I am not currently in this situation, but I was recently. I worked as the lead software engineer for a group putting in 30+ hours a week at the same time I had a full course load.
Note: Don't try this at home, kids!;)
It is possible to get a degree while working, but you have to severely limit the number of courses, or the number of hours worked. Which you choose depends entirely on your situation. In the original question where the one owns a business, cutting back hours there to 10-15 hours a week is likely not possible, which means you can probably only handle 1-2 courses, 3 if one of them is on the scale of "trivailly easy" and you don't have to think to pass with an A+.
As is noted by others, warn anyone close to you (spouse, girlfriend, kids) that you will be *very* busy, and to make allowances. At the same time, try VERY hard to deligate one full day (from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep) that has nothing at all to do with school or work. For 3+ years of pushing myself far too hard, that is all that kept me sane.
Finally, take a careful look at yourself: If you are going to seriously pursue a degree while working full time (or nearly so) at the same time, you *must* have a bit of sadism in your personality. It is brutal, but ultimately worthwhile.
The 2.4 kernel is very close to stable for x86 architecture, but don't confuse "very close to stable for x86" with "stable for all architectures".
I, for instance, use a few Sparc systems, of most note a SparcStation20. The system has dual processers, and must (ideally) run RAID-5. The 2.4 kernel series just will not work in this setup...system uptime could never reach more than 2 days before the sytsem did a kernel panick and stuck its toung out at me.
This is just one example of the many reasons the 2.4 kernel cannot be considered even remotely as stable as teh 2.2 kernel. True, support for the latest hardware forces some people (primarily x86 boxes) to use the 2.4 kernel, but for rock-solid stability, you still need the 2.2 kernel.
And face it: Debian is NOT about the absolute latest and greatest packages, but about availability and maximum stability.
Suck it up and accept the fact that the 2.4 kernel is still has a lot of troubles, just not any that the bulk of the Linux user-base can see.
This whole question is absurd. Could 'Panasonic' and 'Panasoanic' be confused? Yes, easily. Can 'Windows' and 'Lindows' be confused? Only if you are in serious need of an eye exam.
Lindows is simply a good name for the product in the grand tradition of American Enterprise: Simple, Descriptive, and Catchy. Anyone who sees the name will either know instantly what the product is, or be curious about it...perfect!
So, will MS win the court battle? Yes. This is not a fair world we live in, and -- especially in business -- the "right thing" very rarely happens.
I might not like this fact, so I do what I can to change it...like posting here. Meanwhile, simply because of the way laws are written and interpreted by lawyers, Lindows will loose the case.
Many programmers (yes, I am guilty too), take inexpensive hardware as license to write ineficient code. So what if the end user needs more RAM or a faster processor....thats progress!
This attitude only works because end users don't realize the benefit of non-bloatware. The replies to the above post all mentioned being able to run the kernel on an old 386/486 computer....fine, thats a worthy goal. I do it myself. However, what happens when the same "removal of bloat" is applied to regular software, as to that run on old hardware?
Less RAM is used
Less hard disk space is used
Software load time is decreased
Less processing power is required
I dare anyone to say that the above four points are in any way a Bad Thing [tm]! I don't know about everyone else reading Slahdot, but I'd love for my computer to run even 5% faster without any changes to the hardware....even (especially?) on my new 1.0 GHz / 512 MB RAM / 48 GB HD system.
I notice that a common theme in the comments is that Easter Eggs do not belong in open-source software...I beg to differ:
What would life be without a little fun now and then? Hideous and boring come to mind for me. Easter Eggs are not about putting in something that will make a program into bloatware, nor to annoy anybody. Easter eggs are there for fun. Admittedly, I do not believe a flight simulator should be included in every software package, but if you can include a small bit of humor, do it!
If, for instance, you come to a case in programming where you are testing values and there is a number that can never be reached, put in an error message if that number does come up...but do not say "Error: Invalid number". Instead, put in something like: "OOPS! The laws of the universe have just been violated. Recommend rebooting universe and starting again!" Perhaps only developers will see the message, or perhaps not. Either way, somebody will get a laugh.
So long as there are not significant impacts on a program, include Easter Eggs freely. A life without humor, after all, is a life that has already ended! I don't think I have ever laughed so hard as when I heard an HP ScanJet playing "Ode to Joy"!
Slashdot Mirror
I am not currently in this situation, but I was recently. I worked as the lead software engineer for a group putting in 30+ hours a week at the same time I had a full course load. Note: Don't try this at home, kids! ;)
It is possible to get a degree while working, but you have to severely limit the number of courses, or the number of hours worked. Which you choose depends entirely on your situation. In the original question where the one owns a business, cutting back hours there to 10-15 hours a week is likely not possible, which means you can probably only handle 1-2 courses, 3 if one of them is on the scale of "trivailly easy" and you don't have to think to pass with an A+.
As is noted by others, warn anyone close to you (spouse, girlfriend, kids) that you will be *very* busy, and to make allowances. At the same time, try VERY hard to deligate one full day (from the moment you wake up to the moment you fall asleep) that has nothing at all to do with school or work. For 3+ years of pushing myself far too hard, that is all that kept me sane.
Finally, take a careful look at yourself: If you are going to seriously pursue a degree while working full time (or nearly so) at the same time, you *must* have a bit of sadism in your personality. It is brutal, but ultimately worthwhile.
I, for instance, use a few Sparc systems, of most note a SparcStation20. The system has dual processers, and must (ideally) run RAID-5. The 2.4 kernel series just will not work in this setup...system uptime could never reach more than 2 days before the sytsem did a kernel panick and stuck its toung out at me.
This is just one example of the many reasons the 2.4 kernel cannot be considered even remotely as stable as teh 2.2 kernel. True, support for the latest hardware forces some people (primarily x86 boxes) to use the 2.4 kernel, but for rock-solid stability, you still need the 2.2 kernel.
And face it: Debian is NOT about the absolute latest and greatest packages, but about availability and maximum stability.
Suck it up and accept the fact that the 2.4 kernel is still has a lot of troubles, just not any that the bulk of the Linux user-base can see.
Lindows is simply a good name for the product in the grand tradition of American Enterprise: Simple, Descriptive, and Catchy. Anyone who sees the name will either know instantly what the product is, or be curious about it...perfect!
So, will MS win the court battle? Yes. This is not a fair world we live in, and -- especially in business -- the "right thing" very rarely happens.
I might not like this fact, so I do what I can to change it...like posting here. Meanwhile, simply because of the way laws are written and interpreted by lawyers, Lindows will loose the case.
--
Many programmers (yes, I am guilty too), take inexpensive hardware as license to write ineficient code. So what if the end user needs more RAM or a faster processor....thats progress!
This attitude only works because end users don't realize the benefit of non-bloatware. The replies to the above post all mentioned being able to run the kernel on an old 386/486 computer....fine, thats a worthy goal. I do it myself. However, what happens when the same "removal of bloat" is applied to regular software, as to that run on old hardware?
I dare anyone to say that the above four points are in any way a Bad Thing [tm]! I don't know about everyone else reading Slahdot, but I'd love for my computer to run even 5% faster without any changes to the hardware....even (especially?) on my new 1.0 GHz / 512 MB RAM / 48 GB HD system.
I notice that a common theme in the comments is that Easter Eggs do not belong in open-source software...I beg to differ:
What would life be without a little fun now and then? Hideous and boring come to mind for me. Easter Eggs are not about putting in something that will make a program into bloatware, nor to annoy anybody. Easter eggs are there for fun. Admittedly, I do not believe a flight simulator should be included in every software package, but if you can include a small bit of humor, do it!
If, for instance, you come to a case in programming where you are testing values and there is a number that can never be reached, put in an error message if that number does come up...but do not say "Error: Invalid number". Instead, put in something like: "OOPS! The laws of the universe have just been violated. Recommend rebooting universe and starting again!" Perhaps only developers will see the message, or perhaps not. Either way, somebody will get a laugh.
So long as there are not significant impacts on a program, include Easter Eggs freely. A life without humor, after all, is a life that has already ended! I don't think I have ever laughed so hard as when I heard an HP ScanJet playing "Ode to Joy"!
--David