Dear Axel,
First of all, my sincere apology for deviating from the decorum of the forum, and if I hurt you in any way.
Thanks for your philosophical note.
I have a deep respect for your straightforward approach and all the contributions you have made in this forum and in LAMMPS, and it is only for your continual emphasis on ‘homework’ that I tried my best to solve any problem I faced in LAMMPS myself, instead of jumping straight to the forum (and so far I haven’t asked anything in the forum. But soon I am going to with a certain problem.). I feel bad that I have landed on something untoward with my very first interaction in the forum.
Your aggresiveness is useful (at least it has been for me), but in the mails related to ‘progress indication’, I felt that (maybe wrongfully) you undermined our (Alex and mine) spirit. Now we know that there was some kind of misunderstanding.
@ Carlos: I sincerely appreciate your advice, and will stick by it.
Best regards.
– Abrar
Dear Axel,
First of all, my sincere apology for deviating from the decorum of the
forum, and if I hurt you in any way.
now, you are heading into the other extreme which (to me) is about as
irritating as being offended by just pointing out that a statement and
explanation is wrong and irrelevant.
if i wasn't able to handle people being "challenged" by statements
that i make, i should not answer to e-mails. i do put on the
proverbial (and otherwise unhealthy) asbestos underwear before reading
and answering LAMMPS e-mails.
[...]
Your aggresiveness is useful (at least it has been for me), but in the mails
related to 'progress indication', I felt that (maybe wrongfully) you
undermined our (Alex and mine) spirit. Now we know that there was some kind
of misunderstanding.
let's be clear about this. the misunderstanding was not with you.
every statement that you have made about LAMMPS was incorrect in the
form and generality it was made in. full stop.
i appreciate that you are making an effort to patch things up, but -
as far as i am concerned - there is nothing that needs patching up
between us.
case closed (for me),
axel.
every statement that you have made about LAMMPS was incorrect in the
form and generality it was made in. full stop.
I didn't make any statement about LAMMPS, I just made a suggestion to Alex,
which was to redirect the command output to a file. Alex later clarified
what his objective was, and from that perspective this suggestion is not
relevant, but perhaps not 'incorrect' (and he also explains why Ray's
suggestion to use 'thermo_style custom step' doesn't work either). If not
directed to a file, one would see this information on the screen (but in
case of qsub, that's not happening either, and redirection is the only
option). So finally we have (as of now) only 'fix print' solution suggested
by Steve (that's not versatile either, as 'fix print' doesn't work with
'minimize' command). I really do not understand what is incorrect in
redirecting the output. Would appreciate much if you explain.
you said:
The output_file will contain the same information log.lammps will have
eventually, but the latter is generated only after the run is
completed.
this is not correct. log.lammps is created immediately and written to
(by LAMMPS) at the same time than the screen output. they may be
buffered differently, but that is a choice of the underlying OS or
file system.
you said:
Yes, it is true that log.lammps has more details, and perhaps I should
not have been written 'contain the same info'
this is not correct either. what you see in log.lammps or the screen
depends on the settings for "echo" and "log". with "echo both" they
contain the same info (as far as LAMMPS is concerned. there may be
additional output from some underlying library, that would be only
printed to the screen)
both of this has been pointed out to you already.
axel.
how do to the prints/ do I need a special inputfiles?