Lots of people will try to work around your requirement for C++, but I'll assume your reasons are solid and let it stand.
What your are looking for are not design patters but software engineering practices. Specifically, you're interested in what would be called critical systems (think things like air-traffic control where failures can cost lives). These sorts of systems exist, and are written in all sorts of languages, but writing them is not a small undertaking. To get an idea of what you're undertaking, have a look at how reliability (RELY) affects things in the COCOMO II model.
The next step is to look at some of the literature. I'd suggest starting with Somerville's 'Software Engineering', where you'll find part 4 dedicated to critical systems and part 5 dedicated to verification and validation. The chapter on critical systems validation is probably the meat of what you need, but the rest is likely needed for a solid background. Suffice to say that those saying 'test driven development' are on the way to enlightenment, but are missing a large part of the story.
Software Engineering is basically the bits of computer science which get applied in the real world, plus the team, software methodology etc aspects you need to actually develop software. To take a hard-line view there's no realy reason for a coputer scientist to be interested in unit testing, because it's not 'science'.
That said, more and more computer science courses are more like (software) engineering than science courses these days anyway.
Anyone else cynical enough to immediately think that this is just to stop people considering their options when they realise that their support's suddenly run out?
There's plenty of businesses out there running older versions of windows who might look elsewhere rather than upgrade if there was no support.
That said, better software support is probably generally a good thing.
As someone who works down the hall from the people at the ACCC who will end up handling these complaints, I should probably mention that they generally prefer contact by phone, rather than over the website's complaint form.
The number is 1300 302 502.
They'll want to ask you questions, and in theory they will just call you back if you put a complaint in through the web.
I'm the IT manager for a college here in Australia, and since we run a 'charge for what you use' system, I figured I'd recount a few of our experiences.
Our cost structure is driven entirely by our upstream providers, and since we're connecting students, we aim to break even on bandwidth costs, and pay for our infrastructure out of a $25 connection fee.
We have tiered charges, as part of an academic network, which look like this. sites in.anu.edu.au (and some other canberra institutions) - free sites in.edu.au - 2.5 c (AU) per meg sites in.au - 5 c (AU) per meg All other sites - 10 c (AU) per meg...Although the actual prices have been falling each year, so they will likely be cut for 2003.
In any case, our customers, I'll admit, are a fairly captive market as far as getting broadband access from their doom rooms go, however computer labs are run by a different division, and work quite differently. They have a 5meg per day quota, which accumulates over time, but is capped at 40 meg (and below at -20).
A lot of people have recently been asking for this system to be expanded to the dorms, although from what I gather, it's more because this access is 'free' rather than being billed, not out of preference for the cost model.
I would say, then, that we have a fairly good representation of how a system like this can work, and I would say on the whole it does so pretty well. We have a wide mix of users, from those who spend $100s per month, to people who don't even go through $25 in a year.
For a time last year, there was a hole in our billing system which was allowing people to get free web access through a proxy server on campus. People who discovered this, approached $400 a month before we found the problem (and luckily we had ways of tracking the usage, it just wasn't built into our standard billing process). Some of these people were rather displeased at having to pay back for the access, however it was all resolved without much trouble. What this proves, I suppose, is that the billing becomes a consideration for the residents, and they adjust their habits accordingly.
For an average user, however, people seem happy with the system. I can't imagine justifying a move to a flat fee structure, even if it were capped, because it would be impossible to sell to the vast majority here. I suppose that's the main moral, Average users aren't willing to subsidize the heavy users, and it's the average users who make up the majority.
There will always be some unhappy people when their loopholes are taken away, but these same people, in another area, are unhappy about subsidising others. Compulsory residents association fees, for example, most of which are spent on sport and alcohol, tend not to go over so well for those who don't participate, and hence don't get their money's worth. Of course, I could go on and on...free health care and so on and so on.
Anyway, I should put an end to this rambling...
The billing system we developed for all this is up for (open source) grabs if anyone wants to maintain it, since I'll be moving on, although it's very hacky and not exactly documented at all.
On the whole, I'd consider our experience positive, and I would personally look for a usage based system despite being a rather high end user myself. Basically, I figure there's always going to be someone with more time than me who I'll be subsidizing.
The epitome of the 'educational game' and I have to be honest, I learnt nothing from it...Maybe pattern recognition...Play it long enough, and you can remember the questions. I can't remember any of the facts, and even if I did, it would be that sort of trivial pursuit type of knowledge, not the actually useful underlying concepts.
The only thing that could possibly be gained is to generate some sort of interest in geography in the player...and to encourage them to read some actual books about it. Failed for me, but that's about the only area I can see this being useful.
I wonder if this will be available outside the US, specifically in Australia...Tridge's brilliant hacks for addinf Ethernet and PAL support aside, I'd really love one of these things.
Of course, I suppose it's all worth nothing without a good supply of TV Guide type information. Sofcom is probably the best we've got down here, but I imagine a real service would include a lot more meta information connecting the episodes in a series etc.
It gives a nice looking idea, however, yes, it's wrong. In fact, the time it will take for the ball at the other end is the time it would take sound to travel through the ping pong balls.
Sound moves as waves, remember...and what that actually means is that it moves as compressions and expansions moving through the balls. Pushing one in a consistent direction is no different, the compression propagates at the same speed. I've no idea what the speed of sound through a ping pong ball is, but it's nothing close to the speed of light:)
So, yeah, sounds intuitive, but like most things in this area, intuition tends to fail very badly.
The very question itself is showing that someone along the line there lacks a proper understanding of software engineering process.
Why focus on code? It would affect the quality of requirements analysis (well, not like any customer's going to spend 15 hours a day with you to do that anyway)...of design likewise...If you had a good, detailed design to work from, then coding should be a pretty mindless activity anyway, and actually probably the least affected.
The underlying problem is, however, perhaps more interesting. What measurement systems are in place? Who estimated how long the project would take in the first place, what information did they base that estimate on, and why were they so far off?
I really think though, that until software engineers (or a team thereof) train themselves to measure enough of their processes that they can give realistic estimates with appropriate backup, they will be at the mercy of whatever their managers happen to expect that week.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of people will try to work around your requirement for C++, but I'll assume your reasons are solid and let it stand.
c omo/drivers.html
1 00997-2271304
What your are looking for are not design patters but software engineering practices. Specifically, you're interested in what would be called critical systems (think things like air-traffic control where failures can cost lives). These sorts of systems exist, and are written in all sorts of languages, but writing them is not a small undertaking. To get an idea of what you're undertaking, have a look at how reliability (RELY) affects things in the COCOMO II model.
http://sunset.usc.edu/research/COCOMOII/expert_co
The next step is to look at some of the literature. I'd suggest starting with Somerville's 'Software Engineering', where you'll find part 4 dedicated to critical systems and part 5 dedicated to verification and validation. The chapter on critical systems validation is probably the meat of what you need, but the rest is likely needed for a solid background. Suffice to say that those saying 'test driven development' are on the way to enlightenment, but are missing a large part of the story.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321210263/102-9
Best of luck though. It sounds like you'll be in for an interesting project.
I hope they've also tried some slightly more scientifically rigourous tests.
Software Engineering is basically the bits of computer science which get applied in the real world, plus the team, software methodology etc aspects you need to actually develop software. To take a hard-line view there's no realy reason for a coputer scientist to be interested in unit testing, because it's not 'science'.
That said, more and more computer science courses are more like (software) engineering than science courses these days anyway.
Anyone else cynical enough to immediately think that this is just to stop people considering their options when they realise that their support's suddenly run out?
There's plenty of businesses out there running older versions of windows who might look elsewhere rather than upgrade if there was no support.
That said, better software support is probably generally a good thing.
As someone who works down the hall from the people at the ACCC who will end up handling these complaints, I should probably mention that they generally prefer contact by phone, rather than over the website's complaint form.
The number is 1300 302 502.
They'll want to ask you questions, and in theory they will just call you back if you put a complaint in through the web.
I'm the IT manager for a college here in Australia, and since we run a 'charge for what you use' system, I figured I'd recount a few of our experiences.
.anu.edu.au (and some other canberra institutions) - free .edu.au - 2.5 c (AU) per meg .au - 5 c (AU) per meg ...Although the actual prices have been falling each year, so they will likely be cut for 2003.
Our cost structure is driven entirely by our upstream providers, and since we're connecting students, we aim to break even on bandwidth costs, and pay for our infrastructure out of a $25 connection fee.
We have tiered charges, as part of an academic network, which look like this.
sites in
sites in
sites in
All other sites - 10 c (AU) per meg
In any case, our customers, I'll admit, are a fairly captive market as far as getting broadband access from their doom rooms go, however computer labs are run by a different division, and work quite differently. They have a 5meg per day quota, which accumulates over time, but is capped at 40 meg (and below at -20).
A lot of people have recently been asking for this system to be expanded to the dorms, although from what I gather, it's more because this access is 'free' rather than being billed, not out of preference for the cost model.
I would say, then, that we have a fairly good representation of how a system like this can work, and I would say on the whole it does so pretty well. We have a wide mix of users, from those who spend $100s per month, to people who don't even go through $25 in a year.
For a time last year, there was a hole in our billing system which was allowing people to get free web access through a proxy server on campus. People who discovered this, approached $400 a month before we found the problem (and luckily we had ways of tracking the usage, it just wasn't built into our standard billing process). Some of these people were rather displeased at having to pay back for the access, however it was all resolved without much trouble. What this proves, I suppose, is that the billing becomes a consideration for the residents, and they adjust their habits accordingly.
For an average user, however, people seem happy with the system. I can't imagine justifying a move to a flat fee structure, even if it were capped, because it would be impossible to sell to the vast majority here. I suppose that's the main moral, Average users aren't willing to subsidize the heavy users, and it's the average users who make up the majority.
There will always be some unhappy people when their loopholes are taken away, but these same people, in another area, are unhappy about subsidising others. Compulsory residents association fees, for example, most of which are spent on sport and alcohol, tend not to go over so well for those who don't participate, and hence don't get their money's worth. Of course, I could go on and on...free health care and so on and so on.
Anyway, I should put an end to this rambling...
The billing system we developed for all this is up for (open source) grabs if anyone wants to maintain it, since I'll be moving on, although it's very hacky and not exactly documented at all.
On the whole, I'd consider our experience positive, and I would personally look for a usage based system despite being a rather high end user myself. Basically, I figure there's always going to be someone with more time than me who I'll be subsidizing.
The Tungsten W looks damn ugly...
and why would a palm need a keyboard like that?
That said, I'd love not to have to card a palm and a phone separately.
The epitome of the 'educational game' and I have to be honest, I learnt nothing from it...Maybe pattern recognition...Play it long enough, and you can remember the questions. I can't remember any of the facts, and even if I did, it would be that sort of trivial pursuit type of knowledge, not the actually useful underlying concepts.
The only thing that could possibly be gained is to generate some sort of interest in geography in the player...and to encourage them to read some actual books about it. Failed for me, but that's about the only area I can see this being useful.
I wonder if this will be available outside the US, specifically in Australia...Tridge's brilliant hacks for addinf Ethernet and PAL support aside, I'd really love one of these things.
Of course, I suppose it's all worth nothing without a good supply of TV Guide type information. Sofcom is probably the best we've got down here, but I imagine a real service would include a lot more meta information connecting the episodes in a series etc.
It gives a nice looking idea, however, yes, it's wrong. In fact, the time it will take for the ball at the other end is the time it would take sound to travel through the ping pong balls.
:)
Sound moves as waves, remember...and what that actually means is that it moves as compressions and expansions moving through the balls. Pushing one in a consistent direction is no different, the compression propagates at the same speed. I've no idea what the speed of sound through a ping pong ball is, but it's nothing close to the speed of light
So, yeah, sounds intuitive, but like most things in this area, intuition tends to fail very badly.
The very question itself is showing that someone along the line there lacks a proper understanding of software engineering process.
Why focus on code? It would affect the quality of requirements analysis (well, not like any customer's going to spend 15 hours a day with you to do that anyway)...of design likewise...If you had a good, detailed design to work from, then coding should be a pretty mindless activity anyway, and actually probably the least affected.
The underlying problem is, however, perhaps more interesting. What measurement systems are in place? Who estimated how long the project would take in the first place, what information did they base that estimate on, and why were they so far off?
I really think though, that until software engineers (or a team thereof) train themselves to measure enough of their processes that they can give realistic estimates with appropriate backup, they will be at the mercy of whatever their managers happen to expect that week.