True. For that matter, my embarrassment at someone else seeing it is immaterial. If my employer wanted it released, it would get released, though I could probably wrangle a bit more time to make it less embarrassing.
I can't release it because it belongs to my employer.
But other than that, embarrassment is certainly part of the deal. I try to do a good job, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not really a programmer, and this code bridges the gap between my "real designation" and programming, simply because I'm one of the people who can stand in both worlds. Beyond that, it's a learning experience - there are some number of stupid things embedded in there. Every now and then when I have spare time, I try to remove some stupidity. But let's face it, the code works and it delivers working, qualified products, embedded stupidities or not. My desire and effort to remove "unlearned practices" is just that - my own - and largely on my own time, as I said, because the code "works," and I'm being paid to deliver something that works, not something that is elegant and pretty.
That said, the code is being used in its second production technology. The new version is much "prettier" and more elegant. Is it clean? No, though it's much better, there isn't enough time to really clean it. Have I backported the cleanups to the last technology? No. The old version is "qualified", and the effort would be only for my own vanity. Current plans are to port the code to a third technology. It'll be cleaner, and maybe at some point I wouldn't be embarrassed for it to be seen.
But remember... at the moment, delivering clean code is MY goal, delivering working code is my employer's. There is some congruence between the two, but not necessarily a lot. Sometimes we do ugly things to meet schedules.
My understanding is that hard realtime is just too different a beast, and isn't even part of the desktop/server tension. What's getting into the kernel appears to be soft realtime, which obviously isn't good enough for hard realtime usage, but is plenty good for games and media.
When you have/need hard realtime, latency is an overriding factor, more important than any other single aspect. (other that not crashing, of course) It's no longer general purpose.
For a moment, I'm going to ignore the whole "citizen" vs "person" debate, for a very simple reason... It may not matter. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, and then I have no doubt that someone else will correct the corrector, ad nauseum...
ISTR that somewhere in this whole raft of anti-terrorism laws there are provisions to reclassify a "citizen" as an "illegal enemy combatant." In other words, even if you have Habeas Corpus as a "citizen", you're a reclassification away from losing that protection. Furthermore, like so much of the post-9/11 antiterrorism legislation, it resides entirely in the executive branch. In other words, no inherent judicial review. Obviously current detainees are getting review, but that's only because someone outside has taken a very active interest. No doubt "reclassified former citizens" would get at least as much interest - once their plight became known, but that discovery might well be the hardest part.
So let's change this a little into a meaningful thought experiment...
* One-way mission to Mars (currently) * We don't have the technology to return you, but maybe in 5, probably in 10, almost certainly in 15 years * No suicide pills * Live in our best-effort living module for that period * As-possible (at least every-2-year launch window) resupply rockets from Earth
Theoretically you *could* survive, even make it back in 15 years or less. Big problem would be unknown breakdowns, even with training, tools, spare parts, etc.
What other parameters would you like? Number of people, etc...
Bits and pieces of RT keep making it into the mainline kernel. The BKL is almost (or is that all?) gone, and there are several preemption options and stiles. There has also been quite a bit of talk of some very low latencies coupled to the new SD/CFS scheduler work.
Are you aware that under Linux it's selectable at kernel build time? # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set CONFIG_HZ_250=y # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set CONFIG_HZ=250 In addition to that, for purposes of server virtualization and laptop battery life, (How's that for a combination?) it can even run tickless. CONFIG_TICK_ONESHOT=y CONFIG_NO_HZ=y Then again, you can also make throughput vs latency choices, as well. # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y # CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y These values came from my desktop at work, where I do like responsiveness, but throughput is of at least equal performance.
I'll be curious to try 2.6.23, when the oven timer goes ding.
So the accepted wisdom became that the whole thing was just an alarmist fiasco that chewed up a bunch of money unnecessarily. They don't realize that y2k was no problem precisely because of all the noise. A LOT of people did a lot of planning and a lot of work, and that all paid off in how few problems there really were.
But the common man, and unfortunately the common leaders don't understand that. So now y2k was a so-called crisis, wasn't a problem, and we can approach our next so-called crisis without the extensive preparation we "wasted" on y2k. Oh boy!
On an IPV4 network, DHCP is quite handy even for true servers, because it gives you single point-of-control of MACIPhostname mapping. When you have to move a machine from one subnet to another, it means that you can take the machine down, update your DNS/DHCP tables, and restart the machine on the new subnet. You don't have to update anything on the machine, itself. Autoconfig doesn't do that.
I've looked a little at DDNS with DHCP, and from what I've been able to tell, the trust model appears to be reversed. It appears organized to ask if the client trusts the server, not if the server trusts the client. Perhaps from a peoples' rights point of view that's correct, but not from a network management point of view. Of course I only skimmed the documentation, and that was quite a while ago, because for my sized network the static DHCP/DNS tables have worked just fine.
Can someone summarize how DDNS names get propagated in IPV6, and how you know you can trust them?
I tend to skim LKML once in the morning, and the site I'm using to get there doesn't have a thread view, either. So it's pretty easy for me to miss depth and details. Usually if something is really active or controversial, it'll endure long enough for my sampling to see it. I did follow the scheduler discussion, including Linus' announcement deciding for CFS, but obviously missed a bit. I didn't catch where he'd pre-decided, only that the SD fanbois had rubbed him the wrong way with their cries of perfection, and obviously ongoing support and development would win the day. Too bad CK wasn't there to speak for himself. These days I'm not sure if I like Roman Zippel's simplifications or if I'd just like him to get over feeling slighted.
Do you want your media to play without skips or drops while you're compiling your new kernel?
There have long been tricks like "interactive priority boost" or "nice -10 X" that attempt to make the desktop more responsive, and media play smoothly. But others believe those are just tricks, bound to misbehave in corner cases, and that a good scheduler and well implemented priority scheme will do just as well without the drawbacks. That's where CFS is trying to be. In particular most desktop responsiveness is of the sort, "I need a little CPU, and I need it NOW!" while compiles and such are "I need lots of CPU, and I'll take it whenever I can get it." The CFS keeps track of not just who's using a timeslice, but how much time they're using. That way, those short bursts of CPU keep their priority intact, while more CPU-intensive processes tend to get some priority degradation.
This goes back a little farther than Ingo Molnar's current involvement. A while back, Con Kolivas began putting in a bunch of work on the scheduler trying to get desktop response to work right, essentially he wanted his media, and his compiles, too. He did a lot of work and attracted a lot of users and fanbois along the way. More recently, Ingo Molnar get interested too, and came up with the "Completely Fair Scheduler." When it came time to pick one, Linus saw the CFS doing pretty well, still under heavy and active development. CK's scheduler was also pretty good, but the fanbois poisoned the waters, insisting that it was perfect as it was, and didn't need fixing. Linux chose an active development model over "perfection." Unfortunately Con Kolivas felt slighted in the process, and left. IIRC, he may have been absent during the decision window, and his fanbois did him in.
Add to all of this the fact that the kernel can now run tickless, so that laptops can really scale back their power in between keystrokes or while you're reading the screen. There has been quite a bit of interesting work on scheduling, lately.
Keep in mind that you haven't *bought* Microsoft software, you've bought a license to *use* Microsoft software. Microsoft has retained ownership of the software, itself. As to whether "stealth updates" are legal or now, find a lengthy open time slot, get out a magnifying glass, and *read* that license that you clicked "I agree" to.
Monopoly issues are only slightly relevant, as a competitive software market might force more attention and consideration into licensing. Shoddy software is only slightly relevant for the same reason. At the base of it all, you NEVER own proprietary COTS software that you "buy", and that's not just Microsoft.
> Come off it... that's not even enough for an Office document standard. > > Worthless!
You said it. It's ONLY 900 pages, nowhere near the OOXML 6000+. They didn't even include documentation for every legacy chip, much less the unannounced next-generation ones that they've no doubt got ready for first tape-out.
Plus there's no Swahili translation, either.
It's too little, too late, may as well stick with the old closed-source stuff that "works."
About half the time, for lunch I have leftovers from the previous night's supper. The other half, I generally have a simple sandwich or something like that.
But you're right, if I went to the cafeteria, I'd be paying about $6.50/day.
My money has been and will be where my mouth is
on
AMD To Open ATI Specs
·
· Score: 1
The last 4 graphics solutions I have made the purchasing decision for have been nVidia, based on functionality, in spite of the closed-source nature.
The graphics card before that was a Radeon 8500LE, based on the existence of open-source R200 drivers.
Before that there were 2 Matrox G400 cards, the first decision as the Utah-GLX work was taking off, and the second after GLX had been incorporated into XFree86.
The big problem now is that I don't have any need to buy a graphics card. On the other hand, I made a poor decision on the graphics card in my main system at home, despite having tried to shop carefully. By the time this information release comes to fruition, maybe I'll spring for a replacement.
In the meantime, I need to get the Neuveau stuff and see if my card is already in the database, or if I can contribute information.
Well if they were "let off the hook" by the Feds, then clearly the original ruling was in error, and so was this article, for using that legally loaded work, "tying."
Conclusive evidence of more of that Linux-biased, Microsoft-hating Slashdot meme at work.
(tongue so far into my cheek that it hurts, on this one.)
OOXML is clearly designed to look like a standard, if you take the "executive view" and don't really look at it, while it's really just another locked-in format.
So let's put it this way, Is Microsoft AFRAID of a level playing field?
If they were serious about the whole standards thing, they could just add real ODF support. Then they could simply put out MS Office that worked with ODF, and most people and businesses would STILL buy it, even with alternatives available. Beyond that, since they do have appear to have a head start in usability and function with MS Office, they could simply have the have the BEST office suite that happens to work with ODF file formats. Beyond that, if ODF is not sufficiently robust, MS could "play well with others" and work to add what is needed. Aren't they confident that they could still have the BEST implementation, along with "history effect"?
Does Microsoft really believe that they can't compete in an open market, without customer lock-in, or without cheating?
>Everything the Government does does suck and fail to work.
I'm not quite sure I'd be as strong as to say "everything", but I'll take advance issue when someone comes along and says the private sector can do it better. I've spent enough time working in big business to know that the government has no monopoly on ineptness and stupidity.
Quite simply:
In government, the punishment for ineptness and stupidity is supposed to be replacement by the ballot. In the private sector, the punishment for ineptness and stupidity is supposed to be replacement by a competitor.
IMHO, we have a situation now where *both* remedy methods are impaired. In essence, the root cause of both failures really come down to monopolies or duopolies. In the former case, the duopoly is a 2-party system restricts our ability to select a real replacement. In the latter case rampant consolidation has restricted our choices, so there's little selection available. In both cases, parties are acting to restrict the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Ummmm... Jeffords retired, didn't run for reelection in 2006. Sanders won his seat. Peter Welch (D) took the seat in the House. Martha Rainville, running against Welch, was a very good candidate too, but one other problem with the way Congress is run is that a vote for Rainville was also a vote for Republican House leadership. No matter how good a candidate she might have been, if you have problems with the leadership...
As for the 2-party thing, the City of Burlington also has a large and active Progressive movement, including the Mayor.
But it doesn't work for security, either!
on
Another Sony Rootkit?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
For a moment get past the Rootkit or Registry thing.
I just plain isn't good security. If they're really counting on Registry entries to "protect" the "secure" data, there must be a thousand ways to get around that in Windows, let along just plugging it into a Linux machine. Real security is HARD to do, and promoting something like this as "secure" when it really isn't is a disservice. I read one review a while back that indicated that *none* of these "secure USB" flash plugins were really secure.
Incidentally, I have a USB flash plugin. The data I really care about is AES-encrypted in a container file that I can loopback mount and use the kernel crypto stuff to access.
It seems to me that there has been come change of nomenclature from "Personal Computer" to "Windows Computer" in recent years. Not too widespread, but still present nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
True. For that matter, my embarrassment at someone else seeing it is immaterial. If my employer wanted it released, it would get released, though I could probably wrangle a bit more time to make it less embarrassing.
I can't release it because it belongs to my employer.
But other than that, embarrassment is certainly part of the deal. I try to do a good job, but to be perfectly honest, I'm not really a programmer, and this code bridges the gap between my "real designation" and programming, simply because I'm one of the people who can stand in both worlds. Beyond that, it's a learning experience - there are some number of stupid things embedded in there. Every now and then when I have spare time, I try to remove some stupidity. But let's face it, the code works and it delivers working, qualified products, embedded stupidities or not. My desire and effort to remove "unlearned practices" is just that - my own - and largely on my own time, as I said, because the code "works," and I'm being paid to deliver something that works, not something that is elegant and pretty.
That said, the code is being used in its second production technology. The new version is much "prettier" and more elegant. Is it clean? No, though it's much better, there isn't enough time to really clean it. Have I backported the cleanups to the last technology? No. The old version is "qualified", and the effort would be only for my own vanity. Current plans are to port the code to a third technology. It'll be cleaner, and maybe at some point I wouldn't be embarrassed for it to be seen.
But remember... at the moment, delivering clean code is MY goal, delivering working code is my employer's. There is some congruence between the two, but not necessarily a lot. Sometimes we do ugly things to meet schedules.
My understanding is that hard realtime is just too different a beast, and isn't even part of the desktop/server tension. What's getting into the kernel appears to be soft realtime, which obviously isn't good enough for hard realtime usage, but is plenty good for games and media.
When you have/need hard realtime, latency is an overriding factor, more important than any other single aspect. (other that not crashing, of course) It's no longer general purpose.
For a moment, I'm going to ignore the whole "citizen" vs "person" debate, for a very simple reason... It may not matter. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, and then I have no doubt that someone else will correct the corrector, ad nauseum...
ISTR that somewhere in this whole raft of anti-terrorism laws there are provisions to reclassify a "citizen" as an "illegal enemy combatant." In other words, even if you have Habeas Corpus as a "citizen", you're a reclassification away from losing that protection. Furthermore, like so much of the post-9/11 antiterrorism legislation, it resides entirely in the executive branch. In other words, no inherent judicial review. Obviously current detainees are getting review, but that's only because someone outside has taken a very active interest. No doubt "reclassified former citizens" would get at least as much interest - once their plight became known, but that discovery might well be the hardest part.
So let's change this a little into a meaningful thought experiment...
* One-way mission to Mars (currently)
* We don't have the technology to return you, but maybe in 5, probably in 10, almost certainly in 15 years
* No suicide pills
* Live in our best-effort living module for that period
* As-possible (at least every-2-year launch window) resupply rockets from Earth
Theoretically you *could* survive, even make it back in 15 years or less. Big problem would be unknown breakdowns, even with training, tools, spare parts, etc.
What other parameters would you like? Number of people, etc...
Bits and pieces of RT keep making it into the mainline kernel. The BKL is almost (or is that all?) gone, and there are several preemption options and stiles. There has also been quite a bit of talk of some very low latencies coupled to the new SD/CFS scheduler work.
Are you aware that under Linux it's selectable at kernel build time?
# CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
CONFIG_HZ_250=y
# CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
# CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
CONFIG_HZ=250
In addition to that, for purposes of server virtualization and laptop battery life, (How's that for a combination?) it can even run tickless.
CONFIG_TICK_ONESHOT=y
CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
Then again, you can also make throughput vs latency choices, as well.
# CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y
# CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_BKL=y
These values came from my desktop at work, where I do like responsiveness, but throughput is of at least equal performance.
I'll be curious to try 2.6.23, when the oven timer goes ding.
Because people learned the WRONG lesson from y2k.
Nothing happened.
So the accepted wisdom became that the whole thing was just an alarmist fiasco that chewed up a bunch of money unnecessarily. They don't realize that y2k was no problem precisely because of all the noise. A LOT of people did a lot of planning and a lot of work, and that all paid off in how few problems there really were.
But the common man, and unfortunately the common leaders don't understand that. So now y2k was a so-called crisis, wasn't a problem, and we can approach our next so-called crisis without the extensive preparation we "wasted" on y2k. Oh boy!
On an IPV4 network, DHCP is quite handy even for true servers, because it gives you single point-of-control of MACIPhostname mapping. When you have to move a machine from one subnet to another, it means that you can take the machine down, update your DNS/DHCP tables, and restart the machine on the new subnet. You don't have to update anything on the machine, itself. Autoconfig doesn't do that.
I've looked a little at DDNS with DHCP, and from what I've been able to tell, the trust model appears to be reversed. It appears organized to ask if the client trusts the server, not if the server trusts the client. Perhaps from a peoples' rights point of view that's correct, but not from a network management point of view. Of course I only skimmed the documentation, and that was quite a while ago, because for my sized network the static DHCP/DNS tables have worked just fine.
Can someone summarize how DDNS names get propagated in IPV6, and how you know you can trust them?
I tend to skim LKML once in the morning, and the site I'm using to get there doesn't have a thread view, either. So it's pretty easy for me to miss depth and details. Usually if something is really active or controversial, it'll endure long enough for my sampling to see it. I did follow the scheduler discussion, including Linus' announcement deciding for CFS, but obviously missed a bit. I didn't catch where he'd pre-decided, only that the SD fanbois had rubbed him the wrong way with their cries of perfection, and obviously ongoing support and development would win the day. Too bad CK wasn't there to speak for himself. These days I'm not sure if I like Roman Zippel's simplifications or if I'd just like him to get over feeling slighted.
Do you want your media to play without skips or drops while you're compiling your new kernel?
There have long been tricks like "interactive priority boost" or "nice -10 X" that attempt to make the desktop more responsive, and media play smoothly. But others believe those are just tricks, bound to misbehave in corner cases, and that a good scheduler and well implemented priority scheme will do just as well without the drawbacks. That's where CFS is trying to be. In particular most desktop responsiveness is of the sort, "I need a little CPU, and I need it NOW!" while compiles and such are "I need lots of CPU, and I'll take it whenever I can get it." The CFS keeps track of not just who's using a timeslice, but how much time they're using. That way, those short bursts of CPU keep their priority intact, while more CPU-intensive processes tend to get some priority degradation.
This goes back a little farther than Ingo Molnar's current involvement. A while back, Con Kolivas began putting in a bunch of work on the scheduler trying to get desktop response to work right, essentially he wanted his media, and his compiles, too. He did a lot of work and attracted a lot of users and fanbois along the way. More recently, Ingo Molnar get interested too, and came up with the "Completely Fair Scheduler." When it came time to pick one, Linus saw the CFS doing pretty well, still under heavy and active development. CK's scheduler was also pretty good, but the fanbois poisoned the waters, insisting that it was perfect as it was, and didn't need fixing. Linux chose an active development model over "perfection." Unfortunately Con Kolivas felt slighted in the process, and left. IIRC, he may have been absent during the decision window, and his fanbois did him in.
Add to all of this the fact that the kernel can now run tickless, so that laptops can really scale back their power in between keystrokes or while you're reading the screen. There has been quite a bit of interesting work on scheduling, lately.
Keep in mind that you haven't *bought* Microsoft software, you've bought a license to *use* Microsoft software. Microsoft has retained ownership of the software, itself. As to whether "stealth updates" are legal or now, find a lengthy open time slot, get out a magnifying glass, and *read* that license that you clicked "I agree" to.
Monopoly issues are only slightly relevant, as a competitive software market might force more attention and consideration into licensing. Shoddy software is only slightly relevant for the same reason. At the base of it all, you NEVER own proprietary COTS software that you "buy", and that's not just Microsoft.
> Come off it... that's not even enough for an Office document standard.
>
> Worthless!
You said it. It's ONLY 900 pages, nowhere near the OOXML 6000+. They didn't even include documentation for every legacy chip, much less the unannounced next-generation ones that they've no doubt got ready for first tape-out.
Plus there's no Swahili translation, either.
It's too little, too late, may as well stick with the old closed-source stuff that "works."
I can't believe this one got modded "insightful". I expected nothing, or perhaps "flamebait" or "funny".
Depending on how people took it, and whether the response was to the comment in the parenthesis, I might be just a little frightened.
About half the time, for lunch I have leftovers from the previous night's supper. The other half, I generally have a simple sandwich or something like that.
But you're right, if I went to the cafeteria, I'd be paying about $6.50/day.
The last 4 graphics solutions I have made the purchasing decision for have been nVidia, based on functionality, in spite of the closed-source nature.
The graphics card before that was a Radeon 8500LE, based on the existence of open-source R200 drivers.
Before that there were 2 Matrox G400 cards, the first decision as the Utah-GLX work was taking off, and the second after GLX had been incorporated into XFree86.
The big problem now is that I don't have any need to buy a graphics card. On the other hand, I made a poor decision on the graphics card in my main system at home, despite having tried to shop carefully. By the time this information release comes to fruition, maybe I'll spring for a replacement.
In the meantime, I need to get the Neuveau stuff and see if my card is already in the database, or if I can contribute information.
I think he really meant, "under 822546," to be precise.
Well if they were "let off the hook" by the Feds, then clearly the original ruling was in error, and so was this article, for using that legally loaded work, "tying."
Conclusive evidence of more of that Linux-biased, Microsoft-hating Slashdot meme at work.
(tongue so far into my cheek that it hurts, on this one.)
OOXML is clearly designed to look like a standard, if you take the "executive view" and don't really look at it, while it's really just another locked-in format.
So let's put it this way, Is Microsoft AFRAID of a level playing field?
If they were serious about the whole standards thing, they could just add real ODF support. Then they could simply put out MS Office that worked with ODF, and most people and businesses would STILL buy it, even with alternatives available. Beyond that, since they do have appear to have a head start in usability and function with MS Office, they could simply have the have the BEST office suite that happens to work with ODF file formats. Beyond that, if ODF is not sufficiently robust, MS could "play well with others" and work to add what is needed. Aren't they confident that they could still have the BEST implementation, along with "history effect"?
Does Microsoft really believe that they can't compete in an open market, without customer lock-in, or without cheating?
Yeah, guess I missed that one. You can only check out so much while short-run stuff is running.
It's been over 12 hours, and no Snow Crash reference, yet?
>Everything the Government does does suck and fail to work.
I'm not quite sure I'd be as strong as to say "everything", but I'll take advance issue when someone comes along and says the private sector can do it better. I've spent enough time working in big business to know that the government has no monopoly on ineptness and stupidity.
Quite simply:
In government, the punishment for ineptness and stupidity is supposed to be replacement by the ballot.
In the private sector, the punishment for ineptness and stupidity is supposed to be replacement by a competitor.
IMHO, we have a situation now where *both* remedy methods are impaired. In essence, the root cause of both failures really come down to monopolies or duopolies. In the former case, the duopoly is a 2-party system restricts our ability to select a real replacement. In the latter case rampant consolidation has restricted our choices, so there's little selection available. In both cases, parties are acting to restrict the information necessary to make an informed decision.
Ummmm... Jeffords retired, didn't run for reelection in 2006. Sanders won his seat. Peter Welch (D) took the seat in the House. Martha Rainville, running against Welch, was a very good candidate too, but one other problem with the way Congress is run is that a vote for Rainville was also a vote for Republican House leadership. No matter how good a candidate she might have been, if you have problems with the leadership...
As for the 2-party thing, the City of Burlington also has a large and active Progressive movement, including the Mayor.
For a moment get past the Rootkit or Registry thing.
I just plain isn't good security. If they're really counting on Registry entries to "protect" the "secure" data, there must be a thousand ways to get around that in Windows, let along just plugging it into a Linux machine. Real security is HARD to do, and promoting something like this as "secure" when it really isn't is a disservice. I read one review a while back that indicated that *none* of these "secure USB" flash plugins were really secure.
Incidentally, I have a USB flash plugin. The data I really care about is AES-encrypted in a container file that I can loopback mount and use the kernel crypto stuff to access.
It seems to me that there has been come change of nomenclature from "Personal Computer" to "Windows Computer" in recent years. Not too widespread, but still present nonetheless.