It would be simple, if you (or your staff), knew ALL the ins and outs of ALL these parts. In the real world, this is not likely to happen. But, if you can isolate a problem down to being NOT in two out of those three, then it looks pretty likely that it would have to lie in what's left. Hence "know what you don't know." That is, know what areas you are weak, and what areas you are strong. Use that to your advantage in trying to sort things out.
Often, in my experience, have I found myself going down the debugging path in frustration until I step back and realize the problem is not where I thought it had to be. That meant those areas which were not even a consideration, before, now come back for another look. I had again stumbled upon a case of:
If it can't be what it has to be, then it has to be what it can't be.
But, I suspect the real desire of this post is not improved debugging skills, but to avoid the need for debugging inter-vendor problems in the first place.
Good luck! It's the nature of the beast that bugs tend to occur in the interfaces.
But, there are some steps that can be taken to lessen the challenge... find someone else who has been down this path before and can point out the landmarks and land mines along the way. I commend you for doing so here in/., but there is more that can be done:
Start with the smallest project that you can.
When you get that working and stable, take what you've learned and then add capabilities. Build not your house upon the sand.
Ask each vendor of each of the various components for a list of references -- and contact them.
Consider, for example, your database vendor. Contact IBM and ask for references of customers who have used their DB2 database in a similar situation. Contact those references and find out what THEY learned from their experience. Do the same with Oracle and MicroSoft. Build up a table of strengths and weaknesses.
Contact others who have been down a similar path.
Search usenet newsgroups.
Read trade magazines.
Search WWW pages for vendors trumpeting their successes.
Search WWW pages for customers trumpeting their successes.
Search for FAQs on each of these components.
Read "The Mythical Man Month"
Yes, it is a lot of work, up front, but it has been well said:
A week in the lab can often save an hour in the library.
But how well does it scale up? And how well does it deal with a ham-fisted typist?
# select all image files files selected: Black Thatch.bmp Blue Rivets.bmp Bubbles.bmp Carved Stone.bmp Circles.bmp Clouds.bmp Forest.bmp Gold Weave.bmp Houndstooth.bmp Internet Explorer Wallpaper.bmp Metal Links.bmp Pinstripe.bmp Red Blocks.bmp Sandstone.bmp Setup.bmp Stitches.bmp Straw Mat.bmp Tiles.bmp Triangles.bmp Waves.bmp # not Bubbles.bmp "not" is not understood # unselect Buubles.bmp unknown file: Buubles.bmp # unselect bubbles.bmp unknown file: bubbles.bmp # unslect Bubbles.bmp "unslect" is not understood. # go to hell! unknown directory: hell! ... As others have already pointed out, a natural language, for humans, may not be the most natural language for communicating with a computer.
But since it appears likely that the plastic laser will be able to produce light with smallers wavelengths than conventional lasers it also means a jump in the potential for storing data using the same techniques as CDs and DVDs.
There is a double-win possible here. Not only would it be possible to increase the density of information stored on a CD/DVD/etc., but if it is possible to fit over 6000 of these in a single inch, it would then be possible to have a strip of these reaching over the entire width of the recordable surface of the media. There would no longer be a delay waiting for the read/write head to seek to the correct track -- it would already be there!
Of course, there is still the matter of rotational delay, but that could also be cut in half by having an additional strip of lasers extending across the center of the disc and on to the other side. (Picture a strip of lasers crossing the diameter of the circle.)
Still further: if a higher track density than 6000 tpi is possible in the optical media (for that wavelength) then it would only be necessary to mount one (or more) additional laser strips along the axis and parallel to the first, but offset by the desired track width.
Just wait until some 3D Myst-ery Game designer mates this fast-access, high-density storage medium with top-quality images and graphics, a DTI Stereoscopic LCD Virtual Window 3D LCD display, and joins forces with An Overclocking Junkie who then hooks a few of these together with an optical network using perfect mirror optical cables to build the ultimate gaming network!
There's only one thing I would suggest adding to your list of excellent points: IMAGINATION.
Alfred Hitchcock was gifted in knowing what to show on film, and what to leave to the viewer's imagination. The shower scene in Psycho is a classic precisely because it did NOT show every stab's effect on the victim!
Games where I do NOT know EXACTLY what is going to happen, whether it's my first time playing it, or my 200th; THOSE are the games that fire up my imagination and draw me in!
Some people prefer the challenge (and uncertainty) of trying to blow up the mega-nasty monster before THEY get blown up. Others prefer the intellectual challenge of trying to work through a puzzle, under time pressure. (The classic Adventure had a lamp whose life was limited, and near certain, immediate death, in the dark.)
In either case, there is some information that is known and some that is not known, and a perception that it IS possible to make it through, alive. In the fullest sense of the word: life-like.
Microsoft, through 'windows update' releases security fixes reguarly.
If there weren't so many security holes in the first place, they would not have to release security fixes regularly.
Yet so many of the same kinds of problems are still with us! Things like buffer-overflows, for example, have been known about for YEARS! And yet, we're still getting exploits of THESE on a regular basis. Why?
I would suggest it boils down to motivation.
As long as it is easier for people to keep on doing what they are doing, than it is for them to change, they will not change.
They lack the motivation to change:
Shrinkwrap licenses and all the disclaimers of merchantability, usability, liability, etc. being limited to the cost of media replacement (a CD-ROM).
A widely-dispersed customer base. It is difficult for the customers to get together and demand improvements -- witness what happened with the attempts to get a refund of the cost of Windows by those who never actually installed it on their PCs.
Even the Melissa virus and their ilk have resulted in no apparent long-term changes in their attitude to security issues.
What if MicroSoft had to send a check for $50 to every person whose machine was impacted by the Melissa virus, or any other security hole? I suspect they'd have a much greater incentive to locate and fix security holes.
Imagine, a whole new market would appear for tools that would help developers to locate and fix common security holes, and there would be motivation to actually USE them.
There was a concerted revolt, a few years back, by customers against copy-protected software. Customers voted with their wallets, and the companies, begrudgingly, acquiesced. I believe buggy software will continue to be developed for just so long as we, as consumers, continue to accept it. Walter Kelly's Pogo put it well: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Okay, assuming this is NOT a hoax: Why not install FOUR processors in each of TWO cards?
Heat? C'mon there's enough overclockers out here, I expect there's got to be at least one who could do this in his/her sleep!
Hard-coded the base address on the card used to ID each processor? Okay, so they made a design error, but I expect a determined/.'er could hack the traces on the card and find a way to latch up/down the high-order bit.
And, mentioning overclocking, just how long do you think it'll be before we see reports of this being overclocked?
I can just see it now, a 1 GHz Athlon with 2 of cards having 4 processors each. Based on some addmittedly very rough calculations, it looks like this would get a throughput of 1 WU/hr!
If 6 processors can do a work unit (WU) in 2 hours, then one proc does 1/12 WU/hr. So, using 8 procs, we'd have 8/12 or 3/4 WU/hr.
If a PIII-500 does a WU in 8 hours, then we have 1/8 WU/hr; at 1GhZ, that's 1/4 WU/hr.
A recent announcement from IBM mentioned here on/. was that they were coming out with microdrives with 512 MB and 1GB capacities. Several posts have pointed out how there are many cases where compressing pre-compressed data ends up using more space; but let's try looking at it from the other side... what applications could most benefit from this technology?
Slashdot Mirror
It would be simple, if you (or your staff), knew ALL the ins and outs of ALL these parts. In the real world, this is not likely to happen. But, if you can isolate a problem down to being NOT in two out of those three, then it looks pretty likely that it would have to lie in what's left. Hence "know what you don't know." That is, know what areas you are weak, and what areas you are strong. Use that to your advantage in trying to sort things out.
Often, in my experience, have I found myself going down the debugging path in frustration until I step back and realize the problem is not where I thought it had to be. That meant those areas which were not even a consideration, before, now come back for another look. I had again stumbled upon a case of:
But, I suspect the real desire of this post is not improved debugging skills, but to avoid the need for debugging inter-vendor problems in the first place.
Good luck! It's the nature of the beast that bugs tend to occur in the interfaces.
But, there are some steps that can be taken to lessen the challenge... find someone else who has been down this path before and can point out the landmarks and land mines along the way. I commend you for doing so here in /., but there is more that can be done:
When you get that working and stable, take what you've learned and then add capabilities. Build not your house upon the sand.
Consider, for example, your database vendor. Contact IBM and ask for references of customers who have used their DB2 database in a similar situation. Contact those references and find out what THEY learned from their experience. Do the same with Oracle and MicroSoft. Build up a table of strengths and weaknesses.
Yes, it is a lot of work, up front, but it has been well said:
# select all image files
files selected: Black Thatch.bmp Blue Rivets.bmp Bubbles.bmp Carved Stone.bmp Circles.bmp Clouds.bmp Forest.bmp Gold Weave.bmp Houndstooth.bmp Internet Explorer Wallpaper.bmp Metal Links.bmp Pinstripe.bmp Red Blocks.bmp Sandstone.bmp Setup.bmp Stitches.bmp Straw Mat.bmp Tiles.bmp Triangles.bmp Waves.bmp
# not Bubbles.bmp
"not" is not understood
# unselect Buubles.bmp
unknown file: Buubles.bmp
# unselect bubbles.bmp
unknown file: bubbles.bmp
# unslect Bubbles.bmp
"unslect" is not understood.
# go to hell!
unknown directory: hell!
... As others have already pointed out, a natural language, for humans, may not be the most natural language for communicating with a computer.
There is a double-win possible here. Not only would it be possible to increase the density of information stored on a CD/DVD/etc., but if it is possible to fit over 6000 of these in a single inch, it would then be possible to have a strip of these reaching over the entire width of the recordable surface of the media. There would no longer be a delay waiting for the read/write head to seek to the correct track -- it would already be there!
Of course, there is still the matter of rotational delay, but that could also be cut in half by having an additional strip of lasers extending across the center of the disc and on to the other side. (Picture a strip of lasers crossing the diameter of the circle.)
Still further: if a higher track density than 6000 tpi is possible in the optical media (for that wavelength) then it would only be necessary to mount one (or more) additional laser strips along the axis and parallel to the first, but offset by the desired track width.
Just wait until some 3D Myst-ery Game designer mates this fast-access, high-density storage medium with top-quality images and graphics, a DTI Stereoscopic LCD Virtual Window 3D LCD display, and joins forces with An Overclocking Junkie who then hooks a few of these together with an optical network using perfect mirror optical cables to build the ultimate gaming network!
Alfred Hitchcock was gifted in knowing what to show on film, and what to leave to the viewer's imagination. The shower scene in Psycho is a classic precisely because it did NOT show every stab's effect on the victim!
Games where I do NOT know EXACTLY what is going to happen, whether it's my first time playing it, or my 200th; THOSE are the games that fire up my imagination and draw me in!
Some people prefer the challenge (and uncertainty) of trying to blow up the mega-nasty monster before THEY get blown up. Others prefer the intellectual challenge of trying to work through a puzzle, under time pressure. (The classic Adventure had a lamp whose life was limited, and near certain, immediate death, in the dark.)
In either case, there is some information that is known and some that is not known, and a perception that it IS possible to make it through, alive. In the fullest sense of the word: life-like.
If there weren't so many security holes in the first place, they would not have to release security fixes regularly.
Yet so many of the same kinds of problems are still with us! Things like buffer-overflows, for example, have been known about for YEARS! And yet, we're still getting exploits of THESE on a regular basis. Why?
I would suggest it boils down to motivation.
As long as it is easier for people to keep on doing what they are doing, than it is for them to change, they will not change.
They lack the motivation to change:
What if MicroSoft had to send a check for $50 to every person whose machine was impacted by the Melissa virus, or any other security hole? I suspect they'd have a much greater incentive to locate and fix security holes.
Imagine, a whole new market would appear for tools that would help developers to locate and fix common security holes, and there would be motivation to actually USE them.
There was a concerted revolt, a few years back, by customers against copy-protected software. Customers voted with their wallets, and the companies, begrudgingly, acquiesced. I believe buggy software will continue to be developed for just so long as we, as consumers, continue to accept it. Walter Kelly's Pogo put it well: "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Can you imagine a sheet of this stuff on your ceiling?
I can just see it now, a 1 GHz Athlon with 2 of cards having 4 processors each. Based on some addmittedly very rough calculations, it looks like this would get a throughput of 1 WU/hr!
If 6 processors can do a work unit (WU) in 2 hours, then one proc does 1/12 WU/hr. So, using 8 procs, we'd have 8/12 or 3/4 WU/hr.
If a PIII-500 does a WU in 8 hours, then we have 1/8 WU/hr; at 1GhZ, that's 1/4 WU/hr.
3/4 + 1/4 = 1 WU/hr!
A recent announcement from IBM mentioned here on /. was that they were coming out with microdrives with 512 MB and 1GB capacities.
Several posts have pointed out how there are many cases where compressing pre-compressed data ends up using more space; but let's try looking at it from the other side... what applications could most benefit from this technology?