I agree w/ the 95% of your great comment. I even tried (the hard way) to apply some O/R frameworks to finally fall in love (again) with SQL. Now, it's a bit unfair to compare something like Hibernate (which is just a front-end to SQL) to the real thing; for sure there will be a lot of things that the simpler front-end can't do (and of course, anything non trivial with SQL tends to be pretty weird with those frameworks.) AFIK the only "important" alternative to SQL currently considered are the XPath Querys, of course several light years behind the former.
> One of the usability tests that Jef Raskin proposed was the time from turning a computer on to having written a program for adding two numbers together.
So the Openoffice spreadsheet is totally unusable.
I'm not trying to demote PHP (I used it a lot of time some years ago and I think is a very good tool for some specific situations.) At least to me, the (oversimplified) "real language" phrase of GP is related to the bad design or simply no design emphasis from the basic documents, tutorials and the PHP community as a whole. Of course it is not very visible until you check the "hot topics" discussed in other languages' communities. I think for example in the OO/design patterns things, connection pooling strategies, O/R mapping, the flexibility available in auxiliary frameworks for whatever things, functional constructs, etc. Maybe a look in Ruby or Java is advised.
> but that has nothing to do with actually promoting a company like your local plumber or some big box store.
If I discover that some of my Facebook contacts have had a good experience with some specific plumber, it's likely I'll call him instead of searching for a random one when the need arises, don't you?
>>...Most interesting to me was that in the sample, less than 4% used any non alpha-numerics in their #$#%'ing passwords. > On a related note, what pisses me off even more is going to a website and trying to use a strong password and their system doesn't allow it.
I always avoid non-alpha chars in my passwords because I have to deal with several layouts of keyboards and is really a PITA when you inadvertently enter a "super strange password" but you really don't know what you actually typed because it is unreadable.
Because of that rule, I had to try a lot to figure out if my passwords were x\-x( or x~/xx=... etc.
My bank makes me dial my card number and even pin number in the phone for fast attention or "securing" some operations... it's a big bank and for sure they have passed a lot of security audits (i.e. the paperwork well done.) I really don't want to think what kind of "security" they have in their internet portal.
> If they're I/O bound, userspace and kernelspace are both waiting for the drive
Filesystem strategies can impact severely the time the CPU is waiting for data. This is very important to people who runs databases.
> You want to benchmark things that are systemcall-heavy, like concurrent apps that use lots of synchronisation primitives.
Well, yes, for a pure kernel bench, and I accept it that seems to be the main purpose of TFA; but for me it's more interesting and useful a test of the system as a whole. For example, a GZIP test at 100%-userspace or the ImageMagick compilation can give me a hint about the whole set of wiseness and/or optimizations that the memory management (with help from the compiler) code could make in that platform.
> # Sometimes Linux is faster, # Sometimes FreeBSD is faster. # Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64..,
That's what I would expect! A big difference would be something weird.
> The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.
The benchmarks must be CPU or I/O bound... why should they benchmark sleeping apps?
>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel
I really don't hope the last minute changes to the kernel, to do a big improve the system performance.
> We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements. Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.
Regarding car pollution, the global warming is debatable.
But the nasty effects or radiation and the very long times for the waste to decay in something non dangerous are very proven and undisputed.
Put in other way: for the G.W., there is some hope that the world can do some kind of "autocorrection" (after humans stop some practices); for the nuclear waste apparently there's no such hope.
> it has not in the history of the world. With them you are either subsumed or attacked.
Well, most countries are not threatened by Al Qaeda, so it is clear to me that the US foreign politics is partly responsible, or at least can do something else in order to improve the situation. I agree that is naive to assume that such a change of the attitude will avoid or reduce the attacks for at least 10 years, but is important to affront and revert the causes that lead to such hate for the future.
> lots of people will *think* they can't get a bomb on and so won't even try.
That could be good against standard psychopaths. But something Al Qaeda has demonstrated is that they're not uninformed people. The lots of (fanatic) people (from outside US) you talk about never will get a flight (to US) simply because 1) don't have the money and 2) don't have a Visa. The problem Schneider talks about is precisely about the single originally planned attacks.
> This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.
I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant. But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time (even with the Obama's Nobel price:)
> Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern
Well, one of the politicians' jobs is to lead the people (including whatever committees.) By that way, the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen...
> you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.
I don't know about such technology, but I found that:
"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."
I agree with your opinions but not with the apparent conclusions; I really don't need nor want a language with more complexity, despite some potential benefits of functional programming or any other "paradigm"; in other words, I don't want a new C++: That would be exciting for experimenting and playing, but terrible when introducing new members to our programming team.
Remember that C89 (forget C99) is still doing well; the same goes for COBOL, despite oddities.
> Unless Google wrote the extension themselves (unlikely!)
Why unlikely? This could be another way (and more effective) of asking the users what are NOT their preferences; ergo, by exclusion, knowing their preferences and improve the targeting of the ads.
> such archaic ways as direct voice communication?
Ummmmm?... is our vocal system an archaism?... what about showing something in a blackboard? or an occasional meeting? of course, I understand that there is a lot of people that doesn't like to speak at all, but that shouldn't be considered a virtue.
I'm tired of looking (typically very young) people doing a mess of their work because they just do the coordinations via IM or even SMS (even email is too verbose for some of them) in the hope that their party has the same view in his/her brain.
Ok, let's give a chance or at least try to understand the retard. I have to monitor a couple of programmers and is really boring having to yell them because their music is too high; or having to touch them for that sake.
Try to understand the real reasons; maybe you can get a compromise just by lowering the headphone volume.
This kind of problem is not about Linux or Windows but about distro that added malware in some crap application. In order to avoid that:
1) The typical crap software should not be allowed the same privileges as a typical user (why an screensaver should open sockets? remove files?) There are capabilities and several security options that nobody takes seriously
2) The package system should allow only a predefined set of actions in the installation process. Currently it runs as root any package' script; that's the reason I avoid all.deb files as provided by software vendors but obviously the problem is worse if the malware comes from the distribution
I have a client running an invoicing application in an SCO Unix from a time where there was no Internet here (around 1990.) The server and terminals (about 20, updated some years ago to recycled Pentium I/IIs) never were connected to Internet. The application sometimes gets patched (for new functionality); the hardware gets replaced (hard disks die), but the OS is the same from the old times.
Of course they simply don't understand why their brand new Windows PCs need all those patches, Antivirus, but eventually crash.
Some years ago they considered their application upgrading to a new (GUI/WEB) platform... no more!
What about installing finger/telnet/etc? What about installing sendmail and conflicting with the postfix installation? What about installing 1Gb of maps for some random game? What about updating a package that the admin knows will generate a conflict with other in-house application? (I don't know if updates were included in the policy, but is the same criteria)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree w/ the 95% of your great comment. I even tried (the hard way) to apply some O/R frameworks to finally fall in love (again) with SQL. Now, it's a bit unfair to compare something like Hibernate (which is just a front-end to SQL) to the real thing; for sure there will be a lot of things that the simpler front-end can't do (and of course, anything non trivial with SQL tends to be pretty weird with those frameworks.) AFIK the only "important" alternative to SQL currently considered are the XPath Querys, of course several light years behind the former.
> One of the usability tests that Jef Raskin proposed was the time from turning a computer on to having written a program for adding two numbers together.
So the Openoffice spreadsheet is totally unusable.
I'm not trying to demote PHP (I used it a lot of time some years ago and I think is a very good tool for some specific situations.) At least to me, the (oversimplified) "real language" phrase of GP is related to the bad design or simply no design emphasis from the basic documents, tutorials and the PHP community as a whole. Of course it is not very visible until you check the "hot topics" discussed in other languages' communities. I think for example in the OO/design patterns things, connection pooling strategies, O/R mapping, the flexibility available in auxiliary frameworks for whatever things, functional constructs, etc. Maybe a look in Ruby or Java is advised.
> but that has nothing to do with actually promoting a company like your local plumber or some big box store.
If I discover that some of my Facebook contacts have had a good experience with some specific plumber, it's likely I'll call him instead of searching for a random one when the need arises, don't you?
The Windows client is too buggy to the point of being unusable.
>> ...Most interesting to me was that in the sample, less than 4% used any non alpha-numerics in their #$#%'ing passwords.
> On a related note, what pisses me off even more is going to a website and trying to use a strong password and their system doesn't allow it.
I always avoid non-alpha chars in my passwords because I have to deal with several layouts of keyboards and is really a PITA when you inadvertently enter a "super strange password" but you really don't know what you actually typed because it is unreadable.
Because of that rule, I had to try a lot to figure out if my passwords were x\-x( or x~/xx= ... etc.
My bank makes me dial my card number and even pin number in the phone for fast attention or "securing" some operations... it's a big bank and for sure they have passed a lot of security audits (i.e. the paperwork well done.) I really don't want to think what kind of "security" they have in their internet portal.
> If they're I/O bound, userspace and kernelspace are both waiting for the drive
Filesystem strategies can impact severely the time the CPU is waiting for data. This is very important to people who runs databases.
> You want to benchmark things that are systemcall-heavy, like concurrent apps that use lots of synchronisation primitives.
Well, yes, for a pure kernel bench, and I accept it that seems to be the main purpose of TFA; but for me it's more interesting and useful a test of the system as a whole. For example, a GZIP test at 100%-userspace or the ImageMagick compilation can give me a hint about the whole set of wiseness and/or optimizations that the memory management (with help from the compiler) code could make in that platform.
> # Sometimes Linux is faster, # Sometimes FreeBSD is faster. # Usually the difference between the two is smaller than the difference between IA32 and x86-64..,
That's what I would expect! A big difference would be something weird.
> The tests were mostly either CPU- or I/O-bound, so there are lots of factors beyond the kernel that would affect the results.
The benchmarks must be CPU or I/O bound... why should they benchmark sleeping apps?
>Debian kFreeBSD uses an old FreeBSD kernel, not sure how old the Linux kernel is but it's probably not representative of the speed of recent releases of either kernel
I really don't hope the last minute changes to the kernel, to do a big improve the system performance.
> The real WTF is that you are trying to view a PDF in your browser in the first place.
For the same reason the browser allows for viewing JPG/GIF/etc?
The "scripting" added to PDF by Acrobat doesn't mean that PDF shouldn't be considered as just another graphic format.
He just used the host' SAN IP address... so not off-topic.
If you are used to Vmware.
> We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements. Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.
Regarding car pollution, the global warming is debatable.
But the nasty effects or radiation and the very long times for the waste to decay in something non dangerous are very proven and undisputed.
Put in other way: for the G.W., there is some hope that the world can do some kind of "autocorrection" (after humans stop some practices); for the nuclear waste apparently there's no such hope.
For me, all it's just somebody that wants to do a big security-business with European airports, inspired by the millions spent by US.
> it has not in the history of the world. With them you are either subsumed or attacked.
Well, most countries are not threatened by Al Qaeda, so it is clear to me that the US foreign politics is partly responsible, or at least can do something else in order to improve the situation. I agree that is naive to assume that such a change of the attitude will avoid or reduce the attacks for at least 10 years, but is important to affront and revert the causes that lead to such hate for the future.
> lots of people will *think* they can't get a bomb on and so won't even try.
That could be good against standard psychopaths. But something Al Qaeda has demonstrated is that they're not uninformed people. The lots of (fanatic) people (from outside US) you talk about never will get a flight (to US) simply because 1) don't have the money and 2) don't have a Visa. The problem Schneider talks about is precisely about the single originally planned attacks.
> This is where I think Bruce misses the mark, he claims there are very few people willing to blow themselves up. Iraq/Afghanistan shows us plainly this is not true.
I agree with you, but note that Bruce is also suggesting a real change in relationships with middle east so that number eventually could be insignificant. But I suspect that will not be the case in the near time (even with the Obama's Nobel price:)
> Now this I think is unfair, the rules are put in place by committees of people that really are looking to make people safer but with little understanding or concern
Well, one of the politicians' jobs is to lead the people (including whatever committees.) By that way, the financial crisis would have been repelled by the government by printing and throwing a lot of money to every citizen...
> you stand on a platform for 10 seconds with your carryon in hand, and the device scans all of you along with your boarding pass.
I don't know about such technology, but I found that:
"Experts say the technology would almost certainly find a gun or knife but not necessarily something carried the way the Nigerian carried his explosives."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/12/whole-body-scan-vs-your-privacy-how-far-is-too-far.html
> I've watched as Java-the-language has stagnated
I agree with your opinions but not with the apparent conclusions; I really don't need nor want a language with more complexity, despite some potential benefits of functional programming or any other "paradigm"; in other words, I don't want a new C++: That would be exciting for experimenting and playing, but terrible when introducing new members to our programming team.
Remember that C89 (forget C99) is still doing well; the same goes for COBOL, despite oddities.
> Unless Google wrote the extension themselves (unlikely!)
Why unlikely? This could be another way (and more effective) of asking the users what are NOT their preferences; ergo, by exclusion, knowing their preferences and improve the targeting of the ads.
> such archaic ways as direct voice communication?
Ummmmm?... is our vocal system an archaism? ... what about showing something in a blackboard? or an occasional meeting? of course, I understand that there is a lot of people that doesn't like to speak at all, but that shouldn't be considered a virtue.
I'm tired of looking (typically very young) people doing a mess of their work because they just do the coordinations via IM or even SMS (even email is too verbose for some of them) in the hope that their party has the same view in his/her brain.
Ok, let's give a chance or at least try to understand the retard. I have to monitor a couple of programmers and is really boring having to yell them because their music is too high; or having to touch them for that sake.
Try to understand the real reasons; maybe you can get a compromise just by lowering the headphone volume.
This kind of problem is not about Linux or Windows but about distro that added malware in some crap application. In order to avoid that:
1) The typical crap software should not be allowed the same privileges as a typical user (why an screensaver should open sockets? remove files?) There are capabilities and several security options that nobody takes seriously
2) The package system should allow only a predefined set of actions in the installation process. Currently it runs as root any package' script; that's the reason I avoid all .deb files as provided by software vendors but obviously the problem is worse if the malware comes from the distribution
At that time, there was Perl, and several Apache modules to avoid the problems of plain cgi.
Currently we have Ruby, Python, etc... and of course .NET, but AFAIK the Java/JEE environment is the more mature platform for that level of service.
I have a client running an invoicing application in an SCO Unix from a time where there was no Internet here (around 1990.) The server and terminals (about 20, updated some years ago to recycled Pentium I/IIs) never were connected to Internet. The application sometimes gets patched (for new functionality); the hardware gets replaced (hard disks die), but the OS is the same from the old times.
Of course they simply don't understand why their brand new Windows PCs need all those patches, Antivirus, but eventually crash.
Some years ago they considered their application upgrading to a new (GUI/WEB) platform... no more!
And is better than the probability of total Linux hardware support for any random pc/laptop!
What about installing finger/telnet/etc?
What about installing sendmail and conflicting with the postfix installation?
What about installing 1Gb of maps for some random game?
What about updating a package that the admin knows will generate a conflict with other in-house application? (I don't know if updates were included in the policy, but is the same criteria)