:: [DNG] FW: systemd in wheezy, was: …
Top Page
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Author: T.J. Duchene
Date:  
To: 'dng'
Subject: [DNG] FW: systemd in wheezy, was: Re: bummer


> -----Original Message-----
> From: T.J. Duchene [mailto:t.j.duchene@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2015 12:14 PM
> To: 'Teodoro Santoni'
> Subject: RE: [DNG] systemd in wheezy, was: Re: bummer
>
> > >
> > > > > And as a caveman, I would also very much appreciate a sensible
> > > > > quoting, even if it seems that this little thing has become too
> > > > > harsh to ask and too hard to obtain in the last few years...
> > > >
> > > > Believe me, the text/plain version is worse, having no quoting at all.
> > > > But it took me only three rereads to understand who said what, so
> > whatever...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Believe me, if people knew how to quote properly, then you could
> > > immediately understand who said what in reply to what else written
> > > by whoever else. As always, evil is not in the medium, but rather in
> > > how one (mis-)uses it...
>
> Sorry about that, boys. =)
>
> Hopefully, you can read this better. To me, it makes no difference as I can
> read either equally well. Personally, I could care less. I just usually use
> whatever the default is. I work with a variety of systems all the time. I don't
> let it bother me. Every bit of software has its quirks these days. Business
> likes HTML mail because of formatting.
>
> James P.: "I also do not think recreating SVCHOST is wise. I followed Windows
> since 2000 and since then SVCHOST has pulled in more and more growing the
> system requirements exponentially from 266mhz and 32mb RAM to 1 GHz
> and 1 GB RAM. This should NOT be done in GNU/Linux."
>
> Me: "That is really a massive oversimplification. You really have to remember
> that you are demanding the computer perform an average of 50+ processes
> at any given time. You can’t blame SVCHOST for that. The credit for that
> goes to people demanding more. If you want less resource use, people
> should start monotasking."
>
> Granted, 50 is usually an underrated example. Most "modern" operating
> systems have at least 50 processes running at a given time. I've been around
> long enough that I've seen personal computers go from very simple process
> models to what we have today, and while there is something to be said for
> how the efficiency of individual processes are handled, virtually every OS has
> had an ever increasing gluttony for more processing power, not less.
>
> I assumed you all would actually have more to say about my comments
> regarding Linux "retreading the same ground" as Microsoft, but surprises are
> usually always good.
>
> Have a fabulous day, gentlemen. =)
>
> T.J.