If you want a project like this to succeed you need to use either locally available products (Hard for Togo) or build your own buying multiples of the same equipment (which is cheaper, perhaps not initially, than buying crap 300 dollar value PCs that will simply die or be unstable).
So when I started out, it wasn't good enough for me to have a TRS-80 with a tape drive (on which I taught myself BASIC and Z-80 programming), but instead had to have an "in country supplier" hand build me an IBM PC because what I had wasn't good enough?
.
First of all, I did look at his blog, and like I said, I didn't see anything in the first several posts that ruled this out from being another African scam.
Secondly, building PC's from parts cheaper was a few years ago. You can't beat the price of all in one motherboard PC's now. You can't even come close. I mean, remember, you guys are also saying "it's not worth the bother to work with old PC's". It'd be different if you wanted donmated hardware to do your thing with.
Lastly, if you are trying to convince people that the Peace Corp wants to do projects like a wireless network when the people don't have food and water and medicine and paved roads, then I'd say you and the Peace Corp have screwed up priorities.
The dude we're talking about has his priorities. He wants money.
You didn't understand, there is no internet access for these alleged gift PC's. In addition, how did "plan and execute projects" become "build/buy PC's for kids".
Also in addition, anyone who thinks you can build a PC cheaper in Africa than the $300 PC's that come out of China is rather oblivious.
Remember, this alleged Peace Corp guy said I don't want hardware or software, I want money.
Be absolutely sure to take LOTS of pictures of cute little kids with the computers you buy/build.
In this dude's blog (and I didn't see anything in the first few entries that ruled out being a setup for a scam), he says there is one paved road in the country. He says he gets on the internet with one low baud dialup shared by an internet cafe. Says it took 30 minutes to read his first email.
This guys never met anyone who codes in binary? I've done it plenty of times. It's called Assembly.
No, we coded in alpha letter opcodes in Assembly. Binary programming was done earlier by toggling a switch up or down for each bit and hitting Enter. I didn't have one of those, I started with the TRS-80.
An atheist is a person who does not have a belief in a god or gods
An agnostic is someone who claims that it is not possible to know whether there is a god or not.
If those are the definitions, common usage is the opposite.
In common usage, an atheist is someone anti-God, someone religious people consider an enemy.
Agnostic in common usage is someone who doesn't take one side or the other, including such reasons as not caring. Claiming that it is not possible to know is caring a lot.
Those are the only two words I know of for not being religious. If those definitions are true, there needs to be a third word that means I don't care atheist, not I'm against God atheist.
Oh, of course. Sometimes I do that. Other times I don't, because it takes me a couple of refactorings to see that two different pieces of codes are a refactoring or two away from being a bigger refactoring themselves.
I agree with that. What that is for most of us waterfall programmers is often a tough decision as to whether to isolate some existing code and make it more general purpose. If all under new development, not a problem. If the existing code is in production, it has major impact on the business in retesting and revalidating existing production software. Out of the question for a major production app in large companies.
The happy medium is to leverage the code in a new module that the *next* similar need can call upon, but leave the existing production alone until such time as it might need a major modification and needs revalidated anyway.
The only thing that can be constantly refactored is that portion under new development, and too much of that and you don't have a deliverable, you have churn and constantly refactored project deadlines.
Perhaps the easiest way to understand it is to imagine that you add a feature to a program and then realize that the code you just added is remarkably similar to another piece of code you already had. You could leave them both there, or you could refactor both pieces of code into a single parameterized representation.
Or you could be less jumpy and agile and use the code that's already there to start with.
...it is, in fact, just programming well. If you are not constantly refactoring your code, talking to your co-workers and interacting with customers (at least a marketing rep) whenever you have the chance, then you're really not much of a programmer.
Programming well would be programming to a stable set of API's. You can add supersets and subsets to them, but if you are constantly refactoring, you are constantly changing the API's, which means you've moved something and now some routine needs a parm and all the API parms above it to start carrying it.
If you're passing object pointers around, then routines just get what they need. "Constantly refactoring" sounds like some kind of drug induced mantra.
I'm beginning to think that working with customers to develop a specification is actually a sufficiently hard job that it should be a specialised position...
Then it get implemented and all of a sudden X feature needs to be implemented and Y data needs to be stored in Z class (unknown before despite countless design meetings).
This is an excellent summary of reality. There was a thread on Vista yesterday which has major problems basically as a result of this.
The theory sounds good, but the theorists from OO days on have yet to deliver any superior major achievement over what we used to do and most of us still do.
An open source alternative to Exchange is the single most important project the open source community could develop to allow IT managers to migrate away from Microsoft.
"alternative to Exchange" is not quite the right way open source developers should be looking at this. It's about several fundamental technologies that are core to a complete open source stack. There's probably nothing more important to groups using computers than integrated connections.
It's really about having your own vision rather than an alternative to Microsoft's vision.
When I'm done, I shut the machine down and turn off the power strip. Interested in why others don't, however.
I run three personal PC's at home, a Win XP Pro, Win Me, and a Win 98. I never turn them off because they act much better when you let the power management bring them up and down when you activate the mouse or keyboard or walk away.
The poweroff is more disruptive and damaging than helpful, in my opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Millions of people can write things in Java or its kind without lots of training and expertise.
I have to question that. I'm a self-starter myself and all for it, but I don't think there's any basis for this statement.
rd
If you want a project like this to succeed you need to use either locally available products (Hard for Togo) or build your own buying multiples of the same equipment (which is cheaper, perhaps not initially, than buying crap 300 dollar value PCs that will simply die or be unstable).
So when I started out, it wasn't good enough for me to have a TRS-80 with a tape drive (on which I taught myself BASIC and Z-80 programming), but instead had to have an "in country supplier" hand build me an IBM PC because what I had wasn't good enough?
rd
No, I *gasp* think he's full of crap.
rd
.
First of all, I did look at his blog, and like I said, I didn't see anything in the first several posts that ruled this out from being another African scam.
Secondly, building PC's from parts cheaper was a few years ago. You can't beat the price of all in one motherboard PC's now. You can't even come close. I mean, remember, you guys are also saying "it's not worth the bother to work with old PC's". It'd be different if you wanted donmated hardware to do your thing with.
Lastly, if you are trying to convince people that the Peace Corp wants to do projects like a wireless network when the people don't have food and water and medicine and paved roads, then I'd say you and the Peace Corp have screwed up priorities.
The dude we're talking about has his priorities. He wants money.
rd
checking the weather
You didn't understand, there is no internet access for these alleged gift PC's. In addition, how did "plan and execute projects" become "build/buy PC's for kids".
Also in addition, anyone who thinks you can build a PC cheaper in Africa than the $300 PC's that come out of China is rather oblivious.
Remember, this alleged Peace Corp guy said I don't want hardware or software, I want money.
Really clueless scam.
rd
Be absolutely sure to take LOTS of pictures of cute little kids with the computers you buy/build.
In this dude's blog (and I didn't see anything in the first few entries that ruled out being a setup for a scam), he says there is one paved road in the country. He says he gets on the internet with one low baud dialup shared by an internet cafe. Says it took 30 minutes to read his first email.
What would they do with a computer?
rd
There is a large group of experienced volunteers here who just need money to plan and execute projects with in country suppliers
Is this the Togo version of Nigerian 419ers?
rd
This guys never met anyone who codes in binary? I've done it plenty of times. It's called Assembly.
No, we coded in alpha letter opcodes in Assembly. Binary programming was done earlier by toggling a switch up or down for each bit and hitting Enter. I didn't have one of those, I started with the TRS-80.
rd
An atheist is a person who does not have a belief in a god or gods
An agnostic is someone who claims that it is not possible to know whether there is a god or not.
If those are the definitions, common usage is the opposite.
In common usage, an atheist is someone anti-God, someone religious people consider an enemy.
Agnostic in common usage is someone who doesn't take one side or the other, including such reasons as not caring. Claiming that it is not possible to know is caring a lot.
Those are the only two words I know of for not being religious. If those definitions are true, there needs to be a third word that means I don't care atheist, not I'm against God atheist.
rd
It shouldn't - refactoring is making the internal structure better without changing the external API.
I would contend that nothing significant changes internally to refactor unless the API changes.
rd
Oh, of course. Sometimes I do that. Other times I don't, because it takes me a couple of refactorings to see that two different pieces of codes are a refactoring or two away from being a bigger refactoring themselves.
I agree with that. What that is for most of us waterfall programmers is often a tough decision as to whether to isolate some existing code and make it more general purpose. If all under new development, not a problem. If the existing code is in production, it has major impact on the business in retesting and revalidating existing production software. Out of the question for a major production app in large companies.
The happy medium is to leverage the code in a new module that the *next* similar need can call upon, but leave the existing production alone until such time as it might need a major modification and needs revalidated anyway.
The only thing that can be constantly refactored is that portion under new development, and too much of that and you don't have a deliverable, you have churn and constantly refactored project deadlines.
rd
Perhaps the easiest way to understand it is to imagine that you add a feature to a program and then realize that the code you just added is remarkably similar to another piece of code you already had. You could leave them both there, or you could refactor both pieces of code into a single parameterized representation.
Or you could be less jumpy and agile and use the code that's already there to start with.
rd
...my experience is that it's very easy to criticize agile development if you don't know anything about it.
/. posts explaining it.
It's even easier after reading a few
rd
...it is, in fact, just programming well. If you are not constantly refactoring your code, talking to your co-workers and interacting with customers (at least a marketing rep) whenever you have the chance, then you're really not much of a programmer.
Programming well would be programming to a stable set of API's. You can add supersets and subsets to them, but if you are constantly refactoring, you are constantly changing the API's, which means you've moved something and now some routine needs a parm and all the API parms above it to start carrying it.
If you're passing object pointers around, then routines just get what they need. "Constantly refactoring" sounds like some kind of drug induced mantra.
rd
I'd like to know how you found hayes-incompatible equipment though - that must have taken some work!
:)
probably IBM bisync
rd
I'm beginning to think that working with customers to develop a specification is actually a sufficiently hard job that it should be a specialised position...
I thought it was called business analyst?
rd
Why didn't you test the system against his computer?
to be more precise, test a prototype or sample to see that it meets the cuistomer's needs before buying $20,000 worth of hardware that doesn't.
rd
Then I let them loose on the ground and follow them for days.
beats card role playing.
rd
"I just need to be able to connect to a modem and dial out." (exact words burned into my brain)
It sounded like he knew what he wanted and assumed you knew enough to know it too. But the rest of the rant I agree with.
rd
API's first, always. Everything else is easy to change, but if you eff up the API's, you are in a world of shit when they have to change.
Doesn't this "constantly refactor" stuff constantly change API's?
rd
Then it get implemented and all of a sudden X feature needs to be implemented and Y data needs to be stored in Z class (unknown before despite countless design meetings).
This is an excellent summary of reality. There was a thread on Vista yesterday which has major problems basically as a result of this.
The theory sounds good, but the theorists from OO days on have yet to deliver any superior major achievement over what we used to do and most of us still do.
rd
So the test for obviousness isn't obvious?
rd
An open source alternative to Exchange is the single most important project the open source community could develop to allow IT managers to migrate away from Microsoft.
"alternative to Exchange" is not quite the right way open source developers should be looking at this. It's about several fundamental technologies that are core to a complete open source stack. There's probably nothing more important to groups using computers than integrated connections.
It's really about having your own vision rather than an alternative to Microsoft's vision.
rd
Because, if you read the article, you'd know that 24 people didn't work on the menu - it was 8 (which still seems too many to me!).
And only one of them a programmer, which is the real problem.
rd
When I'm done, I shut the machine down and turn off the power strip. Interested in why others don't, however.
I run three personal PC's at home, a Win XP Pro, Win Me, and a Win 98. I never turn them off because they act much better when you let the power management bring them up and down when you activate the mouse or keyboard or walk away.
The poweroff is more disruptive and damaging than helpful, in my opinion.
rd