I Moved to Linux and It’s Even Better Than I Expected
-
Wrong. Do it again.
-
fixed:
-
The tendency of Linux users to make like 47 different disk partitions always mystifies me. It's not necessary in any other OS. (And I wager it's not necessary in Linux, either, they just do it because... uh... because?)
Yeah, I generally just go with
/,/home, and a swap partition. Doesn't seem to be much point complexifying things beyond that. And for a VM, I might not even bother with/home...
-
-
Yeah, I generally just go with /, /home, and a swap partition.
on windows i have
C:\as a smallish partition andC:\Storage\as my main, much larger, partitionon linux i usually take what the installer defaults to which seems to be:
- a 100MB
/boot - a swap partition = installed RAM
- a 8GB
/ - rest allocated to
/home
if i'm doing a server i'll often slip in
/var/logas a separate partition to prevent a rogue log taking the whole server down, and omit/home(or severely limit it)
- a 100MB
-
-
@tar said:
and a swap partition.
Why?
because the installers still default to giving you one from back in the day when we had about a thousanth the RAM we do now and i can't be assed to change it?
because a couple of gig in a multi terabyte drive is a drop in the bucket you'll never notice "missing"?
because Linux handles virtual memory different than windows and swapfiles in system partitions are less well supported than just carving out the partition? I mean you're out the disck space either way, might as well give it its own partition so it can do whatever the fuck it wants with it.
Because we know it will infurate the rat?
-
-
-
-
E_TOO_SMALL
<screw it jeff
-
I'm surprised you've never heard of this DOS construct.
-
I've never used DOS. Why would I have?
-
-
It's still in Windows today, kind of.
-
It's still in Windows today, kind of.
Ok? I still don't give a fuck, sorry.
I'm sure you're going to use this as the fuel for some kind of, "oh look I'm rc4 and I'm so much smarter than blakeyrat rant look how dumb he is har har har. That dumbo idiot-man doesn't even know that extended memory means memory over 1 MB of something somewhere I guess that was relevant back in 1990. I even had to link that moron idiot dumbhead stinky brain to a Wikipedia article that featured the word 'mebibyte' in the first sentence!". Just post it to some thread I have muted.
-
It's still in Windows today, kind of.
isn't there a Meg of memory (at the 16MB mark IIRC) that's still permanently marked invalid in windows die to an absolutely ancient BIOS bug?
or did they finally let that bit of backwards compat go?
-
-
-
You know, it's really hilarious how worked up you get over your own lack of knowledge. Maybe if you had half a brain you wouldn't complain so much. Have you tried learning, reading, or critical thinking before? They're really worth your time, I promise.
-
I've never heard of that. Hmm. Got any links?
-
Have you tried learning, reading, or critical thinking before?
That's work!
it's much easier to complain and snark and make fun of others.
it's a no-brainer really.
-
I've never heard of that. Hmm. Got any links?
hmm... now that you mention it....
/me wonders off to the archives of the internet
-
You know, it's really hilarious how worked up you get over your own lack of knowledge.
That's not "knowledge", that's trivia. You seem to have the two confused.
Nobody gives a fuck about extended memory except perhaps DOS hobbyists and maybe the 3 guys at Microsoft who are responsible for making sure Windows boots right.
Tell you what, we'll trade. You can know all kinds of stupid obscure shit about DOS from 1989 (an OS I've literally never used except in emulated form), and I can know all kinds of stupid obscure shit about Mac Classic from the same time period.
The difference is that I would never make fun of you for not knowing that worthless trivia, because I'm not a jackass.
Have you tried learning, reading, or critical thinking before?
Most of the problems I have on this forum is that I do engage in critical thinking, instead of just kow-towing to the software development groupthink.
For example, in this very thread I'm asking questions like, "why does Linux need a swap partition?" and dismissing all the idiotic groupthink answers ("it's always been done that way", "it's faster in some way I can't actually quantify", etc.) It's causing me nothing but grief.
That's work!
Say I learned all about extended memory. I became the world's foremost extended memory expert.
How would that help me? At work? At my social life? Financially?
Give me a practical reason to learn it, and maybe I'll bother. Until then, it's pointless implementation detail I do not and will not ever give a fuck about.
-
-
-
Nobody gives a fuck about extended memory except perhaps DOS hobbyists and maybe the 3 guys at Microsoft who are responsible for making sure Windows boots right
How would that help me? At work? At my social life? Financially?
Those "3 guys" make fucking bank. Not only do they develop the most crucial and (one of the most) intricate parts of windows, but they have to do it in ASM.
Give me a practical reason to learn it, and maybe I'll bother. Until then, it's pointless implementation detail I do not and will not ever give a fuck about.
So it's impossible to learn something and say "huh, that's neat" if it doesn't directly and immediately apply to your live at this very second? You must be incredibly behind-the-times, then.
-
-
Most of my Linux installs don't even have a swap partition. They're diskless so there's nothing to swap to.
As for extended memory, I don't see how anyone even slightly PC-literate could have lived through the 90's without knowing about it. I was like 5 years old at the time and I still knew about it. I'm mostly certain it's a processor feature, not an OS feature, though it's definitely legacy now.
-
Those "3 guys" make fucking bank. Not only do they develop the most crucial and (one of the most) intricate parts of windows, but they have to do it in ASM.
And therefore...?
So it's impossible to learn something and say "huh, that's neat" if it doesn't directly and immediately apply to your live at this very second?
When did I say that?
Maybe you could focus more on your reading comprehension than your making fun of people for not knowing obscure bullshit about DOS.
As for extended memory, I don't see how anyone even slightly PC-literate could have lived through the 90's without knowing about it.
I'm vaguely aware that PCs had this file called config.sys which you had to edit sometimes to make certain programs run. That's about it. I never used a PC myself until Windows 98 was out. I certainly never used one running only DOS.
I'm mostly certain it's a processor feature,
My computers of that era had 680x0 processors.
BTW, rc4, this is a good example of me being chided because I'm not in the groupthink. You see, in the groupthink, every person in IT used DOS. It's entirely IMPOSSIBLE that someone might have grown up on the C-64 and Macintosh and never used DOS. What kind of freak would that be? We should chase them with torches and pitchforks because they don't know how to put extended memory in config.sys!!!
This is the exact kind of thing I'm talking about. People in IT are the most intolerant motherfuckers in the world.
-
@rc4 said:
So it's impossible to learn something and say "huh, that's neat" if it doesn't directly and immediately apply to your live at this very second?
When did I say that?With every word you've ever typed.
-
People in IT are the most intolerant motherfuckers in the world.
you're not helping your case here with your behavior....
-_-
-
The CPU and the OS have to have support for it.
-
You see, in the groupthink, every person in IT used DOS.
This is literally almost true, to the point of being a safe assumption. Do we need to post trigger warnings now anytime anyone mentions DOS? Just so blakey can avoid the rage of being the one IT guy in the world who never used it.
-
@rc4 said:
I've never heard of that. Hmm. Got any links?
hmm... now that you mention it....
/me wonders off to the archives of the internet
I don't remember a 1 meg invalid area, but there's this from Raymond Chen:
there is a 64K “no man’s land” near the 2GB boundary.
-
I don't remember a 1 meg invalid area, but there's this from Raymond Chen:
there is a 64K “no man’s land” near the 2GB boundary.
ah. yes. that's it. i'd just found the article....
i knew it was on the old new thing i read about it.
-
Windows doesn't allow applications to commit memory over the physical amount of memory available to it. So this is "normal".
My understanding is Linux does allow committing more memory than is physically available to it, and when the shoe drops it just kills random processes until the commit level is back under control. Which, BTW, is excellent design. The computer equivalent of, "OH MY GOD PANIIIICICICII!!!!! FUCK USER DATA START KILLING PROCSESSES!!!"
Well, I'm not so sure that Windows application developers put in great effort to gracefully handle failing malloc (and similar) calls, so this is a rather theoretical argument.
-
BTW, rc4, this is a good example of me being chided because I'm not in the groupthink. You see, in the groupthink, every person in IT used DOS. It's entirely IMPOSSIBLE that someone might have grown up on the C-64 and Macintosh and never used DOS. What kind of freak would that be? We should chase them with torches and pitchforks because they don't know how to put extended memory in config.sys!!!
BTW, blakeyrat, this is a good example of you getting angry because you learned something new instead of just learning it. And then, when you react so angrily to the point of invoking Poe's law, and people start
you on.
-
My understanding is Linux does allow committing more memory than is physically available to it, and when the shoe drops it just kills random processes until the commit level is back under control. Which, BTW, is excellent design. The computer equivalent of, "OH MY GOD PANIIIICICICII!!!!! FUCK USER DATA START KILLING PROCSESSES!!!"
You clearly have no understanding of Linux or how it works. Linux allows overcommit because greedy programs like to allocate more RAM than they actually need, meaning that you may be running programs that are asking for 8 GB on a 4 GB box but in reality are only using 3GB. This means that you can do more on Linux if your apps are written properly. Also, the OOM killer rarely kills things that have an effect on the user, because it doesn't just start whacking random things unless SHTF, and even then it uses logic to try and pick the best program to kill.
You can read more about Linux overcommit and why it's actually good here, but I doubt you'd want to read something that proves you wrong, heavens no!
Or you can just say everything is dumb because you don't understand any of it. Duh.
-
Is there a way in windows to limit the size of a folder? I can see the use in limiting /var/log to a certain size.
Given that windows applications don't log to a central area, would it even help if it could? Does the windows event logger thing have sane limitations?
-
-
Is there a way in windows to limit the size of a folder? I can see the use in limiting /var/log to a certain size.
NTFS supports per-user disk quotas, but I don't think there is any way to limit the size of specific folders without redirecting it to another disk or partition and using that as the limit. Unless that's in the Enterprise/Ultimate editions that nobody in the real world actually uses.
-
Most of them handle things properly, i.e. don't abort when
malloc()fails.Sure, it's a most, but only the Sith deal in absolutes.
-
but only the Sith deal in absolutes.
That statement sounds like an absolute. Are you a Sith?
-
Sure, it's a most, but only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Come to the dark side my child.
we have cookies.....
made of hate!
delicious, delicious hate!
yummy nummy nummy!
-
Most of them handle things properly, i.e. don't abort when malloc() fails.
Sure, it's a most, but only the Sith deal in absolutes.
How does that relate to over committing memory?
-
Most of them handle things properly, i.e. don't abort when malloc() fails.
How do you continue to run correctly if malloc() starts failing? Seems to me that would be unrecoverable. It's like expecting a car to continue normally after a tire blowout.
-
You pull over to the side of the road and put on a spare (stop the operation that required more memory and report failure) instead of crashing (hah!)
-
Maybe I'm being anti-pedantic but "stop the operation and report failure" is basically the same as "crashing" in my mind. Though your point does raise the question of what to do if there isn't enough memory available to report failure.
-
A long time ago, applications that were poorly-written would just gobble memory and if they couldn't gobble anymore, they would just die spectacularly.
