August 2009 - WLUG - wlug.mailman3.com

Re: [Wlug] Python – who's curious or learning it, or codes it daily, or teaching it, or ...

by Theo Van Dinter

fwiw, I have a background in C and Perl, and had to learn Python for work. Read the ORA Learning Python book, which was ok, I spent time trying to relate Python to Perl (dict == hash, list == array, tuple == read-only list, etc,) and eventually just started hacking on things and have been relatively successful (or at least, I can write stuff that does what I want. ;)) I'm using Python 2.4, so I'm constantly at http://www.python.org/doc/2.4.4/lib/lib.html looking up things, which is very helpful. The basic syntax and starting to do things is pretty easy, the harder part is getting a grasp on the whole "everything's an object" and using that when writing your own code is harder. I tend to not like object orientation (various reasons), but you have to get at least somewhat into it w/ Python because you have no choice. On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Brian McLinden<brian.mclinden(a)gmail.com> wrote: > A thread for sharing by those with interest in or curiosity about Python. > > For newbies like me, hackers tout the just out major revision of Allen > Downey's classic “How to think like a computer scientist: Learning > with Python.” It's been retitled - “PYTHON FOR SOFTWARE DESIGN: How > to Think Like a Computer Scientist.” > > Buy at Amazon or read free - http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/ > > Favorable review - > http://www.amazon.com/Python-Software-Design-Computer-Scientist/product-rev…

Aug. 10, 2009

Python – who's curious or learning it, or codes it daily, or teaching it, or ...

by Brian McLinden

A thread for sharing by those with interest in or curiosity about Python. For newbies like me, hackers tout the just out major revision of Allen Downey's classic “How to think like a computer scientist: Learning with Python.” It's been retitled - “PYTHON FOR SOFTWARE DESIGN: How to Think Like a Computer Scientist.” Buy at Amazon or read free - http://www.greenteapress.com/thinkpython/ Favorable review - http://www.amazon.com/Python-Software-Design-Computer-Scientist/product-rev… Brian Worcester

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by Richard Klein

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:18 PM, John Stoffel<john(a)stoffel.org> wrote: > > Also, for a home system, I think it makes alot of sense to build a > nice home server, which sits in a corner and serves files, does > backups, hosts a development web server, etc. Then having a desktop > which you can play with, muck around with and rebuild at will, all > without losing your files or home directory stuff is nice. That's a great idea! Somehow, though, whenever I build something like that, to just leave alone to do one job, I end up mucking around with it, too. I can't leave well enough alone! -- Rich Sent from Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by John Stoffel

>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> writes: Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Franklin Moody wrote: >> (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home >> use.) Gary> Very true. When I build a PC for a friend or family member I usually Gary> go integrated as they only want the PC for Internet stuff. Hear hear! Alot of the newer boards with integrated everything really are quite nice. And power efficient and cool. Key things to think about. If it wasn't for wanting room for disks, a Shuttle style box would be a nice idea, and I keep thinking it might make my desktop... Gary> For me I buy discrete devices. And the funny thing is that these Gary> days it's hard to find a motherboard without integrated video, Gary> sound, NIC, etc. So what OS are you running, and what applications are you running with uses all this GPU power? Now I admit my last system, a Asus M2N-SLI Deluxe has a discrete GPU, but I got a Radeon X1250 (in Feb 2008) because it was just one slot and a passive cooler. It's a big performance jump over my old Matrox G450 AGP card for sure! Anyway, I've found that the onboard sound/network to be just fine, dual Gigabit works nicely, and overpowers anything else on the network at this time. Now, back to the core initial question, which was about the vast variety of of components out there to choose from. It's really terribly confusing, and for only a 5-15% difference in performance, you can spend a ton of money. I personally like Newegg.com for ease of comparing systems. I also like the arstechnica.com system guides. They do quite a decent job, esp on the low end. Their god box is silly. They really need to be thinking of a god desktop, and a good server box instead. Also, for a home system, I think it makes alot of sense to build a nice home server, which sits in a corner and serves files, does backups, hosts a development web server, etc. Then having a desktop which you can play with, muck around with and rebuild at will, all without losing your files or home directory stuff is nice. John

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by John Stoffel

Franklin> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Clint Moyer wrote: >> To the point, the original request was: >> >> "I want to build a compute/file server. I do a lot of heavy duty software development using the Eclipse IDE and the Java and C++ Development tools. Also, I need to store a lot of data - mostly images." >> >> Not especially high-end requirements, beyond perhaps CPU and memory. Franklin> I responded mostly because of the recent talk about Franklin> being bewildered by the wide variety of hardware selections Franklin> and conversations like this help set/spread rules of thumb. Franklin> While the OP probably won't *need* a very high performance Franklin> anything (Eclipse is a big boy but it doesn't require top of Franklin> the line), the place to find it is in discrete components. Franklin> Which is why I ended with "Start with onboard components if Franklin> it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost Franklin> too much) and plan on using discrete components to get Franklin> higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade Franklin> path." I'll agree 100% here with Frank, start with onboard and then goto discrete if you need more performance. One thing to think about though is motherboard which put most of the PCIe lanes into one or possibly two slots, because they're targetting graphics (read games). For a more server oriented board, you'd like to have more slots with more lanes, but since various chipsets are limited to how many lanes they can support, it might make sense to have something like 4 1x slots, 2 4x slots 1 8x slot plus some PCI legacy slots. Of course you'll never find this type of board outside a server only type board, which typically costs lots of bucks. And of course you'll not fit into standard cases either. Franklin> (Oh, and, if you've got the money to spare, those new fancy Franklin> vidcards can do more than just video... VDPAU, OpenCL, and Franklin> so on seem like very cool things to check out to me!) It does look interesting, but I'm also concerned about power/noise issues for a home system. I'd like to get things quieter and use less energy if I can.

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by Franklin Moody

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:39:37AM -0400, Clint Moyer wrote: > To the point, the original request was: > > "I want to build a compute/file server. I do a lot of heavy duty software development using the Eclipse IDE and the Java and C++ Development tools. Also, I need to store a lot of data - mostly images." > > Not especially high-end requirements, beyond perhaps CPU and memory. I responded mostly because of the recent talk about being bewildered by the wide variety of hardware selections and conversations like this help set/spread rules of thumb. While the OP probably won't *need* a very high performance anything (Eclipse is a big boy but it doesn't require top of the line), the place to find it is in discrete components. Which is why I ended with "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path." Frank (Oh, and, if you've got the money to spare, those new fancy vidcards can do more than just video... VDPAU, OpenCL, and so on seem like very cool things to check out to me!)

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by Gary Hanley

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Franklin Moody wrote: > (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home > use.) Very true. When I build a PC for a friend or family member I usually go integrated as they only want the PC for Internet stuff. For me I buy discrete devices. And the funny thing is that these days it's hard to find a motherboard without integrated video, sound, NIC, etc. -- Gary

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by Clint Moyer

To the point, the original request was: "I want to build a compute/file server. I do a lot of heavy duty software development using the Eclipse IDE and the Java and C++ Development tools. Also, I need to store a lot of data - mostly images." Not especially high-end requirements, beyond perhaps CPU and memory. ---- Franklin Moody <fmoody(a)moodman.org> wrote: ============= On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08:41AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> writes: > > Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Clint Moyer wrote: > >> I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an > >> integrated motherboard. > > Gary> I agree from a convenience and cost perspective, however if > Gary> optimal performance is a priority you still need to purchase > Gary> discrete components. > > Umm... I disagree with this statement. It's more of a 'it depends' > really. :] I'm not sure that it really is an 'it depends' statement. Can you name a single component where the discrete option isn't the path to the highest performance? Video, drive controllers, NICs... Onboard components are primarily chosen for "value" and it usually shows. (That being said, onboard components are usually good for the average case and, assuming they can actually be fully disabled (not always a given historically), can be a good place to start.) > Gary> No matter how much the technology advances intergrated > Gary> components will alway reduce the overall perform of a system to > Gary> a variable degree. > > Or you could say that "Your system is obsolete the second you build > it, so don't sweat it" and just live with this. True but not quite his point, I think. I think the gist was "onboard components aren't top of the line and maybe significantly behind that line". > I've been looking at a new home server, and I don't *care* about > graphics performance. I want lots of PCI and PCIe slots, lots of SATA > ports, dual Gigabit ethernet and integrated graphics. Probably AMD, > since that will give me plenty of performance. And be quiet too. > Silence is golden you know... :] > > Your metrics for performance are quite different from mine. Sure, a > seperate high performance graphics card would be nice, but I don't > play any computer games all that much, and I could drop one in. > > John If you want high performance SATA, NICs, or pretty much anything else, you'll want a discrete component for that too. (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.) So I suppose my take on it would be "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path.". Frank

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by Franklin Moody

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08:41AM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>> "Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> writes: > > Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Clint Moyer wrote: > >> I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an > >> integrated motherboard. > > Gary> I agree from a convenience and cost perspective, however if > Gary> optimal performance is a priority you still need to purchase > Gary> discrete components. > > Umm... I disagree with this statement. It's more of a 'it depends' > really. :] I'm not sure that it really is an 'it depends' statement. Can you name a single component where the discrete option isn't the path to the highest performance? Video, drive controllers, NICs... Onboard components are primarily chosen for "value" and it usually shows. (That being said, onboard components are usually good for the average case and, assuming they can actually be fully disabled (not always a given historically), can be a good place to start.) > Gary> No matter how much the technology advances intergrated > Gary> components will alway reduce the overall perform of a system to > Gary> a variable degree. > > Or you could say that "Your system is obsolete the second you build > it, so don't sweat it" and just live with this. True but not quite his point, I think. I think the gist was "onboard components aren't top of the line and maybe significantly behind that line". > I've been looking at a new home server, and I don't *care* about > graphics performance. I want lots of PCI and PCIe slots, lots of SATA > ports, dual Gigabit ethernet and integrated graphics. Probably AMD, > since that will give me plenty of performance. And be quiet too. > Silence is golden you know... :] > > Your metrics for performance are quite different from mine. Sure, a > seperate high performance graphics card would be nice, but I don't > play any computer games all that much, and I could drop one in. > > John If you want high performance SATA, NICs, or pretty much anything else, you'll want a discrete component for that too. (Though again, the performance of the onboard components, even though somewhat dated, is usually pretty decent for regular home use.) So I suppose my take on it would be "Start with onboard components if it doesn't cost you of your requirements (and doesn't cost too much) and plan on using discrete components to get higher performance at the start and as your later upgrade path.". Frank

Aug. 10, 2009

Re: [Wlug] On the subject of building systems - Re: PC-BSD, FreeBSD, and iXsystems - anyone know about them?

by John Stoffel

>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Hanley <gary(a)hanley.net> writes: Gary> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009, Clint Moyer wrote: >> I'll add that there are a lot of advantages to building with an >> integrated motherboard. Gary> I agree from a convenience and cost perspective, however if Gary> optimal performance is a priority you still need to purchase Gary> discrete components. Umm... I disagree with this statement. It's more of a 'it depends' really. :] Gary> No matter how much the technology advances intergrated Gary> components will alway reduce the overall perform of a system to Gary> a variable degree. Or you could say that "Your system is obsolete the second you build it, so don't sweat it" and just live with this. I've been looking at a new home server, and I don't *care* about graphics performance. I want lots of PCI and PCIe slots, lots of SATA ports, dual Gigabit ethernet and integrated graphics. Probably AMD, since that will give me plenty of performance. And be quiet too. Silence is golden you know... :] Your metrics for performance are quite different from mine. Sure, a seperate high performance graphics card would be nice, but I don't play any computer games all that much, and I could drop one in. John

Aug. 10, 2009