longest without a reboot - Linux

This is a discussion on longest without a reboot - Linux ; On Jan 3, 5:27 am, Tom Shelton wrote: > On Jan 2, 7:25 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote: > > > > > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____ > > > > On 2008-01-02, Roy ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: longest without a reboot

  1. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Jan 3, 5:27 am, Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On Jan 2, 7:25 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____

    >
    > > > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > > >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____

    >
    > > >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    > > >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM
    > > >>>> and
    > > >>>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.

    >
    > > >>> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    > > >>> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE

    >
    > > >>> We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    > > >>> my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    > > >>> your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    > > >>> That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    > > >>> you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    > > >>> would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    >
    > > >> OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on this
    > > >> old PC that I use. It's very fast.

    >
    > > >> ...Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they choose
    > > >> Free open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.

    >
    > > > If this ends up being a duplicate - forgive me. I had a problem posting
    > > > the original - and I wasn't sure if it had worked. So, I reconstructed
    > > > the post:

    >
    > > > Define "a few"? Here are my system stats (fresh reboot to ensure a cold
    > > > start):

    >
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ uname -a
    > > > Linux bob 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 #5 PREEMPT Mon Dec 3 14:02:36 MST 2007 i686
    > > > Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

    >
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ uptime
    > > > 04:01:12 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.24, 0.15

    >
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    > > > processor : 0
    > > > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    > > > cpu family : 6
    > > > model : 11
    > > > model name : Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz
    > > > stepping : 1
    > > > cpu MHz : 1392.412
    > > > cache size : 256 KB
    > > > fdiv_bug : no
    > > > hlt_bug : no
    > > > f00f_bug : no
    > > > coma_bug : no
    > > > fpu : yes
    > > > fpu_exception : yes
    > > > cpuid level : 2
    > > > wp : yes
    > > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
    > > > mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    > > > bogomips : 2814.99
    > > > clflush size : 32

    >
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/meminfo
    > > > MemTotal: 513800 kB
    > > > MemFree: 333484 kB
    > > > Buffers: 10784 kB
    > > > Cached: 92032 kB
    > > > SwapCached: 0 kB
    > > > Active: 87928 kB
    > > > Inactive: 63372 kB
    > > > HighTotal: 0 kB
    > > > HighFree: 0 kB
    > > > LowTotal: 513800 kB
    > > > LowFree: 333484 kB
    > > > SwapTotal: 500464 kB
    > > > SwapFree: 500464 kB
    > > > Dirty: 12 kB
    > > > Writeback: 0 kB
    > > > AnonPages: 48504 kB
    > > > Mapped: 40628 kB
    > > > Slab: 11352 kB
    > > > SReclaimable: 5096 kB
    > > > SUnreclaim: 6256 kB
    > > > PageTables: 1156 kB
    > > > NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
    > > > Bounce: 0 kB
    > > > CommitLimit: 757364 kB
    > > > Committed_AS: 188928 kB
    > > > VmallocTotal: 507896 kB
    > > > VmallocUsed: 69296 kB
    > > > VmallocChunk: 438020 kB

    >
    > > > Cold start:
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > > real 0m19.605s
    > > > user 0m0.067s
    > > > sys 0m0.087s

    >
    > > > Now, if there is an instance already loaded, a second instance takes
    > > > about half a second:

    >
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > > real 0m0.582s
    > > > user 0m0.057s
    > > > sys 0m0.077s

    >
    > > > A second start with no instances running:
    > > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >
    > > > real 0m19.446s
    > > > user 0m0.063s
    > > > sys 0m0.080s

    >
    > > > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    > > > about 20 seconds.

    >
    > > Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)

    >
    > OOo 2.3.1. What did I do to it? Nothing. I installed it from
    > source:
    >
    > emerge -av openoffice
    >
    > Here are my CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf
    > CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
    >
    > > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to resort
    > > to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first time. Don't
    > > ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.

    >
    > Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Shelton


    I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
    should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
    up on open office and came with the following tip.

    Tools menu, options
    Memory under OpenOffice.org
    Change:
    Undo
    Number of steps to 25
    Graphics cache
    Memory per object 2.0 MB
    Remove from memory after 00:05
    Cache for inserted objects
    Number of objects 15
    Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter

    I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
    time.

    /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

  2. Re: longest without a reboot

    ____/ Ewok on Thursday 03 January 2008 11:22 : \____

    > On Jan 3, 5:27 am, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> On Jan 2, 7:25 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____

    >>
    >> > > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> > >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____

    >>
    >> > >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> > >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of
    >> > >>>> RAM and
    >> > >>>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.

    >>
    >> > >>> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    >> > >>> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE

    >>
    >> > >>> We could guestimate that your computer is roughly 3 times as fast as
    >> > >>> my is. You say that it takes 12 seconds to cold launch open office on
    >> > >>> your computer. It took 3 seconds on my computer. I just clocked it.
    >> > >>> That is 4 times faster than on your computer. Since I use linux and
    >> > >>> you use windows, I guess that, that would explain the difference. That
    >> > >>> would make linux 12 times faster than windows.

    >>
    >> > >> OOo can be launched (from a 'cold' state) within just a few seconds on
    >> > >> this old PC that I use. It's very fast.

    >>
    >> > >> ...Too bad for those who still use Windows because _even_ if they
    >> > >> choose Free open source, they are treated like second-class citizens.

    >>
    >> > > If this ends up being a duplicate - forgive me. I had a problem posting
    >> > > the original - and I wasn't sure if it had worked. So, I reconstructed
    >> > > the post:

    >>
    >> > > Define "a few"? Here are my system stats (fresh reboot to ensure a cold
    >> > > start):

    >>
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ uname -a
    >> > > Linux bob 2.6.21-gentoo-r4 #5 PREEMPT Mon Dec 3 14:02:36 MST 2007 i686
    >> > > Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

    >>
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ uptime
    >> > > 04:01:12 up 6 min, 1 user, load average: 0.12, 0.24, 0.15

    >>
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/cpuinfo
    >> > > processor : 0
    >> > > vendor_id : GenuineIntel
    >> > > cpu family : 6
    >> > > model : 11
    >> > > model name : Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1400MHz
    >> > > stepping : 1
    >> > > cpu MHz : 1392.412
    >> > > cache size : 256 KB
    >> > > fdiv_bug : no
    >> > > hlt_bug : no
    >> > > f00f_bug : no
    >> > > coma_bug : no
    >> > > fpu : yes
    >> > > fpu_exception : yes
    >> > > cpuid level : 2
    >> > > wp : yes
    >> > > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
    >> > > mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse
    >> > > bogomips : 2814.99
    >> > > clflush size : 32

    >>
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ cat /proc/meminfo
    >> > > MemTotal: 513800 kB
    >> > > MemFree: 333484 kB
    >> > > Buffers: 10784 kB
    >> > > Cached: 92032 kB
    >> > > SwapCached: 0 kB
    >> > > Active: 87928 kB
    >> > > Inactive: 63372 kB
    >> > > HighTotal: 0 kB
    >> > > HighFree: 0 kB
    >> > > LowTotal: 513800 kB
    >> > > LowFree: 333484 kB
    >> > > SwapTotal: 500464 kB
    >> > > SwapFree: 500464 kB
    >> > > Dirty: 12 kB
    >> > > Writeback: 0 kB
    >> > > AnonPages: 48504 kB
    >> > > Mapped: 40628 kB
    >> > > Slab: 11352 kB
    >> > > SReclaimable: 5096 kB
    >> > > SUnreclaim: 6256 kB
    >> > > PageTables: 1156 kB
    >> > > NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
    >> > > Bounce: 0 kB
    >> > > CommitLimit: 757364 kB
    >> > > Committed_AS: 188928 kB
    >> > > VmallocTotal: 507896 kB
    >> > > VmallocUsed: 69296 kB
    >> > > VmallocChunk: 438020 kB

    >>
    >> > > Cold start:
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >>
    >> > > real 0m19.605s
    >> > > user 0m0.067s
    >> > > sys 0m0.087s

    >>
    >> > > Now, if there is an instance already loaded, a second instance takes
    >> > > about half a second:

    >>
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >>
    >> > > real 0m0.582s
    >> > > user 0m0.057s
    >> > > sys 0m0.077s

    >>
    >> > > A second start with no instances running:
    >> > > tom@bob ~ $ time oowriter

    >>
    >> > > real 0m19.446s
    >> > > user 0m0.063s
    >> > > sys 0m0.080s

    >>
    >> > > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    >> > > about 20 seconds.

    >>
    >> > Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)

    >>
    >> OOo 2.3.1. What did I do to it? Nothing. I installed it from
    >> source:
    >>
    >> emerge -av openoffice
    >>
    >> Here are my CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf
    >> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
    >>
    >> > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to
    >> > resort to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first
    >> > time. Don't ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.

    >>
    >> Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tom Shelton

    >
    > I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
    > should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
    > up on open office and came with the following tip.
    >
    > Tools menu, options
    > Memory under OpenOffice.org
    > Change:
    > Undo
    > Number of steps to 25
    > Graphics cache
    > Memory per object 2.0 MB
    > Remove from memory after 00:05
    > Cache for inserted objects
    > Number of objects 15
    > Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter


    I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
    (Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
    GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
    KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
    ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
    because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
    available).

    > I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
    > time.
    >
    > /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok


    Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    rather...

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 2 2007-12-10 11:12 last=
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

  3. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Jan 3, 1:49 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
    > (Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
    > GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
    > KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
    > ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
    > because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
    > available).


    About the same time it takes me. I do alot of multitasking myself, but
    mine hardly takes any memory, since most of mine is done through
    command line.

    >
    > > I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
    > > time.

    >
    > > /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

    >
    > Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    > pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    > rather...
    >


    I found that the best way of dealing with this kind of behaviour is to
    be polite and kind in response. Otherwise we just give fuel to fire.
    Plus, sometimes it may actually be someone who is a serious person. If
    one isn't polite in that situation, it may come back to haunt you very
    long. Internet trolls never forget, when it serves their purpose.

    /Your friendly neighbourhood ewok

  4. Re: longest without a reboot

    On 2008-01-03, Ewok wrote:
    > On Jan 3, 5:27 am, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >> On Jan 2, 7:25 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____

    >>
    >> > > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >> > >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____

    >>
    >> > >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >> > >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of RAM
    >> > >>>> and
    >> > >>>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.

    >>
    >>




    >> > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to resort
    >> > to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first time. Don't
    >> > ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.

    >>
    >> Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Tom Shelton

    >
    > I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
    > should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
    > up on open office and came with the following tip.
    >
    > Tools menu, options
    > Memory under OpenOffice.org
    > Change:
    > Undo
    > Number of steps to 25
    > Graphics cache
    > Memory per object 2.0 MB
    > Remove from memory after 00:05
    > Cache for inserted objects
    > Number of objects 15
    > Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter
    >
    > I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
    > time.
    >
    > /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok


    Thanks, but it didn't make any difference - but maybe because the
    quickstarter thing doesn't seem to be launching. I dual boot this
    machine with kubuntu 7.10 so I booted into that to see if made any
    difference and the times were the same. The option for
    the quickstarter is disabled on the kubuntu install so I couldn't
    test it's effect on either system.

    I have a hard time believing you have a cold start time of 3 seconds on
    an equivalent machine.

    --
    Tom Shelton

  5. Re: longest without a reboot

    On 2008-01-03, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    > ____/ Ewok on Thursday 03 January 2008 11:22 : \____
    >
    >> On Jan 3, 5:27 am, Tom Shelton wrote:
    >>> On Jan 2, 7:25 pm, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> > ____/ Tom Shelton on Wednesday 02 January 2008 18:14 : \____
    >>>
    >>> > > On 2008-01-02, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
    >>> > >> ____/ Ewok on Wednesday 02 January 2008 11:17 : \____
    >>>
    >>> > >>> On Dec 29 2007, 2:39 am, "DFS" wrote:
    >>> > >>>> It takes 12 seconds to cold launch on my P4, 3.0ghz system w/ 2gb of
    >>> > >>>> RAM and
    >>> > >>>> a fast SATA drive. It's pure OSS crapooolllaaaa.
    >>>
    >>> > >>> Your computer P4, 3.0 GHz, 2 GB RAM and fast SATA
    >>> > >>> My computer AMD Duron, 1,3 GHz, 1 GB RAM and IDE
    >>>




    >>> > > Yeah, it starts in a few seconds on my old pc as well - a few being
    >>> > > about 20 seconds.
    >>>
    >>> > Very odd. Which version of OOo is it and what did you do to it? ;-)
    >>>
    >>> OOo 2.3.1. What did I do to it? Nothing. I installed it from
    >>> source:
    >>>
    >>> emerge -av openoffice
    >>>
    >>> Here are my CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf
    >>> CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentium3 -pipe -fomit-frame-pointer"
    >>>
    >>> > On this 1.8GHz machine, with RAM fully occupied (therefore OOo needs to
    >>> > resort to paging), OOo just takes a few seconds to launch for the first
    >>> > time. Don't ask me how. I haven't a clue what you did.
    >>>
    >>> Again - define few. I showed you my times, lets see yours.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Tom Shelton

    >>
    >> I have twice your memory, but approximately your processor, so it
    >> should take about the same time. Mine takes 3 seconds. I googled start
    >> up on open office and came with the following tip.
    >>
    >> Tools menu, options
    >> Memory under OpenOffice.org
    >> Change:
    >> Undo
    >> Number of steps to 25
    >> Graphics cache
    >> Memory per object 2.0 MB
    >> Remove from memory after 00:05
    >> Cache for inserted objects
    >> Number of objects 15
    >> Mark OpenOffice.org quickstarter

    >
    > I think I once read this tip in Linux Journal (Tom Adelstein?) or Linux.com
    > (Bruce Byfield?). Either way, I made no adjustment to OOo. It runs with a
    > GNOME-ish (GTK) theme under KDE, which means it has to load some extra libs in
    > KDE, yet it takes just seconds to run without any preloading. As I said, don't
    > ask me how, but I'm not lying. It takes me a little longer than 3 seconds
    > because my RAM and swap is always nearly full (I multitask with little memory
    > available).
    >
    >> I didn't need to do this, but it may help, to get down the start up
    >> time.
    >>
    >> /Your friendly neighbourhood Ewok

    >
    > Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    > pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    > rather...
    >


    You still haven't posted your times Roy... You make vauge statements
    about it only taking a "few seconds", and "a little longer then 3
    seconds", but you don't give an acutal time. Why?

    --
    Tom Shelton

  6. Re: longest without a reboot

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:

    >
    > Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    > pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    > rather...
    >


    Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
    killfile for yonks.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

  7. Re: longest without a reboot

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
    Mark Kent wrote:
    > Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >
    >>
    >> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    >> pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    >> rather...
    >>

    >
    > Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
    > killfile for yonks.
    >



    How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
    starts up "off topic"?


    and you have a funny definition of "troll".

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHfYBEd90bcYOAWPYRAsHOAKCC18CDqGdpTtZ33dJ5yr ysMiCyzgCbB+CF
    xF6C3LrtM5PItbSJEZbtmbI=
    =+0Ts
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    I came; I saw; I ****ed up

  8. Re: longest without a reboot

    On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:39:33 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
    > Mark Kent wrote:
    >> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just to
    >>> pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified. Suspicion
    >>> rather...
    >>>

    >>
    >> Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
    >> killfile for yonks.
    >>



    >How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
    >starts up "off topic"?


    It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
    to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.

    People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
    openoffice is extremely fast and capable.

    The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the computer
    is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
    subsequent windows open within a second.

    I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
    you have a system that crashes constantly.

  9. Re: longest without a reboot

    ____/ AZ Nomad on Friday 04 January 2008 01:49 : \____

    > On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:39:33 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
    >> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just
    >>>> to pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified.
    >>>> Suspicion rather...
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
    >>> killfile for yonks.
    >>>

    >
    >
    >>How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
    >>starts up "off topic"?

    >
    > It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
    > to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.
    >
    > People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
    > openoffice is extremely fast and capable.
    >
    > The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the
    > computer
    > is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
    > subsequent windows open within a second.
    >
    > I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
    > you have a system that crashes constantly.


    I agree. Talking about startup time is a case of diverting attention to
    non-issues, thereby escaping the great capabilities of OOo, some of which
    surpass MSO.

    If Tom doesn't like Linux and Free software, he has subscribed to the wrong
    newsgroup.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Proprietary, lockin-based tools lead to regrets. Doc(umen)tor, heal thyself.
    http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.31 1.08 1.09 3/147 18106
    http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative

  10. Re: longest without a reboot

    Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    > ____/ AZ Nomad on Friday 04 January 2008 01:49 : \____
    >
    >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 16:39:33 -0800, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 18:44:06 +0000,
    >>> Mark Kent wrote:
    >>>> Roy Schestowitz espoused:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Tom Shelton is quite polite and intelligent, but he is usually here just
    >>>>> to pour cold water on GNU/Linux, so prejudice should be justified.
    >>>>> Suspicion rather...
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Shelton's a troll, an off-topic, anti-charter poster. He's been in my
    >>>> killfile for yonks.
    >>>>

    >>
    >>
    >>>How is posting numbers and information concerning how fast OO on Linux
    >>>starts up "off topic"?

    >>
    >> It is offtopic because it is anti-linux garbage. People don't use computers
    >> to boot, start open office and shutdown over and over and over.
    >>
    >> People start open office, and then do real work. At doing real work,
    >> openoffice is extremely fast and capable.
    >>
    >> The 8-15 seconds required to start open office means nothing when the
    >> computer
    >> is then used for real work for the next several hours. What matters is that
    >> subsequent windows open within a second.
    >>
    >> I guess the fast initial load time for microsoft word might be important when
    >> you have a system that crashes constantly.

    >
    > I agree. Talking about startup time is a case of diverting attention to
    > non-issues, thereby escaping the great capabilities of OOo, some of which
    > surpass MSO.
    >
    > If Tom doesn't like Linux and Free software, he has subscribed to the wrong
    > newsgroup.
    >


    .... which is why it's off-topic and anti-charter. He's been in my
    killfile for ages for this behaviour.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4