On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 12:04:27 +0100
Arnt Gulbrandsen <arnt@???> wrote:

> Steve Litt writes:
> > Context? Who said anything about fifty?
>
> T.J. Duchene about a half-hour before my posting, I think.

Ah, sorry, that explains it, I don't receive his emails.

Anyway, I'd consider it a personal favor to myself if you could include
at least a tiny bit of the bare essence of the text to which you're
replying.

> I might be wrong. The quoting was difficult to decipher, since that
> message uses HTML colour coding to indicate quoting, and the're are
> quoted blocks from James Powell, who in turn uses Outlook-style
> quoting, except buggily so an outlook-style parser can't grok it.
> Difficult. But I think it was T.J. Duchene.

I know what you mean. In the past 9 months I've seen a huge uptick in
ambuification in emails, to the point where many times, you don't know
who said what, and it looks like the person is arguing with himself,
with temporal dislocations thrown in as people top post with words like
"it" instead of exactly what they mean, or "I agree" in a thread with
twelve different assertions.

By the way, I have no personal knowledge of how many actor sockets a
listener socket can spawn off, but if I had to guess, I'd imagine 50
would be way too low a number, if for no other reason than none of my
current and former ISPs would have been able to serve httpd to the
masses if 50 was the limit.

Hmmm, as far as just plain processes, maybe I'll make a fork bomb and
see how many there are before the system bogs down. That should be
interesting.

SteveT

Steve Litt
July 2015 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21