Man... I really hope not... there are far too many other important issues to deal with than what stupid OS is running on some webserver that the candidate doesn't even know about, much less understand.
A more precise question would be to what extent the error rate has worsened by overclocking the device, and that is related to the decrease in signal to noise margins, which is quantifiable. The CPU manufacturers must have these figures internally, but we're extremely unlikely to see them, unfortunately.
I would believe that you're more likely to run into data setup and hold time violations. Your clocking the circuit faster means that less time is given for the circuit to settle which means you're more likely to latch in a signal that isn't stable, resulting in that bit (or bits) being who-knows-what. This is determined by the critical paths in the logic in the pipeline stages. If you're lucky, the critical path is in the control circuitry so the result would be a crash of some sort. If the critical path is in data, you won't necessarily get a crash but you might get bad data (calculations have the wrong results) or other things like an incorrectly calculated target address.
There may be support issues the bosses aren't comfortable with, but yeah... when I've bought machines from Dell and other large assemblers, the first software I run on them is fdisk and then some OS installer.
Perhaps while we're doing that, you could follow some of the links on the article and educate yourself about Plan9?
Been there done that. I still don't see its point.
Plan 9 isn't for everyone. If you aren't into massively parallel machines and some of the other features of Plan 9, you won't see its point. Nor will you likely understand why it is interesting, but that's OK. Your interests just don't lie in that direction, no biggie.
One of the big problems is that a major 'push bloat on the market' operator is Microsoft. One gets the idea they throw it all away and start over with every major version.
I'd say that it's pretty much universal at this point. I can't name any reasonably modern system that isn't bloated.
If we stopped adding features, the base code would converge and improve to the point where it didn't need to be improved again, ever.
This statement must assume that we've solved every problem there is to solve. I don't believe that we have achieved that, yet (or maybe ever).
I'd probably be considered a gray beard around here but I've been writing multithreaded/multiprocess code for about 20 years:) It just takes practice and knowing where the boobytraps are.
Define "bloat". For example, do you classify 'features', as in adding more of them, as bloat? I think the word "bloat" is thrown around so much that few people have a good definition of it anymore. For example, features (what lots of people call 'bloat') that aren't used *shouldn't* cause performance issues as the code for them isn't executed.
Besides, if we stopped adding features, we'd still be using things like ed for editing (and 'word processing'), our games would still be like Pong, and our remote access would still be VT52 terminals.
You're right. I do have my own set of ethics governing what I eat, but as I said, I feel no reason to justify them to you or anyone else. As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, and more importantly, affecting *you*... why do you care?
Other than that, your 'conclusions' about me are... well... let's just say uninformed.
Plants have it rough... they have to grow in one spot and can't really move. That makes it easy to catch, kill, and eat them. Animals, though... those are a bit tougher to catch. At least they have a fighting chance to avoid my gnashing teeth! Poor plants:(
Where's your ethical cutoff point? Why? I'd wager that it's a lot more arbitrary than my "the less functional neurons, the better" cutoff.
I don't feel the need to justify ethically, to myself or anyone else, my choices of food. I simply eat what I feel like eating and don't eat what I don't want to eat. I see no reason to get 'ethics' involved in the decision really... unless you count things like: I'll try not to steal food from someone else, unless my own survival depends upon it.
That being said, I support you completely in your choice to be a vegetarian (whatever flavor) or even vegan. I have no problem with your self limitations of food choice as it doesn't affect me in the least (other than potentially lessen competition for certain items I consider food, which is a good thing:)). Just return the favor and allow me my choice.
I rarely eat mammalian carnivores, but that's because their meat isn't usually as good as herbivores. Omnivores are usually OK (pigs) for the most part. I don't think I'd eat anything up the Hominidae family line unless I had to. I probably wouldn't want to eat anything of the order Primate.
I probably wouldn't eat anything down the family line of Delphinidae, either.
But... that all depends on normal circumstances. In some situations, say apocalyptic, all bets would be off, I believe.
I'd wager that it's a lot more arbitrary than my "the less functional neurons, the better" cutoff.
So... would you eat cow meat if it were a 'vegetable'... basically a breed of cows that were bred to have practically no real brain function and incapable of living on its own?
It's difficult to realize that 99.99% of the world has little/no interest in programming (many to the point of loathing/fearing it) when you're constantly in a microcosm of friends/classmates/peers who all like programming.
I read both links... here is my take on what was published:
Myth: You get what you pay for.
Author does not assume the cost of IT/training actually costs time or money and implies that neither are necessary. Most schools don't have IT staff or the money to hire IT staff (particularly qualified staff in something other than Windows... Unix/Linux administrators typically are hired at higher salaries. One option is that the school may get volunteers from either the higher level grades or from parents/supporters, though.
Myth: F/OSS software is created by amateurs and must be inferior.
This passage sounds very whingy. It then uses examples of one similar group (amateur astronomists) but then uses musician/art and then a genius (obviously an exception, not the rule). Instead of touting the strengths such as professional programmers who contribute in their spare time, college students who work on projects because they are eager, etc.
Myth: With F/OSS I cannot get support.
The only option the author gives is to go talk to someone else in your building who, if they have a different version than you, can upgrade your software to the latest version without cost. What about drivers? What about any number of other issues like bugs? What about turning to forums, actually buying support, newgroups, mailing lists, etc?
Myth: Moving to F/OSS will require retraining and relearning.
So... you've nailed down Office.... what about the host of other applications that people use? Like Photoshop, etc.? What about switching from IIS to Apache? MSSQL/MSDE to MySQL? Exchange to whatever (plain email?) Windows point-n-clicky to something different (point-n-clicky with some side helpings of editing text configuration files)? Drive mapping to NFS?
Myth: Students need to learn the standard applications.
Again, you nail word processors and spreadsheets... what about everything else?
Educators Pay for Software - Twice
Author mentions that the first round is given to the school like the first taste of a drug... Then they buy it for home use... where is the second buy?
Training Teachers on Tools They Do Not Have
Finally a reasonable paragraph.
On the Allure of Free Proprietary Tools
FUD. Companies that tend to offer free trial offers don't back out on that in anything other than extreme circumstances (being bought by another company that changes licensing agreements) and even then, it is very rare. This section is pure FUD.
Productivity Applications, Internet Applications, Content-Specific Applications, Server-Based Applications
Finally... some concrete and founded sections but mostly it's just listing alternative software.
Re:This is what I HATE most about FOSS
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
I think comparing the GPL to DRM is about as ignorant as you can get.
So... taking, say, a song that is licensed to me for money, making an mp3 of it, overriding/ignoring that license agreement I made when I purchased said song license and passing that mp3 all over the place isn't like taking GPL code, ignoring the GPL licensing part of it, and then treating the code as effectively BSD aren't similar?
GPL isn't about maintaining/preserving the licensing rights (at least, I thought that was the "L" in GPL) of 'stuff' (content/IP)?
Software without users is worthless. Develop all the software you want but if users refuse to use it because of the licensing, all you've done is waste your time.
I can't speak for anyone else but I'm quite willing to help advance a project knowing that my efforts are protected by the GPL. I'm not so willing to pitch in and help out if I suspect that you're going to take the product of my hard labor, stick it in a proprietary application, and stuff the money you get for my labor in your bank account.
I think this is the crux of this discussion though... I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Alternatively, put your code out for GPL and rewrite all submissions for incorporation into your code so you can make the claim that you accepted the contributions, then rewrote and overwrote all those tainted pieces with your own code.
Slashdot Mirror
Man... I really hope not... there are far too many other important issues to deal with than what stupid OS is running on some webserver that the candidate doesn't even know about, much less understand.
Parts warranties, etc. Support doesn't only include someone sitting at a keyboard locally.
There may be support issues the bosses aren't comfortable with, but yeah... when I've bought machines from Dell and other large assemblers, the first software I run on them is fdisk and then some OS installer.
I'd say that it's pretty much universal at this point. I can't name any reasonably modern system that isn't bloated.
This statement must assume that we've solved every problem there is to solve. I don't believe that we have achieved that, yet (or maybe ever).
I'd probably be considered a gray beard around here but I've been writing multithreaded/multiprocess code for about 20 years :) It just takes practice and knowing where the boobytraps are.
Hmm... "the April time frame", to me, means March to May, but more likely in April, sort of like a Bell Curve with the mean in the middle of April.
In Soviet Russia, I, for one, welcome the eight core overlords who imagine running beowulf clusters of these running Linux which review YOU!
Define "bloat". For example, do you classify 'features', as in adding more of them, as bloat? I think the word "bloat" is thrown around so much that few people have a good definition of it anymore. For example, features (what lots of people call 'bloat') that aren't used *shouldn't* cause performance issues as the code for them isn't executed.
Besides, if we stopped adding features, we'd still be using things like ed for editing (and 'word processing'), our games would still be like Pong, and our remote access would still be VT52 terminals.
And when the C&D has been ignored for a while?
You're right. I do have my own set of ethics governing what I eat, but as I said, I feel no reason to justify them to you or anyone else. As long as I'm not doing anything illegal, and more importantly, affecting *you*... why do you care?
Other than that, your 'conclusions' about me are... well... let's just say uninformed.
Plants have it rough... they have to grow in one spot and can't really move. That makes it easy to catch, kill, and eat them. Animals, though... those are a bit tougher to catch. At least they have a fighting chance to avoid my gnashing teeth! Poor plants :(
I don't feel the need to justify ethically, to myself or anyone else, my choices of food. I simply eat what I feel like eating and don't eat what I don't want to eat. I see no reason to get 'ethics' involved in the decision really... unless you count things like: I'll try not to steal food from someone else, unless my own survival depends upon it.
That being said, I support you completely in your choice to be a vegetarian (whatever flavor) or even vegan. I have no problem with your self limitations of food choice as it doesn't affect me in the least (other than potentially lessen competition for certain items I consider food, which is a good thing
I probably wouldn't eat anything down the family line of Delphinidae, either.
But... that all depends on normal circumstances. In some situations, say apocalyptic, all bets would be off, I believe.
So... would you eat cow meat if it were a 'vegetable'... basically a breed of cows that were bred to have practically no real brain function and incapable of living on its own?
It's difficult to realize that 99.99% of the world has little/no interest in programming (many to the point of loathing/fearing it) when you're constantly in a microcosm of friends/classmates/peers who all like programming.
Author does not assume the cost of IT/training actually costs time or money and implies that neither are necessary. Most schools don't have IT staff or the money to hire IT staff (particularly qualified staff in something other than Windows... Unix/Linux administrators typically are hired at higher salaries. One option is that the school may get volunteers from either the higher level grades or from parents/supporters, though.
This passage sounds very whingy. It then uses examples of one similar group (amateur astronomists) but then uses musician/art and then a genius (obviously an exception, not the rule). Instead of touting the strengths such as professional programmers who contribute in their spare time, college students who work on projects because they are eager, etc.
The only option the author gives is to go talk to someone else in your building who, if they have a different version than you, can upgrade your software to the latest version without cost. What about drivers? What about any number of other issues like bugs? What about turning to forums, actually buying support, newgroups, mailing lists, etc?
So... you've nailed down Office.... what about the host of other applications that people use? Like Photoshop, etc.? What about switching from IIS to Apache? MSSQL/MSDE to MySQL? Exchange to whatever (plain email?) Windows point-n-clicky to something different (point-n-clicky with some side helpings of editing text configuration files)? Drive mapping to NFS?
Again, you nail word processors and spreadsheets... what about everything else?
Author mentions that the first round is given to the school like the first taste of a drug... Then they buy it for home use... where is the second buy?
Finally a reasonable paragraph.
FUD. Companies that tend to offer free trial offers don't back out on that in anything other than extreme circumstances (being bought by another company that changes licensing agreements) and even then, it is very rare. This section is pure FUD.
Finally... some concrete and founded sections but mostly it's just listing alternative software.
It's much older than those if you get a little less "massive" (down in the 100s to 1000s of players arenas).
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Who said anything about Microsoft?
So... taking, say, a song that is licensed to me for money, making an mp3 of it, overriding/ignoring that license agreement I made when I purchased said song license and passing that mp3 all over the place isn't like taking GPL code, ignoring the GPL licensing part of it, and then treating the code as effectively BSD aren't similar?
GPL isn't about maintaining/preserving the licensing rights (at least, I thought that was the "L" in GPL) of 'stuff' (content/IP)?
Software without users is worthless. Develop all the software you want but if users refuse to use it because of the licensing, all you've done is waste your time.
I think this is the crux of this discussion though... I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example. So, once it's been tainted with non-copyright-assigned GPL code, your project is never your own again, which puts off people like the parent poster who want to retain the copyrights on their code.
Alternatively, put your code out for GPL and rewrite all submissions for incorporation into your code so you can make the claim that you accepted the contributions, then rewrote and overwrote all those tainted pieces with your own code.
I never said otherwise... do they work for free? If not, then their salaries/pay are a part of the cost I was mentioning.