| Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net>: Jun 03 11:10AM -0400 On 6/3/2016 10:37 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote: > It's entirely likely that DDR5 may also have a high-speed serial > interface instead of the current 64-bit parallel interface, which > provides many benefits to the hardware designer (fewer package bumps, for example). Which only proves you can read specs but you don't understand the operation. Typical salesman. I tried to educate you in real life. I *really* tried. But you are totally hopeless. Go back to you sales. Maybe you can find someone dumb enough to accept your sales pitch. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ================== |
| scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal): Jun 03 03:37PM >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >Which only proves you can read specs but you don't understand the >operation. Typical salesman. Distinguished Engineer, if you please. Getting paid to build processors. Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult. |
| cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross): Jun 03 03:45PM In article <xuh4z.1605$z42.130@fx23.iad>, >>operation. Typical salesman. >Distinguished Engineer, if you please. Getting paid to build >processors. Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult. My goodness. Yet another newsgroup where I need to add Jerry Stuckle to my killfile. But please don't use such big words: poor Jerry can't keep up with them. He still thinks that an IBM System 370 model 148 is a "big machine." (I'm also pretty sure that Jerry has never met Scott in real life before or tried to "teach" him anything. I also highly doubt that Jerry is a *successful* consultant at anything. As for his time working at IBM: Well, someone's got to clean the toilets.) - Dan C. |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jun 04 08:40AM +1200 On 06/ 3/16 11:57 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> simple HBA, decreases reliability. > Once again you show your total ignorance. Let's see you put together a > 500GB RAID out of 5MB disks. You really do live in the 80s, don't you? Where else would I get 5MB disks? > Also, hardware RAID is still more reliable than SSDs. Where did this one come from? -- Ian |
| legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard): Jun 03 09:42PM [Please do not mail me a copy of your followup] Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> spake the secret code >> Also, hardware RAID is still more reliable than SSDs. >Where did this one come from? Lack of knowledge of modern SSDs? I worked at Fusion-io and not only were our SSDs reliable, we actually had a warranty on them. They were guaranteed to last a certain number of bytes written/read and if they failed before that time, we would replace the card for you. This warranty was built-in to all our products, not something you purchased as an add-on. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline> The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org> The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org> Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com> |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Jun 04 11:34AM +1200 On 06/ 4/16 09:42 AM, Richard wrote: >>> Also, hardware RAID is still more reliable than SSDs. >> Where did this one come from? > Lack of knowledge of modern SSDs? Lack of knowledge modern anything! > were our SSDs reliable, we actually had a warranty on them. They were > guaranteed to last a certain number of bytes written/read and if they > failed before that time, we would replace the card for you. They were popular in my world (storage systems) as ZFS ZIL devices. > This warranty was built-in to all our products, not something you > purchased as an add-on. The parts I use (Intel 3710) offer something similar. -- Ian |
| Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid>: Jun 03 09:30PM +0100 On 03/06/2016 08:01, Paul wrote: > However, I want to express the fact that the vector only contains iterators to charList; With the above code, itrs could contain iterators to any list<char> and I don't want that I've not tested it, and I'm writing altogether too much C these days - but I think if you typedef something to be a list<char>::iterator, then have a list of those, you won't be able to mix them up. It would definitely be more readable. I'll leave Alf to improve your algorithm. Andy |
| Paul <pepstein5@gmail.com>: Jun 03 01:39PM -0700 On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 9:30:26 PM UTC+1, Vir Campestris wrote: > have a list of those, you won't be able to mix them up. It would > definitely be more readable. > I'll leave Alf to improve your algorithm. Thanks to both of you for your advice. However, my issue is that I would prefer it if vector<list<char>::iterator> was instead a container which is restricted to only containing iterators of the particular list<char> which I called characters; rather than accepting any list<char>::iterator. Paul |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment