Waiting on the G1 sounds like a pretty good idea in any case.
Risk check: 1. New device: check 2. New OS: check 3. New Application Platform: check 4. Unknown application availability: check 5. New OS Vendor: check
There are a lot of variables to make the buy pretty risky, and the fact that it's google doesn't provide enough information to help.
I mean that bidirectionally: there are good aspects to Google (I happen to like their services), and bad (how much data *are* they collecting on me?). But they haven't done any noticeable embedded systems, platforms, or developer partnerships. A *lot* of variables.
As for your concerns, you can usually score some sort of adapter between the vendor's jack & the normal types. AFAIK the electrical specs are the same, just a different jack for the usual BS reasons.
At the end of the day, you can't play semantic games with terminology. The only definitions of the words that matter in advertising are those of the customers you're trying to talk to.
Most everyone knows a PC from a Mac. If I tell you I have a PC, you may pedantically try to correct me, but you still know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, the fact that macs currently run Intel is only relevant to the PC culture as part of the platform's identity. It stems from the PC's set-of-parts culture, versus the mac's sum-of-parts culture. Mac users tend to see the PC user's side as incomplete. PC users tend to think of the latter's as bullshit.
I side with the former, b/c I do see the benefits (first hand) of a product engineering process that takes both software and hardware considerations into account. But this post isn't about the difference in platforms, it's the difference in terminology.
The kind of people smart enough to do that have better jobs than working at Comcast management.
If they really wanted to work with shared medium (cable) and manage bandwidth between users, they could, at any time, put rate limiting in the modems.
But they won't, because that's not the problem. The problem is that they built their business on bullshit grandma-from-aol.com user models, and people are proving them wrong. Now their profits are sinking and they're too clueless to adapt. So they bitch & whine, and hope those last lobbying dollars will help.
AFAIK, it's dependent on a lot of factors (firmware, driver, ? connector?). I just rebooted instead of trying to find out what conditions were needed, and if my setup met them.
Well, the semantics of shrinking are a little odd with ZFS. I just want to clarify for anyone else reading here...
ZFS usually doesn't do partitions at all. It can, for the sake of interop with other filesystems. Generally what you do is set up a drive (or partition) as a ZFS Pool. The pool is just space for storage. You can connect drives together into the same pool for aggregation, mirroring, or some combinations thereof (replacing RAID, with its RAID-Z reliability having better reliability than hardware). Setting up raid on ZFS is mind-bogglingingly simple. I bought one drive & set it up on ZFS, then the second a month (i.e. paycheck) later. Adding the second drive to the pool was a single line command, without ever needing to take the first drive down (well, reboot for adding the hardware, but that's a SATA issue only, SAS and ZFS won't care).
ZFS filesystems are created in pools. They take up as much space as they need, the rest is left free for other filesystems in the pool. You can create/backup/restore/delete filesystems with single-line commands.
Zip-tie all the chargers together, with ~1 ft of slack between the connector & the zip tie. Put in additional zip ties until you get to the power strip, then hook them all in. $5 for the zip ties, and you can just cut them out (be careful!) when you want to reorganize.
1. I donno about the rest of them, but SMF does automatic dependency analysis for startup & restart. Something depend on a service that just sig 9'd? SMF will restart it, b/c it's probably hosed too.
2. DTrace. Holy God DTrace. How did everyone miss dtrace?
I don't know.
DTRACE IS 37ee+ h4x0rz +007. By that, I mean you can finally figure out wtf your system is actually doing.
Oh, and unlike Redhat et. al.'s support, when you call sun for support of their OS, you're calling the people that actually *wrote*the*code*.
You've already stated the key tradeoff: developer mobility vs tool leverage.
If you have many small projects, then it's a huge win to standardize on one tool. Tool leverage won't help much, but having to swap dev platforms frequently leads to bad code (little experience with a single tool) and high overhead (for learning the tool).
For larger projects, some specialization should be considered. Even within (for example) the Java stack, different teams could use different APIs (e.g. JBoss vs Spring) for their specific tasks. As long as you have a few people good at integrating them when needed, you'll be ok.
The larger the project, the less a factor the tools are vs the sheer mass of the project. Then advantages brought by tool selection should be considered carefully.
Two parts to all this. I was a real open-source/GNU advocate back in the day (now the GNU part's been taken off -- I've grown up a little).
Stallman and Gates are both more complex characters than the standard/. fare allows:
1. Stallman's a jackass. I've heard him speak, this really gets its way through. Yes, he's a good hacker, but he tried to be some faux-Nelson Mandela figure atop of it. His combination of arrogance and political ignorance puts together a terrible little combination. He's a hippy doing what so many hippies did -- use the same fascist methods that his opponents used, only for a slightly different goal.
Look, Stallman, thanks for emacs, really. I use it to this day. But your idea of open source is *not* the one that took off. Get over it. Your idea of open source is ridiculous and nonsensical. Unlike you, some of us want to drive a decent car, have attractive significant others, and raise some kids. That requires, *gasp*! income! The thing is, you never understood capitalism. It's a double-edged sword that was too complex for you to understand. The vendor lock in, the obsolescence, the FUD, are all real concerns people have when using software. The actual money is rarely an issue (outside of MS pricing, covered below), the software usually saves people money. Vendors who provide source code, support, and adhere to standards do quite well in the industry.
2. Gates is also a jackass, but not the devil. Microsoft never learned how to write big software themselves. Just like the RMS & Linus's world, they need someone else to do all the heavy lifting (e.g. Bell Labs & Unix for Linus, Apple for MS), and then they can come in and copy.
Complaining about Gates's foreign aid is absurd. Sure, it's not a great system, it forces people to live off the handoffs of others, whatever. The real question is, is that why Gates is doing it? No, it's not. He's not getting anything back for it. He's not politically sophisticated, and this is the best idea so far on the topic.
Gates also has the right to take credit for making the PC world what it is today. Up through DOS, I liked the work MS put out. The software was small and simple, and they sold it at a good price. That was when they didn't need to pull giant bloodsucking bundling maneuvers to literally force customers to buy their shittier software (e.g. windows and all of office at once, instead of a la carte). Their software was fine when it was small and could be done by a few people. When it got larger, they couldn't compete, so they had to find ways to fix the game. In my book, that was Windows and beyond -- shitty software, racketeering tactics for selling it.
If y'all want heroes in this new world, check out the author list on some RFCs, or your favorite app. The names you never hear from eWeek or/., but the folks who get real stuff done. The nice thing is, they're actually pretty intelligent, friendly, accessible people. The way a proper hero should be.
The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
As PACs are off, then it leaves their employees. Considering that is IP policy is a copy-paste job from Lessig, one can see why software people would like him. As you can't contribute on behalf of your employer, there's a good shot these people are doing it out of their own interests.
Due to the nature of the news cycle, and the utter shallowness of political reporting in the US, every politician will have their name broadcast to the population 10 million times, with a 1-line message. Obama's is unusually positive. People may get tired of it, but that's only b/c we're all so used to the "corrupt, bloodthursty sociopath" we usually get as a message about those running for office.
Nobody (well, nobody worth talking about) thinks he's perfect. Just unusually good, which isn't hard considering the scum that usually run.
Hmm, before he shunned the public funding, he shunned interest group funding.
The entire DNC can no longer take money from lobbys or special interest groups, as per his request after Hillary's withdrawal.
He shunned the public funding b/c he could get more money through fairly honest means (mostly private citizen contributions) than the public funding with its restrictions.
May I suggest: choose the one that'll do what you mostly want for right now.
For the sake of intellectual honesty: 1. You always have to be willing to switch sides if the other side is right (for some definition of right) 2. Asking for everything your way is fairly unrealistic, so a 'best fit' approach is reasonable.
While more parties would be nice, I'd prefer a collection of parties who don't want to rule the world, just address specific issues relevant to each. It'd reduce this chess-piece mentality parties have with their platforms.
Oh God, Categories make the fragile base class worse. So much worse.
Example: I add a method to NSString, and so does someone in a library I'm using. Or just another programmer on the team, and our dev process doesn't manage categories as the landmines they really are. Same name, different semantics.
Pop Quiz: which version gets loaded into the executable?
Answer: No way to tell! It depends on the linking order! And no matter what, someone's code is going to get the wrong semantics for this method!
Examination: There is no way to catch this at compile time. It happens and you have to run it in the debugger to figure out which category actually runs.
The fragile base class problem refers to C++'s binary layout dependencies for superclasses: if you change a base class in one binary, then you have to recompile every shared library, plugin, etc that it links to. Otherwise it will use the old layout, which will lead to terrible, incredibly-painful-to-debug things. Some code thinks you have a 24 byte object, and appends subclass's members at offset 24. Others think you have a 20 byte object, and append subclass's members at offset 20. Hilarity ensues.
Obj-C's binary layout mechanism avoids this. But categories are just as bad as the original fragile base class problem. It only works if you track *exactly whom* adds what categories to what classes. It's a hack backdoor. But in too many places, it's been encouraged as a primary method of problem solving. What happens when two people want to implement NSTableDataSource differently on the same container? (If my understanding of which interface you impl is off, remember it's been 4-5 years since I really used cocoa).
Slashdot Mirror
I have a phone like that. It was $10 new at Wal-mart. No contract, cheap minutes, works pretty well.
Seriously, how come there's always so many complaints about the availability of this on /., when these phones are so easily available?
Waiting on the G1 sounds like a pretty good idea in any case.
Risk check:
1. New device: check
2. New OS: check
3. New Application Platform: check
4. Unknown application availability: check
5. New OS Vendor: check
There are a lot of variables to make the buy pretty risky, and the fact that it's google doesn't provide enough information to help.
I mean that bidirectionally: there are good aspects to Google (I happen to like their services), and bad (how much data *are* they collecting on me?). But they haven't done any noticeable embedded systems, platforms, or developer partnerships. A *lot* of variables.
As for your concerns, you can usually score some sort of adapter between the vendor's jack & the normal types. AFAIK the electrical specs are the same, just a different jack for the usual BS reasons.
At the end of the day, you can't play semantic games with terminology. The only definitions of the words that matter in advertising are those of the customers you're trying to talk to.
Most everyone knows a PC from a Mac. If I tell you I have a PC, you may pedantically try to correct me, but you still know what I'm talking about.
Additionally, the fact that macs currently run Intel is only relevant to the PC culture as part of the platform's identity. It stems from the PC's set-of-parts culture, versus the mac's sum-of-parts culture. Mac users tend to see the PC user's side as incomplete. PC users tend to think of the latter's as bullshit.
I side with the former, b/c I do see the benefits (first hand) of a product engineering process that takes both software and hardware considerations into account. But this post isn't about the difference in platforms, it's the difference in terminology.
I donno. As Texas is a given Republican state, maybe the Obama campaign will be happy to take the electoral votes from McCain?
Why don't they? Simple answer:
The kind of people smart enough to do that have better jobs than working at Comcast management.
If they really wanted to work with shared medium (cable) and manage bandwidth between users, they could, at any time, put rate limiting in the modems.
But they won't, because that's not the problem. The problem is that they built their business on bullshit grandma-from-aol.com user models, and people are proving them wrong. Now their profits are sinking and they're too clueless to adapt. So they bitch & whine, and hope those last lobbying dollars will help.
Thanks for that, you just lost OpenDNS another user :-) Hello level3
AFAIK, it's dependent on a lot of factors (firmware, driver, ? connector?). I just rebooted instead of trying to find out what conditions were needed, and if my setup met them.
Well, the semantics of shrinking are a little odd with ZFS. I just want to clarify for anyone else reading here...
ZFS usually doesn't do partitions at all. It can, for the sake of interop with other filesystems. Generally what you do is set up a drive (or partition) as a ZFS Pool. The pool is just space for storage. You can connect drives together into the same pool for aggregation, mirroring, or some combinations thereof (replacing RAID, with its RAID-Z reliability having better reliability than hardware). Setting up raid on ZFS is mind-bogglingingly simple. I bought one drive & set it up on ZFS, then the second a month (i.e. paycheck) later. Adding the second drive to the pool was a single line command, without ever needing to take the first drive down (well, reboot for adding the hardware, but that's a SATA issue only, SAS and ZFS won't care).
ZFS filesystems are created in pools. They take up as much space as they need, the rest is left free for other filesystems in the pool. You can create/backup/restore/delete filesystems with single-line commands.
Simple,
Zip-tie all the chargers together, with ~1 ft of slack between the connector & the zip tie. Put in additional zip ties until you get to the power strip, then hook them all in. $5 for the zip ties, and you can just cut them out (be careful!) when you want to reorganize.
On the order of $4k per customer.
<voice name="teal'c">Indeed.</voice>
Two quick additions:
1. I donno about the rest of them, but SMF does automatic dependency analysis for startup & restart. Something depend on a service that just sig 9'd? SMF will restart it, b/c it's probably hosed too.
2. DTrace. Holy God DTrace. How did everyone miss dtrace?
I don't know.
DTRACE IS 37ee+ h4x0rz +007. By that, I mean you can finally figure out wtf your system is actually doing.
Oh, and unlike Redhat et. al.'s support, when you call sun for support of their OS, you're calling the people that actually *wrote*the*code*.
Does that mean that we'll eventually be the real gate builders?
Love the sig.
Yeah, but then you can tell pretty closely what they are. Port number & encrypted protocol are pretty indicative.
Instead, encrypting the majority of traffic would make the sniffing capability moot.
But frankly, I'd rather see them use Tor, maybe with some optimizations for latency-critical operations.
You've already stated the key tradeoff: developer mobility vs tool leverage.
If you have many small projects, then it's a huge win to standardize on one tool. Tool leverage won't help much, but having to swap dev platforms frequently leads to bad code (little experience with a single tool) and high overhead (for learning the tool).
For larger projects, some specialization should be considered. Even within (for example) the Java stack, different teams could use different APIs (e.g. JBoss vs Spring) for their specific tasks. As long as you have a few people good at integrating them when needed, you'll be ok.
The larger the project, the less a factor the tools are vs the sheer mass of the project. Then advantages brought by tool selection should be considered carefully.
Two parts to all this. I was a real open-source/GNU advocate back in the day (now the GNU part's been taken off -- I've grown up a little).
Stallman and Gates are both more complex characters than the standard /. fare allows:
1. Stallman's a jackass. I've heard him speak, this really gets its way through. Yes, he's a good hacker, but he tried to be some faux-Nelson Mandela figure atop of it. His combination of arrogance and political ignorance puts together a terrible little combination. He's a hippy doing what so many hippies did -- use the same fascist methods that his opponents used, only for a slightly different goal.
Look, Stallman, thanks for emacs, really. I use it to this day. But your idea of open source is *not* the one that took off. Get over it. Your idea of open source is ridiculous and nonsensical. Unlike you, some of us want to drive a decent car, have attractive significant others, and raise some kids. That requires, *gasp*! income! The thing is, you never understood capitalism. It's a double-edged sword that was too complex for you to understand. The vendor lock in, the obsolescence, the FUD, are all real concerns people have when using software. The actual money is rarely an issue (outside of MS pricing, covered below), the software usually saves people money. Vendors who provide source code, support, and adhere to standards do quite well in the industry.
2. Gates is also a jackass, but not the devil. Microsoft never learned how to write big software themselves. Just like the RMS & Linus's world, they need someone else to do all the heavy lifting (e.g. Bell Labs & Unix for Linus, Apple for MS), and then they can come in and copy.
Complaining about Gates's foreign aid is absurd. Sure, it's not a great system, it forces people to live off the handoffs of others, whatever. The real question is, is that why Gates is doing it? No, it's not. He's not getting anything back for it. He's not politically sophisticated, and this is the best idea so far on the topic.
Gates also has the right to take credit for making the PC world what it is today. Up through DOS, I liked the work MS put out. The software was small and simple, and they sold it at a good price. That was when they didn't need to pull giant bloodsucking bundling maneuvers to literally force customers to buy their shittier software (e.g. windows and all of office at once, instead of a la carte). Their software was fine when it was small and could be done by a few people. When it got larger, they couldn't compete, so they had to find ways to fix the game. In my book, that was Windows and beyond -- shitty software, racketeering tactics for selling it.
If y'all want heroes in this new world, check out the author list on some RFCs, or your favorite app. The names you never hear from eWeek or /., but the folks who get real stuff done. The nice thing is, they're actually pretty intelligent, friendly, accessible people. The way a proper hero should be.
Lots of people I know who love working with computers don't really enjoy programming.
But, they can do a bit of programming. And they still understand the system quite well.
They become system admins. They like what they do. They may not always enjoy it, but it's obvious that they're working on what they care about.
Even better, don't hire them!
The first paragraph of your link:
As PACs are off, then it leaves their employees. Considering that is IP policy is a copy-paste job from Lessig, one can see why software people would like him. As you can't contribute on behalf of your employer, there's a good shot these people are doing it out of their own interests.
Due to the nature of the news cycle, and the utter shallowness of political reporting in the US, every politician will have their name broadcast to the population 10 million times, with a 1-line message. Obama's is unusually positive. People may get tired of it, but that's only b/c we're all so used to the "corrupt, bloodthursty sociopath" we usually get as a message about those running for office.
Nobody (well, nobody worth talking about) thinks he's perfect. Just unusually good, which isn't hard considering the scum that usually run.
Hmm, before he shunned the public funding, he shunned interest group funding.
The entire DNC can no longer take money from lobbys or special interest groups, as per his request after Hillary's withdrawal.
He shunned the public funding b/c he could get more money through fairly honest means (mostly private citizen contributions) than the public funding with its restrictions.
Only until we learn to regenerate.
That'll require that we grow a second heart.
I really hope someone gets the obvious reference on this one.
May I suggest: choose the one that'll do what you mostly want for right now.
For the sake of intellectual honesty:
1. You always have to be willing to switch sides if the other side is right (for some definition of right)
2. Asking for everything your way is fairly unrealistic, so a 'best fit' approach is reasonable.
While more parties would be nice, I'd prefer a collection of parties who don't want to rule the world, just address specific issues relevant to each. It'd reduce this chess-piece mentality parties have with their platforms.
How about the actual act of exploitation? The making of the video.
Oh God, Categories make the fragile base class worse. So much worse.
Example: I add a method to NSString, and so does someone in a library I'm using. Or just another programmer on the team, and our dev process doesn't manage categories as the landmines they really are. Same name, different semantics.
Pop Quiz: which version gets loaded into the executable?
Answer: No way to tell! It depends on the linking order! And no matter what, someone's code is going to get the wrong semantics for this method!
Examination: There is no way to catch this at compile time. It happens and you have to run it in the debugger to figure out which category actually runs.
The fragile base class problem refers to C++'s binary layout dependencies for superclasses: if you change a base class in one binary, then you have to recompile every shared library, plugin, etc that it links to. Otherwise it will use the old layout, which will lead to terrible, incredibly-painful-to-debug things. Some code thinks you have a 24 byte object, and appends subclass's members at offset 24. Others think you have a 20 byte object, and append subclass's members at offset 20. Hilarity ensues.
Obj-C's binary layout mechanism avoids this. But categories are just as bad as the original fragile base class problem. It only works if you track *exactly whom* adds what categories to what classes. It's a hack backdoor. But in too many places, it's been encouraged as a primary method of problem solving. What happens when two people want to implement NSTableDataSource differently on the same container? (If my understanding of which interface you impl is off, remember it's been 4-5 years since I really used cocoa).