On 03/25/2016 01:25 PM, Aaron Digulla wrote:
Am 20.03.2016 um 21:25 schrieb Anton Aylward:
I'd prefer is the process with the focus wouldn't get disturbed by other processes. That feels like a good heuristic. In absolute terms what you're asking for is OS8, CP/M, or early MS-DOS,
On 03/20/2016 03:39 PM, Aaron Digulla wrote: that is a single talks "operating system'.
No, what I'm asking for is an OS which doesn't feel laggy. I have a supercomputer under my desk and neither Windows nor Linux are able to make it feel "snappy". That's sad.
Are you talking about the user interface 'snappy' or the "close to real time dealing with interrupts for process control" 'snappy? Those are very different things. The user experience is often more about graphics and graphics processing than it is about raw computing power or the choice between, say, Gnome, LXDE and KDE. The graphics card, the driver for that card, the degree the application makes use of things like 'redraw' all matter more than the details of the OS and scheduler. And all the disk improvements and network improvements in the world won't benefit that. Then again, some applications have been 'tuned' so that they better interleave computing and display update rather than waiting for all the computation to be done and only then doing a full screen update. Further, so many machines now have multi-core CPUs. If the application can make use of that capability, they it can support parallel threading, then that's an advantage over simple linear sequential plodding. Yes, the kernel scheduler may have an influence, but my experimentation with a desktop system that isn't also doing much in the way of 'server' stuff is that trying to tune the scheduler is a a waste of time.
Some heavy parallel process runs away with your CPU? Well, we're too lazy/dump/careless to configure ssh or other measure in such a way that you can stop it. Just switch off the computer... and hope for the best.
It's 2016, guys. Computers should start to heal themselves by now. Anything hogs the CPU? Maybe reserve 10% for other processes just in case the user might want to do something else.
An out of the box computer set-up simply doesn't know much. Back when, we had the '-desktop' releases which had a different set of kernel options. Then if was found it didn't make much difference and wasn't worth the extra effort. Back to what I said about the application layer. As for the 'hog' and 'reserve', well that's what Cgroups are for, but the computer doesn't know ahead of time, you have to tell it. What was that again "we're too lazy/dump/careless". Right. If you're not willing to put the effort in, if you expect it to magically happen ... Well there are 'artificial intelligence' tools. Most AI isn't "intelligent", its just an algorithm. There's one that figures out from the logs of a program being blocked by apparmor what changes to apparmor config are needed to allow it to run. But you have to put the effort in, either running it it or googling to find the config changes. Don't you ever wonder why some of us get pizzed off at newbies who could have found the answer by a simple 'go google!"?
But again. It's 2016. It's time to think about way to make life more simple automatically.
Pardon me while I re-read Kornblaugh's "The Marching Morons" -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org