I have no real answer, except that I feel your pain. What I'm about to say would probably help, but unless you're strict on the point I'll make, you'll be back to the same frustration.
I would suggest writing a PAPER contract and getting official PAPER signoffs for each phase reached (yes, with their REAL signatures and REAL dates for REAL milestones reached....)
Make THEM follow a process that determines up-front the real, fixed business requirements, with cost estimates for hours worked, processes required by you/them, etc. Don't allow them to verbally request/require anything. Besides, a "strict" contract makes you look more professional. Put all expectations (money, time, documentation reqs., process reqs., business reqs., amendments, scope changes, cost increases, etc.) in writing and spell things out clearly and plainly, so both sides know exactly what to expect.
In other words, make it a legal, binding contract!
Then, under promise and over deliver. Go beyond what the paper contract expects of you whenever you can. This is how you make the customer happy. Happiness == over delivering on expectations; on the other hand, expectations "change without notice" when there is no paper contract....
If that means you come up with a Q&D that delivers early, goes under budget, etc., tell them that you are in prototype/alpha/beta stage and pretty up the product with the remaining time, even if it means redeveloping it The Right Way. If they are content with the Q&D, spend the rest of your time cleaning your code, making cosmetic changes, testing, and documenting everything.
We all know that it really takes 3-4 development cycles to do things The Right Way. And we know that around 70-80% of your actual development time is testing and debugging, if it's a good quality application done The Right Way. However, most business/marketing types look at any IT project as a cost and as a burden. If you can under promise on paper and over deliver your product, you're on you way to creating a Win/Win solution that makes people happy.
Development is an art; it's like the proverbial author of books who has a trash can full of wadded up type written pages before a manuscript gets written -- it may take them 10 tries to write just one page. It's sad that this message never seems to get through to the business decision makers.
They expect magic from those black boxes we'll call computers and expect wizards, whom we shall dub "developers," to perform miracles using black arts and mysterious incantations (a development cycle). In other words, expect them to be utterly clueless about your side of the fence. Use a paper contract to help dispel their myths and to clear up any confusion.
Having clearly defined expectations makes everyone, especially customers, happier. (If they change these expectations, there should be a clause in the contract that addresses extra time and money for alterations.) A contract should right-size everyone's expectations.
Now, I can hear flames from the Extreme Programming/Agile Programming people, telling me that customer expectations will change, but I'd still hold fast to the ideal of spelling out expectations on paper, including what to do in case of scope changes.
I also can hear the cry, "A contract will get me sued." A contract, whether verbal or paper can get you sued, either way. Verbal "contracts," however, change constantly and become hearsay.
(The other extreme is to over analyze. I've seen so many projects get into this quagmire. You know the old proverb that a camel is a horse designed by committee....)
I've learned this from the school of hard knocks. I too have been frustrated and have been burned badly by not having things clearly spelled out ahead of time.
Get a paper contract that makes everybody follow a balanced process.... Of course, we live in a perfect world, customers actually know what they want, world hunger is now solved, yada yada....
Maybe this isn't *quite* what you want, but sounds close to your requirements. It also costs money....
I love the product I'll mention, below. I'm not selling anything, either, but am just a "hooked" developer.... So, here goes.... (No flame wars, please.)
I'd look at CodeCharge Studio at their http://www.codecharge.com/ web site. It generates excellent PHP, does excellent database and forms work, and lets you adapt the code it generates. It's also a full-blown IDE.
Now, it DOES make heavy use of OO, but I think it's still based on OpenSource API's.... The source code it generates is YOURS to do what you want with it, provided you buy the product....
At least you can have a commercial code generator for your choice of PHP, Perl, ASP, CFML, JSP (plus servlets), VB.net, and C#. It also generates Unix/Linux and Windows-compatible code that runs on a multitude of databases. It also generates CSS or non-CSS code. It gives you *huge* separation of logic and presentation and uses an application layer which is best suited for the language you want.
It lets you customize your code and tracks your changes, provided you use their IDE. It's not 100% perfect and doesn't generate reports very well -- yet. It probably does about 80-90% of what you want, though -- with VERY little effort.... I'll admit that it has a few day learning curve, for people not familiar with Visual Studio-like IDE's. (It's not owned by Microsoft but requires Windows to generate code.)
Heck, try it for a few weeks for free.
Think of it this way, follow the 80/20 rule. If 80% of your code is produced by a code generator and can quickly give you a working prototype you can show your customer early in the process... The other 20% (especially if it is just a customization of what's written for you) is easy, most of the time... It gives you more time to make more money, to do bigger jobs, and to do a better job.
I've had zero problems doing this, as well. Linux PPPoE works just fine. There are many HOW-TO's on the subject. LinkSys boxen work fine, as well.
I used the FloppyFW single-floppy distribution, with PPPoE support, followed the HOW-TO's and viola, instant Internet connection that follows the IP address changes very well. If you can get a single-floppy version of Linux working, with few issues, then a full hard drive or CDROM version should be a piece of cake. I was using it on a VERY old 16M, two 10MBps ISA network card, floppy-only 66MHz, Cyrix 386SLC box, and getting great performance!
Eventually, I switched to a LinkSys box, so that IPSec to connect to my company would be easier. It was hard to cram a PPPoE client, IPSec support, and a DHCP server into one floppy! It is being done, however.
I get great instant-on connections, IPSec support (couldn't do that with my cable MODEM), incoming traffic, almost full T-1 speeds, etc. They don't restrict Linux or LinkSys. I get free dial-up, when I'm out of town. They have great customer service, too.
I'd rate SBC's DSL at a 9 or 10. I rate my cable company's "high speed," highly restrictive Internet connection as a -50. (All on a scale of 1 to 10.) Now, if Sprint ION still existed, with 1Mbps up and 8Mbps down, I'd lower my SBC DSL rating (my dad had it and the data was FAST).
Not to start a flame war, but I don't see how you could possibly complain about SBC DSL compared to a satellite connection to the Internet....:-)
Mod me down, please, before the arrows start flying....
Let's see, there's the Netherlands, a land of "freedom" and "openness" and virtually no laws -- i.e., basic anarchy, as long as you leave others alone, for the most part.... Just legislate laws away and you have no criminals, right?
And then there's the U.S., a basically free country, which has too many laws to count, and plenty of laws which contradict other laws, and many times more population.... It's the country most lived in and hated by vocal Slashdotters -- most of the non-vocal probably disagree, with the vocal ones, but who can prove that, either way. (I am not the typical vocal Slashdotter, when it comes to my views of the U.S. Perhaps, warts and all, I love my country more than most.)
Hmmm, there was an almost 10 to 1 wiretap ratio between the Netherlands and the U.S, before the Netherlands stopped counting!?!?!?! Does this come as a surprise to me? Not really. It's just amusing.
Well, I have no point to make, except that the grass isn't necessarily greener everywhere else than the U.S. (No "grass" pun intended, BTW; we are talking about the Netherlands, after all.)
Of course, I believe that Windows XP and M$ DRM is a big commercial wiretap, but that's a different story.
However, read about Chinese hacking some time. Things like "Code Red" and "Code Blue" are just two of the major viruses propagated by the Chinese. Just do a Google search on "Hacked by Chinese" sometime, if you want to do some research.
Besides, only the Chinese government (not its people) has access to look at the source, for "security" reasons. Their government, though, condones/promotes cyberterrorism against the US and its allies. (Do the research, if you don't believe it....)
The US government already has the source. (Do a Google search on NSA, Microsoft, NT, SP3, and security sometime, too.)
The American people, however, HAVE squeaked a lot and have NOT gotten the source. THESE are the people who need to be protected from viruses created by the Chinese, and others.
Also, the Chinese government (and people) aren't on the nicest terms with the US. The list of reasons is long. They are NOT our ally.
So, yes, definitely, these are the wrong people to hand over the source, IF we don't have it, too. It's a matter of security.
OpenSource == security (much of the time)
Proprietary != security (much of the time)
Open to a government that promotes hacking != security
Close to those who need the information != security Open to a governmen
There are differences between standard "astronomy-based" telescopes and spotting scopes (or binoculars.)
Binoculars and spotting scopes show the image right-side up, due to an extra lens. Most telescopes for astronomy are up-side down and can be hard, for the unitiated, to track objects, due to earth's movement....
A high-powered pair of binoculars that are easy to attach and detach from a tripod is a great way to learn astronomy and still be able to do "spotting" work, such as bird watching.
My dad bought an excellent Leica spotting scope, used for watching American eagles, vultures, and the like, from his cabin on the lake.
This same spotting scope was nice for seeing the moons of Jupiter on one of its closest recent approaches. (It also helps that the cabin has a very dark night sky, very far away from city lights at night.)
The Leica is only a "20 to 60 power" scope, but it has excellent lenses, so images are very sharp and you can see well in the dark. (It's *much* better than what Galileo had to use, and he discovered the moons of Jupiter!) It'll see the planets, comets, etc., and can be mounted to a camera, with the right attachment.
I'd strongly recommend the Leica, but it ain't cheap!!!
If you are still interested in astronomy, research scopes during those months and be sure to check for sales and used Ebay scopes during that "waiting time," so that you can get a really good deal.
Also, join an astronomy club for a few months. You can find experts to mentor you and help you sort out fact from fiction.
Besides, what kind of scope do you want? How big a scope? Buying a "500 power" scope for $500 is usually an expensive waste of money for a cheapy scope.
Impulse buying is *NEARLY ALWAYS* much more expensive. If you take a wait-and-see approach, you *NEARLY ALWAYS* get much more for your money.
When reading astronomy-related magazines, I have found what I thought waas excellent advice. Instead of investigating in high-priced telescopes, focus your attention on a pair of some of the best binoculars you can find and some star charts. Then, give yourself several months of identifying objects in "constellation XYZ" and see if your still interested in astronomy, with its late nights and great needs for patience. (Add some OpenSource astronomy software, for planning your evenings, and viola!)
Once you've gotten this far, then go buy the scope, armed with patience, excellent astronomy knowledge, a great pair of spotting binoculars, and some star charts you can read.
That way, you won't spend lots of bucks on something that collects dust.
Besides, Galileo would have gone nuts for some great binoculars and star charts.
They're hosed. I personally saw Caldera/SCO as a bridge from Linux to Unix and saw them as a catalyst for change over to Linux from Unix, DOS, and oddly, CP/M.
I personally won't buy a thing from them, again. I'm done with them. This is wrong.
This coming from a company that not only contributed to the Linux kernel, but the same company that OPEN SOURCED SCO!!! Where's the lawsuit against them?
Fortunately, this will bankrupt them, soon. I just hope it doesn't end up killing off Linux in its wake.
<really_think="on"> How can they sit on their "moral high horse" and actually have been a vendor of Linux as an OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT?!?!?!? It's pure hypocrisy, IMHO.
I think there should be a counter-suit in the form of a class-action suit from the other vendors, plus a FUD campaign against them for this.
I hope this doesn't do more for Microsoft against The Competition(tm) of Linux and Unix than M$ could ever do. What an opportunity for M$ to sieze upon!
They're nuts, this late in the game. What, no finding of fact or cease-and-desist order?!?!? I hope their lawyer continues to be the loser in all of this....
I've always heard and read, except on Slashdot, where the news is always accurate, that adult stem cells are almost always considered to be better.
One major problem, outside of the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cells, is that there will be rejection with fetal cells. If you use your own stem cells, there is no problem with rejection, since your DNA == your DNA and is thus not a foreign body.
This is why if you get a transplant, you have to take anti-rejection (immunosuppressing) drugs the rest of your life. If you use your own DNA, you won't have to worry about this. While you're on anti-rejection drugs, it's live having chemically-induced AIDS -- no/little immunity.
That's not necessarily the case. It depends. C is a very slow language, while Java is incredibly fast, depending on conditions!
I'm mainly referring to Perl's C libraries, BTW.
However, to rebut:
Firstly, Perl is an interpiled/pseudo-compiled language, so it's probably very comparable to Java or Python or PHP or VB for application performance, but YMMV. It also does garbage collection, memory allocation, etc.
Secondly, most of the *wait time* for most apps, whether they are written in Perl or another language, is based on hardware (such as disk I/O), the network, the database, etc.
Thirdly, hardware is very fast today, and programmer time is FAR more expensive than a few measly CPU cycles. I've read anecdotal evidence that a competent Perl programmer is about 50 times more efficient than a competent VB programmer, to solve a given programming task (not counting GUI's or MS-specific stuff)! Also, a programming contest that used to let you use any available language has banned Perl, since it makes solving problems too easy! Since programmer time is a "speed" metric, this point hurts your argument.
Fourthly, Perl's forte is string processing. Heavy string, search, and sort processing is supposedly *MUCH faster* in Perl than in C! This is because of Perl's much faster algorithms.
Fifthly, as a programmer, you're in the driver's seat. What algorithms do you use? How well do you program? Are you using good pre-built modules, or old ones?
Sixthly, there are high-speed math and other high-speed modules for Perl. Do you use those or let Perl convert numbers to/from strings, before/after mathematical operations?
Seventhly, this is a old, moot argument, most of the time, these days. Unless something is "too slow" to be of practical use, it isn't. Go back to the six points above this one, no matter what language you use, and think through your problem.
Ergo, nope, Perl is most definitely NOT SLOW, until you've exhausted the above, at least. The same is true for any language, including assembly.
Besides, execution time is no longer important to most people, for good reason. Other factors, these days are higher on the list, as they should be.
Do you have specific examples? Where was it slow? Did you profile the functions in your code and then ask for help, once you couldn't find a reasonable solution? Did you try somebody else's pre-built module? What version of Perl did you use? Did you have hardware that was too small to load up the environment? Did you try Perl CGI without mod-Perl or Fast CGI, etc.? How exhaustive were you? (This and the above are on the short list, actually.)
Maybe it's me, but as a person who programs almost daily in Perl, I find that it's *really, realy, really fast*, most of the time. When it's not, I'm waiting on some silly Access database (not Oracle, MySQL, or PostgreSQL), or some other resource, the rest of the time. For example, when I load millions of records, on inferior hardware, from a flat file, in Perl, it usually takes a fraction of a second, unless I print it to the screen, or load straight into a database. How much faster should I make it? (I could, but what a waste of time, unless I need to load billions of records? Of course, we're now talking about 64-bit equipment.)
Perl has perhaps the largest organized community of developers that are very willing to help you on this.
I don't intend to start a language war, but have some facts before trolling, please. Any language I could have chosen will have people for and against it. If I would have said "Python" or "PHP "or "Java" or "VB" or even "C++," I might have gotten this response.
They've used modern algorithms extensively throughout, since Perl is geared mostly to string (scalar) processing.
If your algorithm is general-purpose and happens to be faster, why not GPL/LGPL/BSD it and contribute to Perl's, Python's, and PHP's sorting and searching code?
Put it this way. It can't hurt you. Secondly, it *could* help you.
However, I understand that head hunters are saying you need three things in this economy to get a job:
A BS/BA or better college diploma
Experience
Certification, of some sort
Right now, there are a few kinds of skilled people submitting literally hundreds of resumes for the same job. They are getting these kinds of candidates:
Degree + Experience, no Cert
Cert + Experience, no Degree
Degree + Cert, no Experience (rarely?)
They rarely get the person with the Degree + Cert + Experience. Those are the people who get hired fastest -- soft skills notwithstanding.
If you have all the elements above, a second BS can only help differentiate you from the next guy. Again, it may or may not help, but it can't hurt.
You might not directly get compensated more than the next guy. However, you might actually land a job, while somebody equal in every other way might not.
(The thing I lack is certification. Let's hope I don't get laid off.)
Most (indoor) plants I've tried thrive under cheapy fluorescent lights. If you can place a plant *directly* under a flurorescent light 24 by 7, water it often, and use some cheapy fertilizer/indoor bug killer here and there, it should totally thrive.
Why spend any real money? A few dollars is all you need. Don't buy grow lights if you can do the above -- they're a total waste of money. Only buy grow lights if you cannot leave your lights on. Fluorescent light is MUCH better than incandescent light for plants, unlike humans. Fluorescent grow lights are extra nice, but can be really expensive.
The closer you can get your plants to the bulbs/tubes, the better. The brighter the better. The more direct the better. The "overhead" fluorescents don't count, unless you can put your plant close to the ceiling.
In my case, my cube has fluorescents under the cabinets/shelves, so I get very direct lighting on my desk. By just elevating a plant a few inches (or centimeters for those who like that sort of thing) closer to the lights, where the leaves almost touch the lights, you'll have a profound improvement in growth. Remember that light falls off at an inverse square of the distance to a light source. So, 2x the distance is 1/4x the light; 3x the distance is 1/9x the light, etc.
I've watched several plants on the brink of death (still with some green in them, though) perked up in 2-3 days by doing the above. Somebody at work was asking how to perk up two of her almost DOA plants, or else she was going to pitch them, since they looked badly. By following my advice, they're huge, healthy, and actually bushy. (Yes, for only $9.95 you get all this, but wait, there's more....:)
I've read that since the mercury vapor and phosphorous combo in fluorescent lights mostly produce green and blue light (with warm lights adding red phosphors which don't help much,) plants thrive in fluorescent light and fare MUCH better there than they would in incandescent light. Sun light is best, of course, but that's in short supply in your/my case.
Some plants require special care, such as acid soil, so read the label about those. If your plant gets too big, you may need to replant in a bigger pot. I wouldn't subject a Bonsai to your cube. Not responsible for damages, fires, electrocution by mixing water and electricity together, rain forests in your cube, etc. YMMV. IANAL. Drive at your own risk.:-)
One nice thing though, for the sake of others. Buy plants that don't pollinate, for the sake of your coworkers that have allergies. And don't over/under water, since too much water breeds mold and too little causes dust. Mold and dust also cause major allergy problems.
However, is the mouse too unwieldy? I can't imagine putting it up next to some of those bar codes on the side of small packages or on some that isn't flat.
I'd have to agree with this, about 99+% of the time.
I'd also have to say that I believe that GreenPeace has some potential issues, perhaps, with following, shall we say, the scientific method/statistical analysis. </opinion>
Honestly, I'd need to know more about it, before I judged it.
If he's saving mega bucks on software, hardware, licensing, maintenance, down time, etc., on systems where your life does not depend on it, then great. Remember that airlines all over the world are going bankrupt, merging, needing yet another loan, etc.
Thanks for the info. It's good to see that Oracle uses it. After being an Oracle DBA for two years and having been through their entire training program, I have no idea how I missed it. PG's is better, though, IMHO.
"VACUUM" is how PostgreSQL keeps their system very fast, minus a cleanup job.
On the other hand, Oracle has to do a lot *more* work to make MVCC happen:
dml operation -> redo log -> wait until redo is allowed to do its two-phase commit (and hope you don't run out of redo log space) -> copy data -> delete from redo.... And, what about db fragmentation, which you the DBA have to fix? Or, what about hot backups, which can be a pain, especially if you have to recover?
PostgreSQL's MVCC system is a lot more more modern than Oracle's. It allows for hot backups, for instance. (Yes, the two are interrelated.)
However, why is cron-ing a db VACUUM a bad thing?
I have cron do a "VACUUM ANALYZE;" nightly at 4:00am. Why do you feel that this is a bad thing? To my knowledge, short of making the rest of the db a slight bit slow while running, (many DB jobs put strain on the DB,) how does VACUUM harm 24 by 7 operations?
Also, PG's ANALYZE portion of "VACUUM ANALYZE" is similar to Oracle's "ANALYZE [TABLE|INDEX]... COMPUTE STATISTICS" command, but conveniently does a cleanup and an optimize in the same step, saving time and DBA maintenance. Besides, it's fast.
I still don't see reasons why not to use PostgreSQL (7.2+,) here. 7.3 might even include replication....
See http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-vacu um.html vs. http://www.dbasupport.com/oracle/ora8/fbi.shtml
Slashdot Mirror
I have no real answer, except that I feel your pain. What I'm about to say would probably help, but unless you're strict on the point I'll make, you'll be back to the same frustration.
I would suggest writing a PAPER contract and getting official PAPER signoffs for each phase reached (yes, with their REAL signatures and REAL dates for REAL milestones reached....)
Make THEM follow a process that determines up-front the real, fixed business requirements, with cost estimates for hours worked, processes required by you/them, etc. Don't allow them to verbally request/require anything. Besides, a "strict" contract makes you look more professional. Put all expectations (money, time, documentation reqs., process reqs., business reqs., amendments, scope changes, cost increases, etc.) in writing and spell things out clearly and plainly, so both sides know exactly what to expect.
In other words, make it a legal, binding contract!
Then, under promise and over deliver. Go beyond what the paper contract expects of you whenever you can. This is how you make the customer happy. Happiness == over delivering on expectations; on the other hand, expectations "change without notice" when there is no paper contract....
If that means you come up with a Q&D that delivers early, goes under budget, etc., tell them that you are in prototype/alpha/beta stage and pretty up the product with the remaining time, even if it means redeveloping it The Right Way. If they are content with the Q&D, spend the rest of your time cleaning your code, making cosmetic changes, testing, and documenting everything.
We all know that it really takes 3-4 development cycles to do things The Right Way. And we know that around 70-80% of your actual development time is testing and debugging, if it's a good quality application done The Right Way. However, most business/marketing types look at any IT project as a cost and as a burden. If you can under promise on paper and over deliver your product, you're on you way to creating a Win/Win solution that makes people happy.
Development is an art; it's like the proverbial author of books who has a trash can full of wadded up type written pages before a manuscript gets written -- it may take them 10 tries to write just one page. It's sad that this message never seems to get through to the business decision makers.
They expect magic from those black boxes we'll call computers and expect wizards, whom we shall dub "developers," to perform miracles using black arts and mysterious incantations (a development cycle). In other words, expect them to be utterly clueless about your side of the fence. Use a paper contract to help dispel their myths and to clear up any confusion.
Having clearly defined expectations makes everyone, especially customers, happier. (If they change these expectations, there should be a clause in the contract that addresses extra time and money for alterations.) A contract should right-size everyone's expectations.
Now, I can hear flames from the Extreme Programming/Agile Programming people, telling me that customer expectations will change, but I'd still hold fast to the ideal of spelling out expectations on paper, including what to do in case of scope changes.
I also can hear the cry, "A contract will get me sued." A contract, whether verbal or paper can get you sued, either way. Verbal "contracts," however, change constantly and become hearsay.
(The other extreme is to over analyze. I've seen so many projects get into this quagmire. You know the old proverb that a camel is a horse designed by committee....)
I've learned this from the school of hard knocks. I too have been frustrated and have been burned badly by not having things clearly spelled out ahead of time.
Get a paper contract that makes everybody follow a balanced process.... Of course, we live in a perfect world, customers actually know what they want, world hunger is now solved, yada yada....
That's not what I meant. I was answering two *separate* points he had in his request. He wanted little use of OO, but strong use of OpenSource API's.
Did you read my comments in the context of his request?
In other words, this product does not address every goal he had, but many of the things he wanted are in there.
Maybe this isn't *quite* what you want, but sounds close to your requirements. It also costs money....
I love the product I'll mention, below. I'm not selling anything, either, but am just a "hooked" developer.... So, here goes.... (No flame wars, please.)
I'd look at CodeCharge Studio at their http://www.codecharge.com/ web site. It generates excellent PHP, does excellent database and forms work, and lets you adapt the code it generates. It's also a full-blown IDE.
Now, it DOES make heavy use of OO, but I think it's still based on OpenSource API's.... The source code it generates is YOURS to do what you want with it, provided you buy the product....
At least you can have a commercial code generator for your choice of PHP, Perl, ASP, CFML, JSP (plus servlets), VB.net, and C#. It also generates Unix/Linux and Windows-compatible code that runs on a multitude of databases. It also generates CSS or non-CSS code. It gives you *huge* separation of logic and presentation and uses an application layer which is best suited for the language you want.
It lets you customize your code and tracks your changes, provided you use their IDE. It's not 100% perfect and doesn't generate reports very well -- yet. It probably does about 80-90% of what you want, though -- with VERY little effort.... I'll admit that it has a few day learning curve, for people not familiar with Visual Studio-like IDE's. (It's not owned by Microsoft but requires Windows to generate code.)
Heck, try it for a few weeks for free.
Think of it this way, follow the 80/20 rule. If 80% of your code is produced by a code generator and can quickly give you a working prototype you can show your customer early in the process... The other 20% (especially if it is just a customization of what's written for you) is easy, most of the time... It gives you more time to make more money, to do bigger jobs, and to do a better job.
I've had zero problems doing this, as well. Linux PPPoE works just fine. There are many HOW-TO's on the subject. LinkSys boxen work fine, as well.
:-)
I used the FloppyFW single-floppy distribution, with PPPoE support, followed the HOW-TO's and viola, instant Internet connection that follows the IP address changes very well. If you can get a single-floppy version of Linux working, with few issues, then a full hard drive or CDROM version should be a piece of cake. I was using it on a VERY old 16M, two 10MBps ISA network card, floppy-only 66MHz, Cyrix 386SLC box, and getting great performance!
Eventually, I switched to a LinkSys box, so that IPSec to connect to my company would be easier. It was hard to cram a PPPoE client, IPSec support, and a DHCP server into one floppy! It is being done, however.
I get great instant-on connections, IPSec support (couldn't do that with my cable MODEM), incoming traffic, almost full T-1 speeds, etc. They don't restrict Linux or LinkSys. I get free dial-up, when I'm out of town. They have great customer service, too.
I'd rate SBC's DSL at a 9 or 10. I rate my cable company's "high speed," highly restrictive Internet connection as a -50. (All on a scale of 1 to 10.) Now, if Sprint ION still existed, with 1Mbps up and 8Mbps down, I'd lower my SBC DSL rating (my dad had it and the data was FAST).
Not to start a flame war, but I don't see how you could possibly complain about SBC DSL compared to a satellite connection to the Internet....
Oh, a space elevator count down.
I thought it was a "Linux is better than your machine" uptime thingy.
I knew frmo the article that it wasn't talking about my wife's former 98 box!
Mod me down, please, before the arrows start flying....
Let's see, there's the Netherlands, a land of "freedom" and "openness" and virtually no laws -- i.e., basic anarchy, as long as you leave others alone, for the most part.... Just legislate laws away and you have no criminals, right?
And then there's the U.S., a basically free country, which has too many laws to count, and plenty of laws which contradict other laws, and many times more population.... It's the country most lived in and hated by vocal Slashdotters -- most of the non-vocal probably disagree, with the vocal ones, but who can prove that, either way. (I am not the typical vocal Slashdotter, when it comes to my views of the U.S. Perhaps, warts and all, I love my country more than most.)
Hmmm, there was an almost 10 to 1 wiretap ratio between the Netherlands and the U.S, before the Netherlands stopped counting!?!?!?! Does this come as a surprise to me? Not really. It's just amusing.
Well, I have no point to make, except that the grass isn't necessarily greener everywhere else than the U.S. (No "grass" pun intended, BTW; we are talking about the Netherlands, after all.)
Of course, I believe that Windows XP and M$ DRM is a big commercial wiretap, but that's a different story.
However, read about Chinese hacking some time. Things like "Code Red" and "Code Blue" are just two of the major viruses propagated by the Chinese. Just do a Google search on "Hacked by Chinese" sometime, if you want to do some research.
Besides, only the Chinese government (not its people) has access to look at the source, for "security" reasons. Their government, though, condones/promotes cyberterrorism against the US and its allies. (Do the research, if you don't believe it....)
The US government already has the source. (Do a Google search on NSA, Microsoft, NT, SP3, and security sometime, too.)
The American people, however, HAVE squeaked a lot and have NOT gotten the source. THESE are the people who need to be protected from viruses created by the Chinese, and others.
Also, the Chinese government (and people) aren't on the nicest terms with the US. The list of reasons is long. They are NOT our ally.
So, yes, definitely, these are the wrong people to hand over the source, IF we don't have it, too. It's a matter of security.
OpenSource == security (much of the time)
Proprietary != security (much of the time)
Open to a government that promotes hacking != security
Close to those who need the information != security
Open to a governmen
M$ lies (under oath) about security problems with OpenSource, due to its "open" nature.
M$ has FAR more security problems than OpenSource.
Countries (often those who hack into M$ computers) want the source opened, or else, so M$ complies....
M$ won't open their source to the public, who needs knowledge and a defense against those attacks.
Ergo, M$ opens the source to the wrong people, instead of the right ones. This is the difference between the "black hats" and the "white hats."
OpenSource realizes that BOTH can see their source, so the "white hats" patch the holes in anticipation of problems. M$ does not....
Just realized something else.
There are differences between standard "astronomy-based" telescopes and spotting scopes (or binoculars.)
Binoculars and spotting scopes show the image right-side up, due to an extra lens. Most telescopes for astronomy are up-side down and can be hard, for the unitiated, to track objects, due to earth's movement....
A high-powered pair of binoculars that are easy to attach and detach from a tripod is a great way to learn astronomy and still be able to do "spotting" work, such as bird watching.
My dad bought an excellent Leica spotting scope, used for watching American eagles, vultures, and the like, from his cabin on the lake.
This same spotting scope was nice for seeing the moons of Jupiter on one of its closest recent approaches. (It also helps that the cabin has a very dark night sky, very far away from city lights at night.)
The Leica is only a "20 to 60 power" scope, but it has excellent lenses, so images are very sharp and you can see well in the dark. (It's *much* better than what Galileo had to use, and he discovered the moons of Jupiter!) It'll see the planets, comets, etc., and can be mounted to a camera, with the right attachment.
I'd strongly recommend the Leica, but it ain't cheap!!!
Oh, lest I forget.
If you are still interested in astronomy, research scopes during those months and be sure to check for sales and used Ebay scopes during that "waiting time," so that you can get a really good deal.
Also, join an astronomy club for a few months. You can find experts to mentor you and help you sort out fact from fiction.
Besides, what kind of scope do you want? How big a scope? Buying a "500 power" scope for $500 is usually an expensive waste of money for a cheapy scope.
Impulse buying is *NEARLY ALWAYS* much more expensive. If you take a wait-and-see approach, you *NEARLY ALWAYS* get much more for your money.
When reading astronomy-related magazines, I have found what I thought waas excellent advice. Instead of investigating in high-priced telescopes, focus your attention on a pair of some of the best binoculars you can find and some star charts. Then, give yourself several months of identifying objects in "constellation XYZ" and see if your still interested in astronomy, with its late nights and great needs for patience. (Add some OpenSource astronomy software, for planning your evenings, and viola!)
Once you've gotten this far, then go buy the scope, armed with patience, excellent astronomy knowledge, a great pair of spotting binoculars, and some star charts you can read.
That way, you won't spend lots of bucks on something that collects dust.
Besides, Galileo would have gone nuts for some great binoculars and star charts.
A couple of years ago, I predicted that IBM would buy Caldera, but went back on my idea and thought that it would never happen.
Why? Caldera = Linux + SCO + Project Montery (AIX 5L) + DR DOS + business contacts (and PHB's) + some Novell.
If they were bought and everything was "opened" up in a GPL/LGPL/BSD sense of the word....
You're right!
:-O
"really_think" != "really think"
It's almost like running with safety scissors in one hand and a razor in the other!
They're hosed. I personally saw Caldera/SCO as a bridge from Linux to Unix and saw them as a catalyst for change over to Linux from Unix, DOS, and oddly, CP/M.
I personally won't buy a thing from them, again. I'm done with them. This is wrong.
This coming from a company that not only contributed to the Linux kernel, but the same company that OPEN SOURCED SCO!!! Where's the lawsuit against them?
Fortunately, this will bankrupt them, soon. I just hope it doesn't end up killing off Linux in its wake.
<really_think="on">
How can they sit on their "moral high horse" and actually have been a vendor of Linux as an OPEN SOURCE PRODUCT?!?!?!? It's pure hypocrisy, IMHO.
I think there should be a counter-suit in the form of a class-action suit from the other vendors, plus a FUD campaign against them for this.
I hope this doesn't do more for Microsoft against The Competition(tm) of Linux and Unix than M$ could ever do. What an opportunity for M$ to sieze upon!
They're nuts, this late in the game. What, no finding of fact or cease-and-desist order?!?!? I hope their lawyer continues to be the loser in all of this....
To me, this is an outrage!
</really think>
I've always heard and read, except on Slashdot, where the news is always accurate, that adult stem cells are almost always considered to be better.
One major problem, outside of the ethical issues raised by embryonic stem cells, is that there will be rejection with fetal cells. If you use your own stem cells, there is no problem with rejection, since your DNA == your DNA and is thus not a foreign body.
This is why if you get a transplant, you have to take anti-rejection (immunosuppressing) drugs the rest of your life. If you use your own DNA, you won't have to worry about this. While you're on anti-rejection drugs, it's live having chemically-induced AIDS -- no/little immunity.
That's not necessarily the case. It depends. C is a very slow language, while Java is incredibly fast, depending on conditions!
I'm mainly referring to Perl's C libraries, BTW.
However, to rebut:
Firstly, Perl is an interpiled/pseudo-compiled language, so it's probably very comparable to Java or Python or PHP or VB for application performance, but YMMV. It also does garbage collection, memory allocation, etc.
Secondly, most of the *wait time* for most apps, whether they are written in Perl or another language, is based on hardware (such as disk I/O), the network, the database, etc.
Thirdly, hardware is very fast today, and programmer time is FAR more expensive than a few measly CPU cycles. I've read anecdotal evidence that a competent Perl programmer is about 50 times more efficient than a competent VB programmer, to solve a given programming task (not counting GUI's or MS-specific stuff)! Also, a programming contest that used to let you use any available language has banned Perl, since it makes solving problems too easy! Since programmer time is a "speed" metric, this point hurts your argument.
Fourthly, Perl's forte is string processing. Heavy string, search, and sort processing is supposedly *MUCH faster* in Perl than in C! This is because of Perl's much faster algorithms.
Fifthly, as a programmer, you're in the driver's seat. What algorithms do you use? How well do you program? Are you using good pre-built modules, or old ones?
Sixthly, there are high-speed math and other high-speed modules for Perl. Do you use those or let Perl convert numbers to/from strings, before/after mathematical operations?
Seventhly, this is a old, moot argument, most of the time, these days. Unless something is "too slow" to be of practical use, it isn't. Go back to the six points above this one, no matter what language you use, and think through your problem.
Ergo, nope, Perl is most definitely NOT SLOW, until you've exhausted the above, at least. The same is true for any language, including assembly.
Besides, execution time is no longer important to most people, for good reason. Other factors, these days are higher on the list, as they should be.
Do you have specific examples? Where was it slow? Did you profile the functions in your code and then ask for help, once you couldn't find a reasonable solution? Did you try somebody else's pre-built module? What version of Perl did you use? Did you have hardware that was too small to load up the environment? Did you try Perl CGI without mod-Perl or Fast CGI, etc.? How exhaustive were you? (This and the above are on the short list, actually.)
Maybe it's me, but as a person who programs almost daily in Perl, I find that it's *really, realy, really fast*, most of the time. When it's not, I'm waiting on some silly Access database (not Oracle, MySQL, or PostgreSQL), or some other resource, the rest of the time. For example, when I load millions of records, on inferior hardware, from a flat file, in Perl, it usually takes a fraction of a second, unless I print it to the screen, or load straight into a database. How much faster should I make it? (I could, but what a waste of time, unless I need to load billions of records? Of course, we're now talking about 64-bit equipment.)
Perl has perhaps the largest organized community of developers that are very willing to help you on this.
I don't intend to start a language war, but have some facts before trolling, please. Any language I could have chosen will have people for and against it. If I would have said "Python" or "PHP "or "Java" or "VB" or even "C++," I might have gotten this response.
(Recursively redundant.)
They've used modern algorithms extensively throughout, since Perl is geared mostly to string (scalar) processing.
If your algorithm is general-purpose and happens to be faster, why not GPL/LGPL/BSD it and contribute to Perl's, Python's, and PHP's sorting and searching code?
Put it this way. It can't hurt you. Secondly, it *could* help you.
However, I understand that head hunters are saying you need three things in this economy to get a job:
A BS/BA or better college diploma
Experience
Certification, of some sort
Right now, there are a few kinds of skilled people submitting literally hundreds of resumes for the same job. They are getting these kinds of candidates:
Degree + Experience, no Cert
Cert + Experience, no Degree
Degree + Cert, no Experience (rarely?)
They rarely get the person with the Degree + Cert + Experience. Those are the people who get hired fastest -- soft skills notwithstanding.
If you have all the elements above, a second BS can only help differentiate you from the next guy. Again, it may or may not help, but it can't hurt.
You might not directly get compensated more than the next guy. However, you might actually land a job, while somebody equal in every other way might not.
(The thing I lack is certification. Let's hope I don't get laid off.)
Most (indoor) plants I've tried thrive under cheapy fluorescent lights. If you can place a plant *directly* under a flurorescent light 24 by 7, water it often, and use some cheapy fertilizer/indoor bug killer here and there, it should totally thrive.
:)
:-)
Why spend any real money? A few dollars is all you need. Don't buy grow lights if you can do the above -- they're a total waste of money. Only buy grow lights if you cannot leave your lights on. Fluorescent light is MUCH better than incandescent light for plants, unlike humans. Fluorescent grow lights are extra nice, but can be really expensive.
The closer you can get your plants to the bulbs/tubes, the better. The brighter the better. The more direct the better. The "overhead" fluorescents don't count, unless you can put your plant close to the ceiling.
In my case, my cube has fluorescents under the cabinets/shelves, so I get very direct lighting on my desk. By just elevating a plant a few inches (or centimeters for those who like that sort of thing) closer to the lights, where the leaves almost touch the lights, you'll have a profound improvement in growth. Remember that light falls off at an inverse square of the distance to a light source. So, 2x the distance is 1/4x the light; 3x the distance is 1/9x the light, etc.
I've watched several plants on the brink of death (still with some green in them, though) perked up in 2-3 days by doing the above. Somebody at work was asking how to perk up two of her almost DOA plants, or else she was going to pitch them, since they looked badly. By following my advice, they're huge, healthy, and actually bushy. (Yes, for only $9.95 you get all this, but wait, there's more....
I've read that since the mercury vapor and phosphorous combo in fluorescent lights mostly produce green and blue light (with warm lights adding red phosphors which don't help much,) plants thrive in fluorescent light and fare MUCH better there than they would in incandescent light. Sun light is best, of course, but that's in short supply in your/my case.
Some plants require special care, such as acid soil, so read the label about those. If your plant gets too big, you may need to replant in a bigger pot. I wouldn't subject a Bonsai to your cube. Not responsible for damages, fires, electrocution by mixing water and electricity together, rain forests in your cube, etc. YMMV. IANAL. Drive at your own risk.
One nice thing though, for the sake of others. Buy plants that don't pollinate, for the sake of your coworkers that have allergies. And don't over/under water, since too much water breeds mold and too little causes dust. Mold and dust also cause major allergy problems.
Actually, it sounds pretty cool.
However, is the mouse too unwieldy? I can't imagine putting it up next to some of those bar codes on the side of small packages or on some that isn't flat.
I'd have to agree with this, about 99+% of the time.
I'd also have to say that I believe that GreenPeace has some potential issues, perhaps, with following, shall we say, the scientific method/statistical analysis.
</opinion>
Honestly, I'd need to know more about it, before I judged it.
If he's saving mega bucks on software, hardware, licensing, maintenance, down time, etc., on systems where your life does not depend on it, then great. Remember that airlines all over the world are going bankrupt, merging, needing yet another loan, etc.
Using Linux everywhere could save megabucks.
Re-moderate at "Off Topic," perhaps?
We are talking about SAP-DB, not SAP, the ERP....
Why, then, did this "America - The Republic that voted to become a Totalitarianism. [sic]" post earn a "Score:4, Interesting?"
SAP-DB and SAP are two totally different topics.
Thanks for the info. It's good to see that Oracle uses it. After being an Oracle DBA for two years and having been through their entire training program, I have no idea how I missed it. PG's is better, though, IMHO.
... COMPUTE STATISTICS" command, but conveniently does a cleanup and an optimize in the same step, saving time and DBA maintenance. Besides, it's fast.
u um.html vs. http://www.dbasupport.com/oracle/ora8/fbi.shtml
"VACUUM" is how PostgreSQL keeps their system very fast, minus a cleanup job.
On the other hand, Oracle has to do a lot *more* work to make MVCC happen:
dml operation -> redo log -> wait until redo is allowed to do its two-phase commit (and hope you don't run out of redo log space) -> copy data -> delete from redo.... And, what about db fragmentation, which you the DBA have to fix? Or, what about hot backups, which can be a pain, especially if you have to recover?
PostgreSQL's MVCC system is a lot more more modern than Oracle's. It allows for hot backups, for instance. (Yes, the two are interrelated.)
However, why is cron-ing a db VACUUM a bad thing?
I have cron do a "VACUUM ANALYZE;" nightly at 4:00am. Why do you feel that this is a bad thing? To my knowledge, short of making the rest of the db a slight bit slow while running, (many DB jobs put strain on the DB,) how does VACUUM harm 24 by 7 operations?
Also, PG's ANALYZE portion of "VACUUM ANALYZE" is similar to Oracle's "ANALYZE [TABLE|INDEX]
I still don't see reasons why not to use PostgreSQL (7.2+,) here. 7.3 might even include replication....
See http://www.postgresql.org/idocs/index.php?sql-vac