I have plenty of memory and also a good bit of hard-drive space. However, having a swap partition is a pain and is almost always wasted space eventually. If I really need swap, I can always create a swapfile.
This sounds like unnecessary optimization. On my machine, swap never gets touched, even when it is there, so what's the point of having it? Your point would be valid if, for my workloads, swap was getting used, but I still decided I'd rather have the extra disk space and got rid of it.
Yes, your system has swapped large numbers of anonymous pages. My system never did, but my usage patterns are probably different from yours. However, it's not so easy to say "well, the stuff was swapped out to make room for the cache, which is always a good thing". It isn't necessarily. You only have so much RAM, so when stuff is swapped out, or cache is trimmed, something is going out to disk. And either way, you are going to have to go back to disk to get it. The question is whether you are more likely to need to go and get no longer used files, or not recently used anonymous pages. And that, of course, depends on your usage.
And the fact that zero-ing pages is not done immediately, but is done as a low-priority process afterwards. Still, if you have a problem with freeing 2 GB of RAM in under 120ms, then you might want to re-evaluate your usage patterns, or get a much faster machine.
Do you think dumping a page frame costs that much? At worst, you have to zero it out, but if you know what's going in it when it's time to dump, then you can simply copy the page from the HD into the frame and muck about with a few tables in the kernel and that's it. It shouldn't be non-trivially more expensive than filling an already free page frame. The worst possible extra cost would be modifications to additional tables related to the cache.
Swap space is only for anonymous pages, essentially, those that are private mappings, or shared, but not mapped to any part of a file in the filesystem (e.g., BSS sections for libraries). The rest: code and read-only data can safely be discarded and reloaded from the original file. So unless you are using a huge amount of private anonymous pages, you won't see any swap partition activity. I know when I ran Linux I almost never hit the swap partition. That is, it never even bothered to put stuff there in the first place, much
less access it again. Rather than waste disk space on a rarely used resource, I got rid of it. The cost of having to keep a few more page frames active is negligible.
Wrong, because you have a 32-bit physical address space which is global, not per-application. Unless you use PAE, you can use at most 4 GB of RAM with a 32-bit OS, and a lot of that gets eaten up by device and BIOS mappings and holes. cat/proc/iomem to see what I mean.
I switched to Windows for that reason. I found it to be more stable, easier to use and less of a hassle than the alternatives. I also needed to do development work for Windows (.NET), so it made sense to use Windows. I had been using Linux full time for many years. I know I'm not the only one who's switched away from Linux to Windows or OS X.
No, "thy" is quite correct here, although "sayeth" isn't. The singular imperative quite boringly had no ending in Early Modern English (or late Middle Engish -- whichever the OP was going for). "Thine" was the original form, and over time came only to be used before words starting with a vowel or when standing alone (as "mine" still is) and "thy", a shortened form, was used before consonants and eventually took over as the sole adjectival form (as "my" still is).
And then you wait till whenever your distro updates the kernel, and that's if you are bleeding edge. Otherwise, you wait for backports. It's probably fast enough, but there's no guarantee you get it the day of.
Remember that BSD bug that sat around for about the same length of time? Yeah, it happens everywhere.
Of course, this is only a bug that can be exploited by 16-bit programs and only on 32-bit Windows. Since I run neither of those, it's not even a problem for folks like me.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Read the other comments for the details. This is a bug in the ntvdm subsystem which was a newly (at the time) written system for running 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows.
This isn't Windows 3.1. If a program freezes, it uses NO CPU, unless it is spinning, in which case its CPU usage is still limited by what the OS is willing to give it. It really has nothing to do with responsiveness, which is a function of the OS scheduler.
Except that -ize is more etymologically correct and it was the original. The British were the ones that shifted over to -ise for reasons unclear to me (apparently French influence?). Even so, it doesn't matter. Both spelling systems are no longer phonetically nor even at times phonemically connected to the languages they represent.
There is a lot of crappy software written in C/C++. It's easy to make sluggish UIs and bad abstractions. But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is, Eclipse is not written in a scripting language, it is written in a compiled (or what might as well be compiled) language with strong typing and a slightly more dynamic runtime than what you get with C++ and comparable speed. So bringing up Eclipse as an example of the problems with scripting languages is just plain invalid.
Nope. PHP doesn't work that way. Take a function that takes a single parameter $x. That parameter $x can be of any type. You could have three callers, one passing an int, one passing a string, and one passing an array. The function code itself cannot predict that, so the code in the function must be generic enough to handle all three (and more). Since PHP doesn't allow multiple functions with the same name, to implement overloading, you make a method which checks the types of parameters, for example, and then changes its behavior based on that information. That has to be done at runtime, period.
Now, if they made typing a bit more strict in PHP, then yes, the compiler could figure out all types during JITing or whenever. But PHP as it stands now is not strict enough. Personally, I'd be in favor of making typing a bit more strict. The looseness really doesn't buy you that much and causes a whole lot of headaches (a lot of runtime checks in the PHP itself, to say nothing of what the runtime itself is doing).
I wasn't confused. You clearly weren't confused because you quickly were able to figure out the original. The meaning is quite clear. At worst, one might ask why not use "orient", but otherwise, the meaning is perfectly clear, or perhaps more precise.
Of course, "orient" as a verb is actually no better, because it was originally noun and was then "verbed". I'm sure if you had been around in those days, you would have pulled the same annoying pedantry out of your ass.
By the way, this is not a grammar, spelling or rules issue. It's one of vocabulary and I think it's fair to say that people should have a good deal of flexibility there.
What's wrong with deriving a new noun from the verb? It may be redundant at this point for this word (or they may have a more specific meaning in mind than the general "orient"), but it's hardly unprecedented.
Slashdot Mirror
I have plenty of memory and also a good bit of hard-drive space. However, having a swap partition is a pain and is almost always wasted space eventually. If I really need swap, I can always create a swapfile.
This sounds like unnecessary optimization. On my machine, swap never gets touched, even when it is there, so what's the point of having it? Your point would be valid if, for my workloads, swap was getting used, but I still decided I'd rather have the extra disk space and got rid of it.
Clearly you cannot read. Did I not say "unless you use PAE"?
Yes, your system has swapped large numbers of anonymous pages. My system never did, but my usage patterns are probably different from yours. However, it's not so easy to say "well, the stuff was swapped out to make room for the cache, which is always a good thing". It isn't necessarily. You only have so much RAM, so when stuff is swapped out, or cache is trimmed, something is going out to disk. And either way, you are going to have to go back to disk to get it. The question is whether you are more likely to need to go and get no longer used files, or not recently used anonymous pages. And that, of course, depends on your usage.
And the fact that zero-ing pages is not done immediately, but is done as a low-priority process afterwards. Still, if you have a problem with freeing 2 GB of RAM in under 120ms, then you might want to re-evaluate your usage patterns, or get a much faster machine.
Do you think dumping a page frame costs that much? At worst, you have to zero it out, but if you know what's going in it when it's time to dump, then you can simply copy the page from the HD into the frame and muck about with a few tables in the kernel and that's it. It shouldn't be non-trivially more expensive than filling an already free page frame. The worst possible extra cost would be modifications to additional tables related to the cache.
Swap space is only for anonymous pages, essentially, those that are private mappings, or shared, but not mapped to any part of a file in the filesystem (e.g., BSS sections for libraries). The rest: code and read-only data can safely be discarded and reloaded from the original file. So unless you are using a huge amount of private anonymous pages, you won't see any swap partition activity. I know when I ran Linux I almost never hit the swap partition. That is, it never even bothered to put stuff there in the first place, much less access it again. Rather than waste disk space on a rarely used resource, I got rid of it. The cost of having to keep a few more page frames active is negligible.
Wrong, because you have a 32-bit physical address space which is global, not per-application. Unless you use PAE, you can use at most 4 GB of RAM with a 32-bit OS, and a lot of that gets eaten up by device and BIOS mappings and holes. cat /proc/iomem to see what I mean.
Read the other posts. He's not talking about the great depression.
I switched to Windows for that reason. I found it to be more stable, easier to use and less of a hassle than the alternatives. I also needed to do development work for Windows (.NET), so it made sense to use Windows. I had been using Linux full time for many years. I know I'm not the only one who's switched away from Linux to Windows or OS X.
No, "thy" is quite correct here, although "sayeth" isn't. The singular imperative quite boringly had no ending in Early Modern English (or late Middle Engish -- whichever the OP was going for). "Thine" was the original form, and over time came only to be used before words starting with a vowel or when standing alone (as "mine" still is) and "thy", a shortened form, was used before consonants and eventually took over as the sole adjectival form (as "my" still is).
Homework on a Friday night?
And then you wait till whenever your distro updates the kernel, and that's if you are bleeding edge. Otherwise, you wait for backports. It's probably fast enough, but there's no guarantee you get it the day of.
Remember that BSD bug that sat around for about the same length of time? Yeah, it happens everywhere.
Of course, this is only a bug that can be exploited by 16-bit programs and only on 32-bit Windows. Since I run neither of those, it's not even a problem for folks like me.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Read the other comments for the details. This is a bug in the ntvdm subsystem which was a newly (at the time) written system for running 16-bit apps on 32-bit Windows.
This isn't Windows 3.1. If a program freezes, it uses NO CPU, unless it is spinning, in which case its CPU usage is still limited by what the OS is willing to give it. It really has nothing to do with responsiveness, which is a function of the OS scheduler.
Except that -ize is more etymologically correct and it was the original. The British were the ones that shifted over to -ise for reasons unclear to me (apparently French influence?). Even so, it doesn't matter. Both spelling systems are no longer phonetically nor even at times phonemically connected to the languages they represent.
Java's still a thousand times faster than bash. I love shell scripting, but I'm not going to pretend that bash is performant in any way.
There is a lot of crappy software written in C/C++. It's easy to make sluggish UIs and bad abstractions. But that's not the point. The fact of the matter is, Eclipse is not written in a scripting language, it is written in a compiled (or what might as well be compiled) language with strong typing and a slightly more dynamic runtime than what you get with C++ and comparable speed. So bringing up Eclipse as an example of the problems with scripting languages is just plain invalid.
Eclipse isn't written in a scripting language.
Nope. PHP doesn't work that way. Take a function that takes a single parameter $x. That parameter $x can be of any type. You could have three callers, one passing an int, one passing a string, and one passing an array. The function code itself cannot predict that, so the code in the function must be generic enough to handle all three (and more). Since PHP doesn't allow multiple functions with the same name, to implement overloading, you make a method which checks the types of parameters, for example, and then changes its behavior based on that information. That has to be done at runtime, period.
Now, if they made typing a bit more strict in PHP, then yes, the compiler could figure out all types during JITing or whenever. But PHP as it stands now is not strict enough. Personally, I'd be in favor of making typing a bit more strict. The looseness really doesn't buy you that much and causes a whole lot of headaches (a lot of runtime checks in the PHP itself, to say nothing of what the runtime itself is doing).
That's always true. It's not infinite precision. There's no such thing.
Sorry. I didn't realize the dangers of my line of thinking. I shall be ever so careful in the future. Ever so.
I wasn't confused. You clearly weren't confused because you quickly were able to figure out the original. The meaning is quite clear. At worst, one might ask why not use "orient", but otherwise, the meaning is perfectly clear, or perhaps more precise.
Of course, "orient" as a verb is actually no better, because it was originally noun and was then "verbed". I'm sure if you had been around in those days, you would have pulled the same annoying pedantry out of your ass.
By the way, this is not a grammar, spelling or rules issue. It's one of vocabulary and I think it's fair to say that people should have a good deal of flexibility there.
What's wrong with deriving a new noun from the verb? It may be redundant at this point for this word (or they may have a more specific meaning in mind than the general "orient"), but it's hardly unprecedented.