I also was intrigued by the idea of a database-oriented file-system. A basic operation though is to get a file. how? by it's name or id. what is it's name? Something you have to define. It could have a category (eg. javascript development library) but that's something the schema would impose upon you. what if you're more interested in the files' Contributor (author, downloader, etc.) ?
By itself a file-system backed by a database engine doesn't make the problem smaller it adds overhead.
There's only one resolution that identifies one from another and that's the explicit bytes contained within its storage. That can be simplified by indexing schemes like mdasum but they all can have collisions. (rare but how much of a chance are you willing to take?)
Is a file of bytes, ended by CR the same as the same file of bytes ended by CRLF? While the system itself might probably use null termination, other files from other systems won't.
the low-hanging fruit for file de-duplication is in backup storage. When you and another person need to retain the same file it can easily be merged into the stream. when you have two files that are byte comparable that's not so easy because you probably have defined some separation criteria (eg different file paths). so on your system they still need to remain discrete.
I've not heard much about how they would integrate this at the OS level but I think that's the trick.
I gave my son his own computer and, like many IT strategies, told him I'd back up what he asked me to. I made him responsible for his own collection, as am I. They may duplicate but hardware is so cheap. When we watch recorded TV shows sometimes we are both interested in keeping a copy, and that's ok. A gig here or there really doesn't matter when I can add 2TB for a $100.
That's very different from the scenario we faced when his brothers were kids. A 100MB hard drive was then pretty significant. I had to consider floppies and temp spaces. Now I'm more concerned with the age of the hard drive.
I don't think I'm the best one to decide how he might like to find his information - who knows what innovation might bring. I DO care that the systems are stable and reliable. That means repairable, at least to me.
at least once every 2-3 months I see some bug I fixed come back, and I can only assume it's because we don't have a formal test suite.
Many have already mentioned that you need metrics if you want to prove that a test suite would be cost effective. You don't really say if that's to be automated and that's harder. You also don't say if the intent is module unit testing or integration testing or some other slice, nor do you say what technology the system is built around. 10 years probably would be VB6 and there was a unit testing framework a few years ago available but the tool-set is decidedly sparse AFAIK.
Anyway, the statement about bugs returning caught my eye. Perhaps they really are a regressive bug but take a close look at that idea. To illustrate suppose the complaint is that "a failure was not logged to the logging file". This could be *caused* by, among other things, a misconfiguration of the logging system, a missing logging statement within the code that handles the failure, a locked logging file which could not be written, use of a module that disabled logging, or which did not re-enable logging, and so on.
Since these are all discreet sources they really are different bugs. It's unlikely (disadvantageous actually) that one test would find re-emergence of all of these even though they result in the same basic problem.
The point I'm hoping to make is to be certain you really are identifying the same bug as haunting you not just similar bugs and be sure you can faithfully relate that to your stakeholders.
And if you can make that case then it should be a no-brainer that they'd *not* wish for their teams to spend time and their resources re-doing the same thing. At that point the question becomes "What's the best way to insure that we don't?"
Sometimes it comes down to better documentation of the modules being used or training of the people involved. It's very hard to quantify the cost of training folks to create useful tests that don't actually increase costs (a lot). Also hard is predicting the point of break-even where all the costs in training, tools, and coding (and testing) the tests have started to return enough that the net starts to be positive.
We often seek perfection but removal of all regressive bugs is probably not the best first step. Another clue I got was that these bugs are found late in the process. In any case, perhaps better defensive coding in the modules would make them more apparent or obvious, and found sooner or prevented from propagating in the development process or the system itself.
Can anyone offer suggestions for how to convince the owner that setting up a test suite is in his own best interest?
with teachers that pre-published powerpoint slides and teachers that didn't. Students statistically significantly worse in the sections where they had access to the powerpoint slides. When I poll my students they all tell me how much of an advantage it would be to have them, but it turns out that what they think will help them is not what will help them
It would appear that you have proved that a dynamic environment is more productive than a static environment. Sort of "if I spend one-on-one time with my students I can help them quickly modify their path" is a DUH.
and the platform choice is similarly unfocused; Windows is required with linux optional... but preferred. I would take that to be a practitioner's choice not a user or client perspective.
If the objective is to be a desktop OS that everyone can use then
That does seem to be a goal of some distributions, Ubuntu for example. It's not a goal of the linux kernel since by nature not everyone can "use" a kernel due to technical ineptitude or other factors. It's very much NOT a goal of distributions like Fedora - and I like it that way.
The insurance company will increase rates, drop them (requiring a new more expensive company), or whatever. You know where that money comes from? The people that pay taxes!
You know who pays the taxes? The people who voted for the school board! Sounds like a good incentive to get people to pay attention to who they vote for.
How's that working out in your district? I don't mean to be snarky actually just curious if you believe the process is working in your specific case...
It's a child protection issue not a financial issue. There's no way that the parents can pay adequate attention to each child. They educate each other (public school is evil etc), take care of each other, and fend for themselves most of the time. There is such a thing as a criminally irresponsible parent (leave your kid in a locked car for example).
And in just such circumstances my Aunt's 10 kids are well adjusted, all. They're successful, generous, well-liked and I never had so much fun as a kid as the days me and my 2 sibling spent "fending for ourselves" at their place. I call your comment BS.
Bing is not doing evil here. They are in full compliance with the license as far as I know. And they have expressed interest in offering the project help in the future.
I'm sorry you couldn't get that into the OP. I have had my fill of/. sensationalisms.
I think many of us "old" techies have no problems getting how cell phones or Twitter works. What we have a problem getting is why. TXTing is as important to the evolution of communication as the pogo stick is for the evolution of transportation.
Have you not noticed that many IM shortcuts are making their way to texting syntax as well as in the common media? Seriously?!
Truth is many of us 50+ don't really speak well or effectively in that medium. And if we learn, we feel 'false'... Not much confusion over the why of it; txt'ing is shortened and semi-coded language based on the base human language of the participants. It excels at efficiency.
And don't discount the influence the 'pogo-stick' design has had. I believe there are several (http://en.wikivisual.com/images/4/47/Four_stroke_engine_diagram.jpg) reciprocating designs to utilize the stored energy exchange idea behind the pogo stick.
In the 1700s, there were no terrorists flying planes into buildings. Therefore, your right to not be searched unreasonably needs to be removed because if the founding fathers had this "threat" they would have taken it into consideration.
true.
There were terrorists burning your outlying farm-stead. Perhaps you'd be one of the lucky ones the immigrants were using to demonstrate the benefits of "co-habitation". Those were ugly. I can't even begin to tell you about that without a graphics warning.
Or you could be a beneficiary of a wave of "consultants" from the germanies.
Total dead: something like 20% failure rate for pioneers (yeah, by failure I mean death). I doubt you could find a contiguous geographic location that had 20% of it's populace affected by the deaths from the Twin Towers insurgency.
We can affect our environment more drastically than could they but our basic interactions have not changed.
Our Fathers had experienced Threat in a way you can only piss close to. You ill-informed, self-righteous, arrogant, ineffective little gnat.
You think them so stupid that they had not considered how not so long ago the sword was the emminent weapon and how accurate and long-range projectile weapons had changed their world?! These were educated people!
Seriously?!~
Please think through it again. They lived at a time when their environment, their world, was far more volatile than ours (USA). They had experienced technological invention and industrial expansion as well as actual battle on their homesteads, towns, and properties. They had had to fight, literally actually to fight, for everything that was theirs.
And, that Patriotism and effort in an inimical world held on throughout exterior threats (1812, Mexican/American, etc.) well into the new century.
The one thing in this story about which our Founders probably were unprepared would be the our (USA-All) unconcern.
You cite the 2nd amendment and say "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry a handgun", but the guy down the street cites the 2nd amendment and says "I should be unrestricted in my ability to own and carry chemical weapons". If that's not a compelling argument for interpretation, then I don't know what is.
Or perhaps at that time it was thought that people should be unrestricted. Perhaps the general attitude was that with everything considered, a normal society (regulated militia) could require the assistance or intervention from an Civic Populace (The People).
At the least I'd say your case for impelling interpretation remains weak.
Very hard to find accounting programs that do not require Windows OS.
The point's already been made that Google probably uses Enterprise level software but to the statement that windows dominates (pardon my paraphrasing) here's a useful list. Even in the Free/OSS category there are a number of mid-market offerings.
the scenario of the puppets where the middle puppet passes candy to each of two others and one of those keeps the candy but the other passes it back. then the baby is faced with those two having a pile of resources and is given the instruction to take a piece of it - an immoral act all of its own.
My conjecture would be that the baby which smacked the offending puppet was acting selfishly to prevent an obvious enemy from stealing from him or her in the future.
The baby obviously didn't have a problem with the act of absconding with somebody else's "stuff" or it would have objected on principle in some way or hesitating.
have preconceptions about how things "should" be, and when they get into the field you get ideas like this -- remote desktop for one application is not what the article is about. The article was talking about wholesale virtualization of the entire workstation, not just a single application.
I think you're also missing the OP's real question. The way I read it is that s/he wants to setup each workstation with a simple virtualization layer upon which the choice of Windows or Ubuntu can be made at boot time. I think the intent is for these to be completely standalone (possibly supplied by a 'base' image) not resident on a server as you suggest.
I've considered this setup myself but in the final cut I prefer to give every cycle to Linux. But this is at home. Aside from that, I'm also not certain that it would be very easy to share partitions from one to another if some lower virtualization layer has ultimate control.
you can add that filter for a few $$$ more. It doesn't integrate with the targeting system yet, sorry. Perhaps if someone would like to do such an enhancement. Check our wiki page for build instructions.
Slashdot Mirror
I also was intrigued by the idea of a database-oriented file-system. A basic operation though is to get a file. how? by it's name or id. what is it's name? Something you have to define. It could have a category (eg. javascript development library) but that's something the schema would impose upon you. what if you're more interested in the files' Contributor (author, downloader, etc.) ?
By itself a file-system backed by a database engine doesn't make the problem smaller it adds overhead.
There's only one resolution that identifies one from another and that's the explicit bytes contained within its storage. That can be simplified by indexing schemes like mdasum but they all can have collisions. (rare but how much of a chance are you willing to take?)
Is a file of bytes, ended by CR the same as the same file of bytes ended by CRLF? While the system itself might probably use null termination, other files from other systems won't.
the low-hanging fruit for file de-duplication is in backup storage. When you and another person need to retain the same file it can easily be merged into the stream. when you have two files that are byte comparable that's not so easy because you probably have defined some separation criteria (eg different file paths). so on your system they still need to remain discrete.
I've not heard much about how they would integrate this at the OS level but I think that's the trick.
I gave my son his own computer and, like many IT strategies, told him I'd back up what he asked me to. I made him responsible for his own collection, as am I. They may duplicate but hardware is so cheap. When we watch recorded TV shows sometimes we are both interested in keeping a copy, and that's ok. A gig here or there really doesn't matter when I can add 2TB for a $100.
That's very different from the scenario we faced when his brothers were kids. A 100MB hard drive was then pretty significant. I had to consider floppies and temp spaces. Now I'm more concerned with the age of the hard drive.
I don't think I'm the best one to decide how he might like to find his information - who knows what innovation might bring. I DO care that the systems are stable and reliable. That means repairable, at least to me.
The plant, which has been in operation for some 50 years
^in Pitman NJ,
was that so hard?
Many have already mentioned that you need metrics if you want to prove that a test suite would be cost effective. You don't really say if that's to be automated and that's harder. You also don't say if the intent is module unit testing or integration testing or some other slice, nor do you say what technology the system is built around. 10 years probably would be VB6 and there was a unit testing framework a few years ago available but the tool-set is decidedly sparse AFAIK.
Anyway, the statement about bugs returning caught my eye. Perhaps they really are a regressive bug but take a close look at that idea. To illustrate suppose the complaint is that "a failure was not logged to the logging file". This could be *caused* by, among other things, a misconfiguration of the logging system, a missing logging statement within the code that handles the failure, a locked logging file which could not be written, use of a module that disabled logging, or which did not re-enable logging, and so on.
Since these are all discreet sources they really are different bugs. It's unlikely (disadvantageous actually) that one test would find re-emergence of all of these even though they result in the same basic problem.
The point I'm hoping to make is to be certain you really are identifying the same bug as haunting you not just similar bugs and be sure you can faithfully relate that to your stakeholders.
And if you can make that case then it should be a no-brainer that they'd *not* wish for their teams to spend time and their resources re-doing the same thing. At that point the question becomes "What's the best way to insure that we don't?"
Sometimes it comes down to better documentation of the modules being used or training of the people involved. It's very hard to quantify the cost of training folks to create useful tests that don't actually increase costs (a lot). Also hard is predicting the point of break-even where all the costs in training, tools, and coding (and testing) the tests have started to return enough that the net starts to be positive.
We often seek perfection but removal of all regressive bugs is probably not the best first step. Another clue I got was that these bugs are found late in the process. In any case, perhaps better defensive coding in the modules would make them more apparent or obvious, and found sooner or prevented from propagating in the development process or the system itself.
The question really is "Are they?".
It would appear that you have proved that a dynamic environment is more productive than a static environment. Sort of "if I spend one-on-one time with my students I can help them quickly modify their path" is a DUH.
and the platform choice is similarly unfocused; Windows is required with linux optional... but preferred. I would take that to be a practitioner's choice not a user or client perspective.
That does seem to be a goal of some distributions, Ubuntu for example. It's not a goal of the linux kernel since by nature not everyone can "use" a kernel due to technical ineptitude or other factors. It's very much NOT a goal of distributions like Fedora - and I like it that way.
How's that working out in your district? I don't mean to be snarky actually just curious if you believe the process is working in your specific case...
not only can a machine lie but it can lie by proxy...
objectA :: IsTrue=false
objectB :: objectA.IsTrue
Still think your phone bill is accurate?! hahahahaha
And in just such circumstances my Aunt's 10 kids are well adjusted, all. They're successful, generous, well-liked and I never had so much fun as a kid as the days me and my 2 sibling spent "fending for ourselves" at their place. I call your comment BS.
I'm sorry you couldn't get that into the OP. I have had my fill of /. sensationalisms.
thanks. It's Sunday freaking morning. This is no time to make me want a beer!
Have you not noticed that many IM shortcuts are making their way to texting syntax as well as in the common media? Seriously?!
Truth is many of us 50+ don't really speak well or effectively in that medium. And if we learn, we feel 'false'... Not much confusion over the why of it; txt'ing is shortened and semi-coded language based on the base human language of the participants. It excels at efficiency.
And don't discount the influence the 'pogo-stick' design has had. I believe there are several (http://en.wikivisual.com/images/4/47/Four_stroke_engine_diagram.jpg) reciprocating designs to utilize the stored energy exchange idea behind the pogo stick.
true.
There were terrorists burning your outlying farm-stead. Perhaps you'd be one of the lucky ones the immigrants were using to demonstrate the benefits of "co-habitation". Those were ugly. I can't even begin to tell you about that without a graphics warning.
Or you could be a beneficiary of a wave of "consultants" from the germanies.
Total dead: something like 20% failure rate for pioneers (yeah, by failure I mean death). I doubt you could find a contiguous geographic location that had 20% of it's populace affected by the deaths from the Twin Towers insurgency.
We can affect our environment more drastically than could they but our basic interactions have not changed.
Our Fathers had experienced Threat in a way you can only piss close to. You ill-informed, self-righteous, arrogant, ineffective little gnat.
You think them so stupid that they had not considered how not so long ago the sword was the emminent weapon and how accurate and long-range projectile weapons had changed their world?! These were educated people!
Seriously?!~
Please think through it again. They lived at a time when their environment, their world, was far more volatile than ours (USA). They had experienced technological invention and industrial expansion as well as actual battle on their homesteads, towns, and properties. They had had to fight, literally actually to fight, for everything that was theirs.
And, that Patriotism and effort in an inimical world held on throughout exterior threats (1812, Mexican/American, etc.) well into the new century.
The one thing in this story about which our Founders probably were unprepared would be the our (USA-All) unconcern.
Or perhaps at that time it was thought that people should be unrestricted. Perhaps the general attitude was that with everything considered, a normal society (regulated militia) could require the assistance or intervention from an Civic Populace (The People).
At the least I'd say your case for impelling interpretation remains weak.
this is a High School not a Geek School.
The point's already been made that Google probably uses Enterprise level software but to the statement that windows dominates (pardon my paraphrasing) here's a useful list. Even in the Free/OSS category there are a number of mid-market offerings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_accounting_software#Free_and_open_source_software
note that this wiki entry needs some eyes so it seemed worthwhile posting OT. ;)
this gives a whole new aspect to the House-of-Mirrors. Gawd! I want to be a kid again....
the mouse wheel should be intercepted by the window under the mouse. I've gotten so used to that in Gnome that I curse Windows daily for the lack.
the scenario of the puppets where the middle puppet passes candy to each of two others and one of those keeps the candy but the other passes it back. then the baby is faced with those two having a pile of resources and is given the instruction to take a piece of it - an immoral act all of its own.
My conjecture would be that the baby which smacked the offending puppet was acting selfishly to prevent an obvious enemy from stealing from him or her in the future.
The baby obviously didn't have a problem with the act of absconding with somebody else's "stuff" or it would have objected on principle in some way or hesitating.
Too often we see what we want to see.
Too many of one thing and a general unrealistic expectations?
That's a bubble.
I used chrome for several days but went back to firefox because I hated having the tabs at the top.
I think you're also missing the OP's real question. The way I read it is that s/he wants to setup each workstation with a simple virtualization layer upon which the choice of Windows or Ubuntu can be made at boot time. I think the intent is for these to be completely standalone (possibly supplied by a 'base' image) not resident on a server as you suggest.
I've considered this setup myself but in the final cut I prefer to give every cycle to Linux. But this is at home. Aside from that, I'm also not certain that it would be very easy to share partitions from one to another if some lower virtualization layer has ultimate control.
you can add that filter for a few $$$ more. It doesn't integrate with the targeting system yet, sorry. Perhaps if someone would like to do such an enhancement. Check our wiki page for build instructions.
wow. that's an oblique way to blame the men again! ;)