Say... You want to buy one of these notebooks, and don't want to pay for XP. Ticking the Unbuntu tick box saves 40-50$ (just double-checked vs. the dell site). You then install XP yourself. I'm sure drivers are available from the Dell website (or pherpas even come as a kit). Dell doesn't have a "no-OS" (barebones) option.
I'm an avid Linux user (writting this post on a Hardy Heron Ubuntu, actually). However, I'm also realistic.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with copying bits. Laying ownership to a sequence of bits is just plain silly.
Just my 2 bits. As a user of Linux in a software/algorithm context, my personal beefs with ext3 / the current kernel line are:
1) IO priority isn't linked to to process priority, or at least, not in a decent manner. it is all too easy to lock up the system with one process that is IO heavy (or a multiple of these) -- hurting even high priority processes. As the IO call is handled by a system level (handling buffering, etc.) -- it garners a relatively high priority (possibly falling under the RT scheduler) and as a result IO heavy processes can choke other processes.
2) ext3+nfs simply sucks with very large amount of files. I used to routinely have directories with 500,000 files (very easy to reach such amounts with a cartesian multiplication of options). The result is simply downright appalling performance.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sending bits to a computer. That the computer doesn't behave as expected as a result isn't the fault of the sender; it is the fault of the programming staff responsible for the fault.
The authors of Sendmail (and IIRC, emacs and one other program) are guilty of negligiance. Perhaps free software should be allowed a disclaimer out. But M$, Google, Apple, and their ilk should not. Instead of going after people who just "spoke" to the systems, society should pursue those really responsible -- with a civil case pursuing damaged (which may be in the billions, for some cases of M$ malware).
It is sad that elections are decided by the marginally stupid and vain. This makes politicians cater to the lowest common denominator (which, in fact, most of them are). All this bruhahaha regarding "Joe the plumber" is a case in point.
Perhaps we need a different system? One in which those who have opinions and are "smart" are the marginal voter and make a difference? Ergo, if were to switch to an "online direct democracy" -- one in which decisions made by congress were made by a vote cast by each citizen (technologially, this is feasible after a long lull from Athens) -- pehraps, the actual voting public for most decisions would diminish to those who care about the issue.
There are two sides to verification:
1) The machine records the votes as cast by the voters.
2) The machine doesn't allow reconstruction of the vote cast by any particular voter.
While #1 might be verifiable (though difficult, in a complex electronic system), #2 is extremely difficult to actually verify. For instance, with your "wheel" system, it is possible to reconstruct the first vote cast (and with voter collusion, the vote of any particular voter, by simply recording the position of the wheels prior to the vote of any particular voter).
Machines have been used in the US, and it stinks. Many countries have stuck to simple paper ballots -- and it works -- it's easier to verify such a system that relies on people appointed by the interested parties (and yes, there is cheating in such systems as well -- but cheating has to reach a huge amount of people to be effective (assuming each polling station with an observed ballot polls ~1,000 people)).
100 miles below the surface a thriving society of Martians, little green men, plot our eventual demise. They are advanced enough to escape detection by our puny remote controlled buggies.
The British are each day taking a step closer towards the society envisioned in 1984. Orwell predicted this would happen forty years in the future -- he should've bet on 65-80 -- but still not so far off.
If this is coming true, when will we see an invasion from Mars?
I can imagine this: Some eBay hotshot comes up and says: "we only use 50% of our servers, we've got to do better here". So:
1) They don't buy new servers. Workload increases, better utilization, no analytics involved.
2) Or, someone got clever, and added an idling process to each idle server. Presto, we've improved our PE -- and we've got a nice yearly bonus as well.
The article actually says nothing, besides claiming a supposed 1.6x improvement, besides a very vauge refrence to analytics. This./ post is actually meant to promote www.xlmpp.com.
But, with GPL 3, for instance, if you sell a modified work (GPL code + your own) you must grant the recipient a GPL license to the derivative work (GPL + your own).
The recipient is then allowed to distribute the product to whomever he wishes as long as he meets GPL (granting a GPL license downstream). So, how would you be able to make a second, third or fourth sale, now that additional parties are allowed to sell (or just pass on for free) this product?
This effectively makes your product free, if it is distributed to more than a few select customers.
We did get them to back down, AFAIK. For our product (which was a self-containted device) their standard demand (in the standard distribution contract) really didn't make much sense. At the time we had lots of OSS in our development chain (Linux (and Linux applications), CVS and SVN, Altera tools with OSS (which we absolutely couldn't have ditched, as we had Altera chips)).
But, as a "what if?", what if you buy a commercial compiler that infringes on GPL code in its system libraries or boot loader? What are the ramifications on your product (which contains said infringements as they are linked in)?
What if you develop a pure software product that is bundled, by a distributor, on the same physical medium as a GPL3 infringing product? What are the legal ramifications versus your product which wasn't infringing in the first place, but now possibly is?
I don't violate code licenses thoughtlessly. I can't say the same regarding other programmers I've worked with or managed. A large majority of this crowd possibly wouldn't even think of the possible ramifications down the line of infringement.
And these things can come back to haunt a company years after the mistake (or willfully malicious act) was comitted. This might lead to a royalty claim for the time that the product was sold in an infringing form, it might stop distribution for a while, it might lead to all sorts of ramifications a business doesn't want to run into.
Very different situation -- but you're really acting as an outsourced software house in such a case, you don't own the product, the customer does. The customer still might have issues with OSS if he plans to sell the product onwards -- but this typically isn't a concern, as such customers often commision one-off projects (i.e. DMV database for some state or something like that).
Plenty of companies own their product. The company I used to work for wasn't even a software company (though we had plenty of software) -- we sold a device. Some of the software/algorithm was very much a trade secret -- something we wouldn't want to hand over to customers (he might hand this over to the competition).
Two problems:
1) Your legal people need to be able to distinguish between all these various licenses. However, less informed people tend to lump all of these together (and assume a GPL like behavior). Someone might even be informed, but not want to deal with the various ramifications of various licenses -- if this is not the core of the development project.
2) You're still in hot water if someone copy-pastes code into your product, without telling anyone about it (something that a less legally minded developer might do without second thought). This is really what scares organizations. You've spent years and years developing this product, and whoops, someone figures out that you're violating GPL or some other license.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone would find GPLed code in Windows? Full source disclosure, and the right to copy without cost. Pretty nice (and legal wrangling for years). This is a serious threat to a company like M$. So they button down the hatches and try to not let anything what so ever inside the organization if it is remotely OSS.
As a small addendum, remember those fellows that found OSS in the infamous sony rootkit (by various strings present, IIRC). A week or two later the same guys (or someone else) found OSS in some other commercial software product. IIRC, there was some legal action (from FSF?) following this.
It used to be, that if you screwed up and placed OSS in your product that the chances of being caught in the act of theft were fairly low. Currently, the chances of being caught (even if your act was inadvertent) are significantly higher.
While I was working for a former employer, we were engaged in negotiations with a very large company that would act as a distributor (to a certain market) of our products. Said unnamed company in the distribution contract wanted us to sign off that "no open source software products were used in the development process, and that no OSS was present in the product".
Why?
Frankly, I understand the concern. If you are a development shop, then if OSS creeps into your product (due to a careless (and thoughtless) developer copy-pasting code, for instance) then the legal ramifications may be grave. Potentially, depending on the license, you are required to disclose the entire source of your product, and provide a usage/distribution license to whomever receives that code -- basically, a single minute action can sign off your rights to your software. your distributors have also violated copyright, and are in similiar hot water (e.g. their efforts in promoting your product are now potentially worthless).
The result? Some companies are so afraid of this "poison pill", that they simply don't let any OSS in their gates. Does this promote OSS? Maybe. IIRC, I recall that some friends working for the dark side (M$) report that no OSS is allowed there (or in some parts thereof).
I use OSS extensively. The former company I worked for had a whole heap of OSS in its development process (but not in the developed chip/product). Actuallly, considering that a non-OSS company (Altera) used OSS in its supplied development chain (gcc, for instance) that we were using, there really was no conceivable way that the company I worked for could've signed off on the "no OSS" bit of the contract.
While M$ still ranks as the empire of evil in my mind, it seems that every day Google with its multitude of Googleplexes and googlers is about to overtake M$, and become one with the dark side.
This is sad. The situation is even worse in some non-English web domains.
Why can't the web stick to something simple? 95% of the sites I use, would be fine with just plain simple HTML 2.0. Instead, we've got javascript, CSS, XHTML, and other buzzwords. Which in the end, take control of how a web page looks from the user's hand.
I like to read text, on a monitor, green on black (or white on black). I would like to format a web page the way I want to see it.
The vast majority of the web is simple formatted text. There is no reason for this to constantly evolve onwards and onwards.
These sheninigans have been pulled by software companies for over a decade. Frankly, I doubt anyone puts any credence in a version number anymore -- as the whole process is corrupt.
It used to be that 1.0 was the first version (or perhaps, even a sub 1). Now, 3.0 sounds low, so, we start at 6 or 7 (nice numbers, right?).
This disrespect to convention, has made the whole version numbering irrelevant. On top of that, some companies don't use version numbers but use names, letters, or other such monikiers.
This "exemption" is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the draconian (and unconstitutional) DMCA act. I say "Ha!" to any act that forbids me to disseminate instructions on how to read ROT13 (in a "copyrighted" work).
The exemptions granted last time around are really, mostly, a "nobody cares" exemption. They were granted so that organizations engaged in archival work can cover their assess -- but they really could've performed said exemptions and the probability of a suit would be infintisimly small.
Lets say we run this series of tests -- and you come out as the greatest programmer alive; This wouldn't change my mind. It takes more than one, two, or three exceptions to break a pattern.
You took this job in your last semester -- and continued after graduation. If I were viewing your C.V. I would look at your first line tech support as just a notch above pizza delivery, dog walking, or working in a call center. Why a notch above? Because there is some marginal relevance; for some positions, even an inkling more than marginal.
The main question I'd be asking my self, is why you weren't hired out of the gate into a "real" computer engineering job (or even a "quasi" job -- e.g. QA). Is this because:
1) You aren't good enough?
2) You weren't motivated enough to find a "real" position?
3) Are you troubled in some other sort of way?
That would be my mind set -- I'd be more suspicious of your resume than a fresh graduate (there, like schrodinger's cat, I don't know if newbie joe shmoe is good or bad) -- with you, I'm fairly certain that you were:
1) Examined by a large body of interviewers and rejected.
2) Weren't really looking. ... But if you weren't really looking, what were you doing working tech support? Frankly, if you'd been off in India in search of spirtual enlightenment then I would find (2) a good excuse -- but your case as presented, I'd almost definitely conclude (1) -- many people saw you, and decided against you. This is very clearly against you, sorry.
What can you do?
1) Look for "quasi" jobs in the area. No, tech support isn't it. What I mean here, is a job in which you are in proffesional contact with the eventual position you want to grow into. Quality assurance is a good example here. You'd want to look at an organization that has room to grow into the type of job you're looking for.
2) Freelance; If you have good programming skills -- there are often all sorts of opportunities here. Yes, this will take time in addition to your day job. You should be looking for opportunities that provide income. Do enough of this, and you'll patch together a resume. Of course, this is more difficult if you're looking for a Verilog design position.
3) Widen your search parameters -- in terms of location, position, and what not.
4) Network. Speak with thsoe fellows you learnt with and have got themselves a job. If they respect you, then perhaps they can help you land a job at their company (and often, they'll receive a small bonus if they bring in someone who is hired).
5) I'd consider if mentioning your tech support job is worthwhile. Not an easy call.
6) Consider lying regarding your previous work experience. Plenty of people do this. Yes, you could be caught. But you might be at a dead end here. You don't have to lie alot -- just a little (invent yourself an entry level position for the past two years).
Set yourself a dead line (this doesn't have to be next week -- say a year or two from now) -- if you can't cut it on your own and can't land a position -- see what else you can do. Heck, you could perhaps even join the dark side and become a patent agent/draftsman.
Your genital parts shouldn't affect the results one iota. A good programmer is evident by examination of the design, code, time to market, and results... No actual need for human interaction.
I'm relating my own personal experience. Haven't run into a female someone who I'd classify as great (though I'm sure there are some) -- ran into plenty I'd classify as good; but there is a distinction between the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Say... You want to buy one of these notebooks, and don't want to pay for XP. Ticking the Unbuntu tick box saves 40-50$ (just double-checked vs. the dell site). You then install XP yourself. I'm sure drivers are available from the Dell website (or pherpas even come as a kit). Dell doesn't have a "no-OS" (barebones) option.
I'm an avid Linux user (writting this post on a Hardy Heron Ubuntu, actually). However, I'm also realistic.
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with copying bits. Laying ownership to a sequence of bits is just plain silly.
Just my 2 bits. As a user of Linux in a software/algorithm context, my personal beefs with ext3 / the current kernel line are:
1) IO priority isn't linked to to process priority, or at least, not in a decent manner. it is all too easy to lock up the system with one process that is IO heavy (or a multiple of these) -- hurting even high priority processes. As the IO call is handled by a system level (handling buffering, etc.) -- it garners a relatively high priority (possibly falling under the RT scheduler) and as a result IO heavy processes can choke other processes.
2) ext3+nfs simply sucks with very large amount of files. I used to routinely have directories with 500,000 files (very easy to reach such amounts with a cartesian multiplication of options). The result is simply downright appalling performance.
Claiming to lay property to a sequence of bits is hillarious. There is nothing wrong with creating yet another copy of computer game.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with sending bits to a computer. That the computer doesn't behave as expected as a result isn't the fault of the sender; it is the fault of the programming staff responsible for the fault.
The authors of Sendmail (and IIRC, emacs and one other program) are guilty of negligiance. Perhaps free software should be allowed a disclaimer out. But M$, Google, Apple, and their ilk should not. Instead of going after people who just "spoke" to the systems, society should pursue those really responsible -- with a civil case pursuing damaged (which may be in the billions, for some cases of M$ malware).
Nothing but a gimmick. Not as practical as an RV. Probably not to pleasent to be in when it is "walking".
It is sad that elections are decided by the marginally stupid and vain. This makes politicians cater to the lowest common denominator (which, in fact, most of them are). All this bruhahaha regarding "Joe the plumber" is a case in point.
Perhaps we need a different system? One in which those who have opinions and are "smart" are the marginal voter and make a difference? Ergo, if were to switch to an "online direct democracy" -- one in which decisions made by congress were made by a vote cast by each citizen (technologially, this is feasible after a long lull from Athens) -- pehraps, the actual voting public for most decisions would diminish to those who care about the issue.
There are two sides to verification:
1) The machine records the votes as cast by the voters.
2) The machine doesn't allow reconstruction of the vote cast by any particular voter.
While #1 might be verifiable (though difficult, in a complex electronic system), #2 is extremely difficult to actually verify. For instance, with your "wheel" system, it is possible to reconstruct the first vote cast (and with voter collusion, the vote of any particular voter, by simply recording the position of the wheels prior to the vote of any particular voter).
Machines have been used in the US, and it stinks. Many countries have stuck to simple paper ballots -- and it works -- it's easier to verify such a system that relies on people appointed by the interested parties (and yes, there is cheating in such systems as well -- but cheating has to reach a huge amount of people to be effective (assuming each polling station with an observed ballot polls ~1,000 people)).
Simple paper ballot. Allow observers from all interested (political) parties to monitor the voting station and the count.
Presto, solves verification of the internals of the not so obvious "voting machines". Voting machines aren't truly verificable.
100 miles below the surface a thriving society of Martians, little green men, plot our eventual demise. They are advanced enough to escape detection by our puny remote controlled buggies.
The British are each day taking a step closer towards the society envisioned in 1984. Orwell predicted this would happen forty years in the future -- he should've bet on 65-80 -- but still not so far off.
If this is coming true, when will we see an invasion from Mars?
I can imagine this: Some eBay hotshot comes up and says: "we only use 50% of our servers, we've got to do better here". So:
1) They don't buy new servers. Workload increases, better utilization, no analytics involved.
2) Or, someone got clever, and added an idling process to each idle server. Presto, we've improved our PE -- and we've got a nice yearly bonus as well.
The article actually says nothing, besides claiming a supposed 1.6x improvement, besides a very vauge refrence to analytics. This ./ post is actually meant to promote www.xlmpp.com.
But, with GPL 3, for instance, if you sell a modified work (GPL code + your own) you must grant the recipient a GPL license to the derivative work (GPL + your own).
The recipient is then allowed to distribute the product to whomever he wishes as long as he meets GPL (granting a GPL license downstream). So, how would you be able to make a second, third or fourth sale, now that additional parties are allowed to sell (or just pass on for free) this product?
This effectively makes your product free, if it is distributed to more than a few select customers.
We did get them to back down, AFAIK. For our product (which was a self-containted device) their standard demand (in the standard distribution contract) really didn't make much sense. At the time we had lots of OSS in our development chain (Linux (and Linux applications), CVS and SVN, Altera tools with OSS (which we absolutely couldn't have ditched, as we had Altera chips)).
But, as a "what if?", what if you buy a commercial compiler that infringes on GPL code in its system libraries or boot loader? What are the ramifications on your product (which contains said infringements as they are linked in)?
What if you develop a pure software product that is bundled, by a distributor, on the same physical medium as a GPL3 infringing product? What are the legal ramifications versus your product which wasn't infringing in the first place, but now possibly is?
I don't violate code licenses thoughtlessly. I can't say the same regarding other programmers I've worked with or managed. A large majority of this crowd possibly wouldn't even think of the possible ramifications down the line of infringement.
And these things can come back to haunt a company years after the mistake (or willfully malicious act) was comitted. This might lead to a royalty claim for the time that the product was sold in an infringing form, it might stop distribution for a while, it might lead to all sorts of ramifications a business doesn't want to run into.
Very different situation -- but you're really acting as an outsourced software house in such a case, you don't own the product, the customer does. The customer still might have issues with OSS if he plans to sell the product onwards -- but this typically isn't a concern, as such customers often commision one-off projects (i.e. DMV database for some state or something like that).
Plenty of companies own their product. The company I used to work for wasn't even a software company (though we had plenty of software) -- we sold a device. Some of the software/algorithm was very much a trade secret -- something we wouldn't want to hand over to customers (he might hand this over to the competition).
Two problems:
1) Your legal people need to be able to distinguish between all these various licenses. However, less informed people tend to lump all of these together (and assume a GPL like behavior). Someone might even be informed, but not want to deal with the various ramifications of various licenses -- if this is not the core of the development project.
2) You're still in hot water if someone copy-pastes code into your product, without telling anyone about it (something that a less legally minded developer might do without second thought). This is really what scares organizations. You've spent years and years developing this product, and whoops, someone figures out that you're violating GPL or some other license.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone would find GPLed code in Windows? Full source disclosure, and the right to copy without cost. Pretty nice (and legal wrangling for years). This is a serious threat to a company like M$. So they button down the hatches and try to not let anything what so ever inside the organization if it is remotely OSS.
As a small addendum, remember those fellows that found OSS in the infamous sony rootkit (by various strings present, IIRC). A week or two later the same guys (or someone else) found OSS in some other commercial software product. IIRC, there was some legal action (from FSF?) following this.
It used to be, that if you screwed up and placed OSS in your product that the chances of being caught in the act of theft were fairly low. Currently, the chances of being caught (even if your act was inadvertent) are significantly higher.
While I was working for a former employer, we were engaged in negotiations with a very large company that would act as a distributor (to a certain market) of our products. Said unnamed company in the distribution contract wanted us to sign off that "no open source software products were used in the development process, and that no OSS was present in the product".
Why?
Frankly, I understand the concern. If you are a development shop, then if OSS creeps into your product (due to a careless (and thoughtless) developer copy-pasting code, for instance) then the legal ramifications may be grave. Potentially, depending on the license, you are required to disclose the entire source of your product, and provide a usage/distribution license to whomever receives that code -- basically, a single minute action can sign off your rights to your software. your distributors have also violated copyright, and are in similiar hot water (e.g. their efforts in promoting your product are now potentially worthless).
The result? Some companies are so afraid of this "poison pill", that they simply don't let any OSS in their gates. Does this promote OSS? Maybe. IIRC, I recall that some friends working for the dark side (M$) report that no OSS is allowed there (or in some parts thereof).
I use OSS extensively. The former company I worked for had a whole heap of OSS in its development process (but not in the developed chip/product). Actuallly, considering that a non-OSS company (Altera) used OSS in its supplied development chain (gcc, for instance) that we were using, there really was no conceivable way that the company I worked for could've signed off on the "no OSS" bit of the contract.
While M$ still ranks as the empire of evil in my mind, it seems that every day Google with its multitude of Googleplexes and googlers is about to overtake M$, and become one with the dark side.
No Really.
Come to think of it, the main use of all of these "junk standards" is to drive commercials on various sites.
This is sad. The situation is even worse in some non-English web domains.
Why can't the web stick to something simple? 95% of the sites I use, would be fine with just plain simple HTML 2.0. Instead, we've got javascript, CSS, XHTML, and other buzzwords. Which in the end, take control of how a web page looks from the user's hand.
I like to read text, on a monitor, green on black (or white on black). I would like to format a web page the way I want to see it.
The vast majority of the web is simple formatted text. There is no reason for this to constantly evolve onwards and onwards.
These sheninigans have been pulled by software companies for over a decade. Frankly, I doubt anyone puts any credence in a version number anymore -- as the whole process is corrupt.
It used to be that 1.0 was the first version (or perhaps, even a sub 1). Now, 3.0 sounds low, so, we start at 6 or 7 (nice numbers, right?).
This disrespect to convention, has made the whole version numbering irrelevant. On top of that, some companies don't use version numbers but use names, letters, or other such monikiers.
So, who cares? Call your product Foosoft blue.
This "exemption" is nothing but a fig leaf to cover the draconian (and unconstitutional) DMCA act. I say "Ha!" to any act that forbids me to disseminate instructions on how to read ROT13 (in a "copyrighted" work).
The exemptions granted last time around are really, mostly, a "nobody cares" exemption. They were granted so that organizations engaged in archival work can cover their assess -- but they really could've performed said exemptions and the probability of a suit would be infintisimly small.
Lets say we run this series of tests -- and you come out as the greatest programmer alive; This wouldn't change my mind. It takes more than one, two, or three exceptions to break a pattern.
You took this job in your last semester -- and continued after graduation. If I were viewing your C.V. I would look at your first line tech support as just a notch above pizza delivery, dog walking, or working in a call center. Why a notch above? Because there is some marginal relevance; for some positions, even an inkling more than marginal.
The main question I'd be asking my self, is why you weren't hired out of the gate into a "real" computer engineering job (or even a "quasi" job -- e.g. QA). Is this because:
1) You aren't good enough?
2) You weren't motivated enough to find a "real" position?
3) Are you troubled in some other sort of way?
That would be my mind set -- I'd be more suspicious of your resume than a fresh graduate (there, like schrodinger's cat, I don't know if newbie joe shmoe is good or bad) -- with you, I'm fairly certain that you were:
... But if you weren't really looking, what were you doing working tech support? Frankly, if you'd been off in India in search of spirtual enlightenment then I would find (2) a good excuse -- but your case as presented, I'd almost definitely conclude (1) -- many people saw you, and decided against you. This is very clearly against you, sorry.
1) Examined by a large body of interviewers and rejected.
2) Weren't really looking.
What can you do?
1) Look for "quasi" jobs in the area. No, tech support isn't it. What I mean here, is a job in which you are in proffesional contact with the eventual position you want to grow into. Quality assurance is a good example here. You'd want to look at an organization that has room to grow into the type of job you're looking for.
2) Freelance; If you have good programming skills -- there are often all sorts of opportunities here. Yes, this will take time in addition to your day job. You should be looking for opportunities that provide income. Do enough of this, and you'll patch together a resume. Of course, this is more difficult if you're looking for a Verilog design position.
3) Widen your search parameters -- in terms of location, position, and what not.
4) Network. Speak with thsoe fellows you learnt with and have got themselves a job. If they respect you, then perhaps they can help you land a job at their company (and often, they'll receive a small bonus if they bring in someone who is hired).
5) I'd consider if mentioning your tech support job is worthwhile. Not an easy call.
6) Consider lying regarding your previous work experience. Plenty of people do this. Yes, you could be caught. But you might be at a dead end here. You don't have to lie alot -- just a little (invent yourself an entry level position for the past two years).
Set yourself a dead line (this doesn't have to be next week -- say a year or two from now) -- if you can't cut it on your own and can't land a position -- see what else you can do. Heck, you could perhaps even join the dark side and become a patent agent/draftsman.
Your genital parts shouldn't affect the results one iota. A good programmer is evident by examination of the design, code, time to market, and results... No actual need for human interaction.
I'm relating my own personal experience. Haven't run into a female someone who I'd classify as great (though I'm sure there are some) -- ran into plenty I'd classify as good; but there is a distinction between the two.