I'm in sales and I've told a customer X feature will be ready by a certain date, and then without warning the dev team pushes it back several months, I'm screwed.
Status reports don't protect sales from dev pushing back features. And I have *never* seen a sales guy read an engineer's status report.
One of the parents is right about
To take the lawyer example, the senior partner reviews the associate's draft. He's looking at the work, not a status report.
Managers should be reviewing the engineer's work, not their status reports. Status reports are inefficient because they are write once, read once. Read once because the manager reads it once, sends status to his boss, and throws the thing away.
I'm a team lead of about 10 engineers, and I spend more than half my day on email with other devs. 99% of the conversations are public. That paper trail is productive in terms of making progress on the product, *and* useful for the manager to figure out what we're doing.
Linux on any of the old PPC Macs. Those are desktop, non-x86 systems. Most/all of the major distros support desktop PPC linux running the standard X, Gnome, KDE, etc.
IIRC, Linus himself develops on a Dual G5 PowerMac. (running Linux, of course!)
What makes you think a multi-million dollar aircraft in developement for decades would be less advanced than Windows 3.1?
Even assuming the gov't didn't write every line of code on that aircraft (unlikely), they still need all the source. That includes: engine control, fly by wire, GPS, communications, radar analysis, weapons control, and dozens more systems I'm forgetting about.
Imagine if they had based the computers on Linux. Even that by itself is several million lines of code right there.
From Wikipedia: "The Raptor's software is composed of over 1.7 million lines of code, most of which concerns processing data from the radar.[20]"
There is a tool called "nm", which examines a library or executable, and lists every function name in your library or executable. If they have distributed SuperLibrary as a shared library, any new functions are definitive evidence that they have modified it.
Static linking, where you take the superlibrary code and put it in the executable instead of a.dll or.so, causes the executable to be GPL'd. If you see a list of function names that you know are in SuperLibrary 1.0, you can use your judgement to decide how likely it is that they have named all of their functions the same as yours.
There is another tool called "strings", which performs similar to nm, except it prints a list of all the text strings in the application. this would tell you every text string which shows up in menus, dialog boxes, error messages, etc.
These tools are both common on linux/gcc. I assume similar tools exist for windows.
Neither of these is 100% definitive, but they are pretty good evidence, and certainly enough to start a lawsuit and sopena, as sibiling poster mentioned.
Remember that AMD recently complained that ICC detected the CPU's manufacturer instead of the CPU's feature set when doing optimizations. The result looked something like this:
if(CPU == "P4")
P4optimizations(); else if(CPU =="P3")
P3optimizations(); // and so on, else if(CPU == "386" || Maker == "AMD")
386optimizations();
when it should have looked like like
if( hasSSE3())
SSE3optimizations(); else if (hasSSE2())
SSE2optimizations();
The problem isn't that AMD cpus can't gain from Intel's compiler, but that Intel specifically excluded them from the compilier's optimizations. Obviously the second version benefits AMD a lot more, because then the intel compilier produces optimized code for AMD cpus as well.
The problem is, Google had to pay someone else for all that map data. Google doesn't have unlimited rights to all that stuff. Look at the license for the Google video player(GPL), and then the Google maps viewer(non-commerical, no reverse decompiling, etc). But yeah, this would be really cool for a car computer.
Be careful with your terms. DRM means *AA and Microsoft trust your computer i.e. they manage your rights, while in the OSS world, trusted computing means you can trust your own machine.
Trusted computing is used for things like making sure malware and rootkits can't take over your own machine, and that trojans haven't been introduced into the software you've downloaded, while DRM is used to make sure you can't rip a copy of a DVD you own.
OSS people already are working on trusted computing, see Trusted Gentoo. There are almost certainly others. OSS trusted computing won't implement a DRM solution that respects fair use, because no one in their right mind would install it. Additionally, the entire concept behind DRM is flawed. Cory Doctorow has an excellent talk on the subject.
A better solution than having a system that "protects content owners", is offering a solution that users want. Most users are honest. iTunes has demonstrated that many people will pay to download their music over the internet. Yet in the years between Napster and iTunes, millions of songs were downloaded off the internet, and CD sales went up. Why does iTunes need DRM? I can already download any music I want for free over the internet, with no DRM, and at higher quality.
Trusted computing is an excellent example of the differences between OSS and proprietary systems. The important question is: who gets to trust the box sitting next to you?
It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal.
I get your point about hypocracy, but you're conflating morality with legality. Yes, they are both illegal, but a person's motive is important in determining crime. I kill a man. Is it illegal? Depends on whether I'm a soldier in a war, defending my house and family, or holding up a bank.
The difference between the guy selling pirate CDs is that he intends to make money off the sale, while the person downloading off the internet intends to find new bands to listen to. Many people I know who download music also support the artists by going to concerts and buying CDs. That's a very different motivation from the guy selling pirate CDs, who intends to freeload off other people's work, the very thing copyright was intended to protect.
Yes they're both illegal, but with different motivations, the meaning and severity of the action changes.
You mean the same way you look directly at the sun when using your hand to shield against the sun? I know I don't do that while driving. You can use your peripheral vision (as opposed to focus vision) to figure out where stuff is.
When the machine reboots determines how expensive the patch is. Rebooting during the work day would be very expensive, rebooting at 3am will cost about $0. The cost of the servers being down for five minutes could be bad, depending on the company, but it's probably not much. There are much more expensive problems with microsoft.
Batteries and alternators are not the same things as computers. The first car your parents owned had a battery and alternator. Did it have a computer?
There are systems that make a whole lot of sense to be computer controlled, namely fuel injection and brakes.
When was the last time you had a fouled spark plug because of bad gas? When was the last time you were aware of bad gas in your car causing pinging? Electronic fuel injection improves gas milage, improves the car's tolerance to bad gas, and reduces the need for replacing spark plugs.
Brakes are next on the list because of cool stuff like anti-lock brakes. A few manufacturers have recently started playing with changing the amount of brake force applied to each wheel to improve stability during turns, and as an anti-roll device.
Additionally, the data lines to control an electronically controlled brake are a lot more reliable than hydraulic brake lines. You're supposed to change your break fluid every 30k miles. When was the last time you had to replace your ethernet cable because of wear? That means less maintanence for Joe Public to do, which makes the car safer again.
Electronic systems can definitely make the car more reliable and safer, at the cost of simplicity.
What I don't understand is why their bot doesn't narrow things down using things like file size before it reaches the people involved. That alone would cut down the workload and reduce the false positives.
Shh... Don't tell them how to improve it! It's in our best interest if they sue innocent people.
You can use the same browser on all three platforms: firefox. Camino is so close to firefox that I don't notice. Additionally, both firefox and camino support middle button newtabs.
You're right, I haven't used 2003 or whatever. I didn't see the point of paying for new versions of word when every version got worse. It only took them five or ten years to stop that stupid auto correcting.
I think the problem is that many people see a word processor as a simple program, when it is not. For example, would a drafter open Microstation and start working in it as if it was AutoCAD? Would a layout editor open Quark and start working in it as if it was InDesign? Would someone open Emacs and start using it like vi?
Well maybe their frustration comes from the fact that it should be a simple program. There is really no reason for auto-formatting that is so hard to undo and prevent.
Parent is very informative. As extra detail, FCC regulations prohibit open source firmware in 802.11. They require than non-FCC-licensed radio operators (wi-fi users) be unable to modify the device to create interference. This means that because of the FCC regulations, they can't open source the part of the code that controls the radio's power output and frequency. The atheros guys solved this by creating open source code, and then a binary-only hardware abstraction layer. Supposedly there is some under the table work on replacing the HAL with some open source code. Of course, that would be illegal in the US *wink*.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm in sales and I've told a customer X feature will be ready by a certain date, and then without warning the dev team pushes it back several months, I'm screwed.
Status reports don't protect sales from dev pushing back features. And I have *never* seen a sales guy read an engineer's status report.
One of the parents is right about
To take the lawyer example, the senior partner reviews the associate's draft. He's looking at the work, not a status report.
Managers should be reviewing the engineer's work, not their status reports. Status reports are inefficient because they are write once, read once. Read once because the manager reads it once, sends status to his boss, and throws the thing away.
I'm a team lead of about 10 engineers, and I spend more than half my day on email with other devs. 99% of the conversations are public. That paper trail is productive in terms of making progress on the product, *and* useful for the manager to figure out what we're doing.
Linux on any of the old PPC Macs. Those are desktop, non-x86 systems. Most/all of the major distros support desktop PPC linux running the standard X, Gnome, KDE, etc.
IIRC, Linus himself develops on a Dual G5 PowerMac. (running Linux, of course!)
What makes you think a multi-million dollar aircraft in developement for decades would be less advanced than Windows 3.1?
Even assuming the gov't didn't write every line of code on that aircraft (unlikely), they still need all the source. That includes: engine control, fly by wire, GPS, communications, radar analysis, weapons control, and dozens more systems I'm forgetting about.
Imagine if they had based the computers on Linux. Even that by itself is several million lines of code right there.
From Wikipedia: "The Raptor's software is composed of over 1.7 million lines of code, most of which concerns processing data from the radar.[20]"
That number actually sounds too low to me.
There is a tool called "nm", which examines a library or executable, and lists every function name in your library or executable. If they have distributed SuperLibrary as a shared library, any new functions are definitive evidence that they have modified it.
.dll or .so, causes the executable to be GPL'd. If you see a list of function names that you know are in SuperLibrary 1.0, you can use your judgement to decide how likely it is that they have named all of their functions the same as yours.
Static linking, where you take the superlibrary code and put it in the executable instead of a
There is another tool called "strings", which performs similar to nm, except it prints a list of all the text strings in the application. this would tell you every text string which shows up in menus, dialog boxes, error messages, etc.
These tools are both common on linux/gcc. I assume similar tools exist for windows.
Neither of these is 100% definitive, but they are pretty good evidence, and certainly enough to start a lawsuit and sopena, as sibiling poster mentioned.
(I know I'm not perfect by a long shot on spelling and grammar, but it's not my job to post legibly on Slashdot.)
:-)
CmdrTaco has stated explicitly that it's not the editors job, either.
On AMD systems, ICC is insignificantly faster.
// and so on,
Remember that AMD recently complained that ICC detected the CPU's manufacturer instead of the CPU's feature set when doing optimizations. The result looked something like this:
if(CPU == "P4")
P4optimizations();
else if(CPU =="P3")
P3optimizations();
else if(CPU == "386" || Maker == "AMD")
386optimizations();
when it should have looked like like
if( hasSSE3())
SSE3optimizations();
else if (hasSSE2())
SSE2optimizations();
The problem isn't that AMD cpus can't gain from Intel's compiler, but that Intel specifically excluded them from the compilier's optimizations. Obviously the second version benefits AMD a lot more, because then the intel compilier produces optimized code for AMD cpus as well.
The problem is, Google had to pay someone else for all that map data. Google doesn't have unlimited rights to all that stuff. Look at the license for the Google video player(GPL), and then the Google maps viewer(non-commerical, no reverse decompiling, etc). But yeah, this would be really cool for a car computer.
Be careful with your terms. DRM means *AA and Microsoft trust your computer i.e. they manage your rights, while in the OSS world, trusted computing means you can trust your own machine.
Trusted computing is used for things like making sure malware and rootkits can't take over your own machine, and that trojans haven't been introduced into the software you've downloaded, while DRM is used to make sure you can't rip a copy of a DVD you own.
OSS people already are working on trusted computing, see Trusted Gentoo. There are almost certainly others. OSS trusted computing won't implement a DRM solution that respects fair use, because no one in their right mind would install it. Additionally, the entire concept behind DRM is flawed. Cory Doctorow has an excellent talk on the subject.
A better solution than having a system that "protects content owners", is offering a solution that users want. Most users are honest. iTunes has demonstrated that many people will pay to download their music over the internet. Yet in the years between Napster and iTunes, millions of songs were downloaded off the internet, and CD sales went up. Why does iTunes need DRM? I can already download any music I want for free over the internet, with no DRM, and at higher quality.
Trusted computing is an excellent example of the differences between OSS and proprietary systems. The important question is: who gets to trust the box sitting next to you?
And they obviously don't use Visual Studio to develop or build their own projects. I find new bugs in VS daily.
Constrast that with XCode, which Apple obviously uses to build everything they make.
I see brushed aluminum is the new Aqua. And I thought people were kidding about that whole Microsoft ripping off Apple thing.
Well, google is almost its own OS... Google in L33T
It is, in a word, wrong to deify music swapping online, but demonise pirate CD sales. They're both illegal.
I get your point about hypocracy, but you're conflating morality with legality. Yes, they are both illegal, but a person's motive is important in determining crime. I kill a man. Is it illegal? Depends on whether I'm a soldier in a war, defending my house and family, or holding up a bank.
The difference between the guy selling pirate CDs is that he intends to make money off the sale, while the person downloading off the internet intends to find new bands to listen to. Many people I know who download music also support the artists by going to concerts and buying CDs. That's a very different motivation from the guy selling pirate CDs, who intends to freeload off other people's work, the very thing copyright was intended to protect.
Yes they're both illegal, but with different motivations, the meaning and severity of the action changes.
Use another professional FW product.
Should read: Use a professional FW product.
You mean the same way you look directly at the sun when using your hand to shield against the sun? I know I don't do that while driving. You can use your peripheral vision (as opposed to focus vision) to figure out where stuff is.
And he's on the soundtrack to GTA:SA.
it is possible to charge a 4G ipod off USB, I did it last night. It's likely a problem with your USB port.
When the machine reboots determines how expensive the patch is. Rebooting during the work day would be very expensive, rebooting at 3am will cost about $0. The cost of the servers being down for five minutes could be bad, depending on the company, but it's probably not much. There are much more expensive problems with microsoft.
"If only they could both lose"
Batteries and alternators are not the same things as computers. The first car your parents owned had a battery and alternator. Did it have a computer?
There are systems that make a whole lot of sense to be computer controlled, namely fuel injection and brakes.
When was the last time you had a fouled spark plug because of bad gas? When was the last time you were aware of bad gas in your car causing pinging? Electronic fuel injection improves gas milage, improves the car's tolerance to bad gas, and reduces the need for replacing spark plugs.
Brakes are next on the list because of cool stuff like anti-lock brakes. A few manufacturers have recently started playing with changing the amount of brake force applied to each wheel to improve stability during turns, and as an anti-roll device.
Additionally, the data lines to control an electronically controlled brake are a lot more reliable than hydraulic brake lines. You're supposed to change your break fluid every 30k miles. When was the last time you had to replace your ethernet cable because of wear? That means less maintanence for Joe Public to do, which makes the car safer again.
Electronic systems can definitely make the car more reliable and safer, at the cost of simplicity.
Shh... Don't tell them how to improve it! It's in our best interest if they sue innocent people.
You can use the same browser on all three platforms: firefox. Camino is so close to firefox that I don't notice. Additionally, both firefox and camino support middle button newtabs.
You're right, I haven't used 2003 or whatever. I didn't see the point of paying for new versions of word when every version got worse. It only took them five or ten years to stop that stupid auto correcting.
Well maybe their frustration comes from the fact that it should be a simple program. There is really no reason for auto-formatting that is so hard to undo and prevent.
Well, you know whom to blame.
At least you have SSH, FTP and Samba to share over a network.
Parent is very informative. As extra detail, FCC regulations prohibit open source firmware in 802.11. They require than non-FCC-licensed radio operators (wi-fi users) be unable to modify the device to create interference. This means that because of the FCC regulations, they can't open source the part of the code that controls the radio's power output and frequency. The atheros guys solved this by creating open source code, and then a binary-only hardware abstraction layer. Supposedly there is some under the table work on replacing the HAL with some open source code. Of course, that would be illegal in the US *wink*.