[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ih] Secret precedence schemes back then
Jack Haverty wrote:
> My gut feel is that demand grows to consume available capacity, whether
> its networking or just plain computing. Kind of like Moore's Law, this
> principle has longevity. Sometimes my 2009 multi-core, multi-gigahertz,
> multi-gigabyte desktop computer seems slower than my 1970s 1-CPU,
> 1-megahertz, 0.001-gigabyte system was way back when. Same with my
> gigabit LAN versus my old 9.6kb lines.
> So, as long as you operate near the edge of resources, there's a need
> for some kind of policy to decide how to allocate limited resources.
fair enough. but appealing to 'well, fuzzballs played favorites with
telnet traffic' to [pretend to] justify contemporary self-serving
policies desinged to enhance revenue or even do competitors down is,
imhbdo, beyond the pale.
b/t/w , the more relevant Law to cite is parkinson's. for the lazy,
what i found in dear old wikipoodia seems to what's left of my memory to
be close enough to 'right' that i decided not to make an exhaustive
search for my copy of one or the other of his books on the topic:
Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.
A more succinct phrasing also commonly used is:
Work expands to fill the time available.
it may or may not be canonical, but i've long re-cast it as 'available
resources get consumed' -- which may or may not even be original to me.
shucks, for all i know it might well be in that book of his i know
i've got around here somewhere....
b/t/w , there is a Padlipsky's Corollary to parkinson's law, to the
effect that any available op code, however obscure, on/in a given
processor will be used in at least one important program. [as far as i
recall, he never admitted it, but i always suspected the late, intensely
lamented noel morris of having consciously set out to use every
available op code on the ge->honeywell 645 in at least one multics
system program.] come to think of it, it's probably just a Padlipsky's
Conjecture, tho; even if noel had admitted it, one instance does not a
b/t/w , while refreshing what's left of my memory on parkinson, dear
old wikipoo led me to wirth's law, which explains your situation w/r/t
your current whizbang iron's performing less well than your old lsi 11:
Software is getting slower more rapidly than hardware becomes faster.
[i'd almost arrived at that one independently whle thinking about your
message, but didn't quite come up with so crisp a phrasing before i
plinked the plinkable to wirth's law.]
b/t/w , seemingly unrelated, but particularly charming, another bit
of wikipoodinous serendippedinit is:
Hofstadter's Law.... It always takes longer than you expect, even when
you take Hofstadter's Law into account.
[too early to tell whether it's a corollary, but it does occur to me
that hofstadter's law is truer in californicatia than anywhere else.]
and an i can't resist mentioning one to conclude with: either imacs'
operating systems have gotten obscenely large or your satellite
provider's limit is obscenely low or the problem you encountered after
hooking up the new imac was a glitch, not a feature. 'a few hundred
meagbytes' certainly seems to me to be a modest demand to make on an isp
this century. ]gee, i wonder if you could get a dsl line to l.a.
free-net, their geographical span is surprisingly large these years;
presumably not, tho, since i'd imagine you'dve checked out such things
before getting saddled with what i now think of as your saddleunlite
[whose shoulder problems caused him to break down some time ago and
create a 'signature' file to apologize for the lack of his formerly
customary e-volubility -- and who's been employing shiftless typing for
a long time now to spare his wristsnfingers, in case you didn't know ...
and who's further broken down and done
http://www.lafn.org/~ba213/mapstuff.html, rather grudgingly]