Slashdot Mirror


Xooglers - Google Discussed by Ex-Googlers

perler writes to tell us that Xooglers, a relatively new website created so that ex-Google employees could reminisce and share, has been gaining a great deal of popularity recently. The website shares what went wrong, what went right, and all of the funny happenings in between. Quite an interesting piece of Google history.

211 comments

  1. Why "ex" googlers? by cytoman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I assume that being a Google employee represents the highpoint of your career and you would never want to leave...like one of the xooglers says, why become a boring specialized cell when you can be a stem-cell and take on any and every challenge thrown at you?

    If *I* get a Google job, I am never leaving!

    1. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If *I* get a Google job, I am never leaving!

      So easy to say about a company until you have actually worked there. Not saying that working at Google wouldn't be cool, but you never know what little things here or there might be a frustration at your job. What about an annoying boss? Hard schedule? Your employers aren't always going to accommodate you to fix a problem, no matter where you work.

    2. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Criliric · · Score: 1

      Exactally... Google could one day make history, and to be part of that would be an awesome story to tell one day to your kids or grandchildren

      "....You know that thing on the internet you look at, I helped make that...."

    3. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by nandu_prahlad · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If *I* get a Google job, I am never leaving!
      Never say never. As Lennon said, "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans". Suddenly, working for Google (or some other great company) may not seem like great idea as before because your interests have shifted, or you may wanna spend more time with your family.

    4. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by adpowers · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or because you live in LA and work in Mountain View, as one of the bloggers did. I've been reading this site for a while now and it is very good. One of the guys worked there for a year, flying in on Mondays, working until Thursday, flying home, and then telecommuting on Friday. That's one hell of a commute.

    5. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Pneuma+ROCKS · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Google is a HUGE company with a lot going on, but this can be very polarizing. You may be part of something really cool, or you may be part of something very infamous. Google is rapidly gaining on Microsoft, both in a good way and in a bad way. Would you say a Microsoft employee has the same amount amount of pride to show their kids/grandkids what he/she did?

      It's not like your kids listen to you anyway.

      --
      Favorite quote: "
    6. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by hyeh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a Xoogler myself, and personally, I find my current job more fulfilling from a personal/learning/growth standpoint. Just my two cents.

    7. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by roach2002 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the blog (Ron's first post)

      I guess the #1 FAQ for people who have left Google is why did you leave. My main reason for leaving was that I was commuting from Los Angeles. I'd fly up on Southwest early Monday morning, fly back on Thursday evening, and telecommute on Fridays and weekends. That regimen was pretty stressful even under the best of circumstances, but when 9/11 happened it became completely untenable. I had already given my notice before 9/11, but I don't think I could have stayed on after that even if I had wanted to. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

      So that's why Ron left, I'm not sure if Doug's said why he left yet.

    8. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by JeffTL · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they were sacked?

    9. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      They have to be ex-googlers, because Google, like many other companies, see's people talking about their employer on their own time as a sackable offense. The First Ammendment is only for the government, so there's no way to stop employers from sacking people who dare to exercise their first ammendment rights during non-working hours.

    10. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by moorcito · · Score: 4, Funny

      "....You know that thing on the internet you look at, I helped make that...."

      I don't think just ex-google employees will be the ones telling their kids/grandkids that. Just think about all the porn stars.

    11. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Alascom · · Score: 1

      I work for Google...

      Google does not discourage employees from talking about their employer or blogging... The company is extremely open with their employees and gives them a lot more freedom than you would expect from your employer... But still, I am sure a lot of Googlers (myself included) are still a little gun-shy about what they post on websites simply because Google is so 'in the spotlight'...

    12. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless they've had a recent policy change, that's completely untrue. At least one guy has been fired (the article itself is a bit iffy on if he was fired for that reason but this blog clears up any ambiguity).

      Or perhaps Google simply censors those who don't say good things about google (and if you don't think firing people for speaking has a censoring effect on free speech I've got a bridge to sell to you).

    13. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      From my parent's basement in Wyoming, I stab at thee.

      I'd link to the comic, but it's not there anymore. I'll link to this one, instead.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    14. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Triones · · Score: 1

      Google have an engineering office in Santa Monica:
      http://www.google.com/support/jobs/bin/topic.py?de p_id=1054&loc_id=1118

      Yes, commuting from LA to Santa Monica is still not very pleasant, but probably better than LA to Mountain View.

    15. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by chrome · · Score: 1

      "Google is rapidly gaining on Microsoft"

      How, exactly?

      Microsoft covers a LOT of ground. Its going to take a long, long time before anyone 'rapidly gains' anything on them.

      Don't get me wrong, Google is doing a good job in the markets they are in - even creating some new ones.

      But I don't think Microsoft is going to worry that GoogleOS is going to supplant Windows XP any day soon, nor is it worried that Google Office will suplant MS Office.

    16. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by adpowers · · Score: 1

      I think he said he started there in 1999, so they probably only had the one (in fact, they hadn't moved into the Googleplex yet).

    17. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by bariswheel · · Score: 1

      What do you do now? can you elaborate? I'd like to know. thanks

      --
      Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
    18. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by drsquare · · Score: 2

      This Google sycophancy has taken a new turn for the worse. What exactly will Google do that will make history? A web-based newsgroup system with 'innovative' use of javascript? Slightly more efficient database software? World record number of fanboys?

      When you look at end products, google are no different to the other million or so computer companies.

    19. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, didn't he post like... some kind of confidential financial information? Like... a projected growth rate or some shit? Y'know, something that would get you shitcanned if you were overheard talking about it with someone outside the company? I recall that being removed from his blog.

    20. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by koltrane · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Honestly, you people think working for Google is like playtime and that no one would ever have problems there. I felt the same way about working at McDonalds when I was 8.

      Any successful business is just that...a business, and all the adolescent fantasies of corporate ski trips and pool tables in the break room aside, work has to be done. A job at Google is not a panacea for the workaday blues. I'm sure it's a very nice and creative environment, but I remember a lot of dot-com companies that sneered at traditional business practices, opting instead for lavish salaries, non-standard work hours, jacuzzis in every office, and multi-million dollar IPO parties. We all know where they are now...how much is that theGlobe.com stock worth now?

      Not to say that Google is such a company. They obviously have their heads on straight, but don't kid yourself into thinking that no one in his right mind would ever want to leave, because Google ain't perfect.

    21. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Yup, in fact he's probably lucky he was only shitcanned - I was surprised he/Google weren't bitchslapped by the SEC, hard, what with Google being publicly listed, and him disclosing matters "likely to have impact upon stock price".

    22. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about if I get a job *anywhere* I am not leaving?

    23. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that first line in your comment is seriously one of the most insightful things i've ever read on slashdot.

      kudos koltrane

    24. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google is a great company and I'm sure it would be a great experience to work there. But, Google in a way, is the corporate equivalent of the Tickle Me Elmo doll that created such a craze back in 1996. Everyone assumes that Google is the brightest, most cutting edge, innovative company on the planet. What about companies involved in space exploration, biotechnology, pharmaceutical research, or environmental preservation? How about Lucent and Bell Labs, and all the life changing research that came out of these companies? You just don't hear about companies like this to the extent you hear about Goog because these companies are not viewed as "hip".

      While Google is definately an inovative company, a lot of what you hear about them is overblown. Peoples reason for being obsessed with Google is a similar to the reason that the media is able to influence the masses into believing almost anything.

      They are a good company, but to the godlike status they are preached is almost laughable. Some people really need to get a grip.

    25. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      I don't think just ex-google employees will be the ones telling their kids/grandkids that. Just think about all the porn stars.

      Sure, provided they don't all have their reproductive systems rotted out from disease. =)

    26. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by NetRAVEN5000 · · Score: 1
      The reason Google is so well-liked is because what they do directly affects us ("us" being both normal Web-surfers and business owners with a Web presence). Google makes a normal user's life easier by allowing them to search for a Web address they forgot, helping them get driving directions, allowing them to have enormous amounts of e-mail that is automatically scanned for spam and viruses, allowing them to look through some books online (someday maybe students won't have to carry their books home! That'd certainly be better for our backs), allowing us to post our journals online, its "Did you mean" spelling suggestions for those of us who can't spell (seems to be lot of them here on /.) and many other things.

      Business owners like them because of AdWords, which helps businesses to get more visitors visiting their website and perhaps buying their products/services. Many businesses (as well as non-business websites) also use Google to allow users to search their website for specific information. And because Google didn't become successful by screwing other businesses over, they became successful because people preferred them to other search engines.

      Not that these other companies you mentioned don't affect us or are unimportant, but many people don't know that they're doing this research. Google has a direct link to the public - they can just advertise a feature on google.com at the bottom of the search results, and some people will try it. Other companies need to hire advertisers and stuff.

      Also, I'm sure a lot of people like the "rags-to-riches" story of how Google got started by two guys in their dorm room.

    27. Re:Why "ex" googlers? by PC-PHIX · · Score: 1

      If *I* get a Google job, I am never leaving!

      So easy to say about a company until you have actually worked there.


      So easy to say about a company until they point out that the decision is theirs and not yours!

      --
      Optimist: The thumb drive is half empty! Pessimist: The thumb drive is half full...
  2. One line ... by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 4, Funny

    "How long does it take the sauna to get hot? You think it's okay to go in the women's locker room to get some towels since we're out in here?"

    --
    "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:One line ... by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      Damn, I didn't know we had a sauna at work.

    2. Re:One line ... by eosp · · Score: 1

      Speaking from the expert: Those plastic boxes with flashlight bulbs inside don't count as saunas.

    3. Re:One line ... by SuperQ · · Score: 1

      haha, my girlfriend is a Finn, so I atleast know how to say Sau-na properly.

      Also.. your website is awesome.

      Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan

    4. Re:One line ... by eosp · · Score: 1

      1. First line same for me. 2. Not my site.

    5. Re:One line ... by Y0tsuya · · Score: 3, Funny

      You have a girlfriend? We don't like yer kind 'round here.

    6. Re:One line ... by gringer · · Score: 1

      Careful what you say to the sub-1000s. They have more power than you can possibly imagine.

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    7. Re:One line ... by Tug3 · · Score: 1

      Depends on the sauna. From about 30mins (a small electric one) to about a day (a real smoke one)...

      As you're a slashdotter (a guy thats never seen a girl, whose name doesn't end .JPG); nope.

      --
      If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
      The Life is out there...
  3. hrm by know1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    post only mentions the good things, in fact he seems wistfull of his time there, although he does allude to bad things in a previous post. wonder if the tone of this website will change in a few years time

  4. Opening a Window to Google.... by Cherita+Chen · · Score: 3, Informative
    For those who didn't see this before...

    http://www.intuitive.com/blog/google_fires_blogger _and_the_evils_of_gossip_and_innuendo.html

    I'm not suprised there's now a Blog completely dedicated to ex-Google employees. It seems that they (Big G) don't take kindly to outsiders looking in... And God help you if you try to open the window and give others a peek.

    --
    I'm not fat, just big boned...
    1. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by Chris+Bradshaw · · Score: 1
      It is probably important to note that this was covered earlier this year on /.

      http://slashdot.org/articles/05/02/09/1418233.shtm l?tid=217

      This does provide an interesting perspective from which to read xoogle blogs though...

      --
      Get your Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool Here for FREE! - http://fedora.redhat.com
    2. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by nastro · · Score: 1

      Borked link, mate.

    3. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by garcia · · Score: 1

      And God help you if you try to open the window and give others a peek.

      Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

    4. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked I was feeding myself.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    5. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
    6. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by teknomage1 · · Score: 1

      I'm not suprised there's now a Blog completely dedicated to ex-Google employees. It seems that they (Big G) don't take kindly to outsiders looking in... And God help you if you try to open the window and give others a peek.

      Of course you can't open Windows to to Google! Google runs FreeBSD and Linux.
      --
      Stop intellectual property from infringing on me
    7. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by Drakonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Get real. That guy signed an NDA and posted sensitive financial information on his blog that was cleary marked as confidential. He deserved everything he got. This wasn't typical "my free latte was so great this morning", this was material information.

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    8. Re:Opening a Window to Google.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I applied for a Google position for which I was supremely and almost uniquely qualified, only to be told by an email robot 2 weeks later that I didn't meet the requirements. (There's no way to speak to a human, short of breaking in to someone's physical office.)

      So on a lark I applied for a lowly QC position where I far exceeded EVERY ONE of their specs, including 20 years programming experience to the 2 required, and a Master's degree to the Bachelor's required (all true, BTW).

      Robot says I'm still not qualified. WTF? How can I join the X Googlers if I can't become a Googler? Anyone know of a bitchfest site for folks like me?

  5. Re:Guess waht? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    You could at least look for key words in the summery...

  6. Re:Guess what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since we are in that mood, apparently, my first impression was that a website for ex-employees for "where I work" would be full of all kinds of stories of the bad treatment, dishonest boss and employees, etc.
    For those of us who work there, it is an uphill battle every day to serve the customers.
    Would tell where this place is, but I still work there.

  7. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe there's some information of use in there, some pointers for novice entrepenuers so that some obsticles can be avoided...

  8. News? by logik3x · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So how is this news? this is just publicity for a blog. It's not because there is the word google in the story that you have to post it. You can mod me down if you want but this is true... maybe if the blog was something new ok but it's old... it's been around for a while...

    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, there is the POSSIBILITY that something negative might be said about google in a blog by ex-employees. This makes this a rather shocking turn of events for the permaastroturfing /. google obsession.

    2. Re:News? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is slashdot. Anything with google in the title is published - often before anyone's even bothered to read it.

      Future slashdot titles:
      Google to buy microsoft
      Google to buy AOL
      Google finds cure for cancer
      Google starts space programme

    3. Re:News? by daliman · · Score: 1
      You are violating a patent my friend, specifically claim 8.

      http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8112& cid=718601

    4. Re:News? by shoffsta · · Score: 1

      wait a sec... you seriously expected a _new_ blog to be posted on slashdot?

    5. Re:News? by jZnat · · Score: 1

      What the hell kind of patent is that? Every patent I've ever seen has had 100+ claims, and most of them will link back to a previous claim (usually a common claim or the one previous to it).

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    6. Re:News? by Swaffs · · Score: 1

      Hey now... the last two might actually happen.

      --

      --
      "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

    7. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I mod you down would you become more powerfull than I could possibly imagine? I'm not falling for that trick again!

    8. Re:News? by harmonica · · Score: 2, Informative

      So how is this news?
      An interesting source of information on Google has been created recently. So, it's new. It's newsworthy on /. because quite a few readers might be interested.

    9. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You consider something created a little under a month ago to be old? I truly fear for the future of mankind if this -- ooh look, something shiny!

    10. Re:News? by om3ga · · Score: 1

      In that order?

    11. Re:News? by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot. Anything with google in the title is published - often before anyone's even bothered to read it.

      How long before Google Googles for Google on Google makes it to the /. front page?

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    12. Re:News? by Docasman · · Score: 1

      They have already started their space programme: Google Copernicus Center is hiring. http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

    13. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently submitted a story about the possibility that Google is a front company for the first real AI, as suggested by George Dyson on Edge. I figured this was exactly the kind of material slashdot thrives on, but for some reason they didn't publish that one.

  9. Scroll down by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to the "Let's get a real database" comment. It's nice to see such a good comment over MySQL by pros. Back in 2001/2, when I was considering to start a DB project for my own amusement, I heard almost nothing but bad things over MySQL by PostSQLers or Oraclers due to missing features though I went with it anyway.

    BTW, it's not a slam on those others systems, but I feel the missing feautures debate usually gets out of proportion to actual use of said feautures by the average project by a small/mid-size business.

    1. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time the subject of MySQL came up on Slashdot, soembody remarked that MySQL just gives a "best guess" when you execute a count(*) query. Can any MySQL users confirm this? I just find that to be absolutely mind-boggling.

    2. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      MySQL keeps a row count and optimizes select count(*) from table (no wheres, joins, etc), so that will always be correct (barring db corruption, transactions, etc). For more complex queries, the count(*) is not atomic, so other queries could affect the total.

    3. Re:Scroll down by xenocide2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Context is everything. MySQL originated as a flat file backed database. Something quick and dirty that got picked up by a few php coders. Naturally its SQL syntax was incompatible and the implementation lacking. By 2000 it had grown up somewhat but was still somewhat scary; fast but not what I'd call safe or transaction oriented. You'll note in the post that they claim they never got it as fast as MySQL. Probably because they went with something "Real" (Oracle's a good a guess as any) that did transactions and considered recovery from failure.

      If you dig further, you'll find a post about a multithreading race condition that boggles my mind. Maybe I've no imagination, but I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where that's a good idea. It's not even something you can do unconciously! The explaination is also unsatisfactory, which leads me to believe that perhaps the fog of time is clouding the whole story somewhat?

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    4. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what about in the most common instance, where 'where' is used?

    5. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BTW, it's not a slam on those others systems, but I feel the missing feautures debate usually gets out of proportion to actual use of said feautures by the average project by a small/mid-size business.

      You "feel"? Here's the thing: data management is one of the few parts of computer science that has a solid and complete theoretical foundation. You can and should do better than "feel".

      The fundamental purpose of a DBMS is data integrity. MySQL had no declarative integrity rules, no triggers to simulate them with, not even basic foreign key constraints. The only possible reaction you could have is, "what good is?" On top of that, MySQL had no views (not even just read-only), no subselects, and would silently transform data in and out of the database.

      Imagine a programming language with no functions or subroutines (analogous to the missing views), random value casting (silent corruption), no user-creatable types (no integrity constraints), no parentheses (no subqueries), and so on. Sure, you could do *something* with it, but what's the point? Just get another product that's just as free, just as easy to use, but can also do all the missing stuff.

      This has nothing to do with the size of a business, it's just the utter lack of competency most IT people have with regard to data management. A lot of those MySQL databases are accidents waiting to happen. Heck, a lot of Oracle database are too, but at least the few DBA's who know what they're doing have the tools to do it with.

      When it comes to data management, there's a simple rule of thumb: whatever the vast majority of people say or do is flat out wrong. Learn more about the theory and you'll be unable to come to any other conclusion.

    6. Re:Scroll down by gothfox · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard almost nothing but bad things over MySQL by PostSQLers or Oraclers due to missing features though I went with it anyway.

      When I first came here, this was all swamp. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a swamp, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the swamp. So I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp.

    7. Re:Scroll down by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      Your "what good is?" question has a simple answer:

      Good enough to build the most well known ad network on the planet.

      Also good enough, and used for, telephone and ISP billing records and one of the better known airline booking systems.

      There's ample room to criticise on theoretical grounds but also no shortage of real world business succes stories.

    8. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's your point? That it's good enough because, if you throw enough time, people and money at it, you can bodge your way to success? "Success" stories mean absolutely nothing without a case study and explanation of why the competition couldn't do as well or better.

    9. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that answer sounds like a little kid telling their parent that throwing a ball in the house is perfectly safe because it hasn't broken anything yet.

    10. Re:Scroll down by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      Imagine a programming language with no functions or subroutines (analogous to the missing views), random value casting (silent corruption), no user-creatable types (no integrity constraints), no parentheses (no subqueries), and so on.

      BASIC
      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    11. Re:Scroll down by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Wow, maybe you should stop building on that swamp. Or at least get it drained....

      I don't know what that has to do with using MySQL in my small personal project though?

      I think I'll file this under other "misc" such as the "Don't go to Linux, you'll have higher TCO!" remarks by Microsoft.

    12. Re:Scroll down by gothfox · · Score: 1

      I don't know what that has to do with using MySQL in my small personal project though?

      Are you really sure that your small project doesn't need joins, views, transactions and any enforced referential data integrity whatsoever? What if your small project becomes bigger, are you planning on switching to another RDBMS and rewriting everything then? I mean, we are not talking about advanced stuff like PL/SQL or DB2 warehousing, we are talking about basic functionality - MySQL is the RDBMS that announced (with fanfare!) limited support for welcome-to-1995 features like views in their latest version, WTF?

      Another thing, MySQL is extensively used by newbies in DB-programming world. Because of its quirks, relaxed attitude to data integrity and very limited subset of supported SQL, it teaches bad style of database-related programming. I would never hire anyone with only MySQL experience to a DB-related position, small project or not, because they would have to unlearn most of what they learned in MySQL land anyway. It's actually better to hire someone bright and teach them proper RDBMS from scratch - it's like hiring IE-only web developer, only worse. I've actually interviewed this kinds of people. Ew.

      I think I'll file this under other "misc" such as the "Don't go to Linux, you'll have higher TCO!" remarks by Microsoft.

      Look, it is surely possible to solve some problems with MySQL, but you really need to know what you are doing and what shortcomings to expect. It is, unfortunately, not very common thing in MySQL world, just looking at insanity of some open-source database schemas will tell you everything you need to know. Going "lalalala I can't hear anything you all are just Postgres/DB2/whatever zealots" won't change anything at all.

    13. Re:Scroll down by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      Time for a rehash of the C vs Pascal arguments?

    14. Re:Scroll down by Jamesday · · Score: 1

      You really want to say that Google bodged its way to success? OK...

    15. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you're just being misleading. We aren't talking about the whole of Google here. We're talking about one specific technology choice of one specific product. So no, I'm not saying "Google bodged its way to success" at all.

      Explain again how somebody successful making a particular technology choice proves how good it is, because last I checked, every large organisation on the face of the planet has had major IT setbacks.

    16. Re:Scroll down by rolfwind · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you missed the point, my project is for my own amusement, an experiment if you will - it has no commercial value whatsoever and if, in the remotest possibility a market became commercially viable for it - I'd hire an actual experienced DB programmer who'll have a say in the next redesign.

      The thing is: I DO BELIEVE YOU. PostGreSQL is probably much better.

      Going "lalalala I can't hear anything you all are just Postgres/DB2/whatever zealots" won't change anything at all.


      But talking about Castles crumbling down is the wrong tactic when all I want to do is build a shed or perhaps a doghouse (pun intended);)

      No one called you a zealot either, but selling the positives over something might be a better start into a conversation like this rather than negative campaigning.
    17. Re:Scroll down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...that will always be correct (barring db corruption, transactions, etc).

      Dude, how can you possibly lump db corruption and transactions into the same statement? One is something that should never, ever happen. The other is something that is absolutely essential to normal operation of almost any application. Something that works correctly barring transactions is worthless for anything I do.

  10. obvious question by slashdotnickname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How did these people become ex-employees? Were they fired or did they leave on their own accord?

    I've been browsing some of their early entires (and the one guy's profile that's not empty) but that detail of their google experience is never addressed. I would think that if you wanted attention for being an ex-anything, you'd at least be upfront about what brought about that "ex-" status.

    So I'll reserve my trust regarding this site... for the same reason that I can't imagine a blog site of my ex-wives to be perfectly honest about me.

    1. Re:obvious question by greginnj · · Score: 4, Funny
      So I'll reserve my trust regarding this site... for the same reason that I can't imagine a blog site of my ex-wives to be perfectly honest about me.
      I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to Subscribe to your newsletter.
      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    2. Re:obvious question by roach2002 · · Score: 4, Informative
      FTFB:

      From the blog (Ron's first post [blogspot.com])

      I guess the #1 FAQ for people who have left Google is why did you leave. My main reason for leaving was that I was commuting from Los Angeles. I'd fly up on Southwest early Monday morning, fly back on Thursday evening, and telecommute on Fridays and weekends. That regimen was pretty stressful even under the best of circumstances, but when 9/11 happened it became completely untenable. I had already given my notice before 9/11, but I don't think I could have stayed on after that even if I had wanted to. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

      So that's why Ron left, I'm pretty sure Doug hasn't said why he left yet. So no, Ron wasn't fired.

    3. Re:obvious question by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Doug hasn't said why he left yet.

      According to some other post, Doug is retired (!).

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    4. Re:obvious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re:"I would think that if you wanted attention for being an ex-anything, you'd at least be upfront about what brought about that "ex-" status"

      For a long time there was a newslist and yahoo group devoted to ex-Quarkians. It was a watercooler sort of thing. Since it was for fellow former Quark employes, we didn't preface every post with "why we left" because - we didn't care by in large.

      More to the point - why would we talk about such boring things, and how long have you been deluded that if the world doesn't meet your expectations - there's obviously something fake about it? Most children grow out of the personal-world mindset by the age of 7. Girls by 5 or 6.

  11. Consumed by Tufriast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ok, I was worried about one thing, and I was right. The leaders of Google are consumed with a vision, and ulitmatley, that's a very dangerous thing. While wanting it is ok...consuming an entire population around it...I don't know. At this point, I'm not so comfy-cozy about Google any longer. That's not to say I'm comfortable with Apple, M$, or the folks any other large company. I am worried in the end. Worried that age will take hold of these people at Google, and wring them out to dry. I surely hope that in the end they appreciate people. I mean that - appreciate them. Not use them, and cater to them b/c they are laborers. Drawing in brilliant people only to use them...seems caustically dangerous. From this blog, it seems like they did that at least somewhat to the author.

    --
    Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
    1. Re:Consumed by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "That's not to say I'm comfortable with Apple, M$, or the folks any other large company. I am worried in the end."

      Hmm. Know what I think? I think that even if Google has a flawless Slashdot record, in 6 months others will feel the way you do. They'll get bigger, more people will become dependent on them, then it'll become fashionable to not need Google. Within a year, Slashdot will be putting on a negative spin on every move Google makes. Within two years, people will start realizing that the anti-Google basis is largely without merit. Then, on the third year, Google will become popular again.

      Well, I'm not Nostradamus, but I wonder if things will play out that way.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Consumed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put you mind at rest, as Google can't do evil. It's against their philosophy.

    3. Re:Consumed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      The leaders of Google are consumed with a vision, and ulitmatley, that's a very dangerous thing.

      As opposed to being consumed by money and power?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Consumed by Tufriast · · Score: 1

      A vision of money and power is still a vision. Total consumption is bad, no matter what you apply towards it. Their vision is the enhance the lives of people with knowledge. This is good - to an extent. For once you open the floodgates of wisdom, there is no telling what monster is waiting to abuse it to their ends. I point at Hitler, and I point countless others.

      --
      Help me, help you. - Jerry McGuire
    5. Re:Consumed by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Granted, I didn't read the whole blog. But what I did read was mostly complaints around their decision to go public, and the corporate trappings that entails, which mostly seem to get in the way of getting work done.

      Where does one draw the line between having a goal, being dedicated to that goal, and being consumed by that dedication? And how do we know where the Google management is on that continuum?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  12. Not quite by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The website shares what went wrong, what went right, and all of the funny happenings in between.

    No ScuttleMonkey- it's what a bunch (more specifically: TWO. "Doug" and Ron") of ex-employees think went wrong, think went right. I've seen ex-employee websites/mailing lists and been on them. They're petty, rarely accurate (I saw wild claims made I knew were false) and so on.

    I am no fan of Google, but why is anyone giving ANY credence to what two guys have to say? I see nothing to verify they are who they say they are.

    1. Re:Not quite by jsight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No ScuttleMonkey- it's what a bunch (more specifically: TWO. "Doug" and Ron") of ex-employees think went wrong, think went right. I've seen ex-employee websites/mailing lists and been on them. They're petty, rarely accurate (I saw wild claims made I knew were false) and so on.


      I've seen plenty of that from ex-employees as well (esp disgruntled ones, but really all of them to some extent or another).

      However, the Google X'ers at that site actually seemed fairly level headed. Honestly, for the most part their descriptions make the place sound like a pretty nice place to work!
    2. Re:Not quite by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If this was about Microsoft, rather than Google, you and your like would have no problem believing what they're saying or who they were. God forbid that Google isn't the paradise everyone says it is.

  13. Why they quit... by satchmodian · · Score: 5, Informative

    I browsed through the whole damn blog trying to figure out why each of the two guys that write the blog quit. One said "I guess the #1 FAQ for people who have left Google is why did you leave. My main reason for leaving was that I was commuting from Los Angeles. I'd fly up on Southwest early Monday morning, fly back on Thursday evening, and telecommute on Fridays and weekends. That regimen was pretty stressful even under the best of circumstances, but when 9/11 happened it became completely untenable. I had already given my notice before 9/11, but I don't think I could have stayed on after that even if I had wanted to. But I'm getting ahead of myself." From what I could tell, the other one, "Doug", made a decent chunk of change in stock options and doesn't have to work anymore. Probably the same is true for the first guy also.

  14. I'm sorry, I must have missed something here. by radiotyler · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I understand Google is a seemingly great company to work for and a pioneer in the search engine world. But why did I even waste the time to read though that "Back in ought one when I was still at Google.." garbage? I think I was hoping for some juicy tidbit that only blog readers would be privvy to, something secretive that I would never expect to happen to the employees of Google. Instead, I got a nice voyage down memory lane - getting to listen to people reminisce about things I was never there for in the first place.

    I don't know if this qualifys as either "News for Nerds." or "Stuff that Matters."

    --
    hi mom!
  15. well then by caffeinemessiah · · Score: 5, Funny
    I am an engineer at heart. I get a real kick out of watching something that I've built work. And the 'plex was the perfect environment, filled with smart, friendly people, state-of-the-art equipement, and half a dozen different kinds of coffee machines. (I actually had some interesting conversations about the finer points of espresso making, and at one point someone even brought in a book that was entirely devoted to the topic.)

    Well LAAA-DEEE-DAAAAA. Excuse the rest of us who couldn't get past the 3rd round of interviews! We'll just continue in our windowless labs/cubicles here, sucking down on 35 cent coffee from a vending machine perpetually on the fritz.

    --
    An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
    1. Re:well then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow, in the danish government office I work at I bring my own specialty coffee to work. And then there's three guys who grind their own coffee right at work!! You know what this means? We are geniuses, that's what it means.

    2. Re:well then by Mad_Rain · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well LAAA-DEEE-DAAAAA. Excuse the rest of us who couldn't get past the 3rd round of interviews!

      Where is that "Mod -1, Bitter" option?

      (joking!)

      --
      "What do you think?" "I think 'What, do you think?!'"
  16. x-googlers on google blogspot by mumrah · · Score: 2, Funny

    It seems to be teeming with irony.

    1. Re:x-googlers on google blogspot by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      It seems to be teeming with irony.

      It seems to be teaming with irony.

      Fixed that for ya, cause those google folks stick together.
      Teamwork right?

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:x-googlers on google blogspot by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      teeming is correct.

      teaming with irony doesn't make sense, unless you have someone on your team called irony.

    3. Re:x-googlers on google blogspot by Rayaru · · Score: 1

      Humor, this is Tony Hoyle. Tony, this is humor.

      I'll leave you two alone now.

  17. ACcidental by char1iecha1k · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Ooooh dont you just love reading about someone accidentally pressing the wrong send button....

    God I hate blogs. Most of the time they are mindless rants frome someone insignificant.

    And how exactly is this news?

  18. a deja vu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there was this website in the distant y2k, fucking company
    dot com or whatever, where ex-employees of failed dot-coms
    would pull out loads of crap (real and imagined) about their
    companies, as the VC capital dried out and they lost the jobs.
    nice to see the google guys copying it.

    let's see if it'll get out of beta soon ;)

  19. If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You'll see there's a lisper who left JPL because managers decided to follow "best practices" of industry and move to C++. This is despite the fact that programming a space mission isn't a "standard" problem -- it is, in fact, a problem that a language like LISP is excellently suited, because people can deal with unclear/dynamic requirements as a project evolves.

    So he goes to Google because they have some LISP guys there (not using LISP -- just smart guys) -- and then he gets told to do the first Java project. And later he gets told that LISP is out of the question.

    And in fact, he details how a race condition in the C++ memory management leads to them billing clients nonsense amounts -- a problem that simply couldn't happen if they'd used a language like LISP (or Java) -- because the GC wouldn't reclaim something if the thing was still in use.

    So Google can yet be beat -- they are not perfect. Of course, that doesn't mean there is anyone to beat them, yet.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:If you read the stuff by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Not that I have an axe to grind against LISP'ers, but I'm not sure how better memory management would have prevented one thread from accessing another's now defunct stack data aside from not allowing it in the first place.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    2. Re:If you read the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According the blog, AdWords was written in Java, not C++. I didn't find the author said it's caused by race condition.

    3. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 1

      "Not that I have an axe to grind against LISP'ers, but I'm not sure how better memory management would have prevented one thread from accessing another's now defunct stack data aside from not allowing it in the first place."

      The basic idea is that the programmer doesn't manage the memory, so that problem just can't occur. You aren't supposed to be able to tell where the storage is (heap, stack, etc).

      Were there to be a problem, it would be the fault of the LISP implementor.

      The implementation of lexical closures (a Common LISP feature) requires keeping around the free variables associated with a procedure. So the implementation has to be able to routinely and efficiently do the sort of thing that a C program can't do, due to how it stores things. If you have a multi-threaded lisp, and the implementation is correct, you simply can't have the problem that Ron ran into.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    4. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 4, Informative

      "According the blog, AdWords was written in Java, not C++. I didn't find the author said it's caused by race condition."

      I guess you missed this:

      Ron sez... oh wait, don't need that any more.

      OK, time to wrap up this little soap opera.

      The problem turned out to be something called a race condition, which is one of the most pernicious and difficult kinds of bugs to find. (Those of you who are technically savvy can skip to the end.)

      Most modern server code is multi-threaded, which means that it does more than one computation at once. This is important because computers do more than just compute. They also store and retrieve information from hard disks, which are much, much slower than the computers. Every time the computer has to access the disk things come to a screeching halt. To give you some idea, most modern computers run at clock speed measured in gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second. The fastest hard disks have seek times (that is, the time it takes the drive to move the read/write head into the proper position) of several milliseconds. So a computer can perform tens of millions of computations in the time it takes a hard disk just to get into position to read or write data.

      In order to keep things from bogging down, when one computation has to access the disk, it suspends itself, and another computation takes over. This way, one computer sort of "pretends" that it is really multiple computers all running at the same time, even though in reality what is happening is that one computer is just time-slicing lots of simultaneous computations.

      The ad server, the machine that actually served up ads in response to search terms, ran multi-threaded code written in C++, which is more or less the industry standard nowadays for high-performance applications. C++ is byzantine, one of the most complex programming languages ever invented. I've been studying C++ off and on for ten years and I'm still far from being an expert. Its designers didn't really set out to make it that complicated, it just sort of accreted more and more cruft over the years until it turned into this hulking behemoth.

      C++ has a lot of features, but one feature that it lacks that Lisp and Java have is automatic memory management. Lisp and Java (and most other modern programming langauges) use a technique called garbage collection to automatically figure out when a piece of memory is no longer being used and put it back in the pool of available memory. In C++ you have to do this manually.

      Memory management in multi-threaded applications is one of the biggest challenges C++ programmers face. It's a nightmare. All kinds of techniques and protocols have been developed to help make the task easier, but none of them work very well. At the very least they all require a certain discipline on the part of the programmer that is very difficult to maintain. And for complex pieces of code that are being worked on by more than one person it is very, very hard to get it right.

      What happened, it turned out, was this: the ad server kept a count of all the ads that it served, which it periodically wrote out to the database. (For those of you wondering what database we were using, it was MySQL, which leads to another story, but that will have to wait for another post.) It also had a feature where, if it was shut down for any reason, it would write out the final served ads count before it actually quit. The ad counts were stored in a block of memory that was stack allocated by one thread. The final ad counts were written out by code running in a different thread. So when the ad server was shut down, the first thread would exit and free up the memory holding the ad counts, which would then be reused by some other process, which would write essentially random data there. In the meantime, the thread writing out the final ad counts would still be reading that memory.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    5. Re:If you read the stuff by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      I haven't used LISP, but I do have experience with a functional language (OCaml). Praytell how do you permit multithreaded access local variables of a function without severely destroying things? "Stack variables" in C are variables local to the function (and parameters). To access the local variables within another thread you'd have to perform some very specific kludges to obtain a reference into another thread's stack, either by knowing presciently where the compiler will place the thread or some communciation thereafter. Leaking pointers to stack data is a fast way to wind up with exactly that sort of race condition.

      If I understand your language correctly, what I understand to be happening in their C++ multithreaded system was bluntly impossible to do in LISP. You can't have the problem, because you can't solve it that way. The typical C++ solution is to use shared globals and accurately protect them. I suppose there could be a kludge workaround to what I'm saying, but the general point I was making was that it's a kludge in C/C++ too. Trying something like that in a multithreaded LISP environment isn't something on my todo list, however.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    6. Re:If you read the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "The typical C++ solution is to use shared globals and accurately protect them"

      Which is essentially what LISP has to do behind the scenes. He also says it must do it "routinely and efficiently". Which is to say, it has to do it all the bloody time, so it had better do it as efficiently as possible. Of course, "as efficiently as possible" is the same way C++ does it too, and it's not very efficient at all.

    7. Re:If you read the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LISP truely allows you to take the things that "it has to do it all the bloody time" and program it once.

      The program that you program once basically maps down to other LISP primitives. So of course LISP is doing it "behind the scenes." WHat happens is that the program that you progrmed once produces programs as an output. Thus, your program compiles down to other LISP.

      So the original thread, that's what he's talking about. Someone would create a "multi threaded environment" language that compiled down to LISP. If you wrote your multi threaded programs upon that language, you wouldn't have to worry about multi threaded anything. Your program would automatically get that support without you knowing or having to worry about it (so long as there's no bugs in the stuff you build your stuff upon)

    8. Re:If you read the stuff by permaculture · · Score: 1

      Edward Penishands?

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    9. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "I haven't used LISP, but I do have experience with a functional language (OCaml). Praytell how do you permit multithreaded access local variables of a function without severely destroying things?

      See below.

      "Stack variables" in C are variables local to the function (and parameters). To access the local variables within another thread you'd have to perform some very specific kludges to obtain a reference into another thread's stack..."

      Actually, I think the problem is that it is very easy for a C++ programmer to get ahold of a pointer to stack-allocated data. No special tricks are required. I suspect this is how their program was (from reading the article carefully):

      void period_writer(char *p){ ...}

      void spawner(){
      char[BIG_ARRAY_SIZE] x;
      spawn(periodic_writer, x);
      for(;;){ ... } /* under some circumstances, the body finishes.
      }

      main(){
      ... spawner();
      wait_for_all_threads_to_finish();
      }
      In this case, there are two threads -- the initial one that calls spawner and the one that gets spawned to run period_writer. Periodic_writer receives the pointer to the data to periodically write out.

      Everything works, unless spawner exits too early, deallocating the buffer shared between the two threads. It isn't at all hard for spawner to pass the stack-allocated data to the thread, making it very easy to make this error -- no specific kludges are required.

      To do it in a LISP (or just Scheme) with threads:


      (let ((x (make-vector size)))
      (spawn (lambda () ... x ...))
      ... x ...)


      X won't get deallocated prematurely in a multi-threaded implementation.

      "If I understand your language correctly, what I understand to be happening in their C++ multithreaded system was bluntly impossible to do in LISP. You can't have the problem, because you can't solve it that way.

      Right -- you can't solve it in such a risky fashion. And if you do something bad, the GC will keep around the data -- it won't allow some other thread to write in to the space. And in the event one thread writes some crap there that the other thread isn't expecting, you'll likely get a type error and the system will halt -- it won't just proceed blindly ahead with garbage.

      The only way I can think to duplicate the error is if you allocated some bytes and treated them as untyped bytes, arranged to store/retrieve data in the untyped bytes, implemented a stack and duplicated the concurrency error in the C program. The nature of the language is such that you can't screw yourself if you do the normal thing, which is just to use lexical scoping to share the variable.

      The typical C++ solution is to use shared globals and accurately protect them. I suppose there could be a kludge workaround to what I'm saying, but the general point I was making was that it's a kludge in C/C++ too. Trying something like that in a multithreaded LISP environment isn't something on my todo list, however."

      Actually, they said they stored the shared data on the stack, as in my example. As long as you know that the thread with the data on the stack will always exit after any uses, that's going to work, and it isn't kludgey. As for it not being on your todo list, if you've got a lisp available, it won't be more than a few lines -- it isn't nearly as bothersome as the C++ version.

      But hopefully this one case shows you why Ron was of the opinion that he could get work done around 10x faster with LISP than C++. Tracking down the bug probably cost them a lot of time and stress.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    10. Re:If you read the stuff by asuffield · · Score: 1

      That guy reminds me of a quote: "A zealot is someone who can't change their mind, and won't change the subject."

      (For bonus points, anybody remember who said it? I don't)

    11. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 1

      I saw your code in your other and it has a very basic "newbie syntax error" in declaring a char array. This tells me you don't even know basic C/C++ and aren't really qualified in the slightest to comment on it. Whoever taught you C++, you should get a refund from.

      This is why it's called a race condition, because the two threads were racing each other, with the ad-count-writer trying to finish before the main thread freed up the memory it was using to get those counts.

      That's a programmer induced race condition though, it has nothing to do with the system. Threads are supposed to deallocate data their own data when they're finished, that's a known and expected behavior. Local thread data storage is just that--local to the thread, it's not meant to be shared.

      If you want to share data between threads, you use specific mechanisms for that, which are available on practically all operating systems in some form. Even if it's not explicitly available, you can just easily allocate data on the heap and share that, it's not really hard at all. This is an out and out programmer error, nothing to do with a problem with C/C++. The problem could have been avoided with a single, simple heap allocation.

      On top of that, this kind of bug is actually impossible to introduce except in a language with manual memory management like C++. In a language with automatic memory management like Java or Lisp the system automatically notices that the memory is still in use and prevent it from being reused until all threads were actually done with it.

      The distinction between "automatic" and "manual" memory management is arbitrary. With java you have to manually allocate memory for data and the same for any other language, though the semantics might vary. The issue memory deallocation. First of all, C++ provides many automated means for automatic memory deallocation, namely in the form of constructors, especially with wrapper classes designed to deallocate data. Second of all, there is garbage collection available for C++, it's just not typiclly used.

      By the time this bug was found and fixed (by Ed) I was a mental wreck, and well on my way to becoming a physical wreck as well. My relationship with my wife was beginning to strain. My manager and I were barely on speaking terms.

      If an error like that turned this guy into such a mental wreck, then quite frankly, he's a moron.

    12. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 1

      DEstructors, not constructors, sorry. That should also read "The issue IS memory deallocation."

    13. Re:If you read the stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting as AC to 'protect the innocent' ...

      Of course the really seasoned C or C++ programmer would just turn off the memory deallocation. This is often extremely effective at solving exactly this problem, and simply moves the burden of all that memory to the virtual memory subsystem.

      Think I'm joking? Take a look at the memory usage footprint of Safari, though it does seem to be a bit better with the 10.4.3 update to OS X.

    14. Re:If you read the stuff by JukkaO · · Score: 1
      I'm not sure how better memory management would have prevented one thread from accessing another's now defunct stack data aside from not allowing it in the first place.

      I wonder if it's possible that the blog poster is just using confusing terms in this one.

      That is, would he by "stack" possibly refer to memory allocated from the heap and just used as a stack structure. The "first thread" he mentions would conceptually own the chunk and free it on exit, by hand.

      It's a stretch, I admit. I guess he could've said "...memory that was a stack allocated..." if he really meant what I describe above. Oh well.

      --
      .SIGSEGV
    15. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 1

      "I saw your code in your other and it has a very basic "newbie syntax error" in declaring a char array. This tells me you don't even know basic C/C++ and aren't really qualified in the slightest to comment on it. Whoever taught you C++, you should get a refund from."

      So I made a basic syntax error, and now I don't know anything about C++? That's absurd. And there's no need to be so insulting.

      I can't say anything about why they did what they did (I don't even know what they did), how they did the programming, etc.

      My point was that if you wanted a simple program to do what they were doing, C++ would allow you to build a mostly working, but under some conditions horribly broken program very easily, and a language with a GC wouldn't.

      Sure, their problem sounds like it was simple, and they could have just used some typical mechanism to make things work --- but it was very easy for them to do it so that it mostly worked, but was actually horrifically broken.

      Your points about using wrappers or destructor Kung Fu are in keeping with the "always do things very carefully" attitude of C++: if someone makes a mistake, it is his fault. Someone like Ron, knowing that there's a chance of making a mistake, would prefer to use tools that remove the risk of him making a mistake from the get-go.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    16. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 1

      So I made a basic syntax error, and now I don't know anything about C++? That's absurd. And there's no need to be so insulting.

      Yes, it does. It wasn't just a typo, that indicates you have little to no experience with C++. That's not the kind of mistake anyone with significant experience would make.

      My point was that if you wanted a simple program to do what they were doing, C++ would allow you to build a mostly working, but under some conditions horribly broken program very easily, and a language with a GC wouldn't.

      First of all, a GC isn't not a magic cureall. Second of all, there is GC support for C++. Third of all, this is programmer induced race condition, it's a rare kind of error. GC is generally only helpful in avoiding memory leaks, it is rarely ever helpful in preventing such kinds of rare errors as this which actually break the program. So really, all GC ends up doing is, at best, make it so you don't have to restart your program (assuming they are leaking significantly) for like 99.9% of implementations.

      Your points about using wrappers or destructor Kung Fu are in keeping with the "always do things very carefully" attitude of C++: if someone makes a mistake, it is his fault.

      Because programmers shouldn't be careful, right? And a person who makes a mistake isn't at fault for the mistake even though THEY made it?

      Someone like Ron, knowing that there's a chance of making a mistake, would prefer to use tools that remove the risk of him making a mistake from the get-go.

      Using LISP doesn't remove the risk of making mistakes. It just forces you into a less powerful language and ends up giving you a headache, all for the sake of avoiding some trivial programming error. Being google, I'd imagine performance issues were of concern too.

    17. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Yes, it does. It wasn't just a typo, that indicates you have little to no experience with C++. That's not the kind of mistake anyone with significant experience would make."

      Actually, I was just trying to make an example. I have plenty of experience with C++.

      "First of all, a GC isn't not a magic cureall. Second of all, there is GC support for C++. Third of all, this is programmer induced race condition, it's a rare kind of error."

      Well, in this case, the race condition was between the GC and the other thread. In a multi-threaded lisp, that problem would be eliminated; it just couldn't happen. You could have race conditions, but not between the GC and a thread. In this case, it would have been a cureall.

      "Because programmers shouldn't be careful, right? And a person who makes a mistake isn't at fault for the mistake even though THEY made it?"

      Well, that's why a C++ programmer gets less work done; he has to do tasks that a LISP programmer doesn't have to deal with. In this case, the performance penalty of a LISP, over C++ would be negligible -- so overall, the C++ programmer loses. An assembly programmer also has to manage a bunch of mind-numbing details -- but there's no reason, a priori, to say that a job has to be done with such a tool. If you say the solution must be done with a less powerful tool, then you need to get people who are good at managing such low-level details, and who feel content getting less accomplished.

      Also, you talk about the problem as if it were being solved by a single programmer. As Ron makes clear, there were multiple programmers. So using C++ imposes more costs: the programmers have to talk to make sure they don't fuck themselves with little implementation details. If they were using LISP, they wouldn't need to talk about how to avoid the problems, so they'd get more work done.

      "Using LISP doesn't remove the risk of making mistakes. It just forces you into a less powerful language and ends up giving you a headache, all for the sake of avoiding some trivial programming error."

      What's the headache? Also, why do you say "less powerful"? I'm really not getting your point here. LISP is a more powerful language, because it has closures, a GC, arbitrarily complicated macros, runtime compilation, etc. Since the 1970's, Common Lisp has been faster than Fortran for problems where performance matters.

      Furthermore, if you will argue that "C" or C++ is faster than LISP, because you can do machine-level things, then I'd ask why you just don't use assembly, to get the most "power". Whatver "C" has, assembly has more of it, right?

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    18. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 0, Troll

      Actually, I was just trying to make an example. I have plenty of experience with C++.

      Which is why you don't know the syntax for declaring a character array?

      Well, in this case, the race condition was between the GC and the other thread.

      It wasn't, since they wouldn't using a garbage collector in this case.

      You could have race conditions, but not between the GC and a thread. In this case, it would have been a cureall.

      I don't think you understand what cureall means. If something only applies to a very select and limited case, it's very much the opposite of a cureall. I'm guessing he was inexperienced with multi-threading, because I'm no expert in it, yet even I can recognize that information you want to be globally accessible should be in a global variable of some kind.

      Well, that's why a C++ programmer gets less work done; he has to do tasks that a LISP programmer doesn't have to deal with

      Well if you repeat that enough times, it must make it true! Or not. LISP will end up taking far more time because of its limited language capabilities. The rest of the world prefers multi-paradigm langauges, and for good reason.

      In this case, the performance penalty of a LISP, over C++ would be negligible -- so overall, the C++ programmer loses.

      No, not really.

      As Ron makes clear, there were multiple programmers.

      Yes, but he apparently was the one responsible for finding this particular problem. His rant reads more like he's bitter than anything else, probably because *he* is the one who introduced the error in the first. Also, sour grapes.

      So using C++ imposes more costs: the programmers have to talk to make sure they don't fuck themselves with little implementation details

      Are you kidding me? The programmers always have to talk to eachother on ANY project, it doesn't matter what the language is. First you suggest that programmers not be cautious, then you suggest that they not talk to eachother. And this "little implementation detail" is something that should have been obvious from the beginning. "Let's use local stack storage to share details between threads" is just plain dumb.

      What's the headache? Also, why do you say "less powerful"? I'm really not getting your point here.

      Have you actually seen how enormously complex and large the C++ language is? Given that you can't even manage a simple declaration, I doubt it.

      LISP is a more powerful language, because it has closures, a GC, arbitrarily complicated macros, runtime compilation, etc.

      C++ supports all of those except runtime compilation (which is rather problematic anyway when dealing with a COMPILED language) and can do it better too. The templating system allows you to do all kinds of things, that's the beauty of C++, it's very extendable.

      Since the 1970's, Common Lisp has been faster than Fortran for problems where performance matters.

      And fortran was superseded by C in perforamance many years ago. Beating Fortran ceased being an accomplishment long ago. Incidentally, that's wrong. Back then Fortran had the best support for mathematical computations.

      Furthermore, if you will argue that "C" or C++ is faster than LISP, because you can do machine-level things, then I'd ask why you just don't use assembly, to get the most "power". Whatver "C" has, assembly has more of it, right?

      No, because the compilers are far superior. The best high level compilers you can get are for C/C++. No amount of equivalent work has gone into the sheer man-hours into their development to make the best optimizing compilers.

    19. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 1

      So what's the "single paradigm" that LISP supports, vs C++?

      As far as I can tell, you can do functional, imperative and object-oriented programming in LISP. And with macros, you can do arbitrarily complicated programming when it parses things -- e.g. a macro that translates all strings from English to German, when it reads in the program. That's about 15 lines -- just look at Ron's blog.

      That seems to be many paradigms to me -- and some of them have no C++ equivalent.

      Yet you've written "LISP will end up taking far more time because of its limited language capabilities. The rest of the world prefers multi-paradigm langauges, and for good reason."

      Can you explain that further, please?

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    20. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 1

      That seems to be many paradigms to me -- and some of them have no C++ equivalent.

      You're right, I forgot about LISP's kludgey macro system. Of course, this doesn't make it "arbitrarily complex."

      That seems to be many paradigms to me -- and some of them have no C++ equivalent.

      Like what? You can't even declare a simple character array properly, what makes me think you know that they have no C++ equivalent?

    21. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 1

      "You're right, I forgot about LISP's kludgey macro system. Of course, this doesn't make it 'arbitrarily complex.'"

      You are kidding, right? You can do arbitrary compuation at macro expansion time. With the wonderful template metaprogramming that you mentioned, you can't do as much as easily and you are at the mercy of the implementation (e.g. how many levels of expansion).

      "Like what? You can't even declare a simple character array properly, what makes me think you know that they have no C++ equivalent?"

      Look, you said LISP is a single paradigm language. I said it has more, and listed some of them. You've yet to explain how to somehow discount all those paradigms back down to one.

      The fact that I made a syntax error in an array declaration doens't change the fact that LISP supports more than one paradigm -- and more paradigms than C++. The fact that you said "destructor" when you meant "constructor" is equally atrocious - by your own logic, I could argue you don't know C++.

      If you want to troll, can't you at least troll about something juicy? Why troll about something that makes you look completely ridiculous? The facts are against you -- just troll on something entirely subjective, or don't make statements like, "LISP is a single paradigm language."

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    22. Re:If you read the stuff by njyoder · · Score: 1

      With the wonderful template metaprogramming that you mentioned, you can't do as much as easily and you are at the mercy of the implementation (e.g. how many levels of expansion).

      There are a theoretical infinite number of levels of expansion, limited only by available memory for the compiler. So what limitations does it have?

      I said it has more, and listed some of them. You've yet to explain how to somehow discount all those paradigms back down to one.

      You're right that it does, but most coders only limit themselves to imperative (which I generally don't count because almost all languages support it) and functional.

      The fact that I made a syntax error in an array declaration doens't change the fact that LISP supports more than one paradigm -- and more paradigms than C++.

      More? So which extra ones does it support?

      The fact that you said "destructor" when you meant "constructor" is equally atrocious - by your own logic, I could argue you don't know C++.

      I corrected myself right after I wrote it. I was actually thinking "destructor" when I wrote it, but accidentally wrote constructor instead. Nonetheless, I made no syntax errors (as I wrote no code), especially not a newbie one.

      And why did you add me as a fan?!

    23. Re:If you read the stuff by putko · · Score: 1

      Hey, I already listed them: OO, imperative, functional.
      The language is strictly more powerful: closures suffice to prove that.

      And yeah -- I was thinging "char x[SIZE]" when I wrote it too. It just came out that way.

      And it wasn't code either -- it was just pseudocode. You didn't even write pseudocode, you bum.

      Why a fan? Because you are very good at what you do.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  20. Google Got Cooties by Quirk · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Google has had cooties for years. While I was a very early user of Google and had it up on my then site, I would give up Google now in a heart beat if there were a viable alternative.

    'Do no evil' does not jive with 'IPO'. Once a company goes public it's doomed to image control in order to keep it's stock price looking pretty.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:Google Got Cooties by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Viable alternative for what part of google?

      Want to replace G-Mail? Try Yahoo
      Want to replace Google Maps? Try MSN's http://local.live.com/
      Replace Google Search? Try MSN live.com

      MSN has been really trying to make up for lost ground recently, especially in relation to Google's services.

      There are lots of alternatives to Google, it's just that Google has become the 800lb gorilla and nobody really wants to 'make the switch' away from something they're comfortable with. Kinda like the whole Windows vs Mac/linux thing.

      P.S. Hotmail still sucks in comparison to Yahoo/Gmail. I only keep it around because I've had the same address for at least 8~10+ years.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Google Got Cooties by i'm+not+cool · · Score: 1

      When you can't find it on Google: altavista

    3. Re:Google Got Cooties by thentzel · · Score: 1

      Try the clusty search engine. Seriously.

    4. Re:Google Got Cooties by DocOmega · · Score: 1
      Clusty is here.

      Providing easy one-click access since 2005.

      --
      Meh
    5. Re:Google Got Cooties by DocOmega · · Score: 1

      I forgot to mention there's a MyCroft plugin for using Clutsy from FireFox.

      --
      Meh
    6. Re:Google Got Cooties by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      There are certainly alternatives to Google, but few good ones. In addition to the obvious inferiority of Hotmail, MSN search sucks and will always suck as long as Microsoft controls it. For that matter, all aspects of MSN will forever be garbage. Yahoo search only became useful when they made it exactly like Google. Despite the numerous Google alternatives, I don't see any of them winning out in the near future.

    7. Re:Google Got Cooties by AaronBrethorst · · Score: 1

      Kahuna, the next version of Windows Live Mail (aka Hotmail) should make you pretty happy. It's much-improved over the current version. See the team's blog for more: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mailcall/

      --
      No, but I used to work for Microsoft.
    8. Re:Google Got Cooties by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      hotmail has gone downhill in so many ways

      I despise the javascript links to get around the mailbox

      I hate the crap you get after logging in... I don't want an msn portal. I want hotmail.

      There's no reason they should be using meta-refreshes to bounce through several pages in a row before getting me into hotmail.

      blah. I signed up for the beta, so we'll see how that goes.
      tx

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  21. Yeah.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dugg it.

  22. Get with the times boys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the blog: '..when I left Google in October of 2001..'

    What reason other than to ride on the crest of Google's success can there be to wait until now to write this? Sure, some of the things are interesting, but something a bit more current would be more newsworthy - this is 'News for Nerds' maybe in 2002, but history now.

  23. Why I'm giving credence to what 2 guys have to say by terpri · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Ron" is Ron Garrett, nee Erann Gat. He used to work at JPL, where he created an autonomous spacecraft control system which was named NASA Software of the Year. His homepage has a list of his publications, and you can find his Usenet postings with Google Groups, if you like (he used to post quite frequently in comp.lang.lisp).

    His Blogger profile even links to his homepage. Xooglers is not some anonymous blog; it's written by people using their real names and at least one of them has a decent track record as a software developer. I haven't even seen any particularly negative remarks in Xooglers posts, except for self-deprecating remarks by the authors! Why don't you actually try reading TFB instead of spewing bile?

  24. again, who are they? What proof is there? by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    However, the Google X'ers at that site actually seemed fairly level headed. Honestly, for the most part their descriptions make the place sound like a pretty nice place to work!

    Again, what evidence do we have that they are who they say they are? Or that anything they're saying is true?

  25. How Much you wanna bet... by zigziggityzoo · · Score: 1

    How much you wanna bet some exec at Google submitted it so that the Xoogle blog would get /.ed?

    --
    Zing!
    1. Re:How Much you wanna bet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doubt it... The blog is on Blogger, which is owned by Google...

    2. Re:How Much you wanna bet... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I doubt Google would try to /. their own servers...

      Besides, Slashdot is more likely to be /.ed than Google ever would be.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  26. Where's the Beef? by tyrione · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a rather dull place to work.

    To quote Steve Jobs when he interviewed an ex-VP of Sun to work at Apple after the NeXT merger, "Sun's no Apple." From what I read, "Google's no Sun."

  27. More info about the blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doug Edwards, Google's Director of Consumer Marketing and Brand Management from 1999-2005, has started blogging as Xoogler

    you can find more information about here-
    http://www.addict3d.org/index.php?page=viewarticle &type=news&ID=13483

  28. Blogger by sloths · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does anyone else find it ironic that this blog is hosted on Google owned Blogger.com?

    --
    really 867993
    Karma schkarma
    1. Re:Blogger by DocOmega · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought. If you're looking for the low-down from ex-google employees, it would seem to me that using a Google-owned site might cause some problmes. I mean sure, they can do no evil. /me waits to see if there's censorship @ blogger. Oh, I don't see any censorship. Maybe it was censored out?

      --
      Meh
    2. Re:Blogger by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      I mean sure, they can do no evil. /me waits to see if there's censorship @ blogger. Oh, I don't see any censorship. Maybe it was censored out?
      "Censorship" is inaccurate in that the term as usually used only applies to government. However Google/Blogger definitely exerts control--inappropriate control--over content on Blogger. See my /. Journal for more.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  29. I'm going to start SATooglers.com by Luscious868 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdot readers who are Sick And Tired of pointless Google stories.

  30. Xooglers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So....

    Who cares again?

    (didn't bother to RTFA...... Who cares again?)

  31. Stock option dropouts by amightywind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tech startup stock option millionaire dropouts engineers are a rarity these days. One of their tendencies is to cement their genius reputation by publishing a personal account of their heroics and lamenting the sad decline of the company - after cashing out ofcourse. Good examples are Mark Andreesen, Jamie Zewinski, and Andy Hertzfeld? Any others?

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
    1. Re:Stock option dropouts by damsa · · Score: 1

      Hertzfield's account isn't really his, it's more a collection of stories from other people involved in the Mac project.

  32. Most retarded Slashdot comment ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Is this some kind of horrible joke? Google owns Blogger.

  33. Want to hurt Google? by Quirk · · Score: 3, Interesting
    nobody really wants to 'make the switch' away from something they're comfortable with.

    Early adopters of Google may have, for the most part being looking for a better search engine, but what sold Google to the masses was far simpler.

    The masses seek simplicity.

    (1)Google, the name is as simple as baby talk. The name, Google, while carrying its math connotations, is friendly in a silly, simple way. MicroSoft, like a cowboy wanting to see his brand everwhere, would do well to let go of MSN and brand its search engine with something akin to Google. Yahoo has some similarity in simple, attractive terms, but Google is bunny cute.

    (2)The colours Google employs are engaging in a primitive simple way as is the name Google. If I were competing against Google I would go with simple attracting colours that held out a similarity to finger painting. Again, Google employs simple, childlike colours that are reminescent of kindergarden and hold out a process of searching that is as simple and fun as fingerpainting. Google's cartoon representations of Christmas, Easter and other notable days again are made to make the Google search experience childlike in simplicity. It's Google's eye candy that pulls in the common searcher.

    If I went up against Google I'd start out by licensing something like Paddington Bear to signify a safe site for children. Paddinton's raingear suggests safety and what's more child safe than a teddy bear? I'd employ other brightly coloured images, say a red rose for personals, etc..

    Icon's dominate windows on the desktop, the same iconographic point and click simplicity would do more to drive inroads into Google's domain than better tech.

    Unfortunately Google's competitors, like Google itself is driven by wringing every penny from every resource to support stock price. Public companies can only do evil, like the wicked witch in Snow White, they stand before the mirror and ask "mirror, mirror, on the wall, whose stock price is the prettiest of them all", and, what they offer to their users is a bright, rosy, red poisoned apple to put them to sleep.

    --
    "Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
    Cohen
    1. Re:Want to hurt Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If I went up against Google" I'd build an application ontop of the search that treated google as a database. Or some app that used google's APIs and built a larger app through the pieces offered by google.

      This allows you to inovate upon the shoulder's of google. And you get a symbiosis with google so long as you get them their add revenue through your app. Your profit is the difference between the whole and what you owe google. Provide a service that people want and you won't be in the red.

      The moral here? Don't hurt google, use them. Unless you have a war chest in excesws of 10$ Billion in cash to go up against them use what they produce. And patent your ideas. That way google remains the db and can't steal your innovation.

    2. Re:Want to hurt Google? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS has tried the child-like simplicity thing, with MS Bob, with Clippy, with that stupid little dog in the WinXP search function. I agree that their web apps need more simplicity, perhaps along the lines of what you've laid out, but they can't half-ass it like they've down up until now.

      MS software likes to treat the user as an idiot (ie 'It looks like you're writing a letter...' in Word) and I imagine that it works well sometimes but winds up pissing off more people than it helps. Google's simplicity is understated. Their product just _works_ and, on top of that, the fact that they're Google gives anything they do these days an inherent hipness, even to people who aren't terribly computer savvy.

      What MS, or any other competitor, needs to do is to make their apps as simple as Google makes theirs, but without treating the user like a moron. The animated paperclip should be there if someone wants him, but he should _not_ just jump right in and reformat your document for you.

      Everything you described in your post re: Google's accessibility is just perfect. I actually found myself surprised several times reading through your post, when you reffered to it again and again as childlike. Thinking about it though, you're absolutely right -- it _is_ childlike. But in a _subtle_ way. And that is what any competitor needs to realize: make your product simple, easy enough for a child, but don't be condescending. Don't treat your customers like morons. All that will do is build (or increase) animosity among your users.

      I realize I've said 'MS' a lot of times in this post, but I don't mean it as flamebait. If there were a company that wanted to take Google on as badly as MS does, I'd have used their name instead.

      =)

  34. RTFB by vectorian798 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A lot of you are pointing out that these are just random ex-Google people (or even that we have no proof they ever worked there) but there are some good points brought out in the articles. I think the majority of posters who are complaining about the blog or the accuracy of a blog are just randomly posting in hopes of points/Google-whoring rather than actually reading what was linked to. That being said,...

    While those outside Google might disagree with the ultimate decisions the company has made, they should know that those decisions were not made without reflection on the consequences. One of my goals with Xooglers is to expose the nature of that debate. I agree with Matt that providing more transparency into how difficult decisions get made within the Googleplex can only enhance the brand. It's not enough to say you're not evil; you need to show the world how you define evil and how you choose to avoid it.

    Well put don't you think? Indeed a large portion of slashdotters tend to believe Google is the messiah and that they are not an 'evil' company. But let's face it, 'evil' is different from person to person and to vaguely portray one company as evil and another as not is ridiculous. To many, MS won't seem evil - after all, a lot of people use their products and are damn satisfied with them. To still others, the fact that Google supports OSS means nothing and they want only excellence of product (BTW don't start a tangential reply about MS products not being excellent blah blah).

    The moral of the story is that sometimes, and in particular with free software, you get more than what you pay for. There are a lot of companies out there paying dearly for commercial databases (and operating systems for that matter). As far as I'm concerned they might as well be flushing that money down the toilet. Actually, they might be better off. We certainly would have been. As an aside, there is a raging debate in the hacker community about the overall economic merit of the open source model. (Making money producing free software is quite a challenge.) I am not taking sides in that debate here. All I am saying is that from the end user's point of view free software is often much better than the producers of commercial software would like people to think.

    Again, a good point - there are some OSS that are good, others that aren't. But what I want to point out is that Google did go for non-OSS software at one point - suddenly, it seems like Google was making a decision from the standpoint of "What would be best for us?" (the fact that the ACTUAL decision they made was wrong and they returned to OSS later is irrelevant BTW) correct? Indeed, they are a business. While no one here can likely say for certain, we certainly shouldn't assume that because of Summer of Code or other opened material that Google is supporting OSS (btw I am not an advocate of OSS nor am I an opponent, so please don't think I am being biased) or that it is "not evil".

    My 2 cents

    PS: When people bring up databases and talk about MySQL, PostgreSQL, or Oracle, they often ignore some other big players: MS's SQL Server and IBM's DB2. Don't start a thread about the different relational databases half-assedly plz.

  35. Did you actually read it? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment by the pros? Ron isn't a database guru by any stretch, and in the comments he even ignorantly states that mysql not having transactions (it didn't at that time) didn't matter because you can easily "roll you own".

    This isn't a small business using mysql because they don't need features, this is google, and they needed features that mysql didn't have. They used stupid and unsafe hacks to partly work around it instead of simply using a real database.

    Of course it was a pain to move to a real DB after the fact, that's why you shouldn't do things wrong in the first place.

    1. Re:Did you actually read it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      And you know this... how? Memory corruption of a process writing over it's own address space != failure to use transactions.

    2. Re:Did you actually read it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know this... how? Spilling coffee in the server causing a short circuit, starting a fire and burning down the entire NOC != failure to use transactions.

    3. Re:Did you actually read it? by sjames · · Score: 1

      This isn't a small business using mysql because they don't need features, this is google, and they needed features that mysql didn't have. They used stupid and unsafe hacks to partly work around it instead of simply using a real database.

      Need is reletive. Transactions are necessary to assure absolutely correct operation with databases. The real question is how important is that correct operation in corner cases? If you're a bank or accounting department, it's REALLY important, so you must use a database that supports transactions.

      OTOH, if you're a simple website, it may be better to minimise resource usage and accept that you'll lose track of something once and a while. In this particular case, it's just ad served counts. If you're serving many thousands of ads a day, and lack of transactions means that you'll accidentally serve tens of ads a day "for free" (because you lost the record of serving it), the money you lose is probably a good bit less than what it will cost in resources to do full transactions.

      The idiot won't know there's a problem at all. A decent designer will see it and insist on fixing it. The best will see the problem and realise it's acceptable in the scheme of things given the real cost to fix it.

  36. Still on Google's Payroll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interestingly enough, the Ex-Googlers are still being payed by Google for the ads on their page. I guess being a former employee does not exclude you from qualifying for the Google AdSense program.

  37. The trouble with Google: they're an ad agency by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Sadly, what Google really is an ad agency that uses a search engine as a traffic builder. It's a very good search engine, but fundamentally, Google is an advertising-delivery system.

    If they'd gone private instead of going public, they could have been a very profitable near-monopoly, sustained by the fact that it doesn't really cost that much to run a search engine, and thus, their ad content can be minimal. But now they have to produce a reasonable return on investment for their overblown market cap. So they have to add more and more advertising-oriented services, from catalogs to classifieds. This dooms them to become more like their competitors in those spaces.

    It's not going to be fun to work there as the profitabilty vise closes.

    1. Re:The trouble with Google: they're an ad agency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, they're "TV Guide" of the Internet age. They don't write ads, they sift and summarize other people's content for the masses.

  38. Ahh can someone mod the parent up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He answers the question to a +5 modded post, shouldn't someone of modded his answer up?

  39. What is it with the Google obsession? by ThreeE · · Score: 0

    As a non-IT person, I find it amazing the IT types seems to have an amazing fetish regarding everything Google. I mean, this is obviously a flash in the pan company to anyone even slightly familiar with what it takes to be successful in any industry. Really -- I'm just asking -- why? Search -- big deal! Are the hiring options in IT that bad?

  40. shout out by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1

    I started reading Xooglers and it is mesmerizing. I'm an MS CS in artificial intelligence (with OpenCyc and ResearchCyc if you're interested; I want to make my computer talk to me). I always say I want to go work at Google after I finish my thesis, but now that goal (hubris?) is getting a much-needed reality check. Not that it's cooled my infatuation with the world's coolest company (soooo dreamy!), just glad to know.

    Fascinating reading.

    --

    Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
    A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
  41. Re:again, who are they? What proof is there? by damsa · · Score: 1

    What evidence is there that you are not a plant from Google, or what evidence is there that I am not a monkey, or that these guys are actually guys. If you don't want at least a little bit of leap of faith, then you are better off reading the Onion.

  42. Not good enough. by jbn-o · · Score: 0

    One wonders if you would abide by this logic if it were a whistleblower case—a business does something wrong and is able to hide evidence of its wrongdoing by arranging that all the employees with access to evidence are under NDA. The public good is far more important than some strict adherence to "That guy signed an NDA".

    1. Re:Not good enough. by ldspartan · · Score: 1

      Uh, as I recall (and I didn't really care much at the time, nor do I now) that moron was sharing internal financial figures on his website. I say "moron" not to be rude but because it appeared to me at the time that he really didn't have a malicious intent, that he just thought it was cool to be writing about this new job of his on the internet. Unfortunately for him (and probably fortunately for Google), he was too stupid to do it in a way that wouldn't get him fired.

      --
      lds

    2. Re:Not good enough. by ldspartan · · Score: 1

      Woops, I didn't even read your whole comment. Ignore me, its late and I am the one who is a moron.

      Ah well. Just another few wasted bits.

      --
      lds

    3. Re:Not good enough. by Decker-Mage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Excuse me? I've lost count of the number of NDA's I've signed over the years but one thing that I do know is that violations of the law are not subject to NDA and revealing such information to the authorities is covered by the whistleblower statutes. The public good has nothing to do with your comment. Your duties under the law do.

      --
      "[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
    4. Re:Not good enough. by jbn-o · · Score: 1

      The whistleblower statues that somehow still result in people being told to release conclusions contrary to their evidence for drugs that later prove to be fatal, or people masking their identity because they know they'll likely lose their job to someone who will remain quiet about shutting down gas refineries and tightening the supply of gas, or being demoted and taken out of the supervisory position that allowed her to see potential fraud and abuse in no-bid contracts worth billions?

      A citizen's duty is not to obey the law, so much as it is to do what's ethically defensible. The FSF has some sage advice for you here: "The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down.".

  43. Don't need Xoogle to find out by GroeFaZ · · Score: 1

    "what went right"
    "what went wrong (note the #1 hit here)
    "the funny happenings in between"

    Preliminary conclusion: A lot more went wrong than right, but only because of slashdot coverage of Lego Mindstorms. Nothing funny happened in between.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  44. That makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That still makes no sense. He could have always moved closer.

    1. Re:That makes no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh, and I suppose you expect that he should have moved his life partner a bit closer too? What about her career?


      A little bit more background: Ron started at Google back in 2000. Google wasn't even profitable until (well, I don't recall exactly, but later than that.) And back then, none of us had an inkling that Google was going to become the Internet powerhouse it has become today. The idea that "it would have been worth it for the money" is a nice one, but a lot easier to see in hindsight.

  45. No fan of google? by Rhinobird · · Score: 2, Funny

    What kind of slashdotter are you?

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  46. Let Them Eat Google by TallMatthew · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The one thing that stood out to me reading this guy's blog was how nostalgic he was for the place. He was practically weepy. That attitude makes me nervous. Yeah, it's a company based on innovation with plenty of smart people running around being smart and acting silly. It's also a multibillion dollar corporation. That doesn't make it evil, necessarily. But being a thinktank doesn't make it good, necessarily. When I read accounts of this place that make it sound like heaven, I wonder what the deal is. Behind most panaceas is a bunch of people getting played. Is building a better search engine really such a noble pursuit? Maybe.

    Google is doing a fine job sucking up talent. Not just the big fish like Cerf, but the more clued individuals in our industry. Working at Google has become something of a status symbol, something akin to having a CCIE. Oh, you worked at Google? You must be good. I've noticed one thing that results from this. There seem to be more senior positions open in the Bay Area, New York, everywhere Google has significant footprint. Too, the annual salaries for these positions has risen about 20%, presumedly out of demand.

    For that, I can say ... thank you Google!

  47. Re:again, who are they? What proof is there? by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

    Hmm, there is a simple test to find out whether or not you are a monkey.
    Would you like a banana? And also do you ever find yourself picking nits from your hair and proceeding to eat them?

    Finally, do you enjoy throwing your faeces at people you don't like?

  48. Google to mod me by NotBorg · · Score: 1

    "This is slashdot. Anything with google in the title is published - often before anyone's even bothered to read it."

    Cool maybe I'll finally get moderated without regard to actual content. Thanks for the tip!

    --
    I want this account deleted.
  49. There are several others I can think of: by gomel · · Score: 1

    * Google City builds Manhattan Project
    * Google City builds SETI ^H^H^H^H BOINC Project
    * Google space programme reaches Alpha Centauri

    I just wonder why there isn't a "Your civilisation builds the Google Project" wonder in Civ IV? They are planning to release a SDK with Python scripting in 2006, so someone could make a proper patch.

    --
    Fight Frist Psoting!
    Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
  50. Xlogspot? by rollinthunda0ne · · Score: 1

    I love how it's hosted on blogspot :-)

  51. Except by galdosdi · · Score: 1

    Why should they have to? Google is already slashdotted daily anyway.

  52. AI stuff by TheLink · · Score: 1

    Just curious about this:

    Once you get your computer to talk to you _genuinely_intelligently_ will you be certain you'd understand how you did it, and how it works?

    There are a few ways of getting nonhuman intelligence. But if it involves throwing stuff together and without really understanding it, I suggest you might as well go to a pet store.

    Or just breed a more intelligent animal.

    I suppose the advantage is you can make a 100% copy of your AI, you can't do that with a dog.

    But maybe that might not be possible given some sort of AI designs.

    --
    1. Re:AI stuff by DanTheLewis · · Score: 1

      Well, there is a certain wing of scientists who don't think that we'll get strong AI unless we grow brains in vats and hook them up to the computers (roughly).

      My research is toward intuition and metaphorical thinking, but Cyc in general is about collecting common sense knowledge that can be used as a sort of broad context to understand natural language. Naturally, I hope this isn't a terrible blind alley, but in fact it does seem to have a lot to do with how children learn more when they learn facts in contexts and make connections and suppositions.

      The computers aren't as parallelized as the human brain and might never be (until quantum computing comes about, maybe). But they do have big advantages in areas like computation and persistence of memory. I think if we ever do get a very smart AI, we will do it more by faking the process than by emulating the human brain's patterns.

      But yes, there is a certain I, Robot quality about soft computing approaches to strong AI. If we set this massive neural net humming and hook it up to a knowledge base like Cyc, then give it the Google home page and leave it alone for six years, it will kind of be the point that we don't know how it works really. If we had to know how it worked, it would take too long to make it. I'm thinking of the last story in I, Robot where the machines are directing human society to God-only-knows what destiny.

      That kind of freaks me out, but not enough to stop working on smart expert systems in narrow domains. Talking computers would, for better or worse, change the world.

      --

      Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
      A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
    2. Re:AI stuff by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "grow brains in vats and hook them up to the computers (roughly)."

      We already have working human brains, and we are getting better at hooking them up to computers.

      If they are talking about growing brains that they can easily "dehumanize" so they can be enslaved, I think that's not a good direction to head in. Even though people keep saying "tech XYZ" is inevitable, I believe there are many paths to different directions/destinations that one can take, and we would do best to avoid certain paths where possible.

      Has google recently done something similar to Cyc in the machine translation area? They got lots of computers to go through lots of data to automatically find connections.

      I've no experience in AI, so I may be wrong about this:it seems most of these AI/expert systems go by connections and contexts/groups/sets. Except I guess Cyc - which apparently has support for metaphors?

      If that is true, I don't see how those sort of architectures would make it easy to derive new metaphors and analogies. It is easy for those systems to memorize existing ones and their correct answers, but that's about Google or even Teoma's level. They cannot derive new links easily on their own.

      I was thinking to get to the next level (there are other levels I thought of one day but I've forgotten) would be having support for something that's closer to a "vector" than a "connection/link" or list of groups and patterns.

      That would make it easier for an AI to understand "horse is to grass" like "car is to gasoline". And when you ask the AI what else is to grass in that manner, it'll be easy for it to give you "cow, goat" etc.

      Whereas if you tell an AI, "horse is to grass" like "car is to road", and then you ask the AI, what else is like that to "railway track". The AI will be able to tell you.

      And then if you tell the AI "krill is to balleen whale" like "grass is to cow", even if it doesn't know what krill is or even what a balleen whale is, it will still be able to learn something about both. And when you tell the AI that a whale is something that only lives in the sea, it should be able to realize that krills are most likely to live in the sea.

      Maybe there's an AI "theory of relativity" - few absolute references - mostly relative ;).

      Some forms of humour seem to trigger "rewarding" of a sudden rapid reinforcement/addition/usage of extraordinary linkages ("Ah yes, that can mean that too").

      Also say "relations" are stored and arranged in "spaces". Due to incomplete knowledge they use a bit more "virtual space". But when suddenly there is an "insight" things can be arranged more "efficiently".

      I'm talking out of my field of expertise, so I guess I could be totally wrong about it all.

      --
  53. WTF are you babbling about? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1, Troll

    What does memory corruption have to do with anything? Read the mysql posting. Ron ignorantly (and incorrectly) states that mysql's lack of transations didn't matter because they can easily roll their own. This is nonsense, you cannot roll your own because if your app dies, or the db dies in the middle of one of your pseudo-transactions, then your data is left in an inconsistant state. So your pretend transactions aren't actually giving you the basic guarentee that transactions are for.

    And mods, how can you possibly mod an AC with a nonsense post about who knows what as informative? Give your head a shake, seriously.

    1. Re:WTF are you babbling about? by dubl-u · · Score: 1

      mysql's lack of transations didn't matter because they can easily roll their own. This is nonsense, you cannot roll your own because if your app dies, or the db dies in the middle of one of your pseudo-transactions, then your data is left in an inconsistant state.

      I couldn't easily find his comment, so perhaps I'm missing something, but depending on the problem, a transactional system really isn't all that hard to write. Take a look at Prevayler, for example.

  54. Why Doug left by Sits · · Score: 1

    I haven't been able to check the veracity of this but one of the comments hints at what Doug went on to do and why (the anchor link seems broken in Firefox, it's the comment that starts "Wow, except for the two obviously disgruntled stock market guys" by Frank Gilroy)...

  55. muppet stats ? by richlv · · Score: 1

    from article : "MOMA displayed latency times, popular search terms, traffic stats for Google-owned properties and, at the center of it all, a large graph with colored lines labeled with the names of Muppet characters. I cant reveal what that graph represented, but if Rizzo or Fozzie started closing the gap with the Great Gonzo, Oscar would not be the only grouch on Sesame Street."

    what do you think - browser stats ? :)
    that would be one nice but flamed portion if it was made public...

    --
    Rich
  56. Transactions can be implemented at _any_ layer. by HopeOS · · Score: 1

    Transactions can be implemented above the database layer -- or at any layer for that matter. After all, transactions are implemented above the OS layer and that's not considered reliable. The cost of recovering the store from the journal is merely an element of the design. If the journal is comprehensive, you can nuke the store and rebuild it from scratch, if necessary.

    -Hope

  57. Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

    Mysql had no "journal" back then. And no, transactions cannot be implimented above the database, and I just explained why. Is there some special reason you must ignore not only my post, but also common sense, and make a rediculous reply anyways?

    1. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by ezeri · · Score: 1

      Yes transactions can be implemented at any level, some levels require more work than others, but it can be done. And no you didn't explain why. Though you did go on a nice little anti-Mysql rant, all you did was explain why it would be more difficult to implement them outside of the DB, and that I think is something anyone informed and intelligent could agree on.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    2. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did explain why. If you don't feel like reading, then don't bother replying.

      And as for the rest of your blather, either step up and explain how you can make the mysql of 2000 guarenteed safe with transactions, or stfu.

    3. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      You missed the point entirely. MySQL does not need a journal to operate in the mode described.

      Prior to making any calls to the database, one simply needs to append the sql statements to a file and flush.

      Recovery is a simple matter of restoring the database from last known good and applying all the sql statements in the file.

      Was that really that difficult to understand?

      -Hope

    4. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      No, that's not difficult to understand. Nor does it solve the problem. I guess its easy to pretend to solve problems if you don't even understand them to begin with huh?

      You are talking about making it possible to recover from a crash. The problem is a lack of transactional integrity. IE, you can roll back a series of queries if one fails.

    5. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      Now you're changing the playing field. You specifically said that the application could crash and leave the database in an inconsistent state. That problem is clearly resolved.

      As for rolling back changes, that is fundamentally the same issue and is solved in the same manner. Points for style are awarded for designs which are expedient, but that's an exercise for the reader.

      If anyone does not understand transactional systems, it's clearly you. Transactional systems are what I get paid to build. When people tell me that what I do daily is impossible, it is clear that either I'm super-human, or they are completely out of their depth.

      There's nothing magic about this -- you have checkpointed states and a journal. If the state is unknown and the journal exists, you recover. Want to rollback an incomplete transaction? Truncate the journal to the beginning of the transaction and recover from the last checkpoint. Not surprisingly, that's how most transactional systems with forward delta journals do it.

      -Hope

    6. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      No, I am not changing anything. Read it again. I said that if you try to create pseudo transactions above the db, they are not safe because either side can crash and leave things half done. Why do you insist on arguing if you can't even be bothered to read my posts?

      And now you are simply talking insane nonsense. You need to be able to do this:

      update accounts set balance = balance + 100 where id = 5
      update accounts set balance = balance - 100 where id = 6

      And be able to 100% guarentee that either both queries suceeded, or none of them did. Sure, you can take the whole fucking database offline and restore from a partial log, but that is absolutely retarded, and not transactions, its recovery. Transactions mean if query 2 fails, I can say "rollback", and query 1 never happened. And this is just the most basic possible example.

      There is nothing magic about this at all, and yet you cannot seem to comprehend the basics of what transactions are, nevermind how to safely impliment them.

    7. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by HopeOS · · Score: 1
      The example you provided has only two outcomes. Either both statements execute and the journal is closed or there has been some type of failure and the journal is hot. If the journal is hot, the database must be recovered from the last check point.
      Write Journal: BEGIN; TRANSFER 100 FROM 6 to 5;
      Journal is now hot.

      Execute: update accounts set balance = balance + 100 where id = 5
      Execute: update accounts set balance = balance - 100 where id = 6

      Write journal: END
      Journal is no longer hot.
      If either statement fails or the server crashes, the journal is hot. Recover:
      Close database.
      Recover database from last checkpoint.
      Open database.
      Apply all completed (BEGIN-END) transactions from journal.
      You are now back where you started.

      If you're complaining about the hassle of recovering the database, you should know that every database performs some variation of this method. Obviously, they do not need to close and reopen the store files, but they most certainly have internal state to recover. Each design has different costs depending on whether it use forward or reverse deltas, maintains change data in memory or on the disk, uses checkpoints, append-based stores, page-overlays, multiple files, or filesystem-level revisioning. Begin a transaction on Oracle and try rolling back after inserting 100GB of data. There will be a delay while the system unwinds.

      Recovering from a checkpoint is only onnerous if your transaction has failed, which it clearly should not do under normal circumstances. The only reason why anyone goes through the trouble to checkpoint in the first place is to guarantee that the database is not destroyed if something does go wrong.

      -Hope
    8. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      "If either statement fails or the server crashes, the journal is hot. Recover:
      Close database.
      Recover database from last checkpoint.
      Open database.
      Apply all completed (BEGIN-END) transactions from journal.

      You are now back where you started."

      Many combonations Elizagerth. You have succeeded in exhausting my patience. Which part of "Sure, you can take the whole fucking database offline and restore from a partial log, but that is absolutely retarded, and not transactions, its recovery." is so hard to grasp? Are you seriously suggesting people take their entire fucking database offline to restore it anytime a query fails? And you call that transactions? Give me a break.

    9. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by HopeOS · · Score: 1

      You can dislike the solution all you want, but every database considers a rollback as a form of recovery. If rollbacks and failures do not occur frequently, systems such as this can and do outperform larger, more complex systems.

      No one argues that wrapping a database within a transactional system has the potential to be less efficient. Your assertion that it is impossible however, has been refuted. If you weren't so hot-headed you might have realized that you were not only wrong, but a jerk about it, too.

      -Hope

    10. Re:Why do I attract people who can't read? by Some+Random+Username · · Score: 1

      "You can dislike the solution all you want"

      You can call it a solution all you want, but its not. You said adding transactions is easy, and then explained how to impliment a WAL. That does not make transactions, it just lets you recover if something fucks up.

      "but every database considers a rollback as a form of recovery"

      Uh, no. MVCC keeps changed rows in the table, so a rollback simply changes which row is "active". There is no need to be doing something stupid like replaying logs just to do a simple rollback on a single failed transaction. While I do not doubt that some database does this, your assertion that every database does this is not only completely rediculous, but demonstrates your total ignorance of the subject.

      And of course, your performance claim is made while conveniently ignoring the fact that if you try to roll your own fake transactions, you still have to lock tables to prevent dirty or phantom reads and other problems, which leads to huge performance problems that real databases don't have.