I have a pair of QNAP NAS boxes. One at the home office and one at the commercial office. Each location backs up the local machines to the respective NAS and each night the 2 NAS boxes sync to each other. I use encrypted backups for all sensitive data. This has been working well for two years so far. Occasionally when I had an extended network outage at my office I physically transferred that NAS to the house to sync at gigabit speeds. On a given day I may gave a delta of up to 100G but usually it is much less and we'll within the network uplink capacity (2.5Gbps) to finish before the morning rush starts
The author appears to believe that old version control systems are bad because they are old. I have used ( and administered ) projects using RCS, CVS, SVN, Perforce, Clearcase, Git and VSS. RCS - Advantage: no setup necessary. I used RCS to track changes to my 140 page thesis ( latex ) during the year of writing. I can still take that tar archive and extract to any workstation, PC ( windows, mac or linux) and have full access to the revision history. No setup, dirt simple. ( of course since RCS was never designed to handle more than a single person modifying the file at a time, concepts like branching, merging etc, don't exist, but for simple single person projects, this is far better than nothing ( and vastly better than manually archiving copies when you remember to) CVS - Advantage: Supports multiple users, branching and merging (same server, DCVS variant provides some concept of distributed but should be avoided). Relatively easy to setup, and when restricted to ssh only access can be relatively secure. Disadvantage: no distributed support, very coarse security ( if you have access to the server and repository directory you have access, multiple projects on same server are clumsy to secure). SVN - better than CVS, but harder to setup ( less obvious ?). Distributed support (sort of), but no concept of locking checkouts, so not suitable for code that is not easily merged ( VHDL and Verilog can get ugly when you try to merge what appear to be trivial changes ). (CVS and SVN are pretty well supported via integration with many IDEs out of the box). Clearcase - Great big bag of hurt. Avoid this if at all possible. Advantage: Large companies ( Govm't contractors ) use this tool. Ratio of administrators to users 1:10 typically, so expensive manpower. Provides distrubuted (ish) support using Multi-Site. License costs very high. Security is laughable. Any user with network access to the server ports, and an installed licensed client (access to license server) and the ability to assume root on a unix/linux machine can perform any administrative level operations of the files. The client reported username and group membership are trusted by the server to determine access privilege. Perforce - Despite the authors grouping, P4 provides very good distributed support for controlled development projects. Using proxy servers remote access to files is pretty fast. The only tool listed so far that supports atomic checkins. If any file in the set you are submitting fails to checkin, the whole checkin fails. This may sound like a bad thing if you have never had to fix a problem where one file didn't get checked in, breaking the build. Security (access to parts of the repository) is controlled within the tool, so a fine level of granularity can be achieved. Account management can be done directly in perforce by the admin ( passwords stored locally ), or can be setup to use ldap/kerberos/Active Directory for added trust. VSS - Small bag of hurt. Small bag because it worked so poorly that we never used it for large projects. Nothing good to say about this, just say no. Git - I haven't used this enough to know if I like it or not. Having the repository replicated at each remote leaf (user) is nice for the distributed development, but for projects requiring close control of the source code this can be nightmarish. Since every remote site has a copy of the whole history, fixing the problem when Johnny accidentally checks in code from projectX that contractually cannot be shared with projectY can suck.
My only real complaints with MSE: 1. On a single core Celeron (2GHz) system it takes 100% of the CPU when running the live (background) checking option. 2. After scanning a known infected disk it found 14 infected files. Running AVG on the same disk found 2 more files, so although not a scientific analysis, I was inclined to go with AVG.
Unfortunately as most of these tools are only really useful if run in "live" mode ( constant background checking ), they are not suitable on any systems lacking multiple cpu cores.
Running MSE or AVG on quad core athlon 630 system shows no noticeable cpu load.
If the UN were the organization that we wish that it were, this would be a fine idea. Unfortunately, the politics of the UN would likely create a complete mess of the whole thing, resulting in the creation of a parallel system as folks tried to route around the problems caused. They don't have the best track record with managing things ( UNICEF is probably their best managed organization, and since it is ostensibly a children aid charity, it is difficult to politicize what it does (ie, it would not look good to deny aid to a country's children as punishment )). Just look at the mess many ISPs have created by abusing their DNS services, and the rise of OpenDNS as an alternative to avoid them. If the system were broken, then by all means change it, but since the choice here seems to be to take your analogy, one of taking my money management away from the accountant who hasn't screwed me yet, and giving it to my idiot neighbor who constantly writes bad checks, I'll pass for now.
Even though you have graduated, most Universities will help you find a job if you graduated from there. The jobs for entry level ( new graduate ) positions are not typically going to be posted on Monster, Hot Jobs, etc. since we look for those people at University Job fairs. I have been to many of these as a prospective employer, and there are always several Alumni who are there looking.
You are absolutely right. But timing is important in this process. If you are as awesome as you say, then besides being the exceptional case, you should understand that the hiring process is not a single interview.
Can you ask to review a code base that you will be working on, or review the processes used by the company? Absolutely. Should you expect that they may require you to sign an NDA before showing you some of this, again absolutely. This would all be part of a follow up session.
The process is: 1. Submit resume 2. HR vets candidates -- key word match, phone call 3. Possibly if HR is unsure, a senior technical person will call and have a conversation. 4. Invited in for on-site interviews. This is where you assess the company for culture, location, facilities, and as much as possible who works there. The company tries to asses you for professional qualifications ( is your resume a load of bs ( it is amazing how many people pad their resume, claiming to be a network protocol expert when they have written a simple client server app)) and personality for a fit. 5. If the company is interested, then you should ask to discuss exactly what project you would be working on, and to see some design or process documentation, code etc. It may at this time be necessary for you to sign an NDA before getting access, and you make your own determination if that is fair or not.
If you are a "super star", or a known entity ( someone at the company knows you, or you or you are a generally recognized expert in your area) then this process will be different; but for the majority of us folks, this is pretty much normal.
I am corrected, Previously I responded that something was the dumbest post, but you win.
Really, do you think that you are so awesome that the crappy little code sample that you are showing me is going to blow my mind. Do you realize how unlikely it is that your sample code is even remotely related to the problem I am working on at that moment?
I want to see an example of what you have written in the past for a few reasons: 1. It shows me your style. Do you design before coding? this is usually evident by simple elegant solutions. An experienced programmer/engineer can tell alot from a small sample. 2. This is much more fair than me presenting you with some problem out of the blue. I am giving you as much time as you want to compose your solution. This is the audition part of the process. 3. I will be asking you questions about this example code to determine that it was in fact you who designed/wrote it, and to understand the thought process that you followed. This has 2 purposes.
a. I figure out if you are trying to bs me.
b. You get a chance to see what the caliber of your peers will be based upon the quality of my questions ( and I am working on the spot, without a net).
Interviewing should not be considered combat. I want to like you, and I want to hire you. I am asking 4-8 of my staff to take an hour out of their day to talk with you and see if you will be an asset to our organization.
A great interview is a conversation, not an interrogation. We both have something that the other wants and we are conversing to see if we are a mutual fit.
so this is the dumbest answer I have read today. Yes you are assessing them as they are assessing you, but if you respond in this way, you will be found to be combative and if I was interviewing you, I would probably escort you out at the end of the interview. Being asked to demonstrate your skills is completely valid. It is nearly impossible to fairly assess someone in an hour based solely on Q&A. I recommend bringing a portfolio of some work you have done ( again this must be your own property ). I also recommend googling for common programming interview questions and being prepared to answer them ( yes, even the lame finding a cycle in a linked list one ). This is basic homework, and shows that you take the position seriously.
I respect your feelings, but then again, I don't have to hire you. You may be an awesome coder ( actually, I don't hire coders, I hire engineers ), but there are many of those, and you are just another. If you have never had an interest in exploring your craft outside of work, you probably aren't who I am looking for.
And that would still be allowed, but you would need to compile your kernel with this option enabled ( or more to the point the other disabled ).
Like is discussed in the actual thread, it is debatable if ndiswrapper is wrapping otherwise restricted interfaces for the purpose of making them available to non-GPL'd modules or not. Clearly ( At least I think it is clear ) I would not be compliant if I wrote module dubious_1_wrapper that simply calls restricted kernel interfaces, but I allow non-GPL's modules to use my wrapper. (my_foo() calls kernel_foo()). It gets a little more vague though when my module is implementing a standard API that allows code written against that API to run. My work would clearly be derivative of the kernel, thus making it covered under the GPL. Code using the API may or may not be derivitive of the kernel though and since there is no precedent in case law dealing specifically with this issue, my experience has been that if you ask 3 lawyers their opinion, you will get 4 opinions. In the case of NDISwrapper, clearly the original NDIS based drivers cannot become encumbered by the GPL simply because someone writes a module that allows them to be included into the linux kernel. The issue of what license the interfacing module falls under could be in question though, and might not technically be legal at all ( not addressed in the thread, and not at this time being debated ). I am not an expert on ndiswrapper, and do not know to what extent it provides access to kernel level functionality. I suspect that Linus is not either, and thus why he required that the ndiswrapper folks provide a list of the kernel interfaces that they were using that were designated as GPLONLY. If the kernel developers responsible for those interfaces determine that ndiswrapper satisfies them, then there is no problem. I had occasion to speak with some lawyers about kernel modules and the GPL, and one of the interrestings that came out of it was that Linus is not the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed under the GPL. Once code was released under that license, the specifics of that license as interpreted in a court of law are the only consideration. Linus does not have the power to grant exceptions since he does not own all of the code. This came up when it was mentioned that Linus allows binary modules to be distributed. Since at the time there was no defined kernel API that could be used to write modules and not have them considered derived works of the kernel, it was irrelevant that he had publicly made statements saying that they were fine. I would be curious to see if the existance of this GPLONLY set of interfaces has created a new rule since it might be lead to imply that other interfaces are permitted.
Did you actually bother to read the entire thread? Linus is not anti-NDISwrapper. He is at worst ambivalent toward it. He is however unwilling to violate the will of the developer's who released their work under the GPL if they in fact feel that NDISwrapper is not legitimately a GPL module. There is legitimate cause to believe that NDISwrapper cannot itself be licensed under the GPL if it links against non-GPL code. Since the GPLONLY flag defines symbols that are only exported to modules licensed under the GPL, this caused a problem. Linus was requiring that the owner of those symbols agree to NDISwrapper using them ( and preferably having them not defined as GPLONLY for consistency ). As the principal kernel god, he was right in flagging this problem. Of course he and many others in the Linux community would prefer that linux native drivers existed for these devices, but anyone who has spent any time reading his comments would agree that Linus is a pragmatist ( he is an engineer ), not an idealist. He does have an obligation to enforce the license that all of the kernel developers are releasing their work under. By the way, the end of the discussion seems to be Linus agreeing to roll back the change that broke the NDISwrapper. The hope is that if the change had been made intentionally to break NDISWrapper, then the submitter will resubmit the change and they discuss the reasons.
Actually the problem with the GPL V3 is that it attempts to extend the software license to restrictions on the hardware that runs it. I am more than willing to release the software modifications or extensions that I make into the community, keeping that software free and adding to it. I am not necessarily willing or able to provide to the world at large the ability to load and run modified software on my hardware. This is particularly the case when I am selling a security product where the ability to lock the hardware down is basic to ensuring the security. GPL V2 allowed me to satisfy both goals, V3 does not.
If the only base change is to the data URL, an entry in the/etc/hosts file to map that address to the new server address should take care of it. I assume that the service will use a static IP, so it should change rarely if at all. This becomes important when you consider the users of the various out-of-the-box myth distros such as knoppmyth and mythdora. The developers of those systems will need some time to migrate to the new system.
As a dev do you know if a subscription would allow me to connect all 4 of my myth boxes to one account? $15/3months is one thing, but $60/3months would be out of the question; and I am not a bug fan of the single server multi frontend system since HD content requires too much bandwidth.
There are many sites on the interweb that go into great detail on this subject.
Some simple guidelines:
1. The Bean
a. Coffee loses flavor and potency as soon as it has been roasted.
b. It loses it fastest once ground.
c. Find a local coffee roaster in your town who roasts what you like, and buy only as much as you will consume in a couple of weeks. There is not usually any savings for buying in bulk, so I prefer to buy half pounds to maximize the freshness.
d. Grind right before you brew. This keeps the coffee as fresh as possible.
e. Store the coffee in an airtight opaque container.
f. If you must buy more than you will consume in a short period (going on a long voyage). Store it in the freezer.
Note: Make sure that you only buy Arabica beans. Robusta beans are low grade, usually large bulk coffee vendors will mix the two, but if you are buying from a local roaster, they will probably be using either all arabica, or mostly aribica. There are some reasons to use a portion of robusta in the brew, but you can read about that elsewhere.
2. The Roast
a. There are several types of roast, all dealing with how long they are roasted. The lightest roasts will generally have the fruitiest flavors, but will really show the quality of the bean. Medium roasts are best for revealing the nuances of the bean, while conveying the most caffeine. Dark roasts (such as French Roast) almost completely eliminate the bean flavor, and really you will only taste the flavors of the roasting itself. I prefer the french roast at work because the bean quality is pretty low, and I find that the columbian medium roast has a bad taste. Oddly the dark roasts have slightly less caffeine than the medium roasts.
3. The Grind.
a. The grind depends upon the brewing method. If you are making espresso's, then you probably don't need my advise on how to grind, but for this response, espresso gets the finest grind. If using an automatic drip, you want a medium/coarse grind. This is what the typical bagged ground coffee looks like. Finally if you are using a french press ( my preference ), you want a coarse grind that won't clog the plunger's mesh.
b. Never grind beans straight from the freezer. If you are storing them in the freezer, take out the days worth of beans before you go to bed and let them come to room temperature.
c. If you have the space and can afford it, buy a burr grinder. It will create a more consistent grind size than the cheap $10 s-mart hand grinder. If you must use a cheap hand grinder, I recommend shaking it during the grind to keep the beans moving, and practice how long you must grind to get the size that you want. Large boulders of coffee bean don't give up their flavor readily.
4. The Brew.
Many scholars have gone to battle over the best brewing method. The ideal brew uses 200F water and the minimum time needed to extract all of the flavor, but none of the bad.
a. This is the basis of the design of a modern espresso machine that pushes 200F water under pressure through the packed grounds to extract the rich caramel goodness.
b. If you are using a french press, the recommended method is to preheat the glass before you introduce the grounds and steeping water. I pour a measure of hot water from my tea pot into the glass then pour it out; add the ground beans and fill with 200F water; cover and let steep for about 3 minutes, then plunge and enjoy.
c. The third preferred method is the automatic drip. The main problems with most automatic drip machines are:
1) They do not get the water hot enough for proper extraction.
2) The
Since the GPL V2 stipulates that the code so licensed cannot be licensed under a more restrictive license, and since GPL V3 is a more restrictive license, does this not in and of itself prohibit a project from switching to GPL V3 without the explicit agreement of all contributors?
And before Pacman and Firebird (or after, I lose track of time) there was Risk, Dungeons and Dragons, Go and pretty much any other distraction that someone looking is going to find.
If video games allow the proletariat some measure of satisfaction and distraction from their otherwise bleak lives, then at least it isn't destroying their livers or arguably brain cells. We need people to be content doing mindless jobs and no human being with half a brain will tolerate that without some sort of anesthesia or escape. What scares the PTBs (powers that be) is how little they control the video game world. They have controlled the television and radio medias for so long now that they can easily achieve their desired effect if they can keep the people watching (and listening).
What probably bothers Mr. O'Reilly more is that while playing video games, the Television is not tuned to the force fed pablum it otherwise would be projecting. Far worse than any "mindless" video games is the truely mindless offerings of television. If you consider the whole, rather than any single program, it is obvious that the one and only intent of television is to seperate you from your money. Beyond the obvious commecials is the more insideous consumerism promoted by most other shows. Show you the lives of the wealthy and fabulous, then offer credit to allow you to purchase a shadow of that image.
There are many games (in fact some of the most involving) that engage the mind and may elnighten the player. Anyone who has ever seriously played a SimCity or Civilization game must have achieved a degree of understanding or insight into macro economics. I for one would like to see a candidates SimCity score published if they are running for city council or Mayor. If you can't beat the simulation, you probably shouldn't get the job.
Even if one assumes that there is a license to use associated with the item, you would then need to assume that the license was non-transferable. My understanding of the Fair Use issue is that it should be legal for me to make a copy of a work that I have purchased to serve as a backup in case the original is damaged, but if I sell the original, I no longer have a right to keep or use the "backup" copy. This seems to pass the reasonable expectation test; and even more importantly to me, it passes the morality test (you know, the one that tells you that you are full of shit when you say that downloading music that you have not paid for in any form is perfectly acceptable). While I own (have paid for) a version of something, I should be able to make copies of it ( and in general use the copies as long as only one copy is in use at any time, this in fact used to be a common license for many software applications that recognized that I would want to run the same program at home and in my office, and as long as I was not running it in both places simultaneously it was permitted).
do you feel that researching a prospective employee is tacky, or that checking facebook, myspace, etc is tacky? When I am tapped for recruiting for my company, I regularly do at least a google search for the individual. Similarly when I am the being interviewed for a job, and the company I am interviewing with is nice enough to tell me in advance who will be interviewing me, i google for them as well. In both cases I pay particular attention to usenet posts, etc that may give me an indication of the persons interests, as well as their technical acumen. I see this no different than doing a document search or patent search against the individuals name when they are senior enough to be expected to have either published or gotten patents. Hiring someone is serious business. You as the prospective employee should treat is as such, and I as the gatekeeper must. For prospective hirees, do not underestimate the importance of the phone interview. Sure, some interviewers are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, and recommend most interviewees for in house interviewing, but others (myself included) see this as an important filter, and the interviewee must impress me that it is worth having 4 or 5 of our best engineers spend 45 minutes each talking with the person. Anything that you write or post to the internet is fair game. This post of mine is fair game. You should never write anything that you would be embarassed to have made public. As a prospective job seeker, do yourself a favor and google yourself, your email address, and any other identifiable things that could be extracted from your resume by a smart interviewer. Know what you have written, and be prepared to explain anything that you probably should have not published. With things like the wayback machine, it is not always possible to eliminate these tracks later on. On the flip side, if someone is claiming expertise in a subject and a search for them reveals nothing, that can be an indication that they are not as much of a guru as they are claiming. Someone claiming to be an expert on embedded linux, and siting openwrt as a project they have worked on would be expected to be active on the projects forum, bug track, or wiki as the case may be.
In the "real" world, a customer pays for the result. A working product. Class assignments are not the product, if they were, then the value of the assignment would be less than a penny since the instructor typically already has a working solution to the problem (and probably many from past students). The student is assigned the work to demonstrate their prowess at solving and implementing the solution to a problem. The product is the demonstration. The code provided by the student to the grader is in effect a proxy for the demonstration, and is only valid in that role if actually created by the student. Beyond morals and ethics, the two are not even equivalent economically.
WildBlue (www.wildblue.com) is a new sat. service starting in June 2005. It offers service for $45/month and says that is works with VPN, although an IPSEC VPN suffers in performance due to the Sat. Latency.
But does the removal tool work? If a virus writer provides a removal tool, is their work not still a virus? I have tried in the past to remove similar programs, and maybe this one, I don't know, and found that the removal tool suspiciously needed to go out to the internet first. SOmehow I don't trust this.
It installs itself onto my computer without my permission. It resists all of my efforts to uninstall it when I try. It steals my CPU cycles and system memory.
These all seem like virus activities to me, and if we would start calling this crap what it is, then it would be forced to stop hiding in the legal shadows.
If you are currently going to a school that specializes in something far removed from CS and you want to work in the CS field, you may not be getting everything you should. You will probably have no problem learning the core skills, but may be missing out on the real value of the more prestigeous school, and that is the peers around you. I learned as much or more from my peers as I did from my professors. The more prestigeous school typically will attract on average a higher caliber of student, and these students will challenge you to push yourself as well. I learned more in graduate school than in undergrad primarily because in undergrad I was always at the top of my class and was never seriously challenged. I always knew that there were smarter people than me in the world, but it was at grad school where I learned how many there were. Working on side projects with these people pushed me and really is what provided me the skills that I use everyday in my work.
AFAIK, this sort of approach started in the Cold War, right? To avoid the Red peril? Who is to say that we need only US-based production in an environment where everyone can see and is using the same code?
The NSA says so, and if you want to make a "secure" product to sell to the US Government they are the one you must apease.
There is a basic difference between this and the AdTI paper. GHS (Green Hills) is am embedded software company that has been around for over 20 years. Asuming that this was funded by MS as some have professed is nieve. GHS sees Linux as a competitor. As such they want to point out what they see as a fatal flaw in their competition. What have they claimed: 1. Linux has not been certified above AEL2. This was shown to be false as SUSE has an implementation certified to AEL3+. 2. Windows has been certified at AEL4. This is true, but should be understood that it is a specific version of windows with a specific patch. 3. Linux is developed outside of the control of the US. This is definiitely true, with the father being Finish and many contributors not living in the US let alone being citizens. 4. GHS Integrity OS is developed solely by US citizens in a controlled environment at a US company. This is provable by GHS and should be taken at face value. 5. One should not trust their national security to a system whose pedigree is not known. This seems like a wise idea. The NSA does not have the manpower to examine every line of a linux distribution, or even the linux kernel for that matter. The size of the kernel tree, and the lack of partitioning (memory space isolation) in much of the code would require that all possible combinations of modules etc. be examined for a generic kernel. This would be hugely expensive.
Now this is not in anyway claiming that linux should not be used on government computers, just that it may not be suitable for secure/trusted/critical systems. The fact that he is selling a competing product should have precluded him from being used as a contributor to this site. Does his bias render everything that he has said incorrect? Of course not.
With the exception of the AEL3+ vs AEL4 error, nothing that he claims appears to be incorrect factually. This is directly in contrast with the AdTI piece. Makeing a comparison between the two only detracts from you point.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a pair of QNAP NAS boxes. One at the home office and one at the commercial office. Each location backs up the local machines to the respective NAS and each night the 2 NAS boxes sync to each other. I use encrypted backups for all sensitive data. This has been working well for two years so far.
Occasionally when I had an extended network outage at my office I physically transferred that NAS to the house to sync at gigabit speeds.
On a given day I may gave a delta of up to 100G but usually it is much less and we'll within the network uplink capacity (2.5Gbps) to finish before the morning rush starts
The author appears to believe that old version control systems are bad because they are old.
I have used ( and administered ) projects using RCS, CVS, SVN, Perforce, Clearcase, Git and VSS.
RCS - Advantage: no setup necessary. I used RCS to track changes to my 140 page thesis ( latex ) during the year of writing. I can still take that tar archive and extract to any workstation, PC ( windows, mac or linux) and have full access to the revision history. No setup, dirt simple. ( of course since RCS was never designed to handle more than a single person modifying the file at a time, concepts like branching, merging etc, don't exist, but for simple single person projects, this is far better than nothing ( and vastly better than manually archiving copies when you remember to)
CVS - Advantage: Supports multiple users, branching and merging (same server, DCVS variant provides some concept of distributed but should be avoided). Relatively easy to setup, and when restricted to ssh only access can be relatively secure. Disadvantage: no distributed support, very coarse security ( if you have access to the server and repository directory you have access, multiple projects on same server are clumsy to secure).
SVN - better than CVS, but harder to setup ( less obvious ?). Distributed support (sort of), but no concept of locking checkouts, so not suitable for code that is not easily merged ( VHDL and Verilog can get ugly when you try to merge what appear to be trivial changes ).
(CVS and SVN are pretty well supported via integration with many IDEs out of the box).
Clearcase - Great big bag of hurt. Avoid this if at all possible. Advantage: Large companies ( Govm't contractors ) use this tool. Ratio of administrators to users 1:10 typically, so expensive manpower. Provides distrubuted (ish) support using Multi-Site. License costs very high. Security is laughable. Any user with network access to the server ports, and an installed licensed client (access to license server) and the ability to assume root on a unix/linux machine can perform any administrative level operations of the files. The client reported username and group membership are trusted by the server to determine access privilege.
Perforce - Despite the authors grouping, P4 provides very good distributed support for controlled development projects. Using proxy servers remote access to files is pretty fast. The only tool listed so far that supports atomic checkins. If any file in the set you are submitting fails to checkin, the whole checkin fails. This may sound like a bad thing if you have never had to fix a problem where one file didn't get checked in, breaking the build. Security (access to parts of the repository) is controlled within the tool, so a fine level of granularity can be achieved. Account management can be done directly in perforce by the admin ( passwords stored locally ), or can be setup to use ldap/kerberos/Active Directory for added trust.
VSS - Small bag of hurt. Small bag because it worked so poorly that we never used it for large projects. Nothing good to say about this, just say no.
Git - I haven't used this enough to know if I like it or not. Having the repository replicated at each remote leaf (user) is nice for the distributed development, but for projects requiring close control of the source code this can be nightmarish. Since every remote site has a copy of the whole history, fixing the problem when Johnny accidentally checks in code from projectX that contractually cannot be shared with projectY can suck.
My only real complaints with MSE:
1. On a single core Celeron (2GHz) system it takes 100% of the CPU when running the live (background) checking option.
2. After scanning a known infected disk it found 14 infected files. Running AVG on the same disk found 2 more files, so although not a scientific analysis, I was inclined to go with AVG.
Unfortunately as most of these tools are only really useful if run in "live" mode ( constant background checking ), they are not suitable on any systems lacking multiple cpu cores.
Running MSE or AVG on quad core athlon 630 system shows no noticeable cpu load.
If the UN were the organization that we wish that it were, this would be a fine idea.
Unfortunately, the politics of the UN would likely create a complete mess of the whole thing, resulting in the creation of a parallel system as folks tried to route around the problems caused. They don't have the best track record with managing things ( UNICEF is probably their best managed organization, and since it is ostensibly a children aid charity, it is difficult to politicize what it does (ie, it would not look good to deny aid to a country's children as punishment )).
Just look at the mess many ISPs have created by abusing their DNS services, and the rise of OpenDNS as an alternative to avoid them.
If the system were broken, then by all means change it, but since the choice here seems to be to take your analogy, one of taking my money management away from the accountant who hasn't screwed me yet, and giving it to my idiot neighbor who constantly writes bad checks, I'll pass for now.
Even though you have graduated, most Universities will help you find a job if you graduated from there. The jobs for entry level ( new graduate ) positions are not typically going to be posted on Monster, Hot Jobs, etc. since we look for those people at University Job fairs.
I have been to many of these as a prospective employer, and there are always several Alumni who are there looking.
You are absolutely right.
But timing is important in this process.
If you are as awesome as you say, then besides being the exceptional case, you should understand that the hiring process is not a single interview.
Can you ask to review a code base that you will be working on, or review the processes used by the company? Absolutely. Should you expect that they may require you to sign an NDA before showing you some of this, again absolutely.
This would all be part of a follow up session.
The process is:
1. Submit resume
2. HR vets candidates -- key word match, phone call
3. Possibly if HR is unsure, a senior technical person will call and have a conversation.
4. Invited in for on-site interviews. This is where you assess the company for culture, location, facilities, and as much as possible who works there. The company tries to asses you for professional qualifications ( is your resume a load of bs ( it is amazing how many people pad their resume, claiming to be a network protocol expert when they have written a simple client server app)) and personality for a fit.
5. If the company is interested, then you should ask to discuss exactly what project you would be working on, and to see some design or process documentation, code etc. It may at this time be necessary for you to sign an NDA before getting access, and you make your own determination if that is fair or not.
If you are a "super star", or a known entity ( someone at the company knows you, or you or you are a generally recognized expert in your area) then this process will be different; but for the majority of us folks, this is pretty much normal.
I am corrected, Previously I responded that something was the dumbest post, but you win.
Really, do you think that you are so awesome that the crappy little code sample that you are showing me is going to blow my mind. Do you realize how unlikely it is that your sample code is even remotely related to the problem I am working on at that moment?
I want to see an example of what you have written in the past for a few reasons:
1. It shows me your style. Do you design before coding? this is usually evident by simple elegant solutions. An experienced programmer/engineer can tell alot from a small sample.
2. This is much more fair than me presenting you with some problem out of the blue. I am giving you as much time as you want to compose your solution. This is the audition part of the process.
3. I will be asking you questions about this example code to determine that it was in fact you who designed/wrote it, and to understand the thought process that you followed. This has 2 purposes.
a. I figure out if you are trying to bs me.
b. You get a chance to see what the caliber of your peers will be based upon the quality of my questions ( and I am working on the spot, without a net).
Interviewing should not be considered combat. I want to like you, and I want to hire you. I am asking 4-8 of my staff to take an hour out of their day to talk with you and see if you will be an asset to our organization.
A great interview is a conversation, not an interrogation. We both have something that the other wants and we are conversing to see if we are a mutual fit.
so this is the dumbest answer I have read today. Yes you are assessing them as they are assessing you, but if you respond in this way, you will be found to be combative and if I was interviewing you, I would probably escort you out at the end of the interview.
Being asked to demonstrate your skills is completely valid. It is nearly impossible to fairly assess someone in an hour based solely on Q&A.
I recommend bringing a portfolio of some work you have done ( again this must be your own property ). I also recommend googling for common programming interview questions and being prepared to answer them ( yes, even the lame finding a cycle in a linked list one ). This is basic homework, and shows that you take the position seriously.
I respect your feelings, but then again, I don't have to hire you. You may be an awesome coder ( actually, I don't hire coders, I hire engineers ), but there are many of those, and you are just another.
If you have never had an interest in exploring your craft outside of work, you probably aren't who I am looking for.
And that would still be allowed, but you would need to compile your kernel with this option enabled ( or more to the point the other disabled ).
Like is discussed in the actual thread, it is debatable if ndiswrapper is wrapping otherwise restricted interfaces for the purpose of making them available to non-GPL'd modules or not. Clearly ( At least I think it is clear ) I would not be compliant if I wrote module dubious_1_wrapper that simply calls restricted kernel interfaces, but I allow non-GPL's modules to use my wrapper. (my_foo() calls kernel_foo()).
It gets a little more vague though when my module is implementing a standard API that allows code written against that API to run. My work would clearly be derivative of the kernel, thus making it covered under the GPL. Code using the API may or may not be derivitive of the kernel though and since there is no precedent in case law dealing specifically with this issue, my experience has been that if you ask 3 lawyers their opinion, you will get 4 opinions.
In the case of NDISwrapper, clearly the original NDIS based drivers cannot become encumbered by the GPL simply because someone writes a module that allows them to be included into the linux kernel. The issue of what license the interfacing module falls under could be in question though, and might not technically be legal at all ( not addressed in the thread, and not at this time being debated ). I am not an expert on ndiswrapper, and do not know to what extent it provides access to kernel level functionality. I suspect that Linus is not either, and thus why he required that the ndiswrapper folks provide a list of the kernel interfaces that they were using that were designated as GPLONLY. If the kernel developers responsible for those interfaces determine that ndiswrapper satisfies them, then there is no problem.
I had occasion to speak with some lawyers about kernel modules and the GPL, and one of the interrestings that came out of it was that Linus is not the final arbiter of what is and is not allowed under the GPL. Once code was released under that license, the specifics of that license as interpreted in a court of law are the only consideration. Linus does not have the power to grant exceptions since he does not own all of the code. This came up when it was mentioned that Linus allows binary modules to be distributed. Since at the time there was no defined kernel API that could be used to write modules and not have them considered derived works of the kernel, it was irrelevant that he had publicly made statements saying that they were fine. I would be curious to see if the existance of this GPLONLY set of interfaces has created a new rule since it might be lead to imply that other interfaces are permitted.
Did you actually bother to read the entire thread? Linus is not anti-NDISwrapper. He is at worst ambivalent toward it. He is however unwilling to violate the will of the developer's who released their work under the GPL if they in fact feel that NDISwrapper is not legitimately a GPL module.
There is legitimate cause to believe that NDISwrapper cannot itself be licensed under the GPL if it links against non-GPL code. Since the GPLONLY flag defines symbols that are only exported to modules licensed under the GPL, this caused a problem. Linus was requiring that the owner of those symbols agree to NDISwrapper using them ( and preferably having them not defined as GPLONLY for consistency ). As the principal kernel god, he was right in flagging this problem.
Of course he and many others in the Linux community would prefer that linux native drivers existed for these devices, but anyone who has spent any time reading his comments would agree that Linus is a pragmatist ( he is an engineer ), not an idealist. He does have an obligation to enforce the license that all of the kernel developers are releasing their work under.
By the way, the end of the discussion seems to be Linus agreeing to roll back the change that broke the NDISwrapper. The hope is that if the change had been made intentionally to break NDISWrapper, then the submitter will resubmit the change and they discuss the reasons.
Actually the problem with the GPL V3 is that it attempts to extend the software license to restrictions on the hardware that runs it.
I am more than willing to release the software modifications or extensions that I make into the community, keeping that software free and adding to it. I am not necessarily willing or able to provide to the world at large the ability to load and run modified software on my hardware. This is particularly the case when I am selling a security product where the ability to lock the hardware down is basic to ensuring the security.
GPL V2 allowed me to satisfy both goals, V3 does not.
If the only base change is to the data URL, an entry in the /etc/hosts file to map that address to the new server address should take care of it.
I assume that the service will use a static IP, so it should change rarely if at all.
This becomes important when you consider the users of the various out-of-the-box myth distros such as knoppmyth and mythdora. The developers of those systems will need some time to migrate to the new system.
As a dev do you know if a subscription would allow me to connect all 4 of my myth boxes to one account? $15/3months is one thing, but $60/3months would be out of the question; and I am not a bug fan of the single server multi frontend system since HD content requires too much bandwidth.
There are many sites on the interweb that go into great detail on this subject.
Some simple guidelines:
1. The Bean
a. Coffee loses flavor and potency as soon as it has been roasted.
b. It loses it fastest once ground.
c. Find a local coffee roaster in your town who roasts what you like, and buy only as much as you will consume in a couple of weeks. There is not usually any savings for buying in bulk, so I prefer to buy half pounds to maximize the freshness.
d. Grind right before you brew. This keeps the coffee as fresh as possible.
e. Store the coffee in an airtight opaque container.
f. If you must buy more than you will consume in a short period (going on a long voyage). Store it in the freezer.
Note: Make sure that you only buy Arabica beans. Robusta beans are low grade, usually large bulk coffee vendors will mix the two, but if you are buying from a local roaster, they will probably be using either all arabica, or mostly aribica. There are some reasons to use a portion of robusta in the brew, but you can read about that elsewhere.
2. The Roast
a. There are several types of roast, all dealing with how long they are roasted. The lightest roasts will generally have the fruitiest flavors, but will really show the quality of the bean. Medium roasts are best for revealing the nuances of the bean, while conveying the most caffeine. Dark roasts (such as French Roast) almost completely eliminate the bean flavor, and really you will only taste the flavors of the roasting itself. I prefer the french roast at work because the bean quality is pretty low, and I find that the columbian medium roast has a bad taste. Oddly the dark roasts have slightly less caffeine than the medium roasts.
3. The Grind.
a. The grind depends upon the brewing method. If you are making espresso's, then you probably don't need my advise on how to grind, but for this response, espresso gets the finest grind. If using an automatic drip, you want a medium/coarse grind. This is what the typical bagged ground coffee looks like. Finally if you are using a french press ( my preference ), you want a coarse grind that won't clog the plunger's mesh.
b. Never grind beans straight from the freezer. If you are storing them in the freezer, take out the days worth of beans before you go to bed and let them come to room temperature.
c. If you have the space and can afford it, buy a burr grinder. It will create a more consistent grind size than the cheap $10 s-mart hand grinder. If you must use a cheap hand grinder, I recommend shaking it during the grind to keep the beans moving, and practice how long you must grind to get the size that you want. Large boulders of coffee bean don't give up their flavor readily.
4. The Brew.
Many scholars have gone to battle over the best brewing method. The ideal brew uses 200F water and the minimum time needed to extract all of the flavor, but none of the bad.
a. This is the basis of the design of a modern espresso machine that pushes 200F water under pressure through the packed grounds to extract the rich caramel goodness.
b. If you are using a french press, the recommended method is to preheat the glass before you introduce the grounds and steeping water. I pour a measure of hot water from my tea pot into the glass then pour it out; add the ground beans and fill with 200F water; cover and let steep for about 3 minutes, then plunge and enjoy.
c. The third preferred method is the automatic drip. The main problems with most automatic drip machines are:
1) They do not get the water hot enough for proper extraction.
2) The
Since the GPL V2 stipulates that the code so licensed cannot be licensed under a more restrictive license, and since GPL V3 is a more restrictive license, does this not in and of itself prohibit a project from switching to GPL V3 without the explicit agreement of all contributors?
If video games allow the proletariat some measure of satisfaction and distraction from their otherwise bleak lives, then at least it isn't destroying their livers or arguably brain cells. We need people to be content doing mindless jobs and no human being with half a brain will tolerate that without some sort of anesthesia or escape. What scares the PTBs (powers that be) is how little they control the video game world. They have controlled the television and radio medias for so long now that they can easily achieve their desired effect if they can keep the people watching (and listening).
What probably bothers Mr. O'Reilly more is that while playing video games, the Television is not tuned to the force fed pablum it otherwise would be projecting. Far worse than any "mindless" video games is the truely mindless offerings of television. If you consider the whole, rather than any single program, it is obvious that the one and only intent of television is to seperate you from your money. Beyond the obvious commecials is the more insideous consumerism promoted by most other shows. Show you the lives of the wealthy and fabulous, then offer credit to allow you to purchase a shadow of that image.
There are many games (in fact some of the most involving) that engage the mind and may elnighten the player. Anyone who has ever seriously played a SimCity or Civilization game must have achieved a degree of understanding or insight into macro economics. I for one would like to see a candidates SimCity score published if they are running for city council or Mayor. If you can't beat the simulation, you probably shouldn't get the job.
Even if one assumes that there is a license to use associated with the item, you would then need to assume that the license was non-transferable.
My understanding of the Fair Use issue is that it should be legal for me to make a copy of a work that I have purchased to serve as a backup in case the original is damaged, but if I sell the original, I no longer have a right to keep or use the "backup" copy.
This seems to pass the reasonable expectation test; and even more importantly to me, it passes the morality test (you know, the one that tells you that you are full of shit when you say that downloading music that you have not paid for in any form is perfectly acceptable). While I own (have paid for) a version of something, I should be able to make copies of it ( and in general use the copies as long as only one copy is in use at any time, this in fact used to be a common license for many software applications that recognized that I would want to run the same program at home and in my office, and as long as I was not running it in both places simultaneously it was permitted).
do you feel that researching a prospective employee is tacky, or that checking facebook, myspace, etc is tacky?
When I am tapped for recruiting for my company, I regularly do at least a google search for the individual. Similarly when I am the being interviewed for a job, and the company I am interviewing with is nice enough to tell me in advance who will be interviewing me, i google for them as well.
In both cases I pay particular attention to usenet posts, etc that may give me an indication of the persons interests, as well as their technical acumen. I see this no different than doing a document search or patent search against the individuals name when they are senior enough to be expected to have either published or gotten patents.
Hiring someone is serious business. You as the prospective employee should treat is as such, and I as the gatekeeper must.
For prospective hirees, do not underestimate the importance of the phone interview. Sure, some interviewers are inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, and recommend most interviewees for in house interviewing, but others (myself included) see this as an important filter, and the interviewee must impress me that it is worth having 4 or 5 of our best engineers spend 45 minutes each talking with the person.
Anything that you write or post to the internet is fair game. This post of mine is fair game. You should never write anything that you would be embarassed to have made public.
As a prospective job seeker, do yourself a favor and google yourself, your email address, and any other identifiable things that could be extracted from your resume by a smart interviewer. Know what you have written, and be prepared to explain anything that you probably should have not published. With things like the wayback machine, it is not always possible to eliminate these tracks later on.
On the flip side, if someone is claiming expertise in a subject and a search for them reveals nothing, that can be an indication that they are not as much of a guru as they are claiming. Someone claiming to be an expert on embedded linux, and siting openwrt as a project they have worked on would be expected to be active on the projects forum, bug track, or wiki as the case may be.
In the "real" world, a customer pays for the result. A working product. Class assignments are not the product, if they were, then the value of the assignment would be less than a penny since the instructor typically already has a working solution to the problem (and probably many from past students).
The student is assigned the work to demonstrate their prowess at solving and implementing the solution to a problem. The product is the demonstration. The code provided by the student to the grader is in effect a proxy for the demonstration, and is only valid in that role if actually created by the student.
Beyond morals and ethics, the two are not even equivalent economically.
WildBlue (www.wildblue.com) is a new sat. service starting in June 2005. It offers service for $45/month and says that is works with VPN, although an IPSEC VPN suffers in performance due to the Sat. Latency.
But does the removal tool work?
If a virus writer provides a removal tool, is their work not still a virus?
I have tried in the past to remove similar programs, and maybe this one, I don't know, and found that the removal tool suspiciously needed to go out to the internet first. SOmehow I don't trust this.
It installs itself onto my computer without my permission.
It resists all of my efforts to uninstall it when I try.
It steals my CPU cycles and system memory.
These all seem like virus activities to me, and if we would start calling this crap what it is, then it would be forced to stop hiding in the legal shadows.
If you are currently going to a school that specializes in something far removed from CS and you want to work in the CS field, you may not be getting everything you should. You will probably have no problem learning the core skills, but may be missing out on the real value of the more prestigeous school, and that is the peers around you. I learned as much or more from my peers as I did from my professors. The more prestigeous school typically will attract on average a higher caliber of student, and these students will challenge you to push yourself as well. I learned more in graduate school than in undergrad primarily because in undergrad I was always at the top of my class and was never seriously challenged. I always knew that there were smarter people than me in the world, but it was at grad school where I learned how many there were. Working on side projects with these people pushed me and really is what provided me the skills that I use everyday in my work.
AFAIK, this sort of approach started in the Cold War, right? To avoid the Red peril? Who is to say that we need only US-based production in an environment where everyone can see and is using the same code?
The NSA says so, and if you want to make a "secure" product to sell to the US Government they are the one you must apease.
There is a basic difference between this and the AdTI paper. GHS (Green Hills) is am embedded software company that has been around for over 20 years. Asuming that this was funded by MS as some have professed is nieve. GHS sees Linux as a competitor. As such they want to point out what they see as a fatal flaw in their competition.
What have they claimed:
1. Linux has not been certified above AEL2. This was shown to be false as SUSE has an implementation certified to AEL3+.
2. Windows has been certified at AEL4. This is true, but should be understood that it is a specific version of windows with a specific patch.
3. Linux is developed outside of the control of the US. This is definiitely true, with the father being Finish and many contributors not living in the US let alone being citizens.
4. GHS Integrity OS is developed solely by US citizens in a controlled environment at a US company. This is provable by GHS and should be taken at face value.
5. One should not trust their national security to a system whose pedigree is not known. This seems like a wise idea. The NSA does not have the manpower to examine every line of a linux distribution, or even the linux kernel for that matter. The size of the kernel tree, and the lack of partitioning (memory space isolation) in much of the code would require that all possible combinations of modules etc. be examined for a generic kernel. This would be hugely expensive.
Now this is not in anyway claiming that linux should not be used on government computers, just that it may not be suitable for secure/trusted/critical systems.
The fact that he is selling a competing product should have precluded him from being used as a contributor to this site. Does his bias render everything that he has said incorrect? Of course not.
With the exception of the AEL3+ vs AEL4 error, nothing that he claims appears to be incorrect factually. This is directly in contrast with the AdTI piece. Makeing a comparison between the two only detracts from you point.