It appears that Ubuntu is not entirely complaint then (based on my reading of their FAQ and the GPL)
The GPL says:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
(emphasis mine)
But the Ubuntu FAQ says "we are happy to distribute source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD", which is insufficient. However, since I don't have a copy of their binary CD, I can tell what "is written in fine print on the back of each CD", so it may be all covered there.
Yes, well I wouldn't have been able to karma-whore as well if I cared about the facts.:) And as it happens, the IIe was the 3rd computer in the apple II line anyway.
Why anybody cares about buying the "first generation" is beyond me - that stuff hasn't been sold since 1979!
Actually I suspect a large number of people here would very particularly eager to get their hands on a first generation apple.
In fact, not even that has been shown. All that's been shown in that 1 guy didn't present sufficient evidence that it was anti-competitive. There's nothing stopping someone else from trying to make the same argument but with better evidence. I personally think they would lose, but this decision certainly doesn't say "the GPL is not anti-competitive". If anything the precedent is "Merely showing that it would be hard for you to compete in the market does not prove that the market is anti-competitive". And that's hardly a new revelation.
Do we really need to quote the whole article directly just to get you to read it?
There were endless comments on Slashdot Monday (May 8) of the form: "If microkernels are so good, why aren't there any?" Actually there are. Besides MINIX 3, there are:
QNX
Integrity
PikeOS
Symbian
L4Linux
Singularity
K42
Mac OS X
HURD
Coyotos
QNX is widely used in real commercial systems. Cisco's top-of-the-line router uses it, for example, and I can assure you, Cisco cares a **LOT** about performance.
One of the leading operating systems in the military and aerospace markets, where reliability is absolutely critical is Green Hills' Integrity, another microkernel.
PikeOS is another microkernel-based real-time system widely used in defense, aerospace, automotive, and industrial applications.
Symbian is yet another popular microkernel, primarily used in cell phones. It is not a pure microkernel, however, but something of a hybrid, with drivers in the kernel, but the file system, networking, and telephony in user space.
You make it sound like there are only 3 databases in the world.
MS SQL Server is the only large scale database I know of that doesn't have a linux version. But that's hardly surprising since they don't seem to have any unix versions at all. (Hmmm... intriguing)
Greens and Democrats, who are slowly playing a bigger role in Australian politics
That's an interesting perspective...
The Greens are increasing in popularity, but the Democrats are losing popularity faster than the Greens can pick it up.
In the last federal election, the minor parties lost a pretty much all their influence - the only minor party that plays any role is white, anglo-saxon, hetro-sexual, conservative middle-class families first. And they only get to play on the incredibly rare occasion that backdown Barnaby actually crosses the floor.
At a state level, both the Greens and the Democrats recently lost influence in their preferred states.
The Democrats have always had more influence in South Australia - they once had 16% of the vote. In the most recent election they ended up with 2% of the vote.
The Greens have always had more influence in Tasmania. As of the last election (I think) they lost official party status, as they ended up with only 2 representatives (they previously had 3).
So, with the exception of Family First, it looks like Australia is moving more towards a 2 party system than it has at any time in the last 20 years. Whether the state results translate into federal results remains to be seen.
We have a development team. We need a new person to join it. We think that we'd like someone with 2 to 4 years experience.
It would be preferable if that experience was in our industry (finance), but we'll look at any talented candidates.
We know what skills are mandatory and which ones are desirable.
There's a large range of potential candidates there, and they will deliver different value to our team. As a general rule, the candiate with 4 years experience in the right technology in the right industry with the right demeanour will contribute substantially more to our projects than someone with 2 years experience in a different industry. We'll pay in accordance with that.
So yes, we know what a really great candidate is worth (to us) and what an average candidate is worth, but that's quite a range and it's not particularly helpful to put it on a job ad.
I'm not trying to defend recruiters who won't tell you what a job is worth - it's not fair to expect you to interview before you can even know what's on offer - but you need to understand that (in our case at least) salaries are very dependant on the candidate.
I agree that "Market" / "Open" salary adverts suck.
However, speaking as an employer, we (i.e. the company I work for) generally don't have a specific salary in mind. We pay according to the candidate, not the job, so it is hard to give a meaningful number.
If we think you're a good candidate we'll try and negotiate an appropriate salary range for you. That will depend on your specific skills and experience more than it depends on the role we're trying to fill.
So it means that black lesbian females are going to waste their time going to check out rooms that they have no hope in hell of ever being let.
If the landlord is going to discriminate, then everyone's better off knowing it up front. The opposite law would make more sense: you can't discriminate unless you advertised that you're going to (although I have no idea how you'd police that.)
dominant player in the enterprise Java space this last year. Not only does JBoss have #1 market share among application servers
Do you have any evidence for that? It certainly doesn't match my experience.
JBoss loves to say how many downloads they have, but that means very little. Within my organisation the download:deployment ratio would be at least 10:1. Our purchase:deployment ratio for WebLogic is 1:1
The JBoss Group is involved in a lot advancements in the Java EE space, but I'm not convinced it's having the much direct impact on enterprises yet. It probably will in the future, but will they attribute it to JBoss? Probably not - they'll just be buying it from their existing vendor.
The article says that IBM billed $20,350 for their efforts. The appeals court decision refers to there being two IBM experts on that bill at $50/hr each.
That's 5 weeks of full time work for each of them.
If it takes IBM that long to work out where an intrusion came from and fix it, then they really need to invest in some better detection and logging systems.
I'd give you opportunity to show the 2nd one (an awareness of the importance of code quality) throughout the interview.
If I'm interviewing a unix hacker, then typically they'll know a few scripting languages. I'll ask them which they prefer and why. Now, at that point I'm not looking for "Perl is the best" or "Perl sucks", I want to hear reasoned arguments with clear business motives. So a good answer might be "I personally like Perl because it has a lot of power and there's a lot of useful libraries available for it, but if your developers lack discipline you can end up with messy code that's hard to maintain. So if it was something I was building for myself, I'd use Perl, but for a team project I'd look at the skills of the developers because maybe Python would be a better fit."
Anyone can say "I really care about code quality". Most developers even mean it. What I really want to know is that you understand that quality is a result of good practices. It's not an accident, you need to choose your tools and processes to encourage quality. If you can demonstrate that, you'd automatically be in the top 20% of the people I interview. If you know that quality isn't a boolean value, and that different levels of quality are appropriate for different circumstances, then you're into the top 10%.
I can't guarantee that other interviewers will ask the same sort of questions, or want the same sort of answers, but my recommendation is to work the things you care about into your answers to their questions.
Now onto the first point, hopefully it's clear that I'm the techie in the interview, so I'm happy to get questions about that. Things I would happily answer are
What tools do you use? Why did you choose them?
Can I have a tour of your development area?
How do you go about testing? (tools/processes/etc)
Whats sort of systems/applications would I be working on? Is this new development work or maintenance?
What sort of design process do you go through?
If you asked me a few of those, then (a) you'd look good (top 5% now, which would be an almost certain hire) and (b) I think my answers would give you the info you needed to get an idea about how good our code is.
You seem to have taken an idea and run with it. And now you're miles away from where the idea started out.
The original question was "How do you feel about interviewees who take notes during the interview?"
My response is that I'd feel weird. There's no reason for someone to do it, so I'd be a bit put off if they tried.
That says nothing (well, not very much) about our interview process.
I agree with all your points, but you know very little about our interview process, so your criticisms of it are unfounded. Specifically,
[...] ask polite but honest questions about [...] remuneration at some appropriate moment, and I will be completely unable to answer you. I have no knowledge of what anyone in my team earns (other than myself obviously). Your remuneration will be determined between our divisional manager and HR, and they're not in the interview at that time. If you ask, I'll tell you that, but (to return to the original question) if you decided you needed to take notes on the fact that I couldn't tell you what you'd be earning, then I'd find you a little strange.
Be careful with this one. I would certainly never show a potential employee our code. They haven't signed any employment documents yet, so they have no legal obligations with respect to the information they see.
I work in the finance industry, so if an interviewee asked to see code my (internal) reaction would be "do you think we're crazy?" and if you get that reaction from me, it tends to decrease your hiring chances.
It's not necessarily bad advice, but watch where you use it.
When I'm hiring, I tend to get a bad feeling when people ask questions along those lines.
I don't like hiring someone who is only using this job to get a better one - even if it is within my company. I want the person I hire to be committed to do the job I hire them for, to the best of their ability.
If they do a good job then we'll reward them.
A colleague recently conducted an interview where the applicant was over-qualified, so she asked "Why do you want this role?". His reply: "Oh, I'd do anything to get a foot in the door at your company".
That's an immediate "no hire".
What you want is to find a way to ask questions like "If I work hard for you for a number of years, what sort of career path will be available?" without sounding like "If I do this shitty job for a while, can I then get a better one?".
I think that's a fine line to walk, so I'd recommend caution.
The inverviews I run have no need for a pen and paper. I'm just chatting about past projects, past experiences and general development ideas, to try and get a feel for how well the person would fit the role we have.
The questions about start dates, pay etc all happen with HR after we've given the nod that we want the person.
So if someone brought a pen and paper along, I'd see that as a good thing - they came prepared.
But if they actually used it, I'd see them as being a bit anal - there's no point trying to take notes when the discussion when the discussion is more of a "tell us about yourself" conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
The GPL says:
(emphasis mine)But the Ubuntu FAQ says "we are happy to distribute source code on CD to anybody we give a binary CD", which is insufficient. However, since I don't have a copy of their binary CD, I can tell what "is written in fine print on the back of each CD", so it may be all covered there.
And as it happens, the IIe was the 3rd computer in the apple II line anyway.
Actually I suspect a large number of people here would very particularly eager to get their hands on a first generation apple.
Was that a first generation IIe?
A number of pacific countries. e.g. Fiji.
Oh come on. You're not seriously going to claim that the Welsh are speaking English are you?
That would be a 3 pointed star then.
6 angles -> 6 sides.
In fact, not even that has been shown.
All that's been shown in that 1 guy didn't present sufficient evidence that it was anti-competitive. There's nothing stopping someone else from trying to make the same argument but with better evidence. I personally think they would lose, but this decision certainly doesn't say "the GPL is not anti-competitive".
If anything the precedent is "Merely showing that it would be hard for you to compete in the market does not prove that the market is anti-competitive". And that's hardly a new revelation.
Do we really need to quote the whole article directly just to get you to read it?
Really, is reading the article that hard?
MS SQL Server is the only large scale database I know of that doesn't have a linux version. But that's hardly surprising since they don't seem to have any unix versions at all. (Hmmm... intriguing)
- http://www.sybase.com/linux
- http://www.borland.com/us/products/interbase/inde
x .html
etc.There are more than 2 unix databases commericially available.
Request to moderators to lift score of parent.
That's an interesting perspective...
The Greens are increasing in popularity, but the Democrats are losing popularity faster than the Greens can pick it up.
In the last federal election, the minor parties lost a pretty much all their influence - the only minor party that plays any role is white, anglo-saxon, hetro-sexual, conservative middle-class families first. And they only get to play on the incredibly rare occasion that backdown Barnaby actually crosses the floor.
At a state level, both the Greens and the Democrats recently lost influence in their preferred states.
The Democrats have always had more influence in South Australia - they once had 16% of the vote. In the most recent election they ended up with 2% of the vote.
The Greens have always had more influence in Tasmania. As of the last election (I think) they lost official party status, as they ended up with only 2 representatives (they previously had 3).
So, with the exception of Family First, it looks like Australia is moving more towards a 2 party system than it has at any time in the last 20 years. Whether the state results translate into federal results remains to be seen.
Not to the extent you seem to think.
We have a development team. We need a new person to join it. We think that we'd like someone with 2 to 4 years experience.
It would be preferable if that experience was in our industry (finance), but we'll look at any talented candidates.
We know what skills are mandatory and which ones are desirable.
There's a large range of potential candidates there, and they will deliver different value to our team. As a general rule, the candiate with 4 years experience in the right technology in the right industry with the right demeanour will contribute substantially more to our projects than someone with 2 years experience in a different industry. We'll pay in accordance with that.
So yes, we know what a really great candidate is worth (to us) and what an average candidate is worth, but that's quite a range and it's not particularly helpful to put it on a job ad.
I'm not trying to defend recruiters who won't tell you what a job is worth - it's not fair to expect you to interview before you can even know what's on offer - but you need to understand that (in our case at least) salaries are very dependant on the candidate.
However, speaking as an employer, we (i.e. the company I work for) generally don't have a specific salary in mind. We pay according to the candidate, not the job, so it is hard to give a meaningful number.
If we think you're a good candidate we'll try and negotiate an appropriate salary range for you. That will depend on your specific skills and experience more than it depends on the role we're trying to fill.
black lesbian females.
I'm sure that lesbian males will be OK.
So it means that black lesbian females are going to waste their time going to check out rooms that they have no hope in hell of ever being let.
If the landlord is going to discriminate, then everyone's better off knowing it up front. The opposite law would make more sense: you can't discriminate unless you advertised that you're going to (although I have no idea how you'd police that.)
Do you have any evidence for that? It certainly doesn't match my experience.
JBoss loves to say how many downloads they have, but that means very little. Within my organisation the download:deployment ratio would be at least 10:1. Our purchase:deployment ratio for WebLogic is 1:1
The JBoss Group is involved in a lot advancements in the Java EE space, but I'm not convinced it's having the much direct impact on enterprises yet. It probably will in the future, but will they attribute it to JBoss? Probably not - they'll just be buying it from their existing vendor.
Where?
Nowhere in NSW that I've been to has ever offered beer. You're not in one of those western states are you?
The article says that IBM billed $20,350 for their efforts. The appeals court decision refers to there being two IBM experts on that bill at $50/hr each.
That's 5 weeks of full time work for each of them.
If it takes IBM that long to work out where an intrusion came from and fix it, then they really need to invest in some better detection and logging systems.
Thanks for that...
Now I need to work out whether to mark you as a friend or a foe.
(And go into therapy)
If I'm interviewing a unix hacker, then typically they'll know a few scripting languages. I'll ask them which they prefer and why. Now, at that point I'm not looking for "Perl is the best" or "Perl sucks", I want to hear reasoned arguments with clear business motives. So a good answer might be "I personally like Perl because it has a lot of power and there's a lot of useful libraries available for it, but if your developers lack discipline you can end up with messy code that's hard to maintain. So if it was something I was building for myself, I'd use Perl, but for a team project I'd look at the skills of the developers because maybe Python would be a better fit."
Anyone can say "I really care about code quality". Most developers even mean it. What I really want to know is that you understand that quality is a result of good practices. It's not an accident, you need to choose your tools and processes to encourage quality. If you can demonstrate that, you'd automatically be in the top 20% of the people I interview. If you know that quality isn't a boolean value, and that different levels of quality are appropriate for different circumstances, then you're into the top 10%.
I can't guarantee that other interviewers will ask the same sort of questions, or want the same sort of answers, but my recommendation is to work the things you care about into your answers to their questions.
Now onto the first point, hopefully it's clear that I'm the techie in the interview, so I'm happy to get questions about that. Things I would happily answer are
- What tools do you use? Why did you choose them?
- Can I have a tour of your development area?
- How do you go about testing? (tools/processes/etc)
- Whats sort of systems/applications would I be working on? Is this new development work or maintenance?
- What sort of design process do you go through?
If you asked me a few of those, then (a) you'd look good (top 5% now, which would be an almost certain hire) and (b) I think my answers would give you the info you needed to get an idea about how good our code is.The original question was "How do you feel about interviewees who take notes during the interview?"
My response is that I'd feel weird. There's no reason for someone to do it, so I'd be a bit put off if they tried. That says nothing (well, not very much) about our interview process.
I agree with all your points, but you know very little about our interview process, so your criticisms of it are unfounded. Specifically, [...] ask polite but honest questions about [...] remuneration at some appropriate moment, and I will be completely unable to answer you. I have no knowledge of what anyone in my team earns (other than myself obviously). Your remuneration will be determined between our divisional manager and HR, and they're not in the interview at that time. If you ask, I'll tell you that, but (to return to the original question) if you decided you needed to take notes on the fact that I couldn't tell you what you'd be earning, then I'd find you a little strange.
I work in the finance industry, so if an interviewee asked to see code my (internal) reaction would be "do you think we're crazy?" and if you get that reaction from me, it tends to decrease your hiring chances.
It's not necessarily bad advice, but watch where you use it.
I don't like hiring someone who is only using this job to get a better one - even if it is within my company. I want the person I hire to be committed to do the job I hire them for, to the best of their ability.
If they do a good job then we'll reward them.
A colleague recently conducted an interview where the applicant was over-qualified, so she asked "Why do you want this role?". His reply: "Oh, I'd do anything to get a foot in the door at your company".
That's an immediate "no hire".
What you want is to find a way to ask questions like "If I work hard for you for a number of years, what sort of career path will be available?" without sounding like "If I do this shitty job for a while, can I then get a better one?".
I think that's a fine line to walk, so I'd recommend caution.
The inverviews I run have no need for a pen and paper.
I'm just chatting about past projects, past experiences and general development ideas, to try and get a feel for how well the person would fit the role we have.
The questions about start dates, pay etc all happen with HR after we've given the nod that we want the person.
So if someone brought a pen and paper along, I'd see that as a good thing - they came prepared.
But if they actually used it, I'd see them as being a bit anal - there's no point trying to take notes when the discussion when the discussion is more of a "tell us about yourself" conversation.
Easy - you'd run a huge federal deficit, and let future generations sort it out.