This has been around for ages. It's common ballistic calculator software, but for the iPod. There are multiple similar software packages for Windows Mobile/CE as well as desktop applications dating all the way back to DOS.
Fair enough; though Samba 4 AD functionality "mostly works", from what I hear. I've been meaning to run a test install and run a load test on it to see how it handles...
and why would it have those problems? Samba has been very stale for quite a while, v3 took a long time to get here, and they seem to be spending quite a lot of time this time around for version 4 to assure it works right.
I don't know how well samba scales, but it most certainly performs well. Samba on a 300MHz machine will perform on-par with a much more recent Windows-based file server for a SMB.
It's been a while since I've noticed this specifically (as it's been a while since I've touched Windows in any serious way), but I do distinctly recall the increased download speed under linux being a non-insignificant factor in my preferred Linux use back around 1998-1999.
I had an external 56k modem which got about 4.5kbps max in Windows (98) and IIRC almost 7kbps in Linux (Mandrake 6 at the time, IIRC). I shortly thereafter moved the modem to a dedicated 486 debian machine which did dial-on-demand for the home network (which was composed of my brother and me). We later tried it out with the cable modem and we got maybe 15% better performance with Linux, again.
The current crop of problems observable in the Linux kernel started roughly around the time when the development policy changed. We went to "kernel is stable and works very well for a known subset of things, and builds consistently" to "kernel is stable for some things and works decently for most things, with pretty much everything working to some extent, and barely ever builds consistently (at least from one subversion to another).
Yep, this is a petty big problem - an easily reproducible one - and it's been around for a really long time. I don't remember when exactly it came about, but I moved from Debian Sid to Ubuntu 7.x about 8 months ago. I didn't have any problem under debian, and I'm uncertain whether the 7.x ubuntus had the problem, but I certainly noticed it in 8.x releases.
I do recall a bit of a somewhat gradual progression of desktop performance decreases, though, going all the way back to the later 2.0 kernels. Back then, the schedulers would all allow an at-the-time relatively slow machine run a fairly bloaty window manager (like E16) responsively while untarring an archive and running a kernel build at the same time - provided there was 100+Mb or so of RAM for the process, of course. Even still, if you were to dip into swap, the UI would remain pretty responsive. Not anymore.
The way things sit now, the Linux I/O scheduler results in desktop performance similar to Windows XP during I/O ops. That is completely unacceptable.
Part of me thinks this is due to a server-centric focus in development (being as the people doing kernel dev largely work for corporations who want server kernels), but I'm not really in the know. If that's the case, we really need to pull one of the old desktop schedulers out of retirement and use that instead of what we've got now, at least for the desktop, and maintain two different-focus schedulers within the kernel instead of just having a couple generally-suited schedulers.
That Seagate 1.5Tb drive problem has, according to a friend of mine who foolishly jumped at buying a large handful of said disks for his data storage needs, been thankfully fixed via a firmware update. If I recall correctly.
That said, I've run into similar problems in "solid, last generation" hardware from vendors. And of course, there are the 10+ year old bugs in Windows which have been largely worked around/with to the point where we forget they're pretty irritating/serious bugs and not just the way things are (if you get what I mean). Bugs happen.
What's more, is that even if nobody commits "profanity" in the traditional sense, you can bet that someone will try and abuse the law (even more than the law itself is an actual abuse, of course).
For instance: if I don't like someone, I can simply say they were profane towards me. Doesn't matter what I believe, or what they say - because religion is pretty arbitrary these days. Maybe they said they used the word "meat" in reference to food, or wished me good luck (some religions don't believe in fortunes/luck), or maybe even mentioned something like cigarettes, which some people find more offensive than child rape, it would seem.
Pretty terrifying when you consider that such laws can, while being able to be arbitrarily enforced, can also be used to make anything you say illegal.
I don't suppose his frequent use of off-list pharmaceuticals and other fun-seeking drugs during his youth would have had anything to do with his poor health. While 60 isn't old, it seems like a lot of people his age who "lived too hard" are now suffering the consequences through odd early/uneven aging, hormonal issues, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and other odd things we've not seen before.
As if a President has never left something crucially important behind before. Like, for instance, when Presidents have left the Nuclear Football carriers behind, forgetting about them for quite a while.
Yes, they need a certain number of people to fail in order to prove their university has value. But consider also that they're a business like any other organization, and need to make ends meet. Fewer people can afford MIT now than a generation ago. So they've got to keep as many of those people who would traditionally flunk out first or second year there until third or fourth year.
For some, there is. Many people do not learn well while reading, and indeed, it would take longer to read and properly digest the material than listening to someone speak it.
I had a number of lecture hall classes in college, though not all that many. Some were great, particularly a class on (of all things) marriage. The professor was dynamic and provided a lot of additional information over what his own book said, and he would sometimes make notes referring back to previous material where it was applicable - so as to better cement the information in our minds. It is much, much easier to listen to a lecture involving statistics than to read the same material, I find.
Same goes for some art, history, and film classes I had - much better in lecture than they could have possibly have been if I'd just read the book and taken part in the worthless online discussions most 'online coursework' has.
Of course, it all depends on the professor and the topic. I had a lecture-hall geography course in college I had to get out of the way, and it was very painful. Likewise, I had an economics professor who could put someone high on meth to sleep.
Management? We're talking about tests orchestrated by HR, here. The same HR which is composed of the people who were too stupid to do their own work in college and spent most of it trying to lie, cheat, and steal answers from others.
No, they're not all like that. But I challenge you to find one out of 5 HR people who are any two of honest, intelligent, and friendly towards others not like themselves.
Aside from what others have said, it also marginalizes and insults otherwise intelligent, capable, discerning, and moral people.
The best people are able to see in shades of grey and spot ambiguity and potential problems with such tests. There answers then end up being "off", regardless of whether they are a kind hearted and impeccably honest person or a thieving serial rapist sociopath.
So I suppose "use it as a sled to get down hills and carry my stuff until it dies, then eat it to keep me alive" isn't the best response I could've made, eh?
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - John Adams (1735-1826
If they hand me something and say "fill this out" I'll fit it out - honestly. If they tell me to fill it out with an eye for answering the questions how they were intended to be answered correctly, I'd do that.
The "inability"/unwillingness to lie, be deceitful, or otherwise a bad human being is not indicative of lacking intelligence. It's a sign of character and, in most cases, the sign of someone who would serve as a better long-term employee than the person who lied and was "smarter".
HR, more than any category, I think, believes in silly hockus-pokeus (sic) like tarot cards, palm reading, and magic crystals which contain existential energies. It's why they're in HR - they're pretty touchy-feely, and it's a "people" job, right? That requires touchy-feely.
I agree completely - HR in this country is completely out of control. A job applicant can apply to several hundred positions before he gets even as much as an automated response from HR, never mind a personal one.
How is it socially acceptable for HR to do this shit? They'll have a lengthy list of requirements for a position, and then they a) will not return calls, b) will not notify you as to the completion of the position, and c) don't even bother to let you know what, exactly, you're applying for most of the time in the first place - whether it's due to some bullshit job posting description (relating to their lack of knowledge/caring) or because they're simply short on information throughout the whole hiring process.
I want to know what it is these so-called HR professionals do all day. I've seen offices full of the blighters for fairly small organizations. What are they doing for their companies which justify their existence? Are there really all THAT many governmental requirements for hiring that a 30+ person staff is necessary for a company of only a thousand or so?
In my book, HR is starting to get a worse rap than lawyers. Yes, it's probably better to dislike lawyers for being evil and scheming, but it's a lot easier to hate the HR people for being evil due to stupidity, incompetence
You shouldn't feel too bad about it. I ran into the same exact situation - couldn't pass their asinine personality/sick-morality exam. While that shouldn't mean anything to you on it's own, consider this:
Have you ever gone into a Best Buy and actually looked at some of the miscreants they've got on the Geek Squad? We're talking about people who look like they never learned how to properly bathe, have a poor attitude, carry themselves like street thugs, and generally have the intellect of moldy bread.
If you are required to be an inferior person to work somewhere, you really are better off not working there. That's hard to hear when you need a pay check, but it's still true, I think - at least if you're not a shitty person yourself. Because, as a non-shitty person in a shitty environment, you're likely to be fired. And only complete losers can't keep a shit job, right?
Wait, you mean that MacOS and iPhone do not share the same code base and visual scaling capabilities? IE, the whole "graphical elements will scale with resolution" thing on OS X does not apply on iPhone?
Wow, talk aout short sighted. Here I was, thinking they'd be well suited for such a market. Guess not.
Couldn't IBM make this problem go away, completely and forever, simply by buying these so-called products and then open sourcing them? Wouldn't that make SCO's claims all but pointless in anything but an academic setting?
Slashdot Mirror
This has been around for ages. It's common ballistic calculator software, but for the iPod. There are multiple similar software packages for Windows Mobile/CE as well as desktop applications dating all the way back to DOS.
Fair enough; though Samba 4 AD functionality "mostly works", from what I hear. I've been meaning to run a test install and run a load test on it to see how it handles...
and why would it have those problems? Samba has been very stale for quite a while, v3 took a long time to get here, and they seem to be spending quite a lot of time this time around for version 4 to assure it works right.
You need a CAL for either every device or every user, which would depend on what kind of environment you're in and what the machine/user ratio is.
Uh, what?
I don't know how well samba scales, but it most certainly performs well. Samba on a 300MHz machine will perform on-par with a much more recent Windows-based file server for a SMB.
It's been a while since I've noticed this specifically (as it's been a while since I've touched Windows in any serious way), but I do distinctly recall the increased download speed under linux being a non-insignificant factor in my preferred Linux use back around 1998-1999.
I had an external 56k modem which got about 4.5kbps max in Windows (98) and IIRC almost 7kbps in Linux (Mandrake 6 at the time, IIRC). I shortly thereafter moved the modem to a dedicated 486 debian machine which did dial-on-demand for the home network (which was composed of my brother and me). We later tried it out with the cable modem and we got maybe 15% better performance with Linux, again.
Exactly!
The current crop of problems observable in the Linux kernel started roughly around the time when the development policy changed. We went to "kernel is stable and works very well for a known subset of things, and builds consistently" to "kernel is stable for some things and works decently for most things, with pretty much everything working to some extent, and barely ever builds consistently (at least from one subversion to another).
Yep, this is a petty big problem - an easily reproducible one - and it's been around for a really long time. I don't remember when exactly it came about, but I moved from Debian Sid to Ubuntu 7.x about 8 months ago. I didn't have any problem under debian, and I'm uncertain whether the 7.x ubuntus had the problem, but I certainly noticed it in 8.x releases.
I do recall a bit of a somewhat gradual progression of desktop performance decreases, though, going all the way back to the later 2.0 kernels. Back then, the schedulers would all allow an at-the-time relatively slow machine run a fairly bloaty window manager (like E16) responsively while untarring an archive and running a kernel build at the same time - provided there was 100+Mb or so of RAM for the process, of course. Even still, if you were to dip into swap, the UI would remain pretty responsive. Not anymore.
The way things sit now, the Linux I/O scheduler results in desktop performance similar to Windows XP during I/O ops. That is completely unacceptable.
Part of me thinks this is due to a server-centric focus in development (being as the people doing kernel dev largely work for corporations who want server kernels), but I'm not really in the know. If that's the case, we really need to pull one of the old desktop schedulers out of retirement and use that instead of what we've got now, at least for the desktop, and maintain two different-focus schedulers within the kernel instead of just having a couple generally-suited schedulers.
That Seagate 1.5Tb drive problem has, according to a friend of mine who foolishly jumped at buying a large handful of said disks for his data storage needs, been thankfully fixed via a firmware update. If I recall correctly.
That said, I've run into similar problems in "solid, last generation" hardware from vendors. And of course, there are the 10+ year old bugs in Windows which have been largely worked around/with to the point where we forget they're pretty irritating/serious bugs and not just the way things are (if you get what I mean). Bugs happen.
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - John Adams
What's more, is that even if nobody commits "profanity" in the traditional sense, you can bet that someone will try and abuse the law (even more than the law itself is an actual abuse, of course).
For instance: if I don't like someone, I can simply say they were profane towards me. Doesn't matter what I believe, or what they say - because religion is pretty arbitrary these days. Maybe they said they used the word "meat" in reference to food, or wished me good luck (some religions don't believe in fortunes/luck), or maybe even mentioned something like cigarettes, which some people find more offensive than child rape, it would seem.
Pretty terrifying when you consider that such laws can, while being able to be arbitrarily enforced, can also be used to make anything you say illegal.
I don't suppose his frequent use of off-list pharmaceuticals and other fun-seeking drugs during his youth would have had anything to do with his poor health. While 60 isn't old, it seems like a lot of people his age who "lived too hard" are now suffering the consequences through odd early/uneven aging, hormonal issues, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and other odd things we've not seen before.
As if a President has never left something crucially important behind before. Like, for instance, when Presidents have left the Nuclear Football carriers behind, forgetting about them for quite a while.
Yes, they need a certain number of people to fail in order to prove their university has value. But consider also that they're a business like any other organization, and need to make ends meet. Fewer people can afford MIT now than a generation ago. So they've got to keep as many of those people who would traditionally flunk out first or second year there until third or fourth year.
For some, there is. Many people do not learn well while reading, and indeed, it would take longer to read and properly digest the material than listening to someone speak it.
I had a number of lecture hall classes in college, though not all that many. Some were great, particularly a class on (of all things) marriage. The professor was dynamic and provided a lot of additional information over what his own book said, and he would sometimes make notes referring back to previous material where it was applicable - so as to better cement the information in our minds. It is much, much easier to listen to a lecture involving statistics than to read the same material, I find.
Same goes for some art, history, and film classes I had - much better in lecture than they could have possibly have been if I'd just read the book and taken part in the worthless online discussions most 'online coursework' has.
Of course, it all depends on the professor and the topic. I had a lecture-hall geography course in college I had to get out of the way, and it was very painful. Likewise, I had an economics professor who could put someone high on meth to sleep.
Management? We're talking about tests orchestrated by HR, here. The same HR which is composed of the people who were too stupid to do their own work in college and spent most of it trying to lie, cheat, and steal answers from others.
No, they're not all like that. But I challenge you to find one out of 5 HR people who are any two of honest, intelligent, and friendly towards others not like themselves.
Aside from what others have said, it also marginalizes and insults otherwise intelligent, capable, discerning, and moral people.
The best people are able to see in shades of grey and spot ambiguity and potential problems with such tests. There answers then end up being "off", regardless of whether they are a kind hearted and impeccably honest person or a thieving serial rapist sociopath.
So I suppose "use it as a sled to get down hills and carry my stuff until it dies, then eat it to keep me alive" isn't the best response I could've made, eh?
Reminds me of a quote from John Adams:
"In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress." - John Adams (1735-1826
Too stupid, or too honest, to lie?
If they hand me something and say "fill this out" I'll fit it out - honestly. If they tell me to fill it out with an eye for answering the questions how they were intended to be answered correctly, I'd do that.
The "inability"/unwillingness to lie, be deceitful, or otherwise a bad human being is not indicative of lacking intelligence. It's a sign of character and, in most cases, the sign of someone who would serve as a better long-term employee than the person who lied and was "smarter".
HR, more than any category, I think, believes in silly hockus-pokeus (sic) like tarot cards, palm reading, and magic crystals which contain existential energies. It's why they're in HR - they're pretty touchy-feely, and it's a "people" job, right? That requires touchy-feely.
I agree completely - HR in this country is completely out of control. A job applicant can apply to several hundred positions before he gets even as much as an automated response from HR, never mind a personal one.
How is it socially acceptable for HR to do this shit? They'll have a lengthy list of requirements for a position, and then they a) will not return calls, b) will not notify you as to the completion of the position, and c) don't even bother to let you know what, exactly, you're applying for most of the time in the first place - whether it's due to some bullshit job posting description (relating to their lack of knowledge/caring) or because they're simply short on information throughout the whole hiring process.
I want to know what it is these so-called HR professionals do all day. I've seen offices full of the blighters for fairly small organizations. What are they doing for their companies which justify their existence? Are there really all THAT many governmental requirements for hiring that a 30+ person staff is necessary for a company of only a thousand or so?
In my book, HR is starting to get a worse rap than lawyers. Yes, it's probably better to dislike lawyers for being evil and scheming, but it's a lot easier to hate the HR people for being evil due to stupidity, incompetence
You shouldn't feel too bad about it. I ran into the same exact situation - couldn't pass their asinine personality/sick-morality exam. While that shouldn't mean anything to you on it's own, consider this:
Have you ever gone into a Best Buy and actually looked at some of the miscreants they've got on the Geek Squad? We're talking about people who look like they never learned how to properly bathe, have a poor attitude, carry themselves like street thugs, and generally have the intellect of moldy bread.
If you are required to be an inferior person to work somewhere, you really are better off not working there. That's hard to hear when you need a pay check, but it's still true, I think - at least if you're not a shitty person yourself. Because, as a non-shitty person in a shitty environment, you're likely to be fired. And only complete losers can't keep a shit job, right?
Wait, you mean that MacOS and iPhone do not share the same code base and visual scaling capabilities? IE, the whole "graphical elements will scale with resolution" thing on OS X does not apply on iPhone?
Wow, talk aout short sighted. Here I was, thinking they'd be well suited for such a market. Guess not.
Couldn't IBM make this problem go away, completely and forever, simply by buying these so-called products and then open sourcing them? Wouldn't that make SCO's claims all but pointless in anything but an academic setting?