Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 12/13/06, Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roo wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:29:33 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
[snip]
> You are an idiot. These people have tried to be reasonable with you and
> discuss what is wrong with your system. All you've done is make a
colossal
> arse of yourself. Congratulations... especially on using your real
name.
> It'll make for interesting googling by your workmates in a few years.
There is nothing wrong with my system. You are addressing the wrong
person on that point. I am not the OP.
You and the OP have the same first name, that is causing some ID problems
Fair enough.
[snip]
I'm willing to give this a try if you can tell me what to try.
Wonderful attitude. But you seemingly don't have the problem.
Where I come from (telecomm industry), we always try to garner all
information when we have a chance, if we can do so safely and with
little cost.
...
The absolute most probable thing we would find out is that nothing
unusual is going on. But no one even wants to find out, even when
it costs essentially nothing to do so.
Well the thing is, running yum isn't an unusual thing, we run yum all
the time. So I guess most of us, having run yum so frequently feel
very confident in the prognosis - as I'm sure you know, very little of
the code behind yum is even capable of triggering such a problem by
itself. But as you've stated...not impossible.
This is the point I missed, and I apologize for that. I missed
the fact that the software which caused high CPU utilization
had been identified, and that this was a known and accepted
part of its behavior.
My point, and the furor I've caused, have been because I missed
that fact. I have been insisting that we find what software
was eating the CPU, and see whether that was expected behavior.
That has already been done, and I missed that. I apologize.
If thinking we should take every opportunity to investigate
unusual behavior for possible defects is being an "idiot", then
every industry in the world which considers availability and
reliability in software to be important is full of idiots.
This includes telecomm, aviation, and power systems at
least. And these idiots are the ones who guarantee that
your telephone provides you with dialtone when you pick it
up, and airplanes don't crash when you fly on them, and
your lights come on when you flip the switch.
I'll side with the idiots on this one.
I don't think your approach is idiotic, just seeminly unnecessary in
this case, but again, feel free to suggest how I can get the data you
require.
We already have it. Sorry for the fuss.
...
You may also be interested to know that in another thread some dude
has claimed that FC6 destroyed his LCDs ability to report its
capabilty to accept digital input...somehow that seemed more relevant
when I began typing.
I've seen that thread. I find it difficult to believe that FC6
acutally did any damage. Monitors since the EGA came out have
been protected against that. Furthermore, it's the flyback
which is prone to death. He seems to have an interface problem,
or so he claims.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
