain that their Unix/Linux/X desktop isn't usable.
I've never actually met anyone that didn't find something they liked out of the box. That doesn't mean they didn't later go to to customize and/or tweak...but as a rule of thumb, the options that simply come out of the box should be enough to satisfy any reasonable person.
If you say so.
Meanwhile I do recall seeing such a graph much like, if not that graph, by Open Bench Labs (name my not be correct -- it's been a while). Not only that, but the graph EXACTLY matches known expectations on a common Linux AIO Linux implementation (which is purely userland). This is why kernel level AIO implementations have been underway for some time now.
In other words, you may not like the message but it EXACLY matches the current state of some AIO implementations on Linux. Call is a lie if you like, meanwhile those of us that know, will simply nod, move on, and occationally laugh at those that continue to hide their heads in the sand.
Believe it or not, Linux isn't the be-all, end-all of OS's. If it were, there wouldn't be a need for the 2.6 kernel.
Hmmm...last I looked GDK doesn't implement the X11 protocol....hmmmmm....
Sounds like it must sit a top it to me.
In other words, even though there are thousands, if not millions of possible combinations, none are good enough for you.
It sounds like the problem is with you. Even at worse, I can't possibly imagine how this is a failing of X.
Okay. Thanks.
;)
I've tried manually patching XFS, O(1) and a couple of other odds and ends (latency, preempt) and wind up with something that doesn't even boot or crashes/panics right after words.
So thanks...that pretty much confirms that it's not something I'm doing...
LOL
And how long have you been comparing AIO implementations?
You wouldn't happen to know where I can get a pre-patched 2.4.19 kernel that has O(1), low latency, preempt and XFS all rolled together would ya?
Most supposed performance problems with X11 seem to be due to the toolkits and desktop environment used. Gnome or KDE on X11 can be a bit sluggish on low-end machines Tweaking hint: use a different desktop environment.
This is very true. Remember, GTK+ sits on top of a device abstration layer. So, as an example, you have:
Gnome
GTK+
GDK
GDK Abstraction
Xt
X - protocol
That's a lot of layers and overhead there.
I always wondered how worth while it would be for someone to create a replacement or Xt. That is, something that wasn't as low level.
X - and the rest of the GUI - is one of the main things keeping me from using *ix on my desktop.
Ahh...okay....that really doesn't make such sense but I'll hear ya out...
But on my desktop, I'll only use one that I find intuitive and elegant. X is neither to me.
Ummm...X isn't your "desktop" The fact that you seem to think it is only shows that you're either biased or ignorant of the facts.
A polished, intuitive, and pretty GUI is one of the best ways to win people over, and keep them once they're there.
Except that modern desktops that use X already can be configured to allow for just about anything you can imagine. The simple fact of the matter is, if you haven't found something you like that sits on top of X, you simply never looked.
AFAIC, your post is a troll, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Which is to say,I'm betting you're simply uninformed about the facts.
The use of "big server" is somewhat misleading.
:)
Fact is, anyone that heavily uses their Linux box will see some difference. It's just that the heavier your box gets used, the bigger difference you'll see.
Those that do little serious multitasking may see "smoother" multitasking but little more. Those that perform concurrent compiles, heavy CPU or I/O database servers, big time-share systems, etc, will see larger and larger note worthy gains.
Hello moderators! This is not a troll. He pointed out something that has a nice graph to support what he's saying. Not only that, but it's very well known. AIO on Linux has never been stellar...but should be soon enough.
Someone, please mod the partent back up. He wasn't trolling and was simply stating fact!
The only nearly-unique feature of Exchange is the collaboration aspect, and even that is much better done with SamsungContact nee hp-OpenMail.
Except that Outlook is doing 98%+ of everything that people attribute Exchange doing. Exchange really does very little. It's basically a data store (database) and an MTA. That's it.
This is a very commonly done. In fact, one of the tactics that is used to prevent a bill from passing is to add on things that they know people don't want.
As an example, add a bill that requires every house or dwelling to set a mouse free in it. Of course, no one would want a mouse running around their dwelling. Since you can't veto part of a bill, the entire bill gets tossed. Of course, the example is silly but proves the point just the same.
The inverse is also true. Adding funding for pet projects is also common. This is one of the reasons you see so much funding abuse and "buying" of votes. That is, things like, "you let me add this and not veto it, then I'll do x, y, z for you". This is why lobbiest are so powerful and go out of their way to have their "pocket men" to have strings to pull.
These are why laws often get passed which make no sense and are certainly not in the interest of the public, rather, they are a means to an end for someone's political agenda.
which is the first real advance in scehdulng tech for about 15 years...
IIRC, BSD has had a O(1) scheduler for a very long time now. Many RT OS's have also had them. This is evolutionary for Linux and is not a "real advance in scheduling tech". It is, however, a real advance on an evolutionary basis, for Linux.
The point is, it does nothing to address context switches. Switching to another thread still requires a complete context change. Period. While the O(1) schedule allows for more timely (thus lower latency), it does nothing to prevent the actual required context change. Other thread models, given *some types* of workloads, can continue to out scale 1:1 implementations (where the inverse is also true). This is especially true when the threaded workloads exceed available hardware. The result is the same amount of work with fewer context switches. This can result in improved cached hits as well as the obvious gain of work from not having to switch process/thread context.
So your POINT is actually incorrect. The correct statement is that the 2.6 kernel when using a 1:1 model will allow for greater scalability than it's previous implementation but has yet to prove it addresses all workloads better than all other threading models. In fact, it's expected that M:N will still have it's place for some types of workloads even after 2.6 is released.
I personally expect that 1:1 and M:N will both become more common and that there is a time and place for both.
Because 1:1 implementations are well known to not scale well because of context switch overhead and synchronization overhead.
For systems that don't require true high-end scalability, 1:1 works fairly well. It's because of this that M:N has some proponents.
"Here's a list of pending AIO ops, give me, now, a list of all the completed or errored-out ones".
Because there's no need. Since AIO functions on the concept of callbacks, your callback will be called when the operation completes. Completion may be "errored-out" or it may be "completed". Adding the house-keeping for these is a no brainer should you really need to have them. After all, you already have to track AIO context to some degree (buffers and perhaps state). Keeping track of your desired information is trival at this point.
LOL! Why did this get modded up? He provided a link to the exact same link and he's modded up? It's not as if it's another unique link...it's the exact same link.
Come on people..mod him back down.
LOL.