On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:26:12 +0000 (GMT), Georg Reilinger wrote:
> -- Excuse me... you're joking, right? I assume you have a plentycore
> -- processor with Gigs of RAM, and already two shells show a problem?
> -- That sounds totally wrong.
>
> Is that sarcasm or irony?
I'm not sure. :-)
It just makes me sad to see that today's users with their
more-than-sufficient hardware can still run into a lack of
resources with something so "simple" as a shell window,
simply because today's "simple" isn't simple anymore.
If I look back in time... my first BSD system was a Pentium
with 150 MHz and 64 MB RAM. This machine had been running
a desktop, playing MP3 music, downloading stuff via FTP,
compiling the OS kernel, burning a CD, and still providing
a responsive web browser -- all at the same time.
Of course software matters, or to be precise: It _is_ the
software that matters. The quotient
resources provided by hardware
overall speed = --------------------------------
resources consumed by software
doesn't seem to improve (because both numerator and denominator
keep increasing quickly). While every release of FreeBSD
tends to run faster on the _same_ hardware, this advantage
is eaten by the "big stuff" (like desktop environments,
office suites and web browsers for example). Most people
seem to think that this is normal.
So if someone tells: "I open two shells and this almost crashes
the system", it sounds terribly wrong. I know it's not about
the actual shells, but the environment they're being used in.
That's everything I wanted to express with this statement.
--
Polytropon
Magdeburg, Germany
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
