static linked uclibc

[Rogelio Serrano]

On 8/22/06, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 10:47:33AM +0800, Rogelio Serrano wrote:
> > > Actually a 16-bit 3000 MHz (or whatever) machine. :)
> > > Despite the crappy 16-bit mode, the machine does run at full clock
> > > speed from startup.
> >
> > I wonder why its still so slow. Maybe its the shuffling things around
> > in 1 meg of memory.
>
> I think it's intentional idle loops to "make it look like it's doing
> useful tests" and give illiterate users time to read the messages (or
> stare at the vendor's logo), and delays waiting for slow hardware
> components to complete their reset cycles, etc.
>

Hey maybe I can ask them to takeout those loops!

> > Well imagine an editor window where you have all your files in a
> > linear scrolling arrangement. I simulate this by putting all my text
> > files in one file. Maybe emacs can be hacked up so it handles the file
> > naming and display multiple documents in a unified linear scrolling
> > view.
>
> Sounds odd and difficult to use, but oh well... Whatever floats your
> boat.
>

not really. no more folders. all you get are your documents. I can
have spell check on everything. i can search everywhere too. even pdf
files. i dont think of filenames anymore. no overlapping windows.

im competing against windows where i work and i need to take a no
prisoners approach in usability. i built a web based interface for
managing our services and configurations with a flat scrolling
interface and my colleagues like it. with unlimited undo even config
files are not that scary anymore for the "people in the street".

> > > > suspend is a good remedy. but im an environmentalist. so uhhhh....
> > >
> > > Well, even a fully-powered idle machine uses much less energy than a
> > > refridgerator, and a machine in suspend only uses a tiny fraction of
> > > that (or none at all with suspend-to-disk).
> >
> > If you consider all the computers in sleep mode in the whole US thats
> > a lot of power. I think somebody said that you can shut down a few
> > power plants if people pulled the plugs instead.
>
> Whoever said that is horribly mistaken. If that were true, then there
> would be millions of power plants in the USA, since the energy usage
> by a standard lineup of household appliances (which people are too
> stupid to turn off) is easily a million times as much as a sleeping
> computer.
>
> Rich
>

i might be mistaken myself because i dont remember if the study was
referring to appliances or computers but the author seems to be
referring to programmable devices including computers because they
recommended that the devices be programmed to turn off.

-- 
things i hate about my linux pc:

1. it takes more than a second to boot up
2. keeps asking about filenames and directories
3. does not remember what i was working on yesterday
4. does not remember all the changes i have ever made
5.cannot figure out necessary settings by itself