On 1 January 2011 16:51, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 01/01/2011 09:08 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>> Why not simply make it better or at least make it something
>>> that nobody could mistake for simply a machine is not busy?
>>
>> Because it's not that simple. Removing /proc/loadavg would be nice,
>> but
On 01/01/2011 09:08 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
On 31 December 2010 18:22, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
I do not imply the devs are ignorant - just busy perhaps.
Good. If you'd also contemplated the possibility that the current
state was deliberately decided on as the least bad solution,
While I did eventu
On 31 December 2010 18:22, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> I do not imply the devs are ignorant - just busy perhaps.
Good. If you'd also contemplated the possibility that the current
state was deliberately decided on as the least bad solution, you might
have written your complaint in more temperate langua
On 12/31/2010 11:44 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
On 31 December 2010 13:33, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
On 12/31/2010 01:11 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you
no
info at all!
Bollocks. You'd be the first to complain that those stupid Cygwin de
On 31 December 2010 13:33, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 12/31/2010 01:11 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
>>>
>>> IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you
>>> no
>>> info at all!
>>
>> Bollocks. You'd be the first to complain that those stupid Cygwin devs
>> don't even understa
On 12/31/2010 01:11 AM, Andy Koppe wrote:
IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you no
info at all!
Bollocks. You'd be the first to complain that those stupid Cygwin devs
don't even understand what an average is.
Hold on there Tonto! I said nothing of the sort. I
Le 31/12/2010 13:16, Cyrille Lefevre a écrit :
> is that may help ? the gg keys where : windows avenrun :-)
>
> http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/X11apps/X11apps-13/xload/xload-X11R7.0-1.0.1/get_load.c
well, humm, xload doesn't even launch under vista w/o any error !
strace and ldd attache
Le 30/12/2010 16:44, Eric Blake a écrit :
> On 12/30/2010 05:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>> Whenever I run uptime I see the load avgs all as 0.00:
>>
>> $ uptime
>> 07:29:15 up 1 day, 20:22, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>>
>> Note that I'm running Cygwin 1.7.7 on Windows 7. Note th
* Andy Koppe (Fri, 31 Dec 2010 06:11:22 +)
> On 31 December 2010 02:49, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> > IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's
> > gives you no info at all!
>
> Bollocks. You'd be the first to complain that those stupid Cygwin devs
> don't even understand wha
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>
> IMHO it's 100% better than just outputting 0's. Putting out 0's gives you no
> info at all!
I disagree. No information is 100% better than bogus/wrong information.
Implementing proper load information is only a Small Matter of
Programmin
On 31 December 2010 02:49, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 08:41 PM, David Antliff wrote:
>> The "load average" is a bit more complicated than just how busy the
>> system is - it's related to the number of processes waiting for the
>> CPU, with some time-weighted averaging and a few other he
On 12/30/2010 08:41 PM, David Antliff wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:27, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
On 12/30/2010 06:05 PM, David Antliff wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:23, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the
system is. uptime shou
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:27, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> On 12/30/2010 06:05 PM, David Antliff wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:23, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
>>>
>>> Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the
>>> system is. uptime should use that.
>>
>> But then they wo
On 12/30/2010 06:05 PM, David Antliff wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:23, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the
system is. uptime should use that.
But then they wouldn't be actual load averages where most
people/programs expected to se
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 08:23, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Well that sucks. Surely Windows has some means of reporting how busy the
> system is. uptime should use that.
But then they wouldn't be actual load averages where most
people/programs expected to see load averages.
-- David.
--
Problem repor
On 12/30/2010 10:44 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 12/30/2010 05:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Whenever I run uptime I see the load avgs all as 0.00:
$ uptime
07:29:15 up 1 day, 20:22, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Note that I'm running Cygwin 1.7.7 on Windows 7. Note that this is
W
On 12/30/2010 05:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
> Whenever I run uptime I see the load avgs all as 0.00:
>
> $ uptime
> 07:29:15 up 1 day, 20:22, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
>
> Note that I'm running Cygwin 1.7.7 on Windows 7. Note that this is
> Windows 7 running in a VMWare VM on
On 12/30/2010 7:32 AM, Andrew DeFaria wrote:
Whenever I run uptime I see the load avgs all as 0.00:
$ uptime
07:29:15 up 1 day, 20:22, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Note that I'm running Cygwin 1.7.7 on Windows 7. Note that this is Windows 7
running in a VMWare VM on my Ubuntu laptop.
Whenever I run uptime I see the load avgs all as 0.00:
$ uptime
07:29:15 up 1 day, 20:22, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Note that I'm running Cygwin 1.7.7 on Windows 7. Note that this is
Windows 7 running in a VMWare VM on my Ubuntu laptop. I don't have
Windows anymore - I only h
19 matches
Mail list logo
