cpu overheating

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 12/13/06, Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Roo wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 05:29:33 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> >
>
> [snip]
> >
> >>It's futile to suggest actually to collect any data on Linux behavior if
> >>there is any threat it might reveal a wart on its nose, because the
> >>suggestion will be rejected out of hand.
> >
> > You are an idiot. These people have tried to be reasonable with you and
> > discuss what is wrong with your system. All you've done is make a colossal
> > arse of yourself. Congratulations... especially on using your real name.
> > It'll make for interesting googling by your workmates in a few years.
>
> There is nothing wrong with my system. You are addressing the wrong
> person on that point. I am not the OP.

You and the OP have the same first name, that is causing some ID problems

> One (1) guy has had a problem with his machine overheating when
> running Linux, but seemingly not when running Windows.

Not at all suprising, Windows doesn't always fully recognize the full
capability of a CPU to begin with...but that is off topic.

> I suggested that rather than brush this aside, we collect information
> which might, just might, albeit with low probability, reveal an as
> yet unknown defect in Linux.

Suggest a test case(s), I will try it out on my test machine.

> Rather than anyone else saying "Well, it *is* highly unlikely, but
> it's worth a shot just to try it when we can." all here have pooh-poohed
> this idea. It would take 5 minutes to verify that Linux isn't doing
> something weird. Then the idea could be discarded. It is interesting,
> however, that no one seems to think that even finding out is
> worth the effort when it is essentially without cost.

I'm willing to give this a try if you can tell me what to try.

> Where I come from (telecomm industry), we always try to garner all
> information when we have a chance, if we can do so safely and with
> little cost.

Just to be clear, the OP has stated that he himself will not allow it
to happen to him again for the sake of finding out futher details.

> One could argue that only one machine is having a problem, so
> it is extremely unlikely that Linux is the problem, but rather
> the machine. That argument is correct. One could also argue that
> this unique case is important because is may be the result of
> a defect in Linux which occurs only very infrequently, so it is
> important to find out its cause if so. That argument is also
> correct. They are not opposed to each other. The deciding factor
> is, IMO, the cost of collecting the information.

I am willing. The OP is not.

> The absolute most probable thing we would find out is that nothing
> unusual is going on. But no one even wants to find out, even when
> it costs essentially nothing to do so.

Well the thing is, running yum isn't an unusual thing, we run yum all
the time. So I guess most of us, having run yum so frequently feel
very confident in the prognosis - as I'm sure you know, very little of
the code behind yum is even capable of triggering such a problem by
itself. But as you've stated...not impossible.

> If thinking we should take every opportunity to investigate
> unusual behavior for possible defects is being an "idiot", then
> every industry in the world which considers availability and
> reliability in software to be important is full of idiots.
> This includes telecomm, aviation, and power systems at
> least. And these idiots are the ones who guarantee that
> your telephone provides you with dialtone when you pick it
> up, and airplanes don't crash when you fly on them, and
> your lights come on when you flip the switch.
>
> I'll side with the idiots on this one.

I don't think your approach is idiotic, just seeminly unnecessary in
this case, but again, feel free to suggest how I can get the data you
require.

> I'd like to take every possible opportunity to improve Linux
> when it comes. Even if the likelihood is very low, if the
> cost is nothing, then why not collect the information and
> know that everything is fine?

No reason not to.

> Mike

You may also be interested to know that in another thread some dude
has claimed that FC6 destroyed his LCDs ability to report its
capabilty to accept digital input...somehow that seemed more relevant
when I began typing.

Peace

-- 
Fedora Core 6 and proud