Re: parallel: This should not happen. You have found a bug.

[Linda Walsh]

Ole Tange wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Ole Tange <ole@tange.dk> wrote:
> :
> > If we can find a way that will work fast on Windows/Cygwin without
> > compromising the 1-file-install design goal and the shared $HOME
> > semaphore, I will definitely be interested.
> I will be positive towards a patch that makes --semaphore work better
> on Windows/Cygwin as long as it does not break existing functionality
> on other platforms - especially the free platforms.
---
Actually, if I was to develop it, I'd start with a variation of the one I
already have working on linux that is POSIX compatible, since that works
on most unix platforms (the 1 platform parallel works on) as well as
Windows.  Presuming i needed such a beast -- knowing the limitations
of parallel, I'd likely just use xargs, it is more portable and faster.

> If you do not want to do the work yourself, I can be hired to work on
> such a patch. My hourly rate for working on a Microsoft Windows
> platform is 250 USD. A potential client will also have to provide
> access to a Windows 7/Cygwin installation as I do not have that.
----
   If I'd charged such rates when I was able to work, I probably 
wouldn't be
disabled now, as I wouldn't have had much work -- but if you want to pay me
for the time I've spent reporting and responding to the  the bug your 
program told me I found and asked me to report, that'd be great, as 
being disabled
on a public disability stipend, extra money is always welcome.  However,
if I had known your request to report a bug in parallel was really a 
solicitation for work @ $250/hour, I probably wouldn't have bother reporting
it as it would have fallen into the class of a unsolicited solicitation
for money -- SPAM. 

   I didn't know Gnu programs came with bait & switch offers to address 
bugs.
Such is a first for me. 

   BTW -- I was impressed with the work and structure that was done on
the parallel program.  Perhaps the rates you charge are not 
unreasonable.  But
given my needs, I'll likely less restrictive alternatives than those 
restricted
to the *nix class.  You might include that in the documentation -- that 
it isn't
guaranteed to be portable to non unix-derivative OS's...

   It is does seem to be a well written program, I can see why you'd value
your skills as you do.


   I think it's the case that you don't want to do the work and I don't
need it done, though, and while we could continue to indirectly slight each
other, know that I think your program is well done -- though perhaps not as
adaptable as _I_ might wish -- but it really was a 1 time need that I 
created
myself because I wanted to try using parallel instead of xargs and 
didn't know
parallel's limitations.  Now that I know, I'll know not to use it outside of
it's design-space.  I really thought it used native semaphores and switched
a prog of mine to using such (was part of a refactoring, so it was one of
several changes, with the result that the task-manager was splittable enough
to be re-used in another prog... and may be librarized).  I guess I 
should have
studied parallel's code a bit more closely before becoming so inspired...;-)
Naive are I!

  FWIW -- any "real" (whatever that means), semaphore implementation, 
(meaning
one based on the OS's sem-calls or perl's) would like work, w/o changes on
cygwin, as it's design is to be portable to the POSIX standard (hard as 
that is
on Windows -- you might be stunned to know some of the things they have 
to do
to support compat on an OS designed like NT)...


Cheers!
Linda