lots of files

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

In her case, I think the best gain would be to let me put a larger
monitor on that machine so she can see more, BIGGER thumbnails in
each screenful. But, she has very definite opinions about what
she wants on *her* desk... <shrug

Same size monitor with more pixels then?

--
umop apisdn

 

[Don Y]

Hi Jasen,

On 1/10/2015 1:15 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

In her case, I think the best gain would be to let me put a larger
monitor on that machine so she can see more, BIGGER thumbnails in
each screenful. But, she has very definite opinions about what
she wants on *her* desk... <shrug

Same size monitor with more pixels then?

Old eyes don't like looking at tiny things. :<

I had offered her *this* monitor (22" widescreen) and she grumbled that it
was "too big". OTOH, she *loves* it when browsing the web, sending email,
etc.

I *long* ago learned not to question women-folks' reasons! Something
about venus and mars...

 

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:23:50 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:04:38 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

That's been true since disk drives were 20MB. Unless there is some
security concern, there is no point deleting files. $/MB gets smaller
much faster than I can fill the drives. The drives might just as well
be write once. ;-)

Working with Files-11 file systems (PDP-11/VAX/VMS) which creates a
new version of a file each time a file is edited. Sooner or later a
large number of files are created.

In one of the companies I worked for in those days, the official
policy was not to clean out old versions (apart from keeping the last
automatic 3-4 latest versions).

If the storage requirement grew larger than this, new washing machine
size 300 MB SMD 14 inch disks were purchased in order to save the time
selecting what files to delete. This was in the 1980's. Today, there
is much less needs to delete old files.

 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:21:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 23:44:19 +0000 (UTC), the renowned mroberds@att.net
wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

I can drive across town and buy a 6 TB hard drive for $300, which is a
nickel a gigabyte. If you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr
currently), and you spend one minute deleting files, you'd need to
delete a bit over 2.4 GB to make it worth your time. If you're making
$50 an hour, and you spend one minute deleting files, you need to
delete 16.7 GB.

On the WABAC machine, people listened to the radio, on headphones, with
one diode junction. For a long time, a lot of people listened to the
radio on sets that had five "transistors" in them - each one dissipated
a few watts. Compare that to how many transistors are in a new
digitally-tuned AM/FM radio, that costs less, sounds better, and takes
a couple of watts.

Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking that 2 or
3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

640 KB ought to be enough for anybody!

Matt Roberds

There are people now with 40-80T in their houses for movies etc. Wait
until 4K and 8K resolutions become popular.



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

The real question is, when are you (he/she) be able to watch all these
movies ?

 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 23:39:27 +0200, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 18:23:50 -0500, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:04:38 -0800, John Larkin
jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:



I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

That's been true since disk drives were 20MB. Unless there is some
security concern, there is no point deleting files. $/MB gets smaller
much faster than I can fill the drives. The drives might just as well
be write once. ;-)

Working with Files-11 file systems (PDP-11/VAX/VMS) which creates a
new version of a file each time a file is edited. Sooner or later a
large number of files are created.

What a silly thing to do (though I have seen it many times).

In one of the companies I worked for in those days, the official
policy was not to clean out old versions (apart from keeping the last
automatic 3-4 latest versions).

What a silly thing policy. ;-)

If the storage requirement grew larger than this, new washing machine
size 300 MB SMD 14 inch disks were purchased in order to save the time
selecting what files to delete. This was in the 1980's. Today, there
is much less needs to delete old files.

Exactly. Disks have been "free" for a long time.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/10/2015 3:17 PM, bitrex wrote:

I don't understand the point of using your own storage space for
commercial movies. Are there people who watch the same movie
over and over enough that the cost of purchasing it (assuming
theyre not pirating) and the space on the server to store it is
worth it? This is basically what cloud storage and streaming was
made for.

I've watched _SOAP_ in its entirety several times. Ditto with _Coupling_.
And _Pinky & The Brain_. A trip to the theater costs far more (in time,
money and inconvenience) than just throwing a DVD in the player.

_Flushed Away_ is *always* good for a quick laugh. _The Day the
Earth Stood Still_ (original), _Buckaroo Banzai_, etc.

Some flicks I keep to share with others (e.g., _Rubber_ is just too
weird to pass up!). Or, have been gifted by others.

When I get a chance, I'll rip the rest of my LVD library -- why
repurchase what I've already purchased??

We probably watch 4 or 5 movies a week. We rely on the local public
library (free) to get us the media *and* coerce us into trying new
titles. E.g., last night was "Cronos" (spanish language film).
I'd never have selected it for viewing if we had Netflix, etc.
OTOH, picking it up OFF THE SHELF costs nothing -- if we don't like
it, throw it in the pile to return next week.

Most current titles aren't worth the time to watch. The tricky part
comes when you stumble on one that *is* -- do you hope the library
will still have a *viable* copy next time you feel in the mood to
watch it? (they get scratched up pretty quick *and* our library
tends to discard stuff pretty quickly: "No one has checked this
out in X months...") So, either buy a copy or decide you're willing
to be disappointed when you check it out, again, and discover it is
no longer playable...

With services like Spotify I don't see a lot of point in keeping a
huge music library on disk either unless it's really obscure
material; with some devices you can even sync the online library
so you can listen offline...

I've ripped all of my CD's so I can access them from devices OTHER
than a "CD player". Why inconvenience myself with having to be
online to hear what I've already purchased?

I have a few hundred concerts that *can't* be purchased. Should
I restrict myself to only listening to them when I'm online?

What I can't understand is services where someone else picks the
material! (e.g., the old "broadcast media" model). Why would I
want to listen/watch *that*?? And, now??! Today was Chubby Checkers
followed by Bill Chase. I'll finish the evening off listening
to Janis scream for a few hours.

Would I have *stumbled* upon those choices in an online service?
Among the THOUSANDS of choices (most of which I've never been exposed
to nor care to be exposed to!)

[Nor am I keen on letting others "benefit" from knowing my listening
habits]

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

Hi Jasen,

On 1/10/2015 1:15 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

In her case, I think the best gain would be to let me put a larger
monitor on that machine so she can see more, BIGGER thumbnails in
each screenful. But, she has very definite opinions about what
she wants on *her* desk... <shrug

Same size monitor with more pixels then?

Old eyes don't like looking at tiny things. :

spectacles can fix that.

--
umop apisdn

 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:18:36 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 1/10/2015 2:10 AM, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 11:44:51 PM UTC, mrob...@att.net wrote:
John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless task
to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

I can drive across town and buy a 6 TB hard drive for $300, which is a
nickel a gigabyte. If you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr
currently), and you spend one minute deleting files, you'd need to delete
a bit over 2.4 GB to make it worth your time. If you're making $50 an
hour, and you spend one minute deleting files, you need to delete 16.7
GB.

yup... deleting is almost a lost game. If you've not done it, worth running
a dupe finder once to catch the few biggest dupes.

I think you'll find it doesn't pay for the time it takes to run!

That depends. When one of the duplicates gets edited they're out of
sync. If another is edited, data is lost. It's important to have
only one active copy of data. BTDT.

Even if you find a true duplicate, you have to then sit down and ask
yourself "does this second (third?) copy need to be *here* for some
reason? Would I break anything if I moved it??"

Similarly, do I *need* to keep the last version of this program around?
Am I *ever* likely to need it? Why not just stick with -CURRENT and
forget all that came before??

You don't use CVS (or equivalent)?

Then, consider: OK, if I get rid of it, I recover a bit of space on
a medium that is essentially *free*. And, at the same time, run the risk
that if I *need* it at a later date and can't *get* another copy of it...

 

[Don Y]

On 1/10/2015 2:44 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:21:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany

There are people now with 40-80T in their houses for movies etc. Wait
until 4K and 8K resolutions become popular.

The real question is, when are you (he/she) be able to watch all these
movies ?

I've a friend who has turned his retirement into "nonstop movie watching".
I am amazed that each movie that I *try* to recommend is met with: "Already
saw it!" :-/

*I* find it "sad" as there are so many things that I could imagine a
healthy, "secure" individual doing BESIDES watching movies. But, it's not
*my* life, so...

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

Hi Jasen,

On 1/10/2015 1:15 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

In her case, I think the best gain would be to let me put a larger
monitor on that machine so she can see more, BIGGER thumbnails in
each screenful. But, she has very definite opinions about what
she wants on *her* desk... <shrug

Same size monitor with more pixels then?

Old eyes don't like looking at tiny things. :

In my experience spectacles can fix that.

--
umop apisdn

 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:29:47 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 1/10/2015 2:44 PM, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:21:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany

There are people now with 40-80T in their houses for movies etc. Wait
until 4K and 8K resolutions become popular.

The real question is, when are you (he/she) be able to watch all these
movies ?

I've a friend who has turned his retirement into "nonstop movie watching".
I am amazed that each movie that I *try* to recommend is met with: "Already
saw it!" :-/

*I* find it "sad" as there are so many things that I could imagine a
healthy, "secure" individual doing BESIDES watching movies. But, it's not
*my* life, so...

You got that right! I've been out of work (FMLA) for the last seven
weeks (go back Monday) and have been bored to tears with TV, even with
all of the "movie channels", plus ~300. There have been a few movies
worth watching but the best thing on has been Andy Grifiths. ;-)

Unfortunately, I can't play with the hobbies. When I retire (not too
far in the future), it's *not* going to be to sit around and watch
movies.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:21:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 23:44:19 +0000 (UTC), the renowned mroberds@att.net
wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

I can drive across town and buy a 6 TB hard drive for $300, which is a
nickel a gigabyte. If you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr
currently), and you spend one minute deleting files, you'd need to
delete a bit over 2.4 GB to make it worth your time. If you're making
$50 an hour, and you spend one minute deleting files, you need to
delete 16.7 GB.

On the WABAC machine, people listened to the radio, on headphones, with
one diode junction. For a long time, a lot of people listened to the
radio on sets that had five "transistors" in them - each one dissipated
a few watts. Compare that to how many transistors are in a new
digitally-tuned AM/FM radio, that costs less, sounds better, and takes
a couple of watts.

Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking that 2 or
3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

640 KB ought to be enough for anybody!

Matt Roberds

There are people now with 40-80T in their houses for movies etc. Wait
until 4K and 8K resolutions become popular.

Why not stream them? There only needs to be one copy of a movie in the
world, not millions of them.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing laser drivers and controllers

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 16:08:20 -0800, John Larkin
<jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jan 2015 11:21:32 -0500, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015 23:44:19 +0000 (UTC), the renowned mroberds@att.net
wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

I can drive across town and buy a 6 TB hard drive for $300, which is a
nickel a gigabyte. If you're making the federal minimum wage ($7.25/hr
currently), and you spend one minute deleting files, you'd need to
delete a bit over 2.4 GB to make it worth your time. If you're making
$50 an hour, and you spend one minute deleting files, you need to
delete 16.7 GB.

On the WABAC machine, people listened to the radio, on headphones, with
one diode junction. For a long time, a lot of people listened to the
radio on sets that had five "transistors" in them - each one dissipated
a few watts. Compare that to how many transistors are in a new
digitally-tuned AM/FM radio, that costs less, sounds better, and takes
a couple of watts.

Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking that 2 or
3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

640 KB ought to be enough for anybody!

Matt Roberds

There are people now with 40-80T in their houses for movies etc. Wait
until 4K and 8K resolutions become popular.


Why not stream them? There only needs to be one copy of a movie in the
world, not millions of them.

 

[bitrex]

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Wrote in message:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 17:13:58 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

On 1/9/2015 4:04 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I have roughly 70,000 files on my C: drive. It would be a hopeless
task to go through them and delete the useless ones, saving some few
kilobytes or megabytes per file.

You obviously don't write code!

Well, I do some, but I use languages that tend to have one single
source file per program!


For my "Software Development" (Windows) machine:
548,492 on my C: drive for ~89GB
and that's *just* executables, no "user content" (though it includes
library sources from vendors, etc.)

No idea for the "Hardware Development" machine as I'm migrating that to
new iron, currently.

The appliance that runs most of my basic services, here, shows:
303,436 in the NetBSD repository for a total of 12,103,138KB (~12GB)
134,444 in the pkgsrc repository for a total of 1,767,980KB (~1.5GB)
Note that the pkgsrc repo doesn't contain any of the *sources* for
the packages.

And, I can't look at *my* repository cuz firing up that machine would
add way too much fan noise to the noise currently being generated by
my "Reference Documents" NAS box.

So things will just grow, and I'll just buy bigger and bigger hard
drives, which further reduces the likelyhood that I'll ever clean
things up. Unless I start collecting movies or something, I'm thinking
that 2 or 3 TB might be a lifetime supply of disk storage.

grin> Silly boy. As you said originally, the problem is the effort
required to *delete* files means you never *shrink* your store to it's
current ACTUAL requirements.

Music is also a pig. I'm at about 500G for my music collection and
haven't finished ripping it all. (though if you opt for MP3 you can
cut that dramatically).

Fortunately, I don't listen to music. My life is complex enough
already.

You should! I think it really helps with creativity and workflow.
EEs should like electronic music! Some of the stuff the "kids"
listen to these days is pretty amazing and obviously composed by
some very talented folks. This tune is one of my favorites for
doing EE stuff:

[Dubstep] : MitiS & MaHi - Blu: http://youtu.be/Vd56kEmWqMc



--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

 

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

If you've not done it, worth running a dupe finder once to catch the
few biggest dupes.

On Windows, I have used and liked "Yet Another Duplicate File Remover",
http://sourceforge.net/projects/yadfr/ . At one time, I had a failing
hard drive, and had made a few different attempts to get files off of
it, which resulted in sets of files with lots of overlap. YADFR got
rid of the dupes and let me concentrate on the few files that were
different between attempts.

On Linux, so far, I usually roll my own out of md5sum, find, awk/sed/
perl, and so on. I don't do this very often.

If you've been playing around with relatively huge single files - DVD
ISOs, virtual machine images, stuff like that - sometimes telling
whatever directory listing or search program that comes with your OS
to "find files bigger than X GB" is helpful.

Standard disclaimers apply: I don't get money or other consideration
from any companies mentioned.

Matt Roberds

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 00:51:59 -0500 (EST), the renowned bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

You should! I think it really helps with creativity and workflow.
EEs should like electronic music! Some of the stuff the "kids"
listen to these days is pretty amazing and obviously composed by
some very talented folks. This tune is one of my favorites for
doing EE stuff:

[Dubstep] : MitiS & MaHi - Blu: http://youtu.be/Vd56kEmWqMc

One amazing (free, so far) site is Songza. You can pick expertly
composed playlists by genre, activity or whatever. No particular
knowlege of music or tedious searching required.

If you want jazz with no vocals, or weird synthesizer music, or some
rock to get your blood moving just ask. If you want to be in a busy
coffee shop with a window overlooking a bucolic park, just open two
windows and adjust the relative volumes between coffee shop and
outdoors-- while the Peruvian Chanchamayo green beans are roasting and
filling the office with a wonderful aroma.

Supposedly Baroque background music(eg. Mozart) is optimal for
learning. Maybe something different for creativity. And definitely
something else for working on tax records.. maybe a capstan shanty.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogdotyou.knowwhat> wrote:

And definitely something else for working on tax records.. maybe a
capstan shanty.

I've heard those before. Usually they just mean that your tape deck is
really worn out.

Matt Roberds

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 21:18:07 +0000, mroberds wrote:

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogdotyou.knowwhat> wrote:
And definitely something else for working on tax records.. maybe a
capstan shanty.

I've heard those before. Usually they just mean that your tape deck is
really worn out.

Matt Roberds

Damn... I thought it was that place where me and that chick went all
capstan cave man!

Well, at least those were the memories the term provoked.

 

[Don Y]

On 1/10/2015 10:51 PM, bitrex wrote:

John Larkin <jlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Wrote in message:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 17:13:58 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

Music is also a pig. I'm at about 500G for my music collection and
haven't finished ripping it all. (though if you opt for MP3 you can
cut that dramatically).

Fortunately, I don't listen to music. My life is complex enough
already.

You should! I think it really helps with creativity and workflow.

+1

I find what I listen to is closely related to the type of activitie
in which I am currently engaged. Sometimes, wanting something lower
key to ease into a new project; other times, something borderline
frenetic when I'm "on a roll".

I may *actively* participate in reselecting pieces -- or, opt to
just listen to an entire concert, etc. so the "music selection
activity" falls out of conscious thought.

The same sort of differences persist when I'm involved in other
activities. E.g., while walking the neighborhood, my pace is
largely governed by the choice of music I'm playing -- which, in
turn, affects the sort of *thinking* I'm engaged in, simultaneously.

EEs should like electronic music! Some of the stuff the "kids"
listen to these days is pretty amazing and obviously composed by
some very talented folks. This tune is one of my favorites for
doing EE stuff:

[Dubstep] : MitiS & MaHi - Blu: http://youtu.be/Vd56kEmWqMc

 

[Don Y]

On 1/10/2015 4:27 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
Hi Jasen,

On 1/10/2015 1:15 PM, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2015-01-10, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

In her case, I think the best gain would be to let me put a larger
monitor on that machine so she can see more, BIGGER thumbnails in
each screenful. But, she has very definite opinions about what
she wants on *her* desk... <shrug

Same size monitor with more pixels then?

Old eyes don't like looking at tiny things. :

spectacles can fix that.

I suspect "in theory". In practice, there's a difference between
staring at a little, tiny *detailed* image and a larger image (with
"equivalent" detail).

She had her eyes "set" for distance vision (cataract surgery) so the
house is littered with "reading glasses", everywhere.

When "reviewing" her (new) photos, her process seems to be to use
thumbnail views to get an idea as to where each set of (consecutively
numbered) photos were taken: "OK, these were taken when I was down
by the stream...".

Then, she invokes a "slideshow" mode (starting on the first photo in
the group of interest) where each successive photo occupies the entire
screen. Studies it for a while (presumably making a decision as to
how/where she wants to "save" it) and eventually moves on to the next
photo.

OTOH, *my* process is to give a cursory examination of the photos on the
memory card in thumbnail view and then select ALL of the photos that
I want to drag to <wherever>. But, then again, the types of things
that I photograph are more simply sorted: these are photos of the
roof repair, these others are photos of a new planting, and this last
bunch are of a hardware prototype. All "attributes" that are readily
apparent even in the crudest of thumbnail views!