nestor

nestor, 14 days ago

@Rocahontas Humm, no hay manera automatizada, pero si hay solución.

Los Linux siguen una estructura de directorios específica, basta con que borre dichos directorios. Boot, bin,sbin,var,dev,etc,proc,sys,usr,home...

Si ouede arrancar su windows sin problema es que no ha tocado el sector de arranque.

Antes de borrarlos, eso sí, que se cerciore de que no tenga nada de windows mezclado en dichos directorios, vayamos a que haya instalado o guardado cosas ahí desde que mezcló las cosas.

nestor, 14 days ago

@jerojasro @Rocahontas Es c: más pequeño como dice @jerojasro ?

nestor, 3 months ago

@tournesol At least, you are not compiling it in gentoo 😂

nestor, 5 months ago

@glynmoody I'd rather pick esperanto or IDO for this.

nestor, 5 months ago

@glynmoody just as an addition to my previous answer, english isn't easy to speak or in other words, english is as easy to speak for a british guy as chinese is for a native chinese speaker and neither are simple or easy for the Bantu guy.

nestor, 4 months ago

@glynmoody @tennoseremel Now, not being a native speaker, i'm totally lost about you being sarcastic or not 😂😂😂

Any case, happy new year 😉

nestor, 5 months ago

@kyonshi A new and clear attempt of Embrace, extend and extinguish.

#usenet #google #threads

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel

Sane limits avoid people screwing the system.

Hovewer, you can eqsily change those limits or use other approachs like xargs
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19354870/bash-command-line-and-input-limit

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel

Unix was designed halg a century ago but the max args limit evolved by the time and has been increased several times. It is a variable defaulted and controlles by the distros because RAM is not an infinite resource.

Generalistic distros are tuned for generic usage, it is not the same a server, a personal desktop or a remote desktop with hundreds of simultaneous users and they try to set a miriad of things to be just fine on all of these scenarios.

I don't see a real issue since you can change the behaviour of your system or take alternative approachs if you can't admin it.

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel We might be a different kind of linux users.

My guess is that you are a developer or a Desktop user meanwhile i, as a sysadmin, am toyally in a mindset of have safe limits everywhere, if i needed to change them then i would modify them depending on the profile of the server/service/whatever.

Disable any limit nstead of increase them if needed, seems to me similar to getting rid off the permissions just because they are annoying for someone specific use case.

😊

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel If you allow any rogue shell script to overflow any buffer, soonwr or later it will happen and the sysyem will crash.

This might be because an error or on purpose.

My point here is that even if unix and posix are old, those resource limits are there by a reason, not just because inertia, they are simple solutions for the problem of not having infinite resources.

Since there are no infinite resources, instead of a simple and compute light task of having a limit you propose some kind of overhead using a garbage collector + overpowered oom kiler or a similar dynamic subsystem which must be also fair with all the other processes.

If not, at some point you will find the limit and it will not be 0.

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel

Could you tell me How do you will manage the fact that there is a finite amount of memory without limits?

And why not to use buffers, which is an easy way to allocate and manage the memory?

There is a faster and safer method?

Are the benefits of this method worth the effort just to avoid an error when * is used instead of iterate or use xargs?

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel With no buffers nor limits, the shell script will eat all the memory and kill the machine.

nestor, 6 months ago

@kornel humm.
For this gif tool, you could modify it to accept a directory as parameter and internally iterate over all the files avoiding the issue.