If I forget to release memory with free command after calloc or malloc
in C program, or forget to release memory with delete command after
new in C++ program, then what would happen to the memory space? Will
it be released when the program is finished? Or won't it be released
until the system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

Kuhl <chen_zhitao@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If I forget to release memory with free command after calloc or malloc
> in C program, or forget to release memory with delete command after
> new in C++ program, then what would happen to the memory space? Will
> it be released when the program is finished? Or won't it be released
> until the system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

On Unix systems (and a lot of other systems) the memory gets
released automatically when the process that allocated it
exits and forgot (or didn't bother) to deallocate it itself.

                           Regards, Jens
-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ___      jt@toerring.de
   \__________________________      http://toerring.de

If your program runs in user space, then once your program exits all
memory allocated to it is freed.
If you will run a memory leaks checker on any program, you will see
that to have memory leaks is something
very common - now, imagine that your OS doesn't frees them...
I am not sure of what happens in those that run in kernel space.
Anyway, calloc and malloc are not kernel space.


On Jun 25, 3:29=A0pm, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If I forget to release memory with free command after calloc or malloc
> in C program, or forget to release memory with delete command after
> new in C++ program, then what would happen to the memory space? Will
> it be released when the program is finished? Or won't it be released
> until the system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

On Jun 25, 5:29=A0am, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If I forget to release memory with free command after calloc or malloc
> in C program, or forget to release memory with delete command after
> new in C++ program, then what would happen to the memory space? Will
> it be released when the program is finished? Or won't it be released
> until the system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

These functions all allocate address space inside your process. When
your process ceases to exist, it is logically impossible for address
space inside that process to remain allocated, since the address space
itself no longer exists.

DS

In article <59c40d81-d3bb-40b3-b153-8dea09d4a9a2@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
David Schwartz  <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>On Jun 25, 5:29�am, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If I forget to release memory with free command after calloc or malloc
>> in C program, or forget to release memory with delete command after
>> new in C++ program, then what would happen to the memory space? Will
>> it be released when the program is finished? Or won't it be released
>> until the system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.
>
>These functions all allocate address space inside your process. When
>your process ceases to exist, it is logically impossible for address
>space inside that process to remain allocated, since the address space
>itself no longer exists.
>
>DS

That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.

It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

On Jun 30, 1:14=A0pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:

> That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.
> It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

Right, the CLC pedantically correct answer is: There is no way a
program can tell what happens after it terminates.

DS

>>These functions all allocate address space inside your process. When
>>your process ceases to exist, it is logically impossible for address
>>space inside that process to remain allocated, since the address space
>>itself no longer exists.
>>
>>DS
>
>That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.

That's true for modern, virtual-memory multi-tasking operating
systems like UNIX, POSIX, and Windows.  It's not obviously correct
for MS-DOS and some embedded systems which treat the program as
more of a subroutine rather than a process and don't separately
track memory allocation.

There are also embedded systems where the program in question never
terminates, except due to batteries running out (and sometimes they
aren't removable) or perhaps a hard reset (if such a function is
provided).

An OS which doesn't clean up after a program terminates probably
can't clean up after a program is manually aborted (if manual abort
is available), either.

>It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

Kenny McCormack wrote is comp.UNIX.programmer:
> It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

No one gives a ... about "CLC-pedantically-correct answer" in CUP so keep your
damn pedantics in CLC and don't cross post your pedantic flames!

On Jun 30, 10:14 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article
> <59c40d81-d3bb-40b3-b153-8dea09d4a...@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> David Schwartz  <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:

> >On Jun 25, 5:29 am, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If I forget to release memory with free command after
> >> calloc or malloc in C program, or forget to release memory
> >> with delete command after new in C++ program, then what
> >> would happen to the memory space? Will it be released when
> >> the program is finished? Or won't it be released until the
> >> system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

> >These functions all allocate address space inside your
> >process. When your process ceases to exist, it is logically
> >impossible for address space inside that process to remain
> >allocated, since the address space itself no longer exists.

> That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.

> It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

Note the cross-posting, however.  Under Unix, the statement is
correct, but not necessarily in other environments.  (And
there's nothing "obviously correct" about it, unless you're
running under a system where every process does have a separate
address space in which memory is allocated.)

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

"James Kanze" <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:31f9e3ae-569a-47b7-87e2-cdb097e3f84e@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 30, 10:14 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
wrote:
> In article
> <59c40d81-d3bb-40b3-b153-8dea09d4a...@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> David Schwartz  <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:

> >On Jun 25, 5:29 am, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If I forget to release memory with free command after
> >> calloc or malloc in C program, or forget to release memory
> >> with delete command after new in C++ program, then what
> >> would happen to the memory space? Will it be released when
> >> the program is finished? Or won't it be released until the
> >> system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.

> >These functions all allocate address space inside your
> >process. When your process ceases to exist, it is logically
> >impossible for address space inside that process to remain
> >allocated, since the address space itself no longer exists.

> That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.

> It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

<
Note the cross-posting, however.  Under Unix, the statement is
correct, but not necessarily in other environments.  (And
there's nothing "obviously correct" about it, unless you're
running under a system where every process does have a separate
address space in which memory is allocated.)
>

yep, and on Windows crashing apps (or apps which fail to free them) will 
gradually eat up all ones' "system resources" and eventually require a 
reboot...

every next button or menu item puts the computer one step closer to needing 
a reboot...

but then again, I also realize the hassle of having to go and release 
everything allocated from the WIN32 API...


at least allocated memory disappears on exit...

In article <bQw2m.100$P5.21@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>,
Golden California Girls  <gldncagrls@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote is comp.UNIX.programmer:
>> It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.
>
>No one gives a ... about "CLC-pedantically-correct answer" in CUP so keep your
>damn pedantics in CLC and don't cross post your pedantic flames!

I cross-posted it intentionally.  In fact, cross-posting between CUP and
CLC is about as sensible as cross-posting between, say,
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic and alt.atheism.

Which is to say, people do it all the time - and that's how we keep
Usenet alive - by intentionally fomenting dissent between opposing
groups.

On Jul 1, 6:47 pm, "cr88192" <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:31f9e3ae-569a-47b7-87e2-cdb097e3f84e@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com.=
...
> > On Jun 30, 10:14 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack)
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <59c40d81-d3bb-40b3-b153-8dea09d4a...@f38g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> > > David Schwartz  <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 25, 5:29 am, Kuhl <chen_zhi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> If I forget to release memory with free command after
> > > >> calloc or malloc in C program, or forget to release memory
> > > >> with delete command after new in C++ program, then what
> > > >> would happen to the memory space? Will it be released when
> > > >> the program is finished? Or won't it be released until the
> > > >> system reboots? Or what else? Thanks.
> > > >These functions all allocate address space inside your
> > > >process. When your process ceases to exist, it is logically
> > > >impossible for address space inside that process to remain
> > > >allocated, since the address space itself no longer exists.
> > > That's the common sense, logically and obviously correct answer.
> > > It is not, however, the CLC-pedantically-correct answer.

> > Note the cross-posting, however.  Under Unix, the statement is
> > correct, but not necessarily in other environments.  (And
> > there's nothing "obviously correct" about it, unless you're
> > running under a system where every process does have a separate
> > address space in which memory is allocated.)

> yep, and on Windows crashing apps (or apps which fail to free
> them) will gradually eat up all ones' "system resources" and
> eventually require a reboot...

That's true on all OS's.  And in some cases, even a reboot
doesn't help---we've had problems with programs which ate up
disk space, for example.  The question is only which resources
you have to free explicitly, and which are automatically freed
on program termination.  In the case of memory, both Unix and
Windows (and most other OS's) automatically free the resource,
so there's no problem.  For things like temporary files, neither
Unix nor Windows free the resource, so you have to (even if your
program crashes); I have used systems where this wasn't the case
(and there are work arounds under Unix which can usually be
used).

> every next button or menu item puts the computer one step
> closer to needing a reboot...

That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
however.)  Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
> problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
> however.)

There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager' (except maybe as
fringe project somewhere). There is an 'X-server', which is the server
implementing the 'X Window System' 'drawing protocol'. It cannot
permanently leak memory in the described way (unlike what happened the
64K user and gdi heaps): This is just a process and it is usually
terminated and restarted on logout. 

> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).

Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
versions' and a particular version of some X-server (presumably X.org
or Xfree86) has no particular relation to a particular kernel or
version of such a kernel (IIRC, X.org supports Linux. *BSD, Hurd,
Solaris, Mac OS X and Windows).

Rainer Weikusat wrote:

> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
> versions' 

Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6 versions,
not even that he used at least two of them simultaneously.

-- Ralf

Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>
>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>> 
>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
>> versions' 
>
> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
> versions,

Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are possible, but
each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was using, and he was
making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6', apparently based on
experiences with running some version(s) of some (free)
X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.

Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>> 
>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
>>> versions' 
>>
>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>> versions,
>
> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are possible, but
> each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was using, and he was
> making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6', apparently based on
> experiences with running some version(s) of some (free)
> X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.

The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all of
which happen to be 2.6 something.  He didn't appear to be making any
statement about *all* 2.6 versions, just about the ones he uses.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>>> 
>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
>>>> versions' 
>>>
>>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>>> versions,
>>
>> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are possible, but
>> each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was using, and he was
>> making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6', apparently based on
>> experiences with running some version(s) of some (free)
>> X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
>
> The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all of
> which happen to be 2.6 something.

You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.

Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
>>>>> versions' 
>>>>
>>>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>>>> versions,
>>>
>>> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are possible, but
>>> each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was using, and he was
>>> making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6', apparently based on
>>> experiences with running some version(s) of some (free)
>>> X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
>>
>> The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all of
>> which happen to be 2.6 something.
>
> You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.

I am neither telephatic nor telepathic.  I merely read what he wrote
and interpreted it in a way that *does* make sense.  James will
probably jump in and clarify this anyway.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
> versions' 

"the various Linux that I use" != "all"

-- 
Ian Collins

Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
>> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
>> problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
>> however.)
> 
> There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager' (except maybe as
> fringe project somewhere).

Technically you're right, but only because you've inserted an 's' that 
wasn't in the original: "X window manager".

xwm, 4dwm, twm, olwm, and  gnome-wm and metacity are all X window 
managers that I've used (note the naming convention of wm obeyed by the 
first four) - there's probably a couple of others that I don't remember 
the names of. Do you consider them all to be "fringe project"s?

>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
> 
> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
> versions'

He didn't say he was. He said that all of "the various Linux that I use" 
are "2.6 something".

In article <87iqi6q4tb.fsf@fever.mssgmbh.com>,
 Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:

> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> > Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
> >> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
> >>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> >>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
> >>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
> >>>> 
> >>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
> >>>> versions' 
> >>>
> >>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
> >>> versions,
> >>
> >> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are possible, but
> >> each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was using, and he was
> >> making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6', apparently based on
> >> experiences with running some version(s) of some (free)
> >> X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
> >
> > The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all of
> > which happen to be 2.6 something.
> 
> You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.

Then you're not a normal human.  All natural language is ambiguous, and 
interpreting it is a natural part of listening and reading.

If someone said, "I just gave away a box of books, all science fiction" 
would you think that he has all the science fiction books in the world 
in a box?  That sentence has the same structure, and this is the normal 
way to express this concept.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

Rainer Weikusat said:

> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux
>>>>> 2.6 versions'
>>>>
>>>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>>>> versions,
>>>
>>> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are
>>> possible, but each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was
>>> using, and he was making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6',
>>> apparently based on experiences with running some version(s) of
>>> some (free) X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
>>
>> The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all
>> of which happen to be 2.6 something.

(Right.)

> You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.

To me, James Kanze's meaning of "all 2.6" is clear - it is a 
contraction of "all of which are 2.6". The only other valid 
interpretation I can see of what he wrote, the one you appear to 
have read into it, something like "all possible distributions that 
use the 2.6 kernel", is so unlikely to be true as to be not worth 
considering. Consider Tux's Razor: "don't needlessly multiply 
distributions".

-- 
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Forged article? See 
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/usenet/comp.lang.c/msgauth.php
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
>>> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
>>> problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
>>> however.)
>>
>> There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager' (except maybe as
>> fringe project somewhere).
>
> Technically you're right, but only because you've inserted an 's' that
> wasn't in the original: "X window manager".

Since there are plenty of 'window managers' for X, it is more likely
that this refers to some nebulous concept like 'the Linux GUI'. X has
a spectacularly bad reputation among some people, but this is almost
completely unfounded. This is not true for each and every possible
graphics driver or combination of driver and card, this being the
(IMO) most likely source of a problem someone could consider to be an
issue of 'OS stability' (direct hardware access => possibility of
'system lockup', ie unavailable until power-cycled). Judging solely
from personal experiences, this is a problem which used to be much
more common than it is nowadays. A problem of this type is not caused
by a particular kernel or version of a particular kernel.

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> Rainer Weikusat said:
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>>>>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux
>>>>>> 2.6 versions'
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>>>>> versions,
>>>>
>>>> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are
>>>> possible, but each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was
>>>> using, and he was making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6',
>>>> apparently based on experiences with running some version(s) of
>>>> some (free) X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>> The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all
>>> of which happen to be 2.6 something.
>
> (Right.)
>
>> You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.
>
> To me, James Kanze's meaning of "all 2.6" is clear - it is a 
> contraction of "all of which are 2.6". The only other valid 
> interpretation I can see of what he wrote, the one you appear to 
> have read into it, something like "all possible distributions that 
> use the 2.6 kernel",

There is no such thing as 'the 2.6 kernel' (although the sloppy
quantifier use certainly suggests that). A much more conceivable
assumption would be 'all subversions of Linux 2.6'
(kernel.org-sources). This is, for instance, almost true for me.
But there are fairly massive changes between the 2.6.x-releases and I
don't think that general statements above the level of certain
in-kernel interface changes, for instance, the elimination of 'task
queues', are justified.

On Jul 5, 7:16 pm, Ralf Damaschke <rws...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more stable
> >> than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).

> > Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all
> > Linux 2.6 versions'

> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
> versions, not even that he used at least two of them
> simultaneously.

I guess I could have been more precise.  Rainer's probably not a
native speaker, so missed the obvious meaning.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

On Jul 6, 12:19 pm, Rainer Weikusat <rweiku...@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> writes:
> > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> >> James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:

> >> [...]

> >>> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
> >>> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
> >>> problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
> >>> however.)

> >> There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager' (except maybe as
> >> fringe project somewhere).

> > Technically you're right, but only because you've inserted an 's' that
> > wasn't in the original: "X window manager".

> Since there are plenty of 'window managers' for X, it is more likely
> that this refers to some nebulous concept like 'the Linux GUI'. X has
> a spectacularly bad reputation among some people, but this is almost
> completely unfounded.

Just to clarify: X does not at all have a bad reputation for me:
I seriously miss some of its functionality on Windows (where I
don't have an X server installed), and I never had any
reliability problems with X under Solaris, nor HP/UX.  On the
other hand, my GUI locks up rather regularly under Linux, on
several different installations (Ubantu, SuSE and in the past,
Mandrakes).  My impression is that this is due to problems in
the X server (I use Gnome on one machine, and KDE on the
others), but I've never had the occasion to really analyse the
issue---until about a month or so ago, Linux was very much a
secondary activity for me, with almost all of my real work being
done under Solaris.

> This is not true for each and every possible graphics driver
> or combination of driver and card, this being the (IMO) most
> likely source of a problem someone could consider to be an
> issue of 'OS stability' (direct hardware access =3D> possibility
> of 'system lockup', ie unavailable until power-cycled).

It's quite possible that part (or even all) of the problem comes
from the configuration---the SuSE machines are my own, I did the
configuration, and I know it took several experiments before it
worked at all.  And Solaris and Windows do have life easier:
Solaris because (at least the ones I used) runs on its own
machines, and Windows because the vendor has taken all the
necessary steps to ensure that it is correctly installed and
configured.

> Judging solely from personal experiences, this is a problem
> which used to be much more common than it is nowadays.

Definitely.  In the past, I couldn't leave Linux up for more
than a couple of hours without it hanging.  With more recent
versions, it's not really a frequent occurance---just often
enough to be irritating.

> A problem of this type is not caused by a particular kernel or
> version of a particular kernel.

Probably not.  My subjective impression is that it is a problem
in the X server, and not the kernel itself.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat said:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>> Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> writes:
>>>>> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>>>>>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>>>>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>>>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>>>>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux
>>>>>>> 2.6 versions'
>>>>>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>>>>>> versions,
>>>>> Well, he did. Other interpretations of his statement are
>>>>> possible, but each can be as wrong or as right as the one I was
>>>>> using, and he was making a general claim about 'Linux 2.6',
>>>>> apparently based on experiences with running some version(s) of
>>>>> some (free) X11-implementation(s). This doesn't make sense.
>>>> The obvious interpretation is that he uses various Linux(es), all
>>>> of which happen to be 2.6 something.
>> (Right.)
>>
>>> You may believe to be telephatic. I know I am not.
>> To me, James Kanze's meaning of "all 2.6" is clear - it is a 
>> contraction of "all of which are 2.6". The only other valid 
>> interpretation I can see of what he wrote, the one you appear to 
>> have read into it, something like "all possible distributions that 
>> use the 2.6 kernel",
> 
> There is no such thing as 'the 2.6 kernel' (although the sloppy
> quantifier use certainly suggests that). A much more conceivable
> assumption would be 'all subversions of Linux 2.6'

Yes, but at least for a native speaker of English, sufficiently familiar 
with the context, the single most likely assumption is "all OF WHICH ARE 
subversions of 2.6".

James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:

> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>> To me, James Kanze's meaning of "all 2.6" is clear - it is a
>>> contraction of "all of which are 2.6". The only other valid
>>> interpretation I can see of what he wrote, the one you appear to
>>> have read into it, something like "all possible distributions that
>>> use the 2.6 kernel",
>> There is no such thing as 'the 2.6 kernel' (although the sloppy
>> quantifier use certainly suggests that). A much more conceivable
>> assumption would be 'all subversions of Linux 2.6'
>
> Yes, but at least for a native speaker of English, sufficiently
> familiar with the context, the single most likely assumption is "all
> OF WHICH ARE subversions of 2.6".

James, it seems you do not speak Troll quite fluently.  Rainer, OTOH
is a native speaker of that language.

-- 
M�ns Rullg�rd
mans@mansr.com

M�ns Rullg�rd <mans@mansr.com> writes:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>>> To me, James Kanze's meaning of "all 2.6" is clear - it is a
>>>> contraction of "all of which are 2.6". The only other valid
>>>> interpretation I can see of what he wrote, the one you appear to
>>>> have read into it, something like "all possible distributions that
>>>> use the 2.6 kernel",
>>> There is no such thing as 'the 2.6 kernel' (although the sloppy
>>> quantifier use certainly suggests that). A much more conceivable
>>> assumption would be 'all subversions of Linux 2.6'
>>
>> Yes, but at least for a native speaker of English, sufficiently
>> familiar with the context, the single most likely assumption is "all
>> OF WHICH ARE subversions of 2.6".
>
> James, it seems you do not speak Troll quite fluently.  Rainer, OTOH
> is a native speaker of that language.

It should be noted that 'verbal abuse' (without regard for any facts)
is apparently Mr. Rullgards natural way to resolve any kind of
technical discussion. I therefore recommend to filter is (always
useless) postings unconditionally in any newsgroup where he should
appear in order to troll some more.

plonk.

Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find that
>> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
>> problem the most.  (The one under Solaris seems to work well,
>> however.)
> 
> There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager' 

So what is fvwm, xfce etc...?

http://xwinman.org/

	:-)

-- 
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> writes:
>> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>>
>>> James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Windows XP is at least an order of magnitude more
>>>> stable than the various Linux that I use (all 2.6 something).
>>> Somehow, I doubt that you are simultaneously using 'all Linux 2.6
>>> versions' 
>> Somehow I doubt that James wrote he was using all Linux 2.6
>> versions,
> 
> Well, he did. 

Not in English he didn't. The above construct means (all the versions I 
was using were 2.6). I appreciate English may not be your first 
language, but you're wrong.

-- 
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

On Jul 6, 5:30=A0pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
wrote:
> Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> >> That was certainly true once upon a time. =A0Today, I find that
> >> it's the X window manager under Linux which causes that sort of
> >> problem the most. =A0(The one under Solaris seems to work well,
> >> however.)
>
> > There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager'
>
> So what is fvwm, xfce etc...?
>
> http://xwinman.org/
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 :-)

There is some issue of names, is there not?
The O'Reilly book take great pains to emphasize that the product
name is The X Window System. As in: don't abbreviate the System!

--
lxt

On Jul 7, 6:56 am, luserXtrog <mijo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 5:30 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
> wrote:
> > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > > James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:

> > > [...]

> > >> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find
> > >> that it's the X window manager under Linux which causes
> > >> that sort of problem the most.  (The one under Solaris
> > >> seems to work well, however.)

> > > There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager'

> > So what is fvwm, xfce etc...?

> >http://xwinman.org/

> >         :-)

> There is some issue of names, is there not?
> The O'Reilly book take great pains to emphasize that the
> product name is The X Window System. As in: don't abbreviate
> the System!

Except that the window managers aren't part of the X Window
System per se, but are external to it---as far as the X Window
System is concerned, they're clients as well (albeit special
clients).

FWIW: I was a bit careless in my nomenclature---since I have the
problems under both Gnome and KDE, I presume that the problem is
in the X server, and not the window manager.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

On Jul 7, 7:52 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 6:56 am, luserXtrog <mijo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 6, 5:30 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
> > wrote:
> > > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > > > James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > [...]
> > > >> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find
> > > >> that it's the X window manager under Linux which causes
> > > >> that sort of problem the most.  (The one under Solaris
> > > >> seems to work well, however.)
> > > > There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager'
> > > So what is fvwm, xfce etc...?
> > >http://xwinman.org/
> > >         :-)
> > There is some issue of names, is there not?
> > The O'Reilly book take great pains to emphasize that the
> > product name is The X Window System. As in: don't abbreviate
> > the System!
>
> Except that the window managers aren't part of the X Window
> System per se, but are external to it---as far as the X Window
> System is concerned, they're clients as well (albeit special
> clients).
>
> FWIW: I was a bit careless in my nomenclature---since I have the
> problems under both Gnome and KDE, I presume that the problem is
> in the X server, and not the window manager.

I'm curious, have you tried mwm (Motif Window Manager)? I've had
very stable experience with mwm. Though my work is very "raw" ie
just a bunch of xterms, a browser, mutt, gnuplot and very rarely
some other GUI or two. I regularly run for months without crash.

KHD

On Jul 8, 12:03 am, Keith H Duggar <dug...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On Jul 7, 7:52 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 6:56 am, luserXtrog <mijo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 5:30 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> > > > > James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >> That was certainly true once upon a time.  Today, I find
> > > > >> that it's the X window manager under Linux which causes
> > > > >> that sort of problem the most.  (The one under Solaris
> > > > >> seems to work well, however.)
> > > > > There is no such thing as an 'X Windows Manager'
> > > > So what is fvwm, xfce etc...?
> > > >http://xwinman.org/
> > > >         :-)
> > > There is some issue of names, is there not?
> > > The O'Reilly book take great pains to emphasize that the
> > > product name is The X Window System. As in: don't abbreviate
> > > the System!

> > Except that the window managers aren't part of the X Window
> > System per se, but are external to it---as far as the X Window
> > System is concerned, they're clients as well (albeit special
> > clients).

> > FWIW: I was a bit careless in my nomenclature---since I have the
> > problems under both Gnome and KDE, I presume that the problem is
> > in the X server, and not the window manager.

> I'm curious, have you tried mwm (Motif Window Manager)? I've
> had very stable experience with mwm. Though my work is very
> "raw" ie just a bunch of xterms, a browser, mutt, gnuplot and
> very rarely some other GUI or two. I regularly run for months
> without crash.

Except maybe for looking at it, no.  (When I first installed
Linux, some years ago, I gave each of the Window Managers a
quick glance.)  I've not actually started using Linux
intensively until recently, so I haven't had the occasion to
explore all of its possibilities.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software)             email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
                   Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:03:46 -0700, Keith H Duggar wrote:

>> FWIW: I was a bit careless in my nomenclature---since I have the
>> problems under both Gnome and KDE, I presume that the problem is
>> in the X server, and not the window manager.
> 
> I'm curious, have you tried mwm (Motif Window Manager)? I've had
> very stable experience with mwm. Though my work is very "raw" ie
> just a bunch of xterms, a browser, mutt, gnuplot and very rarely
> some other GUI or two. I regularly run for months without crash.

X crashes are usually down to the X server. The main problem is that
modern video hardware is insanely complex, documentation is often only
available under NDA, and vendor-supplied binary drivers often leave a lot
to be desired.

If you want reliability, an older video card is often better than the
latest model, as there's more likely to be an open-source driver, and more
of the bugs will have been fixed.

If you want hardware 3D acceleration, you're generally stuck with using a
vendor-supplied binary driver.