And of course the "missing verses" from "this land..."
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there And that sign said - no tress passin' But on the other side.... it didn't say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me!
Arlo is great in concert, but I would love to have seen Woody too.
It seems like there are two completely different strains of thought here and I honestly believe that it is because there are two completely different types of places of employment.
1) I don't do any work unless I know who is paying for it, all hours are billable hours... Think of lawyers or consultants and you get the idea, but some companies have internal billing mechanisms "I'm working on project X, my time is being paid for by that project", "I'm doing this work for department Y, they are paying for it."
2) Everyone is working towards the same goal, and I will do whatever it takes. Think of volunteer organisations to take this to it's extreme.
Some places are a combination a Hotel for example will charge the customers directly for services that they use, but would charge indirectly for common services such as the receptionist.
It seems like some of these arguments about how to deal with email stem from these two approaches.
The place I work I have to do whatever is needed, but I track where I spend my time. However this is definitely the second type (it's a non-profit so billing hours is not something that is done).
Masculine terms are still used that way frequently, but I've seen more attempts at being gender neutral by using she/her or they/their. In some cases it works, and in others it seems contrived or is confusing. Timothy Leary proposed SHe and hir to replace He/She or him/her, you can tell it never caught on. Some of the worst ones seem to have deliberately alternated male/female terms (to provide balance?) but that just causes confusion.
The English language is not gender neutral and trying to make it so is going to be a long slow process. I don't mind people trying as the language moves forward (after all language is not static but constantly evolving) but I really dislike people going back and revising previous works to "make them more inclusive" this can particularly be seen with certain hymns... For example Hark the herald angels sing (Written in 1739) has a line that "pleased as man with man to dwell" that is now frequently changed to "pleased as man with us to dwell". Presumably too many people feel that the use of the word "man" to signify "humankind" is not acceptable. While that is a small change, some of the other changes don't scan well.
The other thing that really gets me is this needless abbreviation ("Whatev", "Phenom") I've even had my real (two syllable) name abbreviated by some people down to one syllable.
It is perfectly acceptable in English to refer to a person of unknown gender using the masculine terms. Thus "his" is acceptable. Using "their" has the potential to change the meaning somewhat.
"When he joined the group he was playing with his racket"
"When they joined the group they were playing with their racket"
I was referring to "Britain" meaning the island or mainland... But you're right about the UK including Northern Ireland... I was however just referring to the mainland. Taking all of the other parts of the world into account gets a lot more complicated, but dividing the mainland into Scotland, England and Wales is fair enough.
As for Northern Ireland that is a whole can of worms. I used to know someone from Northern Ireland who when asked if he was Irish would reply (somewhat forcefully) "No, I'm an ULSTERMAN!".
Of course if you asked a Nationalist from Belfast the same question the answer would be completely different.
I could have referred to "Albion" (rather than "Alba") but that would confuse the matter even more.
find ${SOMEPATH} -type f -exec grep -i "${PATTERN}" {} \;
reduces the potential window for a "race condition" (unlikely with grep as the command, but...), removes the burden of passing a potentially large list of files to xargs which then has to execute grep individually on each one, and finally (and most importantly in my estimation) it can handle whitespace in the filenames...
I guess you're still mired in the past then...:-) The Normans haven't been in charge for a long time... Even then they interbred with the Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Britons and so on... My reference to the Germans being in charge was about the Hanoverian take over of the monarchy. When George I became king he was 52nd in line to the throne. The last of the line of the House of Hanover was Queen Victoria, and her son was the only king from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The British Monarchy changed the name of their line to Windsor during the WWI as "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" sounds too German. In other words the current royal family are of German descent.
Of course I could argue that claiming that Angles, Saxons and Jutes were "German" is like arguing that the Dutch are German... Parts of Denmark still use a dialect remarkably like Old English...:-)
None of this is particularly correct (or incorrect)... It's not easy to simplify a couple of thousand years of history into one or two small postings.
Or worse, the times where just compiling with the debugging option turned on causes enough of a change in the code that the time dependent bug just vanishes.
"Britain" consists of England (Where you find the English), Wales (Where the Welsh reside), Scotland (Where the Scots come from), Northern Ireland, and various smaller islands of Britishness throughout the world.
Scotland and France (not England, but Scotland) have traditionally had The Auld Alliance to the point where the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion was in part based on hoped for French support.
So, your analysis while interesting is wrong. Particularly given that the Normans don't rule Britain, but the Germans.
Sure it is... I for one have written some 8086 assembler code by hand... But what's the point. Given the improvements in computer performance you don't usually have to write code that is so tight you can't squeeze any extra cycles out or remove any instructions for it to run at a reasonable speed. And if people went back to using code written as well as some of the older stuff these days they'd realise that they don't need to upgrade their computers every few weeks and the hardware market would collapse.
I guess you didn't read the fine article... They state that it looks like a single chipset system and then state that VIA have been working on such a chipset codenmaed John and Intel have been working on a different one codenamed something else.
However Time Fades Away By Neil Young came out the same year and has been deleted from his back catalogue. Basically this means that of two albums that came out in the same year one is very hard to get a hold of, and the other is very easy. There must have been hundreds or thousands of other albums released that year, do you want to estimate how many of them are still available as new? How many of them might become available if Copyright expired on them?
There are record companies who specialise in releasing smaller batches of recordings that are out of copyright. While it's not considered economically viable by the big labels these companies survive. Extending copyright terms (as happens way too often) makes it more likely that material will vanish rather than drop out of copyright.
it can be taught in philosophy as well but in this case give each religion some tyme to be learned
If you're giving each religion some Thyme then that's probably some form of Food and Nutrition class, not Philosophy. Personally I like my religion with some fresh Basil.
The rules of Brockian Ultra cricket are Nothing like that...
Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, but it keeps the crowds amused.
Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player and clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training.
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the walls for the players. Anything will do -- cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.
Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a 'hit' on another player, he should immediately run away and apologize from a safe distance.
Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.
Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins.... See, NOTHING like that.
I'll see your silly mid-off and raise you with "What's not to like about a sport in which you aim to bowl a maiden over."
But RAID0 isn't intended to be reliable... It's intended to be FAST. RAID 1 is intended to be reliable... RAID 0+1 is intended to be fast and reliable.
A single master is a single point of failure. However if that server failing doesn't cause running issues then they can ignore that single point of failure as it doesn't matter to production. I would imagine that the code on the Master is well tested by now (and may be very simple anyway) which just means that they now have to worry about hardware failures...
we had good steel links running to our drum brakes and they worked fine!
So you've been in my car then? Actually, it's my wife's Mustang, but it has four wheel drum brakes. They are hydraulic, but doing a mechanical linkage would be kind of interesting given the way they work... (The hydraulic pressure created by you pushing a piston into a cylinder with your feet pushes two pistons out of another cylinder in each wheel which pushes the brake pads against the inside of the drum. The parking brake is a mechanical linkage, using a cable that only applies one of the two pads in the two rear wheels...
Still, it's an improvement on that leather block on the end of a lever that they used to use...
We've got Intel vs. AMD to thank for quad-core, low-power, hardware virtualization...
I call BS. IBM had Dual core and then Quad core processors before Intel/AMD. Given the partitioning and vitualisation in the AIX Pseries these days (you want to split your machine along 1/10 of a processor boundaries, go ahead, you want to put one network adapter in the machine and share it amongst multiple partitions... Sure...) I don't think that Intel is the true innovator here.
I will give you the price point... I can't purchase an IBM processor for $59.
So does that mean that Semaphore's are useless in OS design?
I would have thought that Dijkstra's work on concurrency was directly relevant to OS design.
Given that Linus originally intended to produce a better kernel for Minix I would say that he achieved that goal. I don't think that AST would give Minix a passing grade if it was turned in for his OS class either. But at the time Minix was missing various features, and newer hardware support which AST did not want to add himself. If you consider the original goal to be "write a better kernel for Minix" then Linus succeeded. If you consider the goal to be "Write a new 386 Kernel from scratch" then Linus also succeeded. If you consider the goal to be "Write a new OS with new features and without just copying previous designs" then Linus failed.
I personally believe that the original goal was a combination of 1 and 2. I do not believe that it was 3 in any way.
Does this make Linus a god? No. Does it make him an extraordinary software engineer? No. Does it mean that he succeeded at his goal? Yes.
I use Linux both at home and at work and have no significant issues with it.
I also use AIX, HP-UX and have used Solaris, SCO, Tru-64 and ConvexOS as well as some non-Unix Oses like VMS, PrimeOS and OS/400. All of them have good and bad points, but none of them are perfect. Of course what I consider perfect in OSes (as in programming languages) will be different from what anyone else finds perfect.
Linux is a Unix reimplementation, and it includes other things that the Original Unix didn't... But I would not consider that a put down. Nor the fact that it is a "90's OS" is anything but a statement of when it was originally written. Windows Vista is not the same as Windows 2 (the earliest version I have used)... But then the computers that they run on are not the same either.
Please don't put words into my mouth and then claim that I'm wrong. My point was about the original AST/LT discussion about Linux, and so should be taken in the context of Linux at that point, and in that context. Basically Linux would not get a passing grade in Tanenbaum's OS class... But I don't think that that means much as it wasn't submitted as coursework in that class. Given a coursework requirement for that class I don't think that Linus would have produced Linux, but that wasn't the aim.
Given that we know pretty much nothing about the exact scenario that is being discussed here there are several reasons that he might want to statically link rather than dynamically.
Memory usage could potentially be an issue, particularly if he's basically using the kernel to manage hardware and one program is doing all the work. This assumes limited hardware in some respect, and the question has to be asked is it cheaper (in the long run) to use hardware with more memory or do more development to keep the memory usage down?
Speed might be the issue, if there is basically one program then the issue would have to be start up speed. Loading dynamic link libraries does take a small amount of time, but again, if the start up speed is that critical then wouldn't better hardware resolve the issue more reliably?
Finally disk space could be the issue. Assuming that you use a fairly smart static linker that only links the modules needed from each library then you could save "disk" space by static linking a single binary. However, if space is that constrained do you want the overhead of a full blown Linux distribution?
It seems that these issues could all be resolved by either spending more on hardware, or spending more on development, and ditching the whole OS idea. If it's a single use device then do you need a full Unix kernel or do you just need a piece of software that can boot and control the minimal hardware that it needs?
Again, I don't have any information that can answer these questions, I'm just speculating.
Not that you're wrong. I would not call Linux "a poor re-implementation of a 20 year old operating system", but the original reason behind it was not to be the best OS out there. It was to fill a need that Linus had.
I am sure that if Linus had taken Andrew S. Tanenbaum's OS design course he wouldn't have turned in Linux as a piece of coursework... But that wasn't why it was created. I would imagine that people who take that course are not given assignments like "Write an OS from the ground up" but more likely "implement X in a micro kernel architecture"...
Although I would argue with the "takes up less RAM" point as dynamic linking allows only one copy of the library to be loaded with every process sharing it, while static linking forces multiple copies of the library to be loaded...
It's a six of one issue that depends on particular circumstances and can go either way depending on what you're doing.
Slashdot Mirror
And of course the "missing verses" from "this land..."
.... it didn't say nothin!
As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there
And that sign said - no tress passin'
But on the other side
Now that side was made for you and me!
Arlo is great in concert, but I would love to have seen Woody too.
Z.
It seems like there are two completely different strains of thought here and I honestly believe that it is because there are two completely different types of places of employment.
1) I don't do any work unless I know who is paying for it, all hours are billable hours... Think of lawyers or consultants and you get the idea, but some companies have internal billing mechanisms "I'm working on project X, my time is being paid for by that project", "I'm doing this work for department Y, they are paying for it."
2) Everyone is working towards the same goal, and I will do whatever it takes. Think of volunteer organisations to take this to it's extreme.
Some places are a combination a Hotel for example will charge the customers directly for services that they use, but would charge indirectly for common services such as the receptionist.
It seems like some of these arguments about how to deal with email stem from these two approaches.
The place I work I have to do whatever is needed, but I track where I spend my time. However this is definitely the second type (it's a non-profit so billing hours is not something that is done).
Z.
I don't use enough smilies apparently...
From memory, you claimed to be yanking my chain, and certainly based on my "Good God Man!" phrasing which I don't normally use, I was partly joking...
Z.
Masculine terms are still used that way frequently, but I've seen more attempts at being gender neutral by using she/her or they/their. In some cases it works, and in others it seems contrived or is confusing. Timothy Leary proposed SHe and hir to replace He/She or him/her, you can tell it never caught on. Some of the worst ones seem to have deliberately alternated male/female terms (to provide balance?) but that just causes confusion.
The English language is not gender neutral and trying to make it so is going to be a long slow process. I don't mind people trying as the language moves forward (after all language is not static but constantly evolving) but I really dislike people going back and revising previous works to "make them more inclusive" this can particularly be seen with certain hymns... For example Hark the herald angels sing (Written in 1739) has a line that "pleased as man with man to dwell" that is now frequently changed to "pleased as man with us to dwell". Presumably too many people feel that the use of the word "man" to signify "humankind" is not acceptable. While that is a small change, some of the other changes don't scan well.
The other thing that really gets me is this needless abbreviation ("Whatev", "Phenom") I've even had my real (two syllable) name abbreviated by some people down to one syllable.
Well, enough of my ranting...
Z.
It is perfectly acceptable in English to refer to a person of unknown gender using the masculine terms. Thus "his" is acceptable. Using "their" has the potential to change the meaning somewhat.
"When he joined the group he was playing with his racket"
"When they joined the group they were playing with their racket"
See?
Z.
Well, you could just use grep -rl which would avoid all of this needless xargs and find stuff... or use one of the two GNU find extensions...
find -type f -execdir grep -l {} +
Still no need for xargs as -exec + and -execdir + both do what xargs would...
Z.
I was referring to "Britain" meaning the island or mainland... But you're right about the UK including Northern Ireland... I was however just referring to the mainland. Taking all of the other parts of the world into account gets a lot more complicated, but dividing the mainland into Scotland, England and Wales is fair enough.
As for Northern Ireland that is a whole can of worms. I used to know someone from Northern Ireland who when asked if he was Irish would reply (somewhat forcefully) "No, I'm an ULSTERMAN!".
Of course if you asked a Nationalist from Belfast the same question the answer would be completely different.
I could have referred to "Albion" (rather than "Alba") but that would confuse the matter even more.
Z.
*SIGH*
find ${SOMEPATH} -type f -exec grep -i "${PATTERN}" {} \;
reduces the potential window for a "race condition" (unlikely with grep as the command, but...), removes the burden of passing a potentially large list of files to xargs which then has to execute grep individually on each one, and finally (and most importantly in my estimation) it can handle whitespace in the filenames...
Z.
I guess you're still mired in the past then... :-) The Normans haven't been in charge for a long time... Even then they interbred with the Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings, the Britons and so on... My reference to the Germans being in charge was about the Hanoverian take over of the monarchy. When George I became king he was 52nd in line to the throne. The last of the line of the House of Hanover was Queen Victoria, and her son was the only king from the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The British Monarchy changed the name of their line to Windsor during the WWI as "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" sounds too German. In other words the current royal family are of German descent.
:-)
Of course I could argue that claiming that Angles, Saxons and Jutes were "German" is like arguing that the Dutch are German... Parts of Denmark still use a dialect remarkably like Old English...
None of this is particularly correct (or incorrect)... It's not easy to simplify a couple of thousand years of history into one or two small postings.
Z.
Or worse, the times where just compiling with the debugging option turned on causes enough of a change in the code that the time dependent bug just vanishes.
Z.
Brits/British are not the same as English.
"Britain" consists of England (Where you find the English), Wales (Where the Welsh reside), Scotland (Where the Scots come from), Northern Ireland, and various smaller islands of Britishness throughout the world.
Scotland and France (not England, but Scotland) have traditionally had The Auld Alliance to the point where the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion was in part based on hoped for French support.
So, your analysis while interesting is wrong. Particularly given that the Normans don't rule Britain, but the Germans.
Z.
Sure it is... I for one have written some 8086 assembler code by hand... But what's the point. Given the improvements in computer performance you don't usually have to write code that is so tight you can't squeeze any extra cycles out or remove any instructions for it to run at a reasonable speed. And if people went back to using code written as well as some of the older stuff these days they'd realise that they don't need to upgrade their computers every few weeks and the hardware market would collapse.
Z.
I guess you didn't read the fine article... They state that it looks like a single chipset system and then state that VIA have been working on such a chipset codenmaed John and Intel have been working on a different one codenamed something else.
Z.
However Time Fades Away By Neil Young came out the same year and has been deleted from his back catalogue. Basically this means that of two albums that came out in the same year one is very hard to get a hold of, and the other is very easy. There must have been hundreds or thousands of other albums released that year, do you want to estimate how many of them are still available as new? How many of them might become available if Copyright expired on them?
There are record companies who specialise in releasing smaller batches of recordings that are out of copyright. While it's not considered economically viable by the big labels these companies survive. Extending copyright terms (as happens way too often) makes it more likely that material will vanish rather than drop out of copyright.
Z.
If you're giving each religion some Thyme then that's probably some form of Food and Nutrition class, not Philosophy. Personally I like my religion with some fresh Basil.
Z.
The rules of Brockian Ultra cricket are Nothing like that...
... See, NOTHING like that.
Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, but it keeps the crowds amused.
Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player and clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training.
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the walls for the players. Anything will do -- cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.
Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a 'hit' on another player, he should immediately run away and apologize from a safe distance.
Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.
Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins.
I'll see your silly mid-off and raise you with "What's not to like about a sport in which you aim to bowl a maiden over."
Z.
But RAID0 isn't intended to be reliable... It's intended to be FAST. RAID 1 is intended to be reliable...
RAID 0+1 is intended to be fast and reliable.
A single master is a single point of failure. However if that server failing doesn't cause running issues then they can ignore that single point of failure as it doesn't matter to production. I would imagine that the code on the Master is well tested by now (and may be very simple anyway) which just means that they now have to worry about hardware failures...
Z.
So you've been in my car then? Actually, it's my wife's Mustang, but it has four wheel drum brakes. They are hydraulic, but doing a mechanical linkage would be kind of interesting given the way they work... (The hydraulic pressure created by you pushing a piston into a cylinder with your feet pushes two pistons out of another cylinder in each wheel which pushes the brake pads against the inside of the drum. The parking brake is a mechanical linkage, using a cable that only applies one of the two pads in the two rear wheels...
Still, it's an improvement on that leather block on the end of a lever that they used to use...
Z.
I call BS. IBM had Dual core and then Quad core processors before Intel/AMD. Given the partitioning and vitualisation in the AIX Pseries these days (you want to split your machine along 1/10 of a processor boundaries, go ahead, you want to put one network adapter in the machine and share it amongst multiple partitions... Sure...) I don't think that Intel is the true innovator here.
I will give you the price point... I can't purchase an IBM processor for $59.
Z.
So does that mean that Semaphore's are useless in OS design?
I would have thought that Dijkstra's work on concurrency was directly relevant to OS design.
Given that Linus originally intended to produce a better kernel for Minix I would say that he achieved that goal. I don't think that AST would give Minix a passing grade if it was turned in for his OS class either. But at the time Minix was missing various features, and newer hardware support which AST did not want to add himself. If you consider the original goal to be "write a better kernel for Minix" then Linus succeeded. If you consider the goal to be "Write a new 386 Kernel from scratch" then Linus also succeeded. If you consider the goal to be "Write a new OS with new features and without just copying previous designs" then Linus failed.
I personally believe that the original goal was a combination of 1 and 2. I do not believe that it was 3 in any way.
Does this make Linus a god? No. Does it make him an extraordinary software engineer? No. Does it mean that he succeeded at his goal? Yes.
Z.
Actually, I was quoting someone else.
I use Linux both at home and at work and have no significant issues with it.
I also use AIX, HP-UX and have used Solaris, SCO, Tru-64 and ConvexOS as well as some non-Unix Oses like VMS, PrimeOS and OS/400. All of them have good and bad points, but none of them are perfect. Of course what I consider perfect in OSes (as in programming languages) will be different from what anyone else finds perfect.
Linux is a Unix reimplementation, and it includes other things that the Original Unix didn't... But I would not consider that a put down. Nor the fact that it is a "90's OS" is anything but a statement of when it was originally written. Windows Vista is not the same as Windows 2 (the earliest version I have used)... But then the computers that they run on are not the same either.
Please don't put words into my mouth and then claim that I'm wrong. My point was about the original AST/LT discussion about Linux, and so should be taken in the context of Linux at that point, and in that context. Basically Linux would not get a passing grade in Tanenbaum's OS class... But I don't think that that means much as it wasn't submitted as coursework in that class. Given a coursework requirement for that class I don't think that Linus would have produced Linux, but that wasn't the aim.
Z.
Well, thanks for the agreement... :-)
Given that we know pretty much nothing about the exact scenario that is being discussed here there are several reasons that he might want to statically link rather than dynamically.
Memory usage could potentially be an issue, particularly if he's basically using the kernel to manage hardware and one program is doing all the work. This assumes limited hardware in some respect, and the question has to be asked is it cheaper (in the long run) to use hardware with more memory or do more development to keep the memory usage down?
Speed might be the issue, if there is basically one program then the issue would have to be start up speed. Loading dynamic link libraries does take a small amount of time, but again, if the start up speed is that critical then wouldn't better hardware resolve the issue more reliably?
Finally disk space could be the issue. Assuming that you use a fairly smart static linker that only links the modules needed from each library then you could save "disk" space by static linking a single binary. However, if space is that constrained do you want the overhead of a full blown Linux distribution?
It seems that these issues could all be resolved by either spending more on hardware, or spending more on development, and ditching the whole OS idea. If it's a single use device then do you need a full Unix kernel or do you just need a piece of software that can boot and control the minimal hardware that it needs?
Again, I don't have any information that can answer these questions, I'm just speculating.
Z.
You forgot Dijkstra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsger_Dijkstra and of course Knuth http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/
Not that you're wrong. I would not call Linux "a poor re-implementation of a 20 year old operating system", but the original reason behind it was not to be the best OS out there. It was to fill a need that Linus had.
I am sure that if Linus had taken Andrew S. Tanenbaum's OS design course he wouldn't have turned in Linux as a piece of coursework... But that wasn't why it was created. I would imagine that people who take that course are not given assignments like "Write an OS from the ground up" but more likely "implement X in a micro kernel architecture"...
Z.
This was my take on it too...
Although I would argue with the "takes up less RAM" point as dynamic linking allows only one copy of the library to be loaded with every process sharing it, while static linking forces multiple copies of the library to be loaded...
It's a six of one issue that depends on particular circumstances and can go either way depending on what you're doing.
Z.
Lego Mindstorms...
Or look on Cool Tools (http://www.kk.org/cooltools/) for all sorts of strange, cool, inspire your kids things.
Z.