what is vmware thinking - Mandriva

This is a discussion on what is vmware thinking - Mandriva ; On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:12:57 -0400, Jim Beard wrote: > I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 64-bit X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+. The thing > has two cores ("two cpus" if you will), and one can be executing one > ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: what is vmware thinking

  1. Re: what is vmware thinking

    On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:12:57 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:

    > I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 64-bit X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+. The thing
    > has two cores ("two cpus" if you will), and one can be executing one
    > process while the other is executing another. This IS parallel
    > processing, simultaneous execution of two or more processes -- whether
    > you like the exact meaning of the English language words or not.


    Except that these terms have technical meanings that are used for clarity
    and precision (a foundation of science and critical thought). Redefining
    parallel execution as random execution of tasks on different cores on the
    same chip simply leaves us without a term for actual parallel processing.

    Why do you need to insist they are the same? Is it an ego thing, so one
    can insist that one's machine is doing parallel processing. Isn't this
    the same as Intel's fantasy clock speeds?

  2. Re: what is vmware thinking

    Mark Madsen wrote:
    > On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 22:12:57 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
    >
    >> I have an AMD Athlon(tm) 64-bit X2 Dual Core Processor 5000+. The thing
    >> has two cores ("two cpus" if you will), and one can be executing one
    >> process while the other is executing another. This IS parallel
    >> processing, simultaneous execution of two or more processes -- whether
    >> you like the exact meaning of the English language words or not.

    >
    > Except that these terms have technical meanings that are used for clarity
    > and precision (a foundation of science and critical thought). Redefining
    > parallel execution as random execution of tasks on different cores on the
    > same chip simply leaves us without a term for actual parallel processing.
    >
    > Why do you need to insist they are the same? Is it an ego thing, so one
    > can insist that one's machine is doing parallel processing. Isn't this
    > the same as Intel's fantasy clock speeds?


    It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to
    people attempting to remake the English language and the
    long-established meanings of words just because they would like to
    have something a little different, or because they do not want to be
    bothered with learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words
    established.

    There may be some technical writer somewhere who is certain (in his
    mind) that two processes running simultaneously on two cores of
    a dual-core processor does not constitute "parallel processing."
    He is either ignorant of the meaning of the terms he is using, or
    intent on changing the language to no useful purpose, and further
    encouraging "creation of language as you go" a la Alice in Wonderland
    that serves no one well.

    I know and freely acknowledge that a dual-core processor has one
    large memory space serving both cores, and that scheduling of which
    processes to run when/where is done in linear sequence, and this
    logically, technically, and otherwise implies the two processes are
    not completely independent and fully parallel in all respects. E.g.
    if data needed by the process running on core 1 is also
    simultaneously needed by the process running on core 2, parallelism
    can go to Hotel in a handbasket quite quickly, but this is a tiny
    imperfection in parallelism rather than something forcing us to a
    recharacterization at odds with conventional use of the English
    language.

    FWIW, my aversion to "creativity" in assigning new meanings to
    English words and grammar extends to that practiced by politicians
    and by members of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not just a technical
    thing, but a matter of plain language understandable (or otherwise!)
    and consistent in meaning over time. Without it, we cannot even
    discuss our problems intelligently, because no one can be sure he can
    understand what others are talking about!

    No cheers.

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  3. Re: what is vmware thinking

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:18:44 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:

    > It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to people
    > attempting to remake the English language and the long-established
    > meanings of words just because they would like to have something a
    > little different, or because they do not want to be bothered with
    > learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words established.


    You seem to be saying exactly what I am saying, yet the tone you use is
    one of disagreement. This smacks of indecision.

  4. Re: what is vmware thinking

    Mark Madsen wrote:
    > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:18:44 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:
    >
    >> It is an English language thing. I have a distinct aversion to people
    >> attempting to remake the English language and the long-established
    >> meanings of words just because they would like to have something a
    >> little different, or because they do not want to be bothered with
    >> learning the rules of grammar and the meanings of words established.

    >
    > You seem to be saying exactly what I am saying, yet the tone you use is
    > one of disagreement. This smacks of indecision.


    Apparently you do not know what you are talking about, which is one
    of the problems I have with many people who would rework English to
    fit their personal preferences.

    To make the distinction between what I said and what you said about
    parallel processing simple, clear, and blunt, I say the AMD
    Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor in my machine has two cores that
    execute processes simultaneously, and that is parallel processing.

    Your claim is that it is not parallel processing.

    To take one simple example from your verbiage:
    "...[P]arallel processing requires completely different hardware and
    different ways of writing the code. There are no true parallel
    processing systems available to the consumer."

    'Nuff said?

    No cheers.

    jim b.

    --
    UNIX is not user unfriendly; it merely
    expects users to be computer-friendly.

  5. Re: what is vmware thinking

    On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 20:20:11 -0400, Jim Beard wrote:

    > Apparently you do not know what you are talking about, which is one of
    > the problems I have with many people who would rework English to fit
    > their personal preferences.


    You've stated your opinion clearly enough here. In your opinion I know
    nothing about the subject, and your AMD dual-core is doing parallel
    processing.

    I accept as fact that those are your opinions. I also note there is a
    pattern, since we have had disagreements here before, that you have a
    preference for ad hominem argument.

    Since I don't consider a discussion based on mud-slinging considerations
    to be sufficiently civilised, and since you have effectively stated that
    your opinion will be held regardless, there seems little point in
    continuing.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2