I'm sure it happens elsewhere, but I've noticed this kind of BS is common in healthcare: IT isn't its own beast and is actually beholden to some other organism within the organization.
I worked at a hospital where the IT Manager was responsible to the CFO (instead of being the CTO herself). Having IT answer to clinical actually makes more sense than this arrangement, as its at least an implicit acknowledgement of IT's direct dependence on the financial situation at the organization - as opposed to, say, clinical or medical records, which is going to get their money regardless of financial situation.
I've seen other hospitals where IT answers to HMR/transcription (which is responsible for things like proper medical coding so the hospital gets as much as possible from claims against insurance/Medicare/etc.).
These groups "make" the money, and get large amounts of money as a result out of the budget - which they then manage independently/per department. The result is a fair amount of weight when it comes to controlling IT. (Yay for the Friday morning when you arrive to find a new cage of servers in your server room with an implicit "this must be doing what we need by Monday, at the latest!"
I know of a hardware/embedded systems company where there is no IT to speak of: they've got their developers covering that role. This company, foolishly, put payroll under the direct control of HR, so HR holds the keys to the gate.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is the organization's financial organization: whoever controls the money is likely to control where it gets spent. If they've got a vested interest (or a strong familiarity) with one segment of the organization but not the others, that's where the money and foresight is going to go.
You can't do a controlled study on this because video gamers are a self-selecting group. If you were to have two groups, one of new gamers and one of not-new, you'd not be gathering anything useful: the people who play games are, quite possibly, the same types who would have drag raced for pink slips in the 1950s.
I almost had to check the calendar to verify it wasn't April 1st. Oi!
I wonder what their thought pattern was on this move. It's got a fraction of the performance of a PC at the same price point (yeah, because I built one - a year ago - for $100 less than that, with high quality PSU/board/etc. and a Phenom II). Hell, pick up an Acer Aspire Revo similar (practical) performance for $330 - less than half the Apple cost. Granted, the Aspire Revo has a weaker CPU, but in that role (without OS X) you're not going to need a faster CPU.
Maybe they saw the mini was selling too well so they increased the price? Seems like a really silly move, considering it now costs more to get a mini than it does an iMac (after peripherals and monitor), with less performance.
It's been pretty clearly voiced that the populace in the area see their incumbent Democrat as unfit, doesn't it? And no, I'm not talking about the selection of this goober; I'm talking about the general public outcry over his votes.
Furthermore, your argument is moot on account of the demographics. The incumbent stood close to 3:1 odds against winning. In politics, that's a non-trivial margin when considering the vote. That's California or Chicago Democrat majority type proportions, and they've controlled those areas for the better part of a century.
I'd agree with you, but think of this from the perspective of a knowledgeable person who comes across a vulnerability (0-day).
He's got several realistic options in today's world:
1) Release the vulnerability to the public. Public disgust with company shields releaser from public reprisal. 2) Alert the vendor to their problem. Let the vendor sit on it indefinitely and not fix anything. 3)A lternatively, wait for law enforcement to subsequently knock down his door for 'hacking activities' or some such bullshit after alerting said vendor of said problem. 4) Do nothing but sit on it yourself (and how likely is that, if you've worked hard at finding something hidden?)
It would seem that the 'beowulf cluster' is starting to fall out of style, doesn't it?:P We're getting to the point where such concepts are as quaint as a "Cray supercomputer" were just a couple years ago.
The fact of the matter is that these are high-tech jobs that require a great deal of skill and knowledge.
And it repeatedly hits me in the face like a brick when I see that people outside IT not only don't realize this, but think it's easy. "Could you have this done by $time?" -> "No. That'll take $time x3, if I'm doing nothing else. How about $later_time?"
Yet, if the coin is flipped, I have seen "support professionals" (of the higher grade range, which also do other things), dept. managers, business managers, clerical/accountant types, and the like all replaced in function by IT folks. On a couple occasions I've seen IT people shore up the accountant position in addition to their duties.
IT is Hard - and such a statement is akin to saying "Engineering is Hard". I'd not want an EE anywhere near bridge design, network/system design, or the like. Maybe municipal water system design. However: the point is that these are not mutually inclusive disciplines any more than astronauts and brain surgeons are. Similar starting point (necessary "infrastructure" capacity within the individual), different endpoint.
And given the original poster's words, it would appear this is a "small company". Chances are he was initially hired as a stand in or for a limited role/limited responsibility, and they hit hard times. He was hired as an "Online Content Writer" (whatever the fuck that is) and is, in essence, a "tech writer".
This is a job the vast majority of technically inclined people could perform - yet not everyone (nevermind the majority of tech writers) can come close to hacking the other responsibilities he's been able to put under his belt. If he's not gotten any raise at all, chances are he's "vastly underpaid", and there's little chance they could find someone to fill his shoes at all - never mind anywhere near his salary.
I've seen these job postings. They go something like this (I'm sure you've seen them, too):
Wanted: IT Professional
Must be proficient in Microsoft Office, Visio, Sharepoint, Powerpoint, etc.
Successful candidate will be responsible for routine documentation of our entire product line. Weekly articles for online publication will also be necessary.
Must have 2-3+ years administering Windows desktops and Linux servers. Must be comfortable with the full range of server maintenance tasks.
Familiar with phone, fax, etc. systems.
Candidate must be comfortable with the occasional off-hour call.
Successful candidate will spend the majority of his time in a customer-facing environment. We are looking for a people person!
Salary: $35-40k with generous medical benefits!*
*which you will have to pay for yourself out of your salary. Expect 50-80h work weeks and, between the tech support and meetings, you won't have enough time for your core responsibilities. But we won't disclose this; you'll have to relocate, first.
Only desperate people apply for these jobs; competent people will be looking for too much levity: either in pay, or professional (and personal) courtesy. As a result, they won't be hired.
Maybe if your language skills were a bit better - and you were able to effectively convey a point - you'd have gotten those raises? My experience is that it's worth the effort to improve the "soft skills": you'll make more.
Also, an "IT manager" is not going to be doing PC support. Sorry. At best, you were the sysadmin for a small company.
That said, I can relate. I've been in the exact same situation you have (sans the poor language skills), and it sucks. Best thing you can do for yourself is to learn to screen the shitty jobs and interview your interviewers thoroughly. It's worth taking lower pay - even with a lot of work - if you're going to be working with, and for, people you like.
Sure, someone could fill his shoes. That's a possibility, but it's slim: there is usually a lot more to an IT job (whether it's developer or sysadmin) than just what the job requirements demonstrate.
A professional position of any complexity has a non-trivial amount of daily tasks, procedures, and general business process which need to be understood before a person can fully and successfully "fill" the position. Sure, you might be a "Linux Administrator" or a "LAMP developer" but chances are the environment you're coming into is not identical to the one you're coming from: the administrator(s) and developer(s) did things differently. There will be varying degrees of documentation, thoroughness, stupidity, and so on.
All that takes time to acclimate to and adjust for: it takes a lot longer if you're an idiot. Many environments can 'skate by' with an idiot at the helm for some time, but eventually it will catch up. Hiring someone who isn't an idiot will (typically) cost quite a bit of money (even in this economy).
If government jobs are not wasteful for the fact that they are taking from the public wealth (taxes) to create the jobs, then they are wasteful for the fact that they do nothing productive: the best case scenario is that law enforcement jobs are created. Realistically they don't: we just get more EPA/IRS/BLM/etc. workers.
Ask anyone who has to deal with them: they actually make things take longer and cost more for everyone else - without any benefit, short or long term.
You are looking at the scenario as if "$80" or "$100" actually means something. It doesn't.
The use of money in today's world is largely just a representation of value relative to the product.
If you make a product that cost $80 now cost $100, you've done nothing productive: you've increased the cost of a product. It now costs $20, and you've pocketed $20 for short-term gain. Why short-term?
Because that $20 is pure inflation. There is no value increase in the product; it's the same damn product.
This is how we get to the coveted "barrel of money for a loaf of bread" scenario. Thanks!
Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.
Except for the fact that the Constitution makes no such distinction, and the founding fathers were all pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment being included as such to allow for the perceived-necessary governmental reset some years down the line, you would be correct.
The aim of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens to overthrow the federal government, when it became too oppressive. Given the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the founders' dialog on the matter, it's pretty clear that this should include at least up to modern tanks, planes, and all types of personal munitions and arms - but not necessarily exclusive of something larger.
This foregoes the argument that nobody should own such things as nukes, but that's neither here nor there - because people (and countries) do own such horrible things. They exist, and therefore it is necessary to have a practical, realistic countermeasure/prevention method (whether it's MAD or ACBMs).
As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons.
No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.
Are you daft?
nuclear arms small arms improvised arms
And so on. The term is hardly vague and was used then in much the same way it is today. There were plenty of canons and warships in private ownership (in fact, most used during the Revolution were, and many ships in the Civil War were as well.) People just have an emotional disconnect due to fear.
Other than that, you're right, a modern version of the Constitution would probably run to 3000 pages and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests that no one actually read prior to approval.
Most of which would also likely be open-ended in the opposite spirit of the current Constitution: instead of being very open-ended in terms of individual liberty and the restrictions placed on government (ie, plain-faced) it'd allow pretty much anything under each and every clause for "additional clarification" at the bureaucratic level later.
Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.
That's a little under-handed, don't you think? I see what you're doing here: trying to equate "Constitutionist" with "backwards/antiquated" in the same way the Tories were.
However, the comparison falls on its face when you consider that the GP and the founding fathers are ideological brothers, whereas King George and his attitude is much more akin to modern Progressives and the approach taken with the EU constitution.
Also, I resemble your comment: "folks like me" - my ancestors who lived in New York and Connecticut at the time of the Revolution and had tradecraft professions such as myself - were very much involved in the Revolution for the side of the Republic. They may not have been great orators or political theorists, but they had a lick of sense between their ears.
Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution. This is typically called a "high level summary" of a document, demonstrating the intent of what follows. High school freshmen should typically understand this concept. (There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?)
The US Constitution covers the restrictions to government moreso than what the government can do.
Knowing where to start on this is a bit of a miffing point.
First: upgrade your shit. 2.4 kernel systems? Are you running Redhat 6? You know, from the turn of the millennia.
Second: upgrade your shit. Really,
Third: if your kernels are that old and you're using these machines for file storage/backup, chances are the hardware needs to be replaced before you even consider considering messing with them. Seriously: this stuff is ancient. Even Debian hasn't had a 2.4 kernel in 5+ years, I think.
Third: you can do what you're trying to do with rsync 'snapshots'. It works very well, failing filesystem level support. If you're sharing data over samba, this makes it easy: just put a '.snapshot' dir for these 'temporary' backups in their $HOME and hide dotfiles. Then make sure rsync ignores.snapshot. (Of course, there are other ways to do this.)
The only thing this release indicates is that Microsoft does not, in fact, "support" their products to their EOL. XP isn't quite dead yet by Microsoft's terms, and millions still use it. Yet an evident non-trivial security problem with a provided hotfix does not get attention for a work week.
Eh, since I first heard the term back in the mid-90s, I'm pretty sure it's always been used in the "providers/security experts/etc. have not acknowledged and/or been made aware of the vulnerability". This would include everything from zero-day exploits in use in small numbers to something like this.
It was a Gentoo system on AMD64 (ie not Intel - Athlon 64 x2 4200 with 2GB RAM). Much of the system, including X, KDE4, was rebuilt using O64. Observed performance was approximately a third faster than previously: faster X/KDE start as well as perceived "snappiness".
Unlike GCC as a compiler, GDB really sucks as a debugger.
I can't speak for GDB, but from what I understand of GCC, it isn't all that great, either. I've heard that compared to, say, the compiler in Visual Studio, it produces some pretty slow binaries. And I've witnessed how, compared to Open64, how vastly inferior the binaries are in terms of execution speed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure it happens elsewhere, but I've noticed this kind of BS is common in healthcare: IT isn't its own beast and is actually beholden to some other organism within the organization.
I worked at a hospital where the IT Manager was responsible to the CFO (instead of being the CTO herself). Having IT answer to clinical actually makes more sense than this arrangement, as its at least an implicit acknowledgement of IT's direct dependence on the financial situation at the organization - as opposed to, say, clinical or medical records, which is going to get their money regardless of financial situation.
I've seen other hospitals where IT answers to HMR/transcription (which is responsible for things like proper medical coding so the hospital gets as much as possible from claims against insurance/Medicare/etc.).
These groups "make" the money, and get large amounts of money as a result out of the budget - which they then manage independently/per department. The result is a fair amount of weight when it comes to controlling IT. (Yay for the Friday morning when you arrive to find a new cage of servers in your server room with an implicit "this must be doing what we need by Monday, at the latest!"
I know of a hardware/embedded systems company where there is no IT to speak of: they've got their developers covering that role. This company, foolishly, put payroll under the direct control of HR, so HR holds the keys to the gate.
Ultimately, what it comes down to is the organization's financial organization: whoever controls the money is likely to control where it gets spent. If they've got a vested interest (or a strong familiarity) with one segment of the organization but not the others, that's where the money and foresight is going to go.
You can't do a controlled study on this because video gamers are a self-selecting group. If you were to have two groups, one of new gamers and one of not-new, you'd not be gathering anything useful: the people who play games are, quite possibly, the same types who would have drag raced for pink slips in the 1950s.
I almost had to check the calendar to verify it wasn't April 1st. Oi!
I wonder what their thought pattern was on this move. It's got a fraction of the performance of a PC at the same price point (yeah, because I built one - a year ago - for $100 less than that, with high quality PSU/board/etc. and a Phenom II). Hell, pick up an Acer Aspire Revo similar (practical) performance for $330 - less than half the Apple cost. Granted, the Aspire Revo has a weaker CPU, but in that role (without OS X) you're not going to need a faster CPU.
Maybe they saw the mini was selling too well so they increased the price? Seems like a really silly move, considering it now costs more to get a mini than it does an iMac (after peripherals and monitor), with less performance.
It's been pretty clearly voiced that the populace in the area see their incumbent Democrat as unfit, doesn't it? And no, I'm not talking about the selection of this goober; I'm talking about the general public outcry over his votes.
Furthermore, your argument is moot on account of the demographics. The incumbent stood close to 3:1 odds against winning. In politics, that's a non-trivial margin when considering the vote. That's California or Chicago Democrat majority type proportions, and they've controlled those areas for the better part of a century.
I think it has something to do with a monkey in a suit and a tall blonde holding a walnut. Am I right?
I'd agree with you, but think of this from the perspective of a knowledgeable person who comes across a vulnerability (0-day).
He's got several realistic options in today's world:
1) Release the vulnerability to the public. Public disgust with company shields releaser from public reprisal.
2) Alert the vendor to their problem. Let the vendor sit on it indefinitely and not fix anything.
3)A lternatively, wait for law enforcement to subsequently knock down his door for 'hacking activities' or some such bullshit after alerting said vendor of said problem.
4) Do nothing but sit on it yourself (and how likely is that, if you've worked hard at finding something hidden?)
It would seem that the 'beowulf cluster' is starting to fall out of style, doesn't it? :P We're getting to the point where such concepts are as quaint as a "Cray supercomputer" were just a couple years ago.
I'm sorry, it can't be up for sale. They sold it off some time ago (to the highest bidder)...
The fact of the matter is that these are high-tech jobs that require a great deal of skill and knowledge.
And it repeatedly hits me in the face like a brick when I see that people outside IT not only don't realize this, but think it's easy. "Could you have this done by $time?" -> "No. That'll take $time x3, if I'm doing nothing else. How about $later_time?"
Yet, if the coin is flipped, I have seen "support professionals" (of the higher grade range, which also do other things), dept. managers, business managers, clerical/accountant types, and the like all replaced in function by IT folks. On a couple occasions I've seen IT people shore up the accountant position in addition to their duties.
IT is Hard - and such a statement is akin to saying "Engineering is Hard". I'd not want an EE anywhere near bridge design, network/system design, or the like. Maybe municipal water system design. However: the point is that these are not mutually inclusive disciplines any more than astronauts and brain surgeons are. Similar starting point (necessary "infrastructure" capacity within the individual), different endpoint.
No kidding.
And given the original poster's words, it would appear this is a "small company". Chances are he was initially hired as a stand in or for a limited role/limited responsibility, and they hit hard times. He was hired as an "Online Content Writer" (whatever the fuck that is) and is, in essence, a "tech writer".
This is a job the vast majority of technically inclined people could perform - yet not everyone (nevermind the majority of tech writers) can come close to hacking the other responsibilities he's been able to put under his belt. If he's not gotten any raise at all, chances are he's "vastly underpaid", and there's little chance they could find someone to fill his shoes at all - never mind anywhere near his salary.
I've seen these job postings. They go something like this (I'm sure you've seen them, too):
Wanted: IT Professional
Must be proficient in Microsoft Office, Visio, Sharepoint, Powerpoint, etc.
Successful candidate will be responsible for routine documentation of our entire product line. Weekly articles for online publication will also be necessary.
Must have 2-3+ years administering Windows desktops and Linux servers. Must be comfortable with the full range of server maintenance tasks.
Familiar with phone, fax, etc. systems.
Candidate must be comfortable with the occasional off-hour call.
Successful candidate will spend the majority of his time in a customer-facing environment. We are looking for a people person!
Salary: $35-40k with generous medical benefits!*
*which you will have to pay for yourself out of your salary. Expect 50-80h work weeks and, between the tech support and meetings, you won't have enough time for your core responsibilities. But we won't disclose this; you'll have to relocate, first.
Only desperate people apply for these jobs; competent people will be looking for too much levity: either in pay, or professional (and personal) courtesy. As a result, they won't be hired.
Maybe if your language skills were a bit better - and you were able to effectively convey a point - you'd have gotten those raises? My experience is that it's worth the effort to improve the "soft skills": you'll make more.
Also, an "IT manager" is not going to be doing PC support. Sorry. At best, you were the sysadmin for a small company.
That said, I can relate. I've been in the exact same situation you have (sans the poor language skills), and it sucks. Best thing you can do for yourself is to learn to screen the shitty jobs and interview your interviewers thoroughly. It's worth taking lower pay - even with a lot of work - if you're going to be working with, and for, people you like.
Replaceable, in what way?
Sure, someone could fill his shoes. That's a possibility, but it's slim: there is usually a lot more to an IT job (whether it's developer or sysadmin) than just what the job requirements demonstrate.
A professional position of any complexity has a non-trivial amount of daily tasks, procedures, and general business process which need to be understood before a person can fully and successfully "fill" the position. Sure, you might be a "Linux Administrator" or a "LAMP developer" but chances are the environment you're coming into is not identical to the one you're coming from: the administrator(s) and developer(s) did things differently. There will be varying degrees of documentation, thoroughness, stupidity, and so on.
All that takes time to acclimate to and adjust for: it takes a lot longer if you're an idiot. Many environments can 'skate by' with an idiot at the helm for some time, but eventually it will catch up. Hiring someone who isn't an idiot will (typically) cost quite a bit of money (even in this economy).
If government jobs are not wasteful for the fact that they are taking from the public wealth (taxes) to create the jobs, then they are wasteful for the fact that they do nothing productive: the best case scenario is that law enforcement jobs are created. Realistically they don't: we just get more EPA/IRS/BLM/etc. workers.
Ask anyone who has to deal with them: they actually make things take longer and cost more for everyone else - without any benefit, short or long term.
You are looking at the scenario as if "$80" or "$100" actually means something. It doesn't.
The use of money in today's world is largely just a representation of value relative to the product.
If you make a product that cost $80 now cost $100, you've done nothing productive: you've increased the cost of a product. It now costs $20, and you've pocketed $20 for short-term gain. Why short-term?
Because that $20 is pure inflation. There is no value increase in the product; it's the same damn product.
This is how we get to the coveted "barrel of money for a loaf of bread" scenario. Thanks!
Or how about "No, I'm not going to buy my kid a POS Mac."? I'm sure at least one Windows or Linux adminstrator's child goes to high school there.
You're wasting your time. The typical "logical" course of discussion with a Denier goes as follow:
Denier:
Logician: Actually,
Denier: Lalala I can't hear you! I reject your reality and substitute my own through linguist revisionism and doublespeak!
Regarding the RKBA, it is automatically wrong for someone to take away a means of self-defense that is practical in those situations where the state can't protect you. Today that amounts to handguns, shotguns, etc.; tomorrow it will mean stun-phasers, sleep rays, whatever. It does not and will not include nukes (etc.) because it is the state's prerogative to protect you in those contexts... hence, nukes are not included in the RKBA. In other words, it is not automatically wrong for somebody to say you can't have a nuke.
Except for the fact that the Constitution makes no such distinction, and the founding fathers were all pretty clear on the 2nd Amendment being included as such to allow for the perceived-necessary governmental reset some years down the line, you would be correct.
The aim of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the citizens to overthrow the federal government, when it became too oppressive. Given the wording of the 2nd Amendment and the founders' dialog on the matter, it's pretty clear that this should include at least up to modern tanks, planes, and all types of personal munitions and arms - but not necessarily exclusive of something larger.
This foregoes the argument that nobody should own such things as nukes, but that's neither here nor there - because people (and countries) do own such horrible things. They exist, and therefore it is necessary to have a practical, realistic countermeasure/prevention method (whether it's MAD or ACBMs).
As for what constitutes Arms, well, that term hasn't changed much, it still means weapons.
No it doesn't. Try buying an RPG, or a tank, or a nuke. Let me know how that works out for you.
Are you daft?
nuclear arms
small arms
improvised arms
And so on. The term is hardly vague and was used then in much the same way it is today. There were plenty of canons and warships in private ownership (in fact, most used during the Revolution were, and many ships in the Civil War were as well.) People just have an emotional disconnect due to fear.
Other than that, you're right, a modern version of the Constitution would probably run to 3000 pages and include large chunks of material proposed by lobbiests that no one actually read prior to approval.
Most of which would also likely be open-ended in the opposite spirit of the current Constitution: instead of being very open-ended in terms of individual liberty and the restrictions placed on government (ie, plain-faced) it'd allow pretty much anything under each and every clause for "additional clarification" at the bureaucratic level later.
Folks like you, by contrast, were generally siding with His Majesty.
That's a little under-handed, don't you think? I see what you're doing here: trying to equate "Constitutionist" with "backwards/antiquated" in the same way the Tories were.
However, the comparison falls on its face when you consider that the GP and the founding fathers are ideological brothers, whereas King George and his attitude is much more akin to modern Progressives and the approach taken with the EU constitution.
Also, I resemble your comment: "folks like me" - my ancestors who lived in New York and Connecticut at the time of the Revolution and had tradecraft professions such as myself - were very much involved in the Revolution for the side of the Republic. They may not have been great orators or political theorists, but they had a lick of sense between their ears.
Please, kindly take your "general welfare" and shove it up your ass. Your invocation of that clause is illustrative of an inability to read: it's in the preamble, not the body, of the Constitution. This is typically called a "high level summary" of a document, demonstrating the intent of what follows. High school freshmen should typically understand this concept. (There's a general mention to the blessings of liberty - referring to God - in the preamble as well; does that not establish God as a fundamental component of our Government?)
The US Constitution covers the restrictions to government moreso than what the government can do.
Knowing where to start on this is a bit of a miffing point.
First: upgrade your shit. 2.4 kernel systems? Are you running Redhat 6? You know, from the turn of the millennia.
Second: upgrade your shit. Really,
Third: if your kernels are that old and you're using these machines for file storage/backup, chances are the hardware needs to be replaced before you even consider considering messing with them. Seriously: this stuff is ancient. Even Debian hasn't had a 2.4 kernel in 5+ years, I think.
Third: you can do what you're trying to do with rsync 'snapshots'. It works very well, failing filesystem level support. If you're sharing data over samba, this makes it easy: just put a '.snapshot' dir for these 'temporary' backups in their $HOME and hide dotfiles. Then make sure rsync ignores .snapshot. (Of course, there are other ways to do this.)
rsync snapshots (and here).
There are other sources of information out ther on rsync snapshots. There's also rsnapshot.
Chances are you'll have to upgrade before this stuff even works for you, though.
Yep, absolutely.
The only thing this release indicates is that Microsoft does not, in fact, "support" their products to their EOL. XP isn't quite dead yet by Microsoft's terms, and millions still use it. Yet an evident non-trivial security problem with a provided hotfix does not get attention for a work week.
How's that support working out?
Eh, since I first heard the term back in the mid-90s, I'm pretty sure it's always been used in the "providers/security experts/etc. have not acknowledged and/or been made aware of the vulnerability". This would include everything from zero-day exploits in use in small numbers to something like this.
It was a Gentoo system on AMD64 (ie not Intel - Athlon 64 x2 4200 with 2GB RAM). Much of the system, including X, KDE4, was rebuilt using O64. Observed performance was approximately a third faster than previously: faster X/KDE start as well as perceived "snappiness".
Unlike GCC as a compiler, GDB really sucks as a debugger.
I can't speak for GDB, but from what I understand of GCC, it isn't all that great, either. I've heard that compared to, say, the compiler in Visual Studio, it produces some pretty slow binaries. And I've witnessed how, compared to Open64, how vastly inferior the binaries are in terms of execution speed.