14 Jun 15 17:49, you wrote to me:

 NB>>> I don't care much for saving resources on a 6-core machine with
 NB>>> hyperthreading and 16gb ram.

 ml>> me either, really... not on this box with 8 4ghz cores and 16gb RAM...
 ml>> don't care about that hyperthreading mess, either ;) O:)

 NB> It's almost like you don't even realize you just tried to one-up me again
 NB> above. :(

bad day or something? you brought up the specs... it doesn't matter to me...

 NB> Either way, If you're running an intel machine,

nope... AMD...

 NB> and you don't have the 5960X processor, then you're most likely
 NB> running a quad-core system with hyperthreading - which will display 8
 NB> physical cores. If you're running an AMD 8-core machine, they're on
 NB> par with Intel's higher end quad cores. Go ahead and look up the
 NB> benchmarks. I did my studying when I built my new machine.

i don't care about the benchmarks, man... really, i don't... this is the
fastest and least expensive machine we've had here in the last two decades...

AMD Black edition FX 8350 8-core 4.0Ghz, 16.0 MB total cache

not overclocked... anyway... whatever...

 NB> I ended up going with the 5930K, 6-core with hyperthreading makes 12
 NB> physical cores. Almost a grand cheaper than the 5960X also. But I'm sure
 NB> you knew all of that already. :)

actually, no, i didn't... i also can't see actual physical cores doubleing via
hyperthreading... all it does is split one core in half making it appear to be
two cores... i can't count the numbers of times that turning off hyperthreading
has actually helped machines process more, faster and with less resource
usage... contrary to what marketing droids have stated...

 NB> One thing is for certain, I'm definitely not going to waste it on
 NB> Fidonet related crap. :)

hahaha... i hear that... i've 8 VMs running here all the time now...
occasionally i fire up a few more for some things... have yet to use more than
10G of RAM... still floored at this machine's capabilities...

 ml>> it wasn't one-upping... at least it wasn't intended that way... pure
 ml>> grep is, actually, the easiest since it doesn't involve any other
 ml>> tools... it is the easiest in this case when one is just looking for
 ml>> the line in question... i have some real doozies here that use cut,
 ml>> uniq, sort and a couple of others feeding and being fed from grep...
 ml>> long arsed command lines with numerous pipes... i'm glad i saved them
 ml>> to a script ;)

 NB> Anyways.. I gave an easy way to do it. So what if it used more than one
 NB> tool? It was a one line command that utilizes two tools to get the job
 NB> done. If resources aren't a concern, what's easier - using two tools with
 NB> no optional parameters, or memorizing options for grep? Take your pick. As
 NB> I said, more than one way to skin a cat (or get the job done).

i wasn't making a big deal out of it and i don't understand why you are, either
:(

 NB> I'm not going to continue this conversation over something so trivial.

it was just chit chat.. or so i thought... jesus effin' christ... you have had
a bad day...

 NB> We both gave him a way to do it, and anything between you and me after
 NB> that was completely redundant and didn't help the cause any more.

it was just chit chat... i don't know why you made such a big deal out of it
but whatever... i hope you have a better day tomorrow...

)\/(ark

... He hasn't a single redeeming vice.
---