The obvious benefit is that the cost of living is much lower than California or similar.
That's an idiotic thing to say. California is a huge state. You might as well say the cost of living in "North America" or "On Earth" is too high.
I couldn't believe last time I was in CA to visit a friend that they had just paid almost a million dollars for a 3-bedroom house with no property.
I'm in CA, and I bought a 3br house on half an acre for $45k. I was paying $500/mo rent before that, for a 2br apartment.
Unlike rust-belt states, I pay almost nothing for heating and cooling. My electric bill goes up maybe $10/month in the summer, and my natural gas bill goes up maybe $10/month in the winter (water heater, mostly). The insane home heating costs in the rust-belt will eventually trump the lower property prices.
" Under no circumstances should any Utility in the US be allowed to Off-Shore IT operations"
They aren't. I know this from first-hand experience as a Sr Engineer for a major phone company, that is to remain nameless. I was responsible for the audit, after the DoJ specifically told us we needed to ensure anybody who wan't *physically* in the US at the time, would not have access to ANY production data.
Despite the idiotic headline, this has to be about H1Bs who reside in the US, NOT off-shoring. The Fed wouldn't allow a list of 5 power pole locations to leave the country.
Distance isn't relevant... Could be near by but low power, or far away and high power. I'd need a lot more info to give you a specific reason. I already listed a number of possible causes.
"According to a recent survey of 1,000 U.S.-based software developers, 56 percent expect to become millionaires in their lifetime.
That's not difficult if you're earning 6-fixgures, aren't staying in a very expensive area, and are just good with money. <Insert joke about nerds being single>
66 percent also said they expect to get raises in the next year, despite the current state of the economy.
I personally expect to get a raise every-single-year. Inflation stays around 3% every year. If my company doesn't give me AT-LEAST a 3% increase in salary each year, I consider it a slap-in-the-face. A pay cut by another name. And worse, a pay cut after a sterling annual review, and a year of hard work.
Inflation/cost-of-living year-over-year was only at zero for ONE year, during the depths of the recession. It's not an ongoing excuse to withhold annual raises.
There's little that pisses me off more than hearing that "company policy" limits raises to no more than 3% (or 2%, or 1%). That's institutionalizing yearly pay-cuts for all employees, including top-performers. Even when I make a stink and get more than that, it makes me look at that company with utter disgust, as they show how much they HATE and want to be at war with their (good, long-term reliable) employees. Nothing makes a company better than the few long-timers, who have everything about the company and all the systems in their head. "Company policy" that punishes them for staying instead of job-hopping is the most utterly moronic thing I could imagine... But this rant is getting off the rails, quickly...
84 percent said they believe they are paid what they're worth, 95 percent report they feel they are 'one of the most valued employees at their organization,'
Well, obviously people don't stay at a company where they feel ignored and undervalued (see above). And when your work will determine whether the company hits or misses a deadline, you speak to CxOs on a regular basis, or you're responsible for many millions of dollars of equipment, it's easy to feel highly valued, even if perhaps you are not.
I know I've occasionally been the highest paid person in some medium-sized companies. With the higher contractor rates, and overhead of contracting firms, it's not too difficult to end up costing the company more than the CEO's salary, even if not all of it goes into your pocket, and some of it is government taxes/fees/programs that get stuffed into salary for contractors but not regular staff.
Nope, others and I were able to watch and hear unclear pictures OTA on TV compared to digital.
This misconception comes from broadcasters making changes to their transmissions at the same time they switched to digital. Broadcasters on VHF channels 2-6 switched to UHF channel, which obviously aren't received by VHF antennas. Some chose to cut their broadcast power to save power, and more. It even goes as far as some HDTV manufactures including weak and noisy POS tuners. I've seen this with lesser-known brands all the time.
Side-by-side, digital is FAR better. I can get digital stations with no breakup from 130mi away, with regular consumer level antennas... The low-power analog stations from 10 miles away look like crap.
You don't need to take my word for it. Look at something like tvfool.com, and see how they sort DIGITAL stations higher than ANALOG stations, even when they have up to 10dBm lower signal levels than the analog versions. I've been watching OTA on the fringes in various cities since long before the switchover, and I've seen first-hand how things have vastly improved.
The previous spectrum auction made sense.. Cut of channels 52-69 and sell them off. Broadcasters were required to have two channels during the DTV transition, so if one of them was on a terminated frequency, they'd just have to use the other on a permanent basis.
But this one is psychotic... Everybody, everywhere, has to put their entire operation up for bids. The FCC gets to evaluate on a massive scale how to build a contiguous and nation-wide band out of the cheapest broadcasters on offer, with the real possibility they will end up with a patchwork of frequencies in different areas used for cell phone traffic, but still TV (and radio) in others.
This is the most complex mess I've ever seen, and worse, it reeks of devaluing, and largely throwing away nearly a century of public infrastructure, in exchange for some short-term cash, from companies who are simply doing a piss-poor job of spectrum-reuse because old TV frequencies are going for *cheap*. Honestly, this is blatant big-money lobbying against public interest, almost as bad as LightSquared, trying to leagalize their misuse of frequencies that would knock out GPS, and later trying to trade their frequencies for military channels that have never been on offer for any companies to use.
You're quite wrong about broadcast television. With the switch to digital, it has gotten vastly more useful and practical.
Now, putting-up an antenna is the best picture quality you can get. Most stations have 2+ subchannels, so instead of 7 channels, you get 21+, and hence a proliferation of minor networks... "AntennaTV" "THIS" "MeTV" and more come to mind. And they have a far greater signal-to-noise ratio than cable channels, due to limited space and the demands of a massive broadcast audience. In some secondary (ie. old UHF-only) markets, major networks were entirely missing, due to limited space, but are now able to be carried as sub-channels on competitor's broadcast towers.
OTA broadcast viewership is increasing, mainly with young households opting for an antenna rather than cable/satellite, ssince those have lost their technical edge, and the price is hard to justify. And OTA is critical for TV-related companies... Those TV-tuners for computers wouldn't have a. big enough market without it, and no reason to exist. DVR companies also probably wouldn't be able to make it without the OTA crowd. Startups like Aereo would be gone, with no possibly legal source of content.
And tell me this... Where can you find daily national/world news with the same quality as the approx. 4am newscasts on CBS/NBC/ABC? BBC World Service looks like crap by comparison, though easily better than CNN/MSNBC/FauxNews of course. How about educational content like the broadcast networks are required to air for children? We absolutely do get a hell of a lot from broadcast OTA TV.
There is a huge amount of land in California the middle class can afford: the Central Valley. The air is so bad you are almost guaranteed to experience asthma or allergies, but you can swing it on as low as 30k per year
That's not the only affordable area, by far. Half the state is desert, starting from just outside the L.A. Basin, and rent is extremely cheap there. The freeways make it possible to commute from bedroom communities there to large cities every day. And the air quality out there is great.
Those kids living in LA, SF, SD who make 30k per year? They basically live in squalor(for America). They value the coolness of those cities so much they are willing to live 4 to a 2-bedroom, or get their own place and live paycheck to paycheck,
People predominantly choose where to live based on family roots, or jobs.
Go out where land is cheap, and there's probably no jobs there. It may suck to spend half your paycheck on rent, but it's infinitely better than getting no paycheck... And there's always the American Dream aspect of it. Everybody thinks if they move to a rich area, they're going to strike it rich, too... Sort of an investment in your future that way. Never mind how few make it, and how many people move away after a few years.
"Roots" are pretty simple... if you've got lots of family in an expensive area, you're not likely to move too far away, even if you're struggling. It's a big scary break to leave all your friends and family, and the only area and culture you've known, behind, all for cheap rent you might not be able to afford on your lower wages, anyhow.
All I really need mounted in the dash is an AMP and speakers.
That's pretty much what ALL cheap car stereos have been doing for the past decade. Except they throw in a clock, USB & SD card slots for MP3s, and usually a radio.
It's an interesting thought... Usually new people move-in, change the demographics, and out-vote the old Luddites. But if the Luddites start-off by demanding building restrictions before others can move-in, then those who would vote against them simply aren't ever allowed to move-in, so they don't ever get a vote.
There's rather little point in suspending a server:
Those of us who do this stuff happen to disagree with you.
even ones that are off outside business hours are better off hibernating rather than suspending.
"Better off" HOW? Hibernation takes much, much longer on both ends, and the difference in power consumption between hibernate and suspend is nominal. When your cluster suddenly needs more power, you don't want to wait 10 minutes for POST, kernel booting, and copying quite a few GBytes from disk into RAM, when you can instead get up and running in a few seconds.
The third big software factor is the BIOS. "coreboot", formerly "LinuxBIOS", is blazingly fast compared to most proprietary BIOS's. It has made some inroads but is still not available for any commercial systems I can find. So no matter what is done in the other two factors, the BIOS is still a limiting factor of suspend and restore delays.
POST has to be performed by the BIOS when restoring from hibernation, but NOT suspend. So no, the BIOS is NOT a significant "limiting factor of suspend and [resume]" operations.
On the flip side, spending six weeks fixing an issue on a single server running a non-critical, non-time-sensitive service which occurs once or twice a year and is 100% worked around by a reboot probably isn't an efficient use of your time.
In the long-term, it is. If you let issues like that continue to exist, then you'll get stuck with an unnecessary proliferation of servers, with each running just one service, so rebooting one doesn't take the others down.
Not to mention that you'll find that you get stuck maintaining multiple, overlapping services, because the first one wasn't reliable enough for the tasks some department decided to bring-in, later.
And also, I don't think I've ever seen a service that was non-critical and non-time-sensitive. Whatever it is, people won't even try to use it until the very last minute, when they need it to work immediately. It could be a damn web page that just hosts the phone extension list, and because HR needs to call someone about something simple, at 5pm on Friday, that server is now delaying everyone's paychecks. EVERYTHING ends up being varying degrees of critical.
Here it is in nicm@'s words: "In particular, being able to share a single window between multiple terminals, with other windows in the same session but entirely separate. Adding this to screen was implausible"
"Reboot does not fix anything, it just hides things".
That's not specific to rebooting... It's more a question of doing root-cause analysis, versus quick bandaids. I'm firmly in the RCA camp, but sometimes it's the companies that are to blame, rather than the individual admins. Some companies are heavily slanted towards always getting the quickest possible workaround, rather than ever actually finding and fixing the problem. It's one of those false-economies, like counting lines of code and similar.
For my use cases, I could not find a compelling reason to use tmux
Obviously if you've been limiting yourself to the features of "screen" for many years, you're not going to think you need the added features of "tmux"...
A big one is sharing: "window can be linked to an arbitrary number of sessions". If you or somebody else has a screen session open, you don't have to detach it from their terminal to see what's on it. You can just attach it to your terminal as well. Works great when you've got a session attached to your desktop, then want to access it on your laptop/tablet/phone/etc. The tmux session will even change geometry to match the smallest terminal window.
Being more lightweight and responsive is good. Saner keys for some functions, like ctrl-a pg-up to access scrollback. And just the fact that it's still getting active development is an important feature.
Older coders are sitting around doing nothing, and there's gold in them thar hills.
It'll cost you an order of magnitude more to provide them health insurance... Maybe double or triple that again, if the plan includes aging wifes as well.
And while they might be very good, I wouldn't expect them to be as willing to do on-call rotation, put in extra hours when deadlines loom, not use their vacation days, etc.
It's not a bad idea at all, but there's sure going to be some major downsides to a company with predominately older people.
(I'm over 50, have been looking for work for a while now, and I'm getting nothing; no interviews and certainly no offers. I have a lot of experience and a good work ethic, but it does no one any good if the companies routinely dismiss anyone with more than 2 pages of resume experience,
You're doing something wrong... Nothing on your resume has to show your age, and you certainly don't have to have more than 2 pages, just because you have lots of experience. Resume writing 101. Limit yourself to the latests 3 jobs, or so. Nobody wants to look through a 10-page resume, so if you don't have good-stuff on the top page, recruiters won't bother.
since they are seen as 'too expensive' to hire).
Lots of recruiters ask for your salary requirements up-front. I generally refuse to answer, but if you low-ball it, you'll do just fine. Hell, my last company, though predominantly young, with lots of H1Bs, had several grey-haired programmers, and I recently hired an older gentleman myself, who was only looking for work after his company (where he put in 25 years) went out of business.
I'd also REALLY like to see where you are pulling your reliability numbers from.
There are publicly available uptime tracking web sites.... Always dominating the top of those list is OpenVMS, thanks to its (ancient) built-in clustering technology.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an idiotic thing to say. California is a huge state. You might as well say the cost of living in "North America" or "On Earth" is too high.
I'm in CA, and I bought a 3br house on half an acre for $45k. I was paying $500/mo rent before that, for a 2br apartment.
Unlike rust-belt states, I pay almost nothing for heating and cooling. My electric bill goes up maybe $10/month in the summer, and my natural gas bill goes up maybe $10/month in the winter (water heater, mostly). The insane home heating costs in the rust-belt will eventually trump the lower property prices.
So your list of benefits is all imaginary.
" Under no circumstances should any Utility in the US be allowed to Off-Shore IT operations"
They aren't. I know this from first-hand experience as a Sr Engineer for a major phone company, that is to remain nameless. I was responsible for the audit, after the DoJ specifically told us we needed to ensure anybody who wan't *physically* in the US at the time, would not have access to ANY production data.
Despite the idiotic headline, this has to be about H1Bs who reside in the US, NOT off-shoring. The Fed wouldn't allow a list of 5 power pole locations to leave the country.
Distance isn't relevant... Could be near by but low power, or far away and high power. I'd need a lot more info to give you a specific reason. I already listed a number of possible causes.
Either way, you can't argue with physics.
That's not difficult if you're earning 6-fixgures, aren't staying in a very expensive area, and are just good with money.
<Insert joke about nerds being single>
I personally expect to get a raise every-single-year. Inflation stays around 3% every year. If my company doesn't give me AT-LEAST a 3% increase in salary each year, I consider it a slap-in-the-face. A pay cut by another name. And worse, a pay cut after a sterling annual review, and a year of hard work.
Inflation/cost-of-living year-over-year was only at zero for ONE year, during the depths of the recession. It's not an ongoing excuse to withhold annual raises.
There's little that pisses me off more than hearing that "company policy" limits raises to no more than 3% (or 2%, or 1%). That's institutionalizing yearly pay-cuts for all employees, including top-performers. Even when I make a stink and get more than that, it makes me look at that company with utter disgust, as they show how much they HATE and want to be at war with their (good, long-term reliable) employees. Nothing makes a company better than the few long-timers, who have everything about the company and all the systems in their head. "Company policy" that punishes them for staying instead of job-hopping is the most utterly moronic thing I could imagine... But this rant is getting off the rails, quickly...
Well, obviously people don't stay at a company where they feel ignored and undervalued (see above). And when your work will determine whether the company hits or misses a deadline, you speak to CxOs on a regular basis, or you're responsible for many millions of dollars of equipment, it's easy to feel highly valued, even if perhaps you are not.
I know I've occasionally been the highest paid person in some medium-sized companies. With the higher contractor rates, and overhead of contracting firms, it's not too difficult to end up costing the company more than the CEO's salary, even if not all of it goes into your pocket, and some of it is government taxes/fees/programs that get stuffed into salary for contractors but not regular staff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This misconception comes from broadcasters making changes to their transmissions at the same time they switched to digital. Broadcasters on VHF channels 2-6 switched to UHF channel, which obviously aren't received by VHF antennas. Some chose to cut their broadcast power to save power, and more. It even goes as far as some HDTV manufactures including weak and noisy POS tuners. I've seen this with lesser-known brands all the time.
Side-by-side, digital is FAR better. I can get digital stations with no breakup from 130mi away, with regular consumer level antennas... The low-power analog stations from 10 miles away look like crap.
You don't need to take my word for it. Look at something like tvfool.com, and see how they sort DIGITAL stations higher than ANALOG stations, even when they have up to 10dBm lower signal levels than the analog versions. I've been watching OTA on the fringes in various cities since long before the switchover, and I've seen first-hand how things have vastly improved.
*indistinguishable*
Stupid autocorrect.
That's BS. You can get a perfect digital picture, when analog signals would have been so weak as to be incorrigible from static. Seen it first hand.
The previous spectrum auction made sense.. Cut of channels 52-69 and sell them off. Broadcasters were required to have two channels during the DTV transition, so if one of them was on a terminated frequency, they'd just have to use the other on a permanent basis.
But this one is psychotic... Everybody, everywhere, has to put their entire operation up for bids. The FCC gets to evaluate on a massive scale how to build a contiguous and nation-wide band out of the cheapest broadcasters on offer, with the real possibility they will end up with a patchwork of frequencies in different areas used for cell phone traffic, but still TV (and radio) in others.
This is the most complex mess I've ever seen, and worse, it reeks of devaluing, and largely throwing away nearly a century of public infrastructure, in exchange for some short-term cash, from companies who are simply doing a piss-poor job of spectrum-reuse because old TV frequencies are going for *cheap*. Honestly, this is blatant big-money lobbying against public interest, almost as bad as LightSquared, trying to leagalize their misuse of frequencies that would knock out GPS, and later trying to trade their frequencies for military channels that have never been on offer for any companies to use.
You're quite wrong about broadcast television. With the switch to digital, it has gotten vastly more useful and practical.
Now, putting-up an antenna is the best picture quality you can get. Most stations have 2+ subchannels, so instead of 7 channels, you get 21+, and hence a proliferation of minor networks... "AntennaTV" "THIS" "MeTV" and more come to mind. And they have a far greater signal-to-noise ratio than cable channels, due to limited space and the demands of a massive broadcast audience. In some secondary (ie. old UHF-only) markets, major networks were entirely missing, due to limited space, but are now able to be carried as sub-channels on competitor's broadcast towers.
OTA broadcast viewership is increasing, mainly with young households opting for an antenna rather than cable/satellite, ssince those have lost their technical edge, and the price is hard to justify. And OTA is critical for TV-related companies... Those TV-tuners for computers wouldn't have a. big enough market without it, and no reason to exist. DVR companies also probably wouldn't be able to make it without the OTA crowd. Startups like Aereo would be gone, with no possibly legal source of content.
And tell me this... Where can you find daily national/world news with the same quality as the approx. 4am newscasts on CBS/NBC/ABC? BBC World Service looks like crap by comparison, though easily better than CNN/MSNBC/FauxNews of course. How about educational content like the broadcast networks are required to air for children? We absolutely do get a hell of a lot from broadcast OTA TV.
That's not the only affordable area, by far. Half the state is desert, starting from just outside the L.A. Basin, and rent is extremely cheap there. The freeways make it possible to commute from bedroom communities there to large cities every day. And the air quality out there is great.
People predominantly choose where to live based on family roots, or jobs.
Go out where land is cheap, and there's probably no jobs there. It may suck to spend half your paycheck on rent, but it's infinitely better than getting no paycheck... And there's always the American Dream aspect of it. Everybody thinks if they move to a rich area, they're going to strike it rich, too... Sort of an investment in your future that way. Never mind how few make it, and how many people move away after a few years.
"Roots" are pretty simple... if you've got lots of family in an expensive area, you're not likely to move too far away, even if you're struggling. It's a big scary break to leave all your friends and family, and the only area and culture you've known, behind, all for cheap rent you might not be able to afford on your lower wages, anyhow.
That's pretty much what ALL cheap car stereos have been doing for the past decade. Except they throw in a clock, USB & SD card slots for MP3s, and usually a radio.
How does $25 grab you:
https://www.amazon.com/XO-Visi...
It's an interesting thought... Usually new people move-in, change the demographics, and out-vote the old Luddites. But if the Luddites start-off by demanding building restrictions before others can move-in, then those who would vote against them simply aren't ever allowed to move-in, so they don't ever get a vote.
Those of us who do this stuff happen to disagree with you.
"Better off" HOW? Hibernation takes much, much longer on both ends, and the difference in power consumption between hibernate and suspend is nominal. When your cluster suddenly needs more power, you don't want to wait 10 minutes for POST, kernel booting, and copying quite a few GBytes from disk into RAM, when you can instead get up and running in a few seconds.
POST has to be performed by the BIOS when restoring from hibernation, but NOT suspend. So no, the BIOS is NOT a significant "limiting factor of suspend and [resume]" operations.
There are many more reasons than just the random redirects to the beta site, to prefer Soylent News to /. You should check it out.
sudo: try: command not found
In the long-term, it is. If you let issues like that continue to exist, then you'll get stuck with an unnecessary proliferation of servers, with each running just one service, so rebooting one doesn't take the others down.
Not to mention that you'll find that you get stuck maintaining multiple, overlapping services, because the first one wasn't reliable enough for the tasks some department decided to bring-in, later.
And also, I don't think I've ever seen a service that was non-critical and non-time-sensitive. Whatever it is, people won't even try to use it until the very last minute, when they need it to work immediately. It could be a damn web page that just hosts the phone extension list, and because HR needs to call someone about something simple, at 5pm on Friday, that server is now delaying everyone's paychecks. EVERYTHING ends up being varying degrees of critical.
I oversimplified the explanation a bit...
Here it is in nicm@'s words:
"In particular, being able to share a single window between multiple terminals, with other windows in the same session but entirely separate. Adding this to screen was implausible"
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action...
That's not specific to rebooting... It's more a question of doing root-cause analysis, versus quick bandaids. I'm firmly in the RCA camp, but sometimes it's the companies that are to blame, rather than the individual admins. Some companies are heavily slanted towards always getting the quickest possible workaround, rather than ever actually finding and fixing the problem. It's one of those false-economies, like counting lines of code and similar.
Obviously if you've been limiting yourself to the features of "screen" for many years, you're not going to think you need the added features of "tmux"...
A big one is sharing:
"window can be linked to an arbitrary number of sessions". If you or somebody else has a screen session open, you don't have to detach it from their terminal to see what's on it. You can just attach it to your terminal as well. Works great when you've got a session attached to your desktop, then want to access it on your laptop/tablet/phone/etc. The tmux session will even change geometry to match the smallest terminal window.
Being more lightweight and responsive is good. Saner keys for some functions, like ctrl-a pg-up to access scrollback. And just the fact that it's still getting active development is an important feature.
It'll cost you an order of magnitude more to provide them health insurance... Maybe double or triple that again, if the plan includes aging wifes as well.
And while they might be very good, I wouldn't expect them to be as willing to do on-call rotation, put in extra hours when deadlines loom, not use their vacation days, etc.
It's not a bad idea at all, but there's sure going to be some major downsides to a company with predominately older people.
You're doing something wrong... Nothing on your resume has to show your age, and you certainly don't have to have more than 2 pages, just because you have lots of experience. Resume writing 101. Limit yourself to the latests 3 jobs, or so. Nobody wants to look through a 10-page resume, so if you don't have good-stuff on the top page, recruiters won't bother.
Lots of recruiters ask for your salary requirements up-front. I generally refuse to answer, but if you low-ball it, you'll do just fine. Hell, my last company, though predominantly young, with lots of H1Bs, had several grey-haired programmers, and I recently hired an older gentleman myself, who was only looking for work after his company (where he put in 25 years) went out of business.
I'm guessing he either belongs to the church of Dvorak, or the church of autocorrect.
There are publicly available uptime tracking web sites.... Always dominating the top of those list is OpenVMS, thanks to its (ancient) built-in clustering technology.
Linux isn't even old enough to compete...