Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses

John Navas wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:29:43 -0900, floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> Davidson) wrote in <87bq8aw7vs.fld RemoveThis @barrow.com>:
>
> >John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run effectively.
> >
> >Many routers, as one example, run with *any* disk. That
> >is quite typical of embedded systems. Virtually all
> >Unix systems can be configured to work without free disk
> >space.
>
> Not to run meaningful workloads with any sort of performance.

Tell that to all the people running diskless (and often headless) Linux
boxes as firewalls, routers, IPS/IDS/boundary equipment, public kiosks,
thin clients, etc...

Linux runs just fine, and performs even better in many applications,
when it's not encumbered with the relatively dog slow access times of
physical drives. That's one of the major attractions of Linux in fact.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 18:26:21 -0500, nospam <nospam RemoveThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <281220071826217915%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <8cCdnfe0JuRz6ejanZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>, John
>McWilliams <jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> >> No OS can run with the boot disk at 100%!

>i don't recall exactly how little space there was, but less than a
>megabyte on a 1 gig drive (it was a while ago) is >99.9% full. i
>*have* had it say 0 meg free, without any data loss, but that's a
>situation i quickly fix. as long as no additional disk space needs to
>be allocated, the system is happy as a clam. and this was on various
>macs, 68k & powerpc, of assorted configurations, os 9 and earlier.
>
>os x, on the other hand, does *not* like full disks, and will warn the
>user when it is close to full. it will even generate disk full errors
>in certain situations when there is really some free space left for
>whatever file operation it was attempting to do. i find that to be
>rather annoying but i guess that helps guarantee some free space in
>case someone does download something and does not realize their disk is
>full.

Ahhhh... Mac OS<10 is pretty basic (dare I say primitive?), and so can
get by without free disk space. But then it's an obsolete OS, so that's
not terribly meaningful. DOS can also run without free disk space.
A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run effectively.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 09:45:44 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> But, NN didn't imply what you're countering with; 70% was his top
> figure. No OS can run with the boot disk at 100%! The rule of thumb that
> used to work was 10%, but that was when drives were smaller. It may
> still obtain, but I dunno. I like to keep ca. 20% free.

Not too long ago, I got a Linux box to become _very_ unhappy when I
inadvertantly filled up the boot disk to 100%. All sorts of things
started breaking, like 'rm' core-dumping and the like. I assume that was
because the memory manager was trying to grow the swapfile slightly, and
throwing a hissyfit when the write failed.

Since the box in question was an NAS box that I was trying to upgrade
(so that it would usefully talk over AFP to my Mac), the easiest
recovery method was to go into an "Emergency recovery mode" which
booted off a flash chip and replaced the contents of / with the
factory-installed version of the OS. From there, I could (more
carefully) resume my fiddling.

-dms
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:29:43 -0900, floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87bq8aw7vs.fld RemoveThis @barrow.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run effectively.
>
>Many routers, as one example, run with *any* disk. That
>is quite typical of embedded systems. Virtually all
>Unix systems can be configured to work without free disk
>space.

Not to run meaningful workloads with any sort of performance.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

nospam wrote:

> In article <0JOdnctNh7HXq-janZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d RemoveThis @comcast.com>, John
> McWilliams <jpmcw RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > No OS can run with the boot disk at 100%!
>
> i've run earlier versions of mac os with literally a completely full
> drive (less than a megabyte free). obviously, i had to be careful
> what i did, but it worked without any major problems.

I've run numerous Linux distributions off full partitions. Indeed,
that's essentially what a LiveCD is.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

John McWilliams wrote:
[]
> David points out correctly that a boot CD or DVD is 100% full, and of
> course uses RAM to run at all. Saving a change is a bitch, tho!

..... use a memory card or USB stick! <G>

David
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:23:01 -0500, Tam Richter <tr DeleteThis @nomail.invalid>
wrote in <fl4eir$gid$1@registered.motzarella.org>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:29:43 -0900, floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>> Davidson) wrote in <87bq8aw7vs.fld DeleteThis @barrow.com>:
>>
>> >John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >>A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run effectively.
>> >
>> >Many routers, as one example, run with *any* disk. That
>> >is quite typical of embedded systems. Virtually all
>> >Unix systems can be configured to work without free disk
>> >space.
>>
>> Not to run meaningful workloads with any sort of performance.
>
>Tell that to all the people running diskless (and often headless) Linux
>boxes as firewalls, routers, IPS/IDS/boundary equipment, public kiosks,
>thin clients, etc...
>
>Linux runs just fine, and performs even better in many applications,
>when it's not encumbered with the relatively dog slow access times of
>physical drives. That's one of the major attractions of Linux in fact.

Limited special purpose boxes only serve to prove my point.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses 

John Navas wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:23:01 -0500, Tam Richter <tr.TakeThisOut@nomail.invalid>
> wrote in <fl4eir$gid$1@registered.motzarella.org>:
>
> >John Navas wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 17:29:43 -0900, floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
> >> Davidson) wrote in <87bq8aw7vs.fld.TakeThisOut@barrow.com>:
> >>
> >> >John Navas <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> >>A modern virtual memory OS needs free disk space to run
> >> >>effectively.
> >> >
> >> >Many routers, as one example, run with *any* disk. That
> >> >is quite typical of embedded systems. Virtually all
> >> >Unix systems can be configured to work without free disk
> >> >space.
> >>
> >> Not to run meaningful workloads with any sort of performance.
> >
> >Tell that to all the people running diskless (and often headless)
> >Linux boxes as firewalls, routers, IPS/IDS/boundary equipment,
> >public kiosks, thin clients, etc...
> >
> >Linux runs just fine, and performs even better in many applications,
> >when it's not encumbered with the relatively dog slow access times of
> >physical drives. That's one of the major attractions of Linux in
> >fact.
>
> Limited special purpose boxes only serve to prove my point.

Baloney.

Thin clients and kiosks are hardly "special purpose boxes" from the
point of view of the guy sitting there using them to begin with, and
your contention was that *any* OS needs disk space to run effectively.
Unless you're ready to embarrass yourself even further by trying to
convince us routers and such aren't effective and don't manage large
amounts of data, your arguments are demolished and you're just engaging
in the time honored tradition of trying to wriggle your way out of
admitting you're FOS. Trying to avoid the inevitable truth that your
alleged learned opinion was nothing more than acute myopia.
 >> Stay informed about: Photoshop blur tool Vs expensive lenses