Obviously the Microsoft model is so sucessfull at creating innovative, reliable software that we should all embrace it immediately!
We should run around, hugging our entire team, because the most important thing is the team right? It doesn't matter how good anyone is (in fact, we want to discourage individual brilliance), so long as we have the team.
And making management the cornerstone of the process? Brilliant! Everyone knows that managers are the most intelligent, connected people in the company, how else would they have become managers!
Zero defects means there are still bugs? Excellent! This should work as well as the idea of zero-tolerance rules in public schools.
I think I'm going to get the entire team together and set a milestone of taking a giant shit in the editor, I think we can hit that by the end of the week, but if we have to "slip" the date, we'll make sure that everyone sits down together and eats a couple bowls of bran flakes so we don't miss the new deadline.
Even though our giant shit might be a week late, and be full of bugs (it will certainly be in a matter of days!), we can still consider it zero-defect, on-time and a great piece of software!
You've obviously designed alot of commercial/useful websites...
Explain to me how HTTP can be used to offload processing to the client. For example, how you would write something simple like a rate calculator that didn't take multiple round-trips to the server using only HTTP.
How about setting prices based on value instead of estimates that are rarely accurate to begin with.
One interesting result of this approach is that you'll find projects that become unfeasable due to the fact that their value to the customer falls far below what you're willing to invest in the form of time, staff, etc. Not to mention that, at least in the consulting world, there is a tendency to "meet a client half-way" when doing estimates, rendering them even more inaccurate than they were to begin with.
It also forces you to think about how the client will actually apply the solution instead of blindly following their specification which is typically filled with flaws that will only become obvious under this type of analysis. Much easier to address these issues up-front than after you've run with the specification for a few months.
This is the worst article I've read in like, forever.
The writing itself is a joke, and the content, when it is coherent, is incorrect or incomplete at best.
I'd bother to offer examples but anyone with a room-temperature IQ could find them without assistance.
I suppose this shouldn't surprise me that business media still doesn't get it (technology in general) but it shocked me the level of ignorance displayed so blatently, and to what purpose? How does an article like this help anyone? Is it just water-cooler-fodder for middle-managers and Rockford-shoed ladder-climbers?
The reason you'll never see Linux on the desktop? Because idiots like this will never deserve it.
You bought a book that insulted your intelligence IN THE TITLE ITSELF!
This reminds me of a native american folk tale about a woman who found an injured snake in a woodpile. The woman brought the snake in from the cold and nutured it back to health all winter. In the spring, the snake was fully healed; then the snake bit her. As she was dying, she asked the snake "why did you bite me, I saved your life!"
The snake replied "You knew I was a snake, bitch!".
You bought a book that made fun of you for being stupid, go figure the rest of the book would be dedicated to doing the same......dummy...
I wrote a nastier response to the first comment like this, but since you used polite terms, I will also.
In my original post I indicated that clusters are "typically" used for avaliability and not perfomance; this doesn't mean you can't use a cluster for performance, it just means that most clusters are put in place primarilly for the avaliability functionality and performance is a secondary concern if one at all.
This is evidenced by the most prominent clustering software avaliable for databases. Both Microsoft and Oracle provide an avaliability-enhancing cluster software (MSCS for microsoft and Oracles is called Fail Safe if I remember correctly) as a standard component of the database servers, and only Oracles Paralell Server (an expensive add-on) will enhance PERFORMANCE through clustering.
I guess my point wasn't to say you CAN'T enhance performance through clustering, it just not the primary motivation for most of the clustering that I've seen.
Hey, at least I can read the fucking english language:
"Database clustering is typically used for high-avaliability, not performance"
You may have noticed a word in the we in the literate world like to refer to as "typically". For those of you who are unfamiliar, this word is not the same as "always" or "absolutely", but instead is used to reference average or common situations.
Before you freak out and start name-calling maybe you should learn to fucking read...
..and by the way, maybe post useful information instead of spiteful waste of time and bytes (or at least have the balls to put your name on your comments).
Database clustering is typically used for high-avaliability, not performance.
There are better ways to improve the performance of a database, horizontal partitioning, federated servers, etc.
This would be very cool if there was a generic implementation; we build many Microsoft SQL clusters and just the hardware requirements for an MSCS cluster easily exceed $50k, let alone the licensing...as an MCDBA I'd consider an open source solution if I could use it as a back-end ot an ASP/VB.NET application, just to save the licensing $$ for consulting! ; )
A Gibson fan...(took me a minute to remember the reference).
I gave up on cars after the STS, it was my dream car since I was 18 and when I finally bought one it was such a dissapointment that I decided that I'll find a car that works all the time and keep the bikes for having fun.
Here in the kinda-great-white-north you can't really drive hard other than in the summer, so the motorcycle thing works out nicely...plus you can have a rediculous hp/weight ratio and still get 50MPG+
I think that guys who hot-rod Hondas are just as lame as you probably do, but you have to appriciate them for what they are.
Same with the engines. Add 10lbs of boost or a 100hp shot of nitrous to a stock 240HP Accord and see how long it lasts. It won't last long because of the closer to desing limits the car already operates at. It was not designed for that.
...probably longer than any American car engine under normal load...
If you doubt me talk to my friend Bill who just had his brand-new Trailblazer lose a head gasket because the factory's manufacturing tolerances were wrong (or maybe it was just assembled poorly, anyone's guess). The important thing is that Honda cars do what they are designed to do; they do it well and they last forever... sloppyness in enginering, while producing the occasional benefit (the one in one hunder thousand mechanic who puts a blower on a Monte Carlo) cannot live up to even one tenth the reliability of the asian imports.
I was a long-time american car fan untill I spent more fixing my Cadillac STS than I did buying it in the first place.
For the record, I owned a '95 Cadillac STS for about four years before the constant repairs and expense of simple maintainence lead me to search for a replacement.
After test-driving almost everything both domestic and from abroad, I ended up buying a 2002 Accord SE. I thought for sure that I would be dissapointed in the performance of the (4-cylinder) engine after having driven the Cadillac for so long, but I have to say honestly it makes no real difference in my daily drive (a thirty minute commute, city and country driving, about a 50/50 mix). Not only that, but the fit and finish, handling and of course milage of the Accord blows the Cadillac away.
There are times I do miss the 140+MPH top-end of the Cadillac, but that is what I have the Ducati for....
Are you retarded? The original post said 240HP, not 190......anyway, I don't think most (intellegent) people buy an Accord for bench-racing.
If you want to go fast in a straight line cheaply, buy anything with a Chevy 350 and build it up; if you want to go REALLY fast, stop pussing around with cars and buy a motorcycle....what a fun way to burn Karma!
Slashdot Mirror
Japanese surrender to Allied forces...
What ever happened to Jon Katz?
Am I the only one who thinks this article was written by a retard?
The explanation of the exploit, umm...yeah.
Obviously the Microsoft model is so sucessfull at creating innovative, reliable software that we should all embrace it immediately!
We should run around, hugging our entire team, because the most important thing is the team right? It doesn't matter how good anyone is (in fact, we want to discourage individual brilliance), so long as we have the team.
And making management the cornerstone of the process? Brilliant! Everyone knows that managers are the most intelligent, connected people in the company, how else would they have become managers!
Zero defects means there are still bugs? Excellent! This should work as well as the idea of zero-tolerance rules in public schools.
I think I'm going to get the entire team together and set a milestone of taking a giant shit in the editor, I think we can hit that by the end of the week, but if we have to "slip" the date, we'll make sure that everyone sits down together and eats a couple bowls of bran flakes so we don't miss the new deadline.
Even though our giant shit might be a week late, and be full of bugs (it will certainly be in a matter of days!), we can still consider it zero-defect, on-time and a great piece of software!
You've obviously designed alot of commercial/useful websites...
Explain to me how HTTP can be used to offload processing to the client. For example, how you would write something simple like a rate calculator that didn't take multiple round-trips to the server using only HTTP.
and buy a motorcycle. My Ducati M750 gets 50-60MPG and it's primary design feature isn't efficiency.
If you really want to get crazy, pick up a 250 Nitehawk, I've ready claims of over 100MPG out of those things.
RTFA.
It even has a nice little picture for those of us who can't understand the text.
Insightful? OK!
I'm sure that there are landfills that beat this setup...
How about setting prices based on value instead of estimates that are rarely accurate to begin with.
One interesting result of this approach is that you'll find projects that become unfeasable due to the fact that their value to the customer falls far below what you're willing to invest in the form of time, staff, etc. Not to mention that, at least in the consulting world, there is a tendency to "meet a client half-way" when doing estimates, rendering them even more inaccurate than they were to begin with.
It also forces you to think about how the client will actually apply the solution instead of blindly following their specification which is typically filled with flaws that will only become obvious under this type of analysis. Much easier to address these issues up-front than after you've run with the specification for a few months.
That the author's name rhymes with bologna?
Is everything from this company a direct rip-off of an Apple product?
Take a look at the Lindows/Linspire homepage:
http://www.linspire.com/
How creative!
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!
This is the worst article I've read in like, forever.
The writing itself is a joke, and the content, when it is coherent, is incorrect or incomplete at best.
I'd bother to offer examples but anyone with a room-temperature IQ could find them without assistance.
I suppose this shouldn't surprise me that business media still doesn't get it (technology in general) but it shocked me the level of ignorance displayed so blatently, and to what purpose? How does an article like this help anyone? Is it just water-cooler-fodder for middle-managers and Rockford-shoed ladder-climbers?
The reason you'll never see Linux on the desktop? Because idiots like this will never deserve it.
Adolf, a couple of decades in hell have really changed your perspective!
Say hi to Rosy for me!
"...A large fraction ..."
...I just thought that sounded funny...and I have karma to burn...MUHAHAHA!
...
You bought a book that insulted your intelligence IN THE TITLE ITSELF!
...dummy...
This reminds me of a native american folk tale about a woman who found an injured snake in a woodpile. The woman brought the snake in from the cold and nutured it back to health all winter. In the spring, the snake was fully healed; then the snake bit her. As she was dying, she asked the snake "why did you bite me, I saved your life!"
The snake replied "You knew I was a snake, bitch!".
You bought a book that made fun of you for being stupid, go figure the rest of the book would be dedicated to doing the same...
I wrote a nastier response to the first comment like this, but since you used polite terms, I will also.
In my original post I indicated that clusters are "typically" used for avaliability and not perfomance; this doesn't mean you can't use a cluster for performance, it just means that most clusters are put in place primarilly for the avaliability functionality and performance is a secondary concern if one at all.
This is evidenced by the most prominent clustering software avaliable for databases. Both Microsoft and Oracle provide an avaliability-enhancing cluster software (MSCS for microsoft and Oracles is called Fail Safe if I remember correctly) as a standard component of the database servers, and only Oracles Paralell Server (an expensive add-on) will enhance PERFORMANCE through clustering.
I guess my point wasn't to say you CAN'T enhance performance through clustering, it just not the primary motivation for most of the clustering that I've seen.
Yes
Hey, at least I can read the fucking english language:
..and by the way, maybe post useful information instead of spiteful waste of time and bytes (or at least have the balls to put your name on your comments).
"Database clustering is typically used for high-avaliability, not performance"
You may have noticed a word in the we in the literate world like to refer to as "typically". For those of you who are unfamiliar, this word is not the same as "always" or "absolutely", but instead is used to reference average or common situations.
Before you freak out and start name-calling maybe you should learn to fucking read...
Database clustering is typically used for high-avaliability, not performance.
There are better ways to improve the performance of a database, horizontal partitioning, federated servers, etc.
This would be very cool if there was a generic implementation; we build many Microsoft SQL clusters and just the hardware requirements for an MSCS cluster easily exceed $50k, let alone the licensing...as an MCDBA I'd consider an open source solution if I could use it as a back-end ot an ASP/VB.NET application, just to save the licensing $$ for consulting! ; )
A Gibson fan...(took me a minute to remember the reference).
I gave up on cars after the STS, it was my dream car since I was 18 and when I finally bought one it was such a dissapointment that I decided that I'll find a car that works all the time and keep the bikes for having fun.
Here in the kinda-great-white-north you can't really drive hard other than in the summer, so the motorcycle thing works out nicely...plus you can have a rediculous hp/weight ratio and still get 50MPG+
I think that guys who hot-rod Hondas are just as lame as you probably do, but you have to appriciate them for what they are.
Same with the engines. Add 10lbs of boost or a 100hp shot of nitrous to a stock 240HP Accord and see how long it lasts. It won't last long because of the closer to desing limits the car already operates at. It was not designed for that.
...probably longer than any American car engine under normal load...
If you doubt me talk to my friend Bill who just had his brand-new Trailblazer lose a head gasket because the factory's manufacturing tolerances were wrong (or maybe it was just assembled poorly, anyone's guess). The important thing is that Honda cars do what they are designed to do; they do it well and they last forever... sloppyness in enginering, while producing the occasional benefit (the one in one hunder thousand mechanic who puts a blower on a Monte Carlo) cannot live up to even one tenth the reliability of the asian imports.
I was a long-time american car fan untill I spent more fixing my Cadillac STS than I did buying it in the first place.
Well I'm glad we got that all straightened out.
For the record, I owned a '95 Cadillac STS for about four years before the constant repairs and expense of simple maintainence lead me to search for a replacement.
After test-driving almost everything both domestic and from abroad, I ended up buying a 2002 Accord SE. I thought for sure that I would be dissapointed in the performance of the (4-cylinder) engine after having driven the Cadillac for so long, but I have to say honestly it makes no real difference in my daily drive (a thirty minute commute, city and country driving, about a 50/50 mix). Not only that, but the fit and finish, handling and of course milage of the Accord blows the Cadillac away.
There are times I do miss the 140+MPH top-end of the Cadillac, but that is what I have the Ducati for....
Are you retarded? The original post said 240HP, not 190... ...anyway, I don't think most (intellegent) people buy an Accord for bench-racing.
...what a fun way to burn Karma!
If you want to go fast in a straight line cheaply, buy anything with a Chevy 350 and build it up; if you want to go REALLY fast, stop pussing around with cars and buy a motorcycle.