I think the answere is that server type stuff is deliberately kept opaque and complicated so sysadmins have jobs- after all, if i could just get a quote on it, most of the people who have posted might not have paychecks, right ?
Wrong. Sysadmins are still necessary to keep your systems running, regardless of whether you hold them in contempt or not. Fact is, this site is specifically for computer specialists/nerds, so as a non computer guy, you have to accept that some stuff will be confusing. We aren't being arrogant, we're practicing a profession that has a body of knowledge.
Why can't i just call up a bunch of guys in the yellow pages, or whatever passes for yellow pages, and say, I got a 1000 users a day, yadayada, gimme a quote.
Do it. You'll find that a common website that gets 1000 users/day doesn't need much.
Option types can be trivially implemented as compilation time type checking, with implicit nullity checks when you cast an option type to its base type.
You still have to check at runtime - you can still get null references where none should exist
Basically, it makes you unable to optimize away situations where the existing runtime system needs to check whether a reference is null.
Why would you ever do that? Null checks are cheap and the idea of a compiler removing mine scares me.
Although he argued that there was "no such thing" as a null pointer, what he actually meant to say was either there shouldn't be such a thing, or that a properly designed language would not have such a notion.
Wow, a classic example of begging the question - you can't counter by example because every language with a null pointer is by definition improperly designed. What it comes down to is "I don't like null".
Consider SML [wikipedia.org] (which, incidentally, he helped design).
Then consider Lisp, which has the concept of null and case analysis, and has the additional advantage of not being supremely painful to use.
Java (and C and...) doesn't do this properly. Take an ArrayList, for example. When you say "ArrayList foo", what you actually have is an ArrayList option, he argued, since you really either have SOME(an actual ArrayList) or NONE, representing the null pointer.
No, Java chooses a faster, implicit, option type - it's the same thing, just not explicitly stated. The only difference here is that the language doesn't make you check for null. C is portable assembler, so you shouldn't expect much.
Because the NULL stands for "missing value" in this case, which indicates that *something* must be in this place, but for whatever reason the data isn't there. So we can't say with certainty that there's no 1 in that list.
Yes we can. There is no 1 in that list. The null doesn't stand for missing value, it means the value isn't there, just like if I had a customer record with a null addressId - no address on record.
It's like I can't say that I never had a coworker called Bob, because I didn't know the names of everybody working in the company.
But you wouldn't be saying that. You'd be saying that you don't have a coworker bob that you know of, and that'd be just fine.
not true - the cat is its own observer, so the cat waveform collapses before you open the box. If the cat is a metaphor for some subatomic particle, the game changes, but as it was explained to me, anything big enough to have its own gravity (however weak) breaks the required symmetry for the superposed wave function thingy. (IANAParticlePhysicist)
Normalizing the database can create a situation where the NULL is unnecessary.
Sure, but you'd have to do things like make an address table with a reference to a customer in order to model a customer with no address, whereas with null columns, you just stick an address id in a customer record and let it be null. The approach with nulls is cleaner, as you can then add addresses to lots of things without modifying the address table, and you also get to share address records, which can save some space (addresses would have to be immutable for this).
Define valid. Seriously, in C, there's no portable value that's always invalid, and it usually depends on the runtime configuration. May as well use null.
Why not set up your servers in a DC? I don't think I'd want to have anything needing serious availability behind a link that I owned (unless I was big enough to have a DC myself).
Bob & Joe is better in this case than haMaster and haSlave, or serverA and serverB, etc.
Nah, Bob and Joe are people names - calling the DB servers FunkDB_A and FunkDB_B has some of the semantics you dislike, but establishing a habit of switching off from one to the other for maintenance and having a page saying which is 'live' can get past that.
Anonymity isn't really the important part here (no...seriously). It's, "What are you allowed to say?"
It really is - if you knew that something you said anonymously wasn't really anonymous, you might not say it, so there's a chilling effect with making it too easy to identify 'anonymous' posters.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Good luck arguing that. Libel laws are why you get in trouble for saying 'tom is a felon' to a potential employer - if he isn't actually a felon, then your lie hurt him, and that shouldn't be allowed.
It was "substantiated" by 3 anonymous sources, but very shortly turned out to be entirely made up. And yet to this day, people still believe it, because it fits with their perception of Bush & his Administration.
That's news to me - I thought it had actually happened. It's like that forged letter that got Dan Rather in so much trouble - sure it wasn't actually legit, but it was what the base commander said he wanted to write at the time (presumably, that would've been politically sensitive).
The war situation could also have been avoided had George W Bush read his intelligence reports
Hell, he would've avoided the Iraq quagmire if he'd read his daddy's book. That's what really burns - his own father outlined the reasons for not invading and what would happen if he did.
Adding on to your chain if failure, the war situation could've been avoided had we not been waging a sort of covert war against the middle east for the past 100 years or so.
What's amazing is that if you get a laptop today, it won't have XP drivers because MS told the OEM not to. Fuckers - nothing MS past XP will go in my house.
Really? How is it his boss' decision? If you fire me then demand anything beyond a place to send the final paycheck, I'm acting out of kindness, and if my first encounter with you is idiot consultants demanding things without expectation and you undermining my work, good luck getting those passwords. I'd have done the same thing - if the mayor then gives boy wonder the keys to the kingdom, so be it. At least it's documented then.
The "recommended for rehire" status should not be a given.. and there is nothing wrong with using that as leverage to the companies advantage. It's not exactly blackmail as much as an extra incentive to work on making the transition smoother for the company.
It's blackmail. "Do as we say or we'll tick the no-rehire box, which is really code for bad employee", except that do as we say means forced servitude, which is flat out illegal.
Childs was always willing to give over the passwords, just not to someone who posed a threat to the network (remember - fuck up the network and E911 can go down). He stated as such and handed them over to the Mayor months ago. Meanwhile, without the passwords, the network just ran itself. Regardless, you don't fire someone before getting the passwords taken care of.
Are you seriously suggesting that sysadmins as a class of people should have lower bail amounts in general vs. the general public?
Are you seriously suggesting that the bail is remotely justified?
Is it the truth that he was the only admin in the whole city who wasn't incompetent?
Just how many people do you think are competent to run a network the size of SF? Now, how many will be willing to work for the city of SF? I think it's possible, even plausible that he is the only one who knows the score, or at best on of very few.
Well, read the indictment and wait for the jury to answer that. The defense has not been able to convince a judge that the charges should be thrown out...
you missed the part where they threw out the big charge, and most of the other charges are for things that Childs had as part of his job. Seriously, modems?
You need to be able to prove it if he sues. Also, the old company has little to gain warning the next guy, but can incur a lot of expense if the employee does sue - it's just not worth it.
I didn't say that he owned the thing, just that it was his network to run, and he did with management's blessing for years. He wasn't one admin among many, he was the guy, with a bunch of other admins who broke things more than they fixed them. And yes, he is being railroaded - what do you call $5M bond for a sysadmin, firing someone, then demanding passwords at a police station with unknown parties present, and charging him with doing the things that he did as part of his duties. Again, what illegal thing did Childs do?
There has to be some sort of imminent threat, though. Why would you bother with a TRO from someone who you fired and isn't trying to do anything to you? I may as well get a TRO against my college roommate.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the answere is that server type stuff is deliberately kept opaque and complicated so sysadmins have jobs- after all, if i could just get a quote on it, most of the people who have posted might not have paychecks, right ?
Wrong. Sysadmins are still necessary to keep your systems running, regardless of whether you hold them in contempt or not. Fact is, this site is specifically for computer specialists/nerds, so as a non computer guy, you have to accept that some stuff will be confusing. We aren't being arrogant, we're practicing a profession that has a body of knowledge.
Why can't i just call up a bunch of guys in the yellow pages, or whatever passes for yellow pages, and say, I got a 1000 users a day, yadayada, gimme a quote.
Do it. You'll find that a common website that gets 1000 users/day doesn't need much.
If someone is willing to do your job for less than you are, or is able to do a better job at the same rate, then they should get the job over you.
I'll accept that once I can do the same thing to a guy in switzerland.
Option types can be trivially implemented as compilation time type checking, with implicit nullity checks when you cast an option type to its base type.
You still have to check at runtime - you can still get null references where none should exist
Basically, it makes you unable to optimize away situations where the existing runtime system needs to check whether a reference is null.
Why would you ever do that? Null checks are cheap and the idea of a compiler removing mine scares me.
Although he argued that there was "no such thing" as a null pointer, what he actually meant to say was either there shouldn't be such a thing, or that a properly designed language would not have such a notion.
Wow, a classic example of begging the question - you can't counter by example because every language with a null pointer is by definition improperly designed. What it comes down to is "I don't like null".
Consider SML [wikipedia.org] (which, incidentally, he helped design).
Then consider Lisp, which has the concept of null and case analysis, and has the additional advantage of not being supremely painful to use.
Java (and C and...) doesn't do this properly. Take an ArrayList, for example. When you say "ArrayList foo", what you actually have is an ArrayList option, he argued, since you really either have SOME(an actual ArrayList) or NONE, representing the null pointer.
No, Java chooses a faster, implicit, option type - it's the same thing, just not explicitly stated. The only difference here is that the language doesn't make you check for null. C is portable assembler, so you shouldn't expect much.
Because the NULL stands for "missing value" in this case, which indicates that *something* must be in this place, but for whatever reason the data isn't there. So we can't say with certainty that there's no 1 in that list.
Yes we can. There is no 1 in that list. The null doesn't stand for missing value, it means the value isn't there, just like if I had a customer record with a null addressId - no address on record.
It's like I can't say that I never had a coworker called Bob, because I didn't know the names of everybody working in the company.
But you wouldn't be saying that. You'd be saying that you don't have a coworker bob that you know of, and that'd be just fine.
not true - the cat is its own observer, so the cat waveform collapses before you open the box. If the cat is a metaphor for some subatomic particle, the game changes, but as it was explained to me, anything big enough to have its own gravity (however weak) breaks the required symmetry for the superposed wave function thingy. (IANAParticlePhysicist)
This question can't be answered, because you don't know what should be where the hole is.
It certainly can - the answer is no. What you can't answer is what the paper looked like before the hole was cut.
Normalizing the database can create a situation where the NULL is unnecessary.
Sure, but you'd have to do things like make an address table with a reference to a customer in order to model a customer with no address, whereas with null columns, you just stick an address id in a customer record and let it be null. The approach with nulls is cleaner, as you can then add addresses to lots of things without modifying the address table, and you also get to share address records, which can save some space (addresses would have to be immutable for this).
Define valid. Seriously, in C, there's no portable value that's always invalid, and it usually depends on the runtime configuration. May as well use null.
Why not set up your servers in a DC? I don't think I'd want to have anything needing serious availability behind a link that I owned (unless I was big enough to have a DC myself).
So if I split the LVS services onto a separate set of hosts, will that work with TOE? I've got a similar setup for dev playtime.
Bob & Joe is better in this case than haMaster and haSlave, or serverA and serverB, etc.
Nah, Bob and Joe are people names - calling the DB servers FunkDB_A and FunkDB_B has some of the semantics you dislike, but establishing a habit of switching off from one to the other for maintenance and having a page saying which is 'live' can get past that.
Anonymity isn't really the important part here (no...seriously). It's, "What are you allowed to say?"
It really is - if you knew that something you said anonymously wasn't really anonymous, you might not say it, so there's a chilling effect with making it too easy to identify 'anonymous' posters.
Arguably, laws shouldn't exist regarding libel either (although I can see their purpose).
Good luck arguing that. Libel laws are why you get in trouble for saying 'tom is a felon' to a potential employer - if he isn't actually a felon, then your lie hurt him, and that shouldn't be allowed.
It was "substantiated" by 3 anonymous sources, but very shortly turned out to be entirely made up. And yet to this day, people still believe it, because it fits with their perception of Bush & his Administration.
That's news to me - I thought it had actually happened. It's like that forged letter that got Dan Rather in so much trouble - sure it wasn't actually legit, but it was what the base commander said he wanted to write at the time (presumably, that would've been politically sensitive).
Or it could be more like a grand jury, where they decide whether the matter is even worth the court's time.
The war situation could also have been avoided had George W Bush read his intelligence reports
Hell, he would've avoided the Iraq quagmire if he'd read his daddy's book. That's what really burns - his own father outlined the reasons for not invading and what would happen if he did.
Adding on to your chain if failure, the war situation could've been avoided had we not been waging a sort of covert war against the middle east for the past 100 years or so.
What's amazing is that if you get a laptop today, it won't have XP drivers because MS told the OEM not to. Fuckers - nothing MS past XP will go in my house.
Really? How is it his boss' decision? If you fire me then demand anything beyond a place to send the final paycheck, I'm acting out of kindness, and if my first encounter with you is idiot consultants demanding things without expectation and you undermining my work, good luck getting those passwords. I'd have done the same thing - if the mayor then gives boy wonder the keys to the kingdom, so be it. At least it's documented then.
How much would that be worth? I'm guessing 7 figures.
The "recommended for rehire" status should not be a given.. and there is nothing wrong with using that as leverage to the companies advantage. It's not exactly blackmail as much as an extra incentive to work on making the transition smoother for the company.
It's blackmail. "Do as we say or we'll tick the no-rehire box, which is really code for bad employee", except that do as we say means forced servitude, which is flat out illegal.
Childs was always willing to give over the passwords, just not to someone who posed a threat to the network (remember - fuck up the network and E911 can go down). He stated as such and handed them over to the Mayor months ago. Meanwhile, without the passwords, the network just ran itself. Regardless, you don't fire someone before getting the passwords taken care of.
Are you seriously suggesting that sysadmins as a class of people should have lower bail amounts in general vs. the general public?
Are you seriously suggesting that the bail is remotely justified?
Is it the truth that he was the only admin in the whole city who wasn't incompetent?
Just how many people do you think are competent to run a network the size of SF? Now, how many will be willing to work for the city of SF? I think it's possible, even plausible that he is the only one who knows the score, or at best on of very few.
Well, read the indictment and wait for the jury to answer that. The defense has not been able to convince a judge that the charges should be thrown out...
you missed the part where they threw out the big charge, and most of the other charges are for things that Childs had as part of his job. Seriously, modems?
You need to be able to prove it if he sues. Also, the old company has little to gain warning the next guy, but can incur a lot of expense if the employee does sue - it's just not worth it.
I didn't say that he owned the thing, just that it was his network to run, and he did with management's blessing for years. He wasn't one admin among many, he was the guy, with a bunch of other admins who broke things more than they fixed them. And yes, he is being railroaded - what do you call $5M bond for a sysadmin, firing someone, then demanding passwords at a police station with unknown parties present, and charging him with doing the things that he did as part of his duties. Again, what illegal thing did Childs do?
There has to be some sort of imminent threat, though. Why would you bother with a TRO from someone who you fired and isn't trying to do anything to you? I may as well get a TRO against my college roommate.