As much as I throughly dispise working with Windows' GUI, etc., I have seen, so far, one instance of a problem with a hard shutdown on NTFS. Other than that seems to hold its own as a journaling file system.
This is coming from doing lots and lots of hard reboots on Windows 2k* servers in a web hosting environment.
That does not mean other programs or hardware, i.e. SCSI RAID w/big caches on both the drives and the RAID card itself, might have a problem with such actions.
I can actually say that Microsoft has gotten journaling right with NTFS, even if it were to turn out that they license it from someone else (not claiming they do, just a conjecture).
Now, if they'll only change their stupid permissions schema.
Would you mind if I shared this, and your previous post, with the ACM chapter at my university (http://acm.uta.edu/)?
After Kernel Trap did their interview with Hans Reiser, we have been looking for good advice from experienced programmers. While we were originally looking at forming a base of questions to use in interviews, I think this sort of exchange is just as helpful.
I never thought I'd say this about an operating system, but, I feel at peace using FreeBSD. There was always something agitating about the Linux culture, like I wasn't sure if I was missing something. I think your comment about the "constant upgrade" is a facet of what I felt; like I was always driven to be ready for the next upgrade or whatnot.
Part of my move came after taking several CSE classes at http://cse.uta.edu/UTA and BSD seeming like it's actually engineered and purposed to be the way it is, instead of someone going about following the wind (but, that's pure conjecture... the wind part).
I have FreeBSD every where I need it:
At home: on the desktop and on a pre-production server
On a 300MHz PII laptop (does very well with Fluxbox and KDE apps) it's what I mainly use because BSD makes it quick enough
On my web-server
(thankfully) on my workstation (at work)
Another thing I can say about FreeBSD is that it seemed to run faster out of the box than my compiled Linux 2.6 Linux kernels did. This could just be an issue of the rest of my hardware (desktop at home). It's still nice to have that perception regardless.
Lastly, the documentation is excellent and thorough.
I actually used to be the same way, just not so often.
It slowed down significantly when I switched from Gentoo to Debian, which is when I started needing a system more as a tool than a toy. I don't mean to imply any thing. That's just the way I was/am.
Ultimately, all that stopped all together when I started using FreeBSD this last Summer.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I dispise in a "programmer": it's petty, full of selfishness, insecurity, and incompetence.
I thoroughly believe that if a "programmer" is worth his salt, he/she can do any project without fear of being canned when it's completed, not because they know their boss can't do without them, but because they know their skills are such that they are a valueable asset to any company.
And, I would HATE to work at a company, as a programmer, that did not recognize such behavior or allowed it to continue.
While this article can have lots of humor in it, it just brings up a point of contention I have had with former coworkers.
"Energy-momentum is what causes space-time to curve,..."
Just for clarification: So, gravity by itself doesn't cause space-time to curve?
A couple of other things:
1) Since the Earth is traveling so fast around the Sun itself, the spin of the Earth isn't like a basketball on Meadowlark Lemon's finger, as one might imagine it spinning on it's own axis, but is traveling in a linear fashion as it goes around the Sun; meaning, no point on the Earth is ever, relative to Space itself (and assuming Space has an exact center, if not, then, at least, the Milkyway having an exact center), to occupy the same 'space' twice.
Assuming the Milkyway is moving, as a galaxy, in some direction, perhaps even rotating around something, and that the Sun is assumed to be rotating around the center of the Milkyway, and the the Earth is rotating around the Sun... Doesn't that really mean that "spinning" is a perceived phenomena and not a reality? Instead, since the Milkyway (presumably) is traveling relative to Space itself, and the Sun is traveling around the center of the Milkyway, and then the Earth around the Sun, the best we can come to spinning is some form of zig-zagging through "Absolute Space" (assuming such a thing exists, if not then we can define it as "the center of all Space"). And,
2) If a ray of light is traveling through Space and is then deflected by an object, does the light ray, in any way, know that it has been deflected? If it were us and we were looking forward, we would 'see' our destination (who really knows what we would 'see' while traveling the speed of light) and light traveling from that destination would have also been deflected by an object that we, as a ray of light, would also be deflected by. Thus, wouldn't we seem to continue in the same path we were traveling in in the first place? Would a ray of light even notice it was being deflected?
So, finally, I think spinning is a poor choice of words for describing gravitational fields since it precludes the assumption that either the Sun is stationary relative to 'all Space' or 'the center of all Space' or the Earth is stationary. But, we know the answer to the later. Or, better yet, that we have sufficient knowledge about the Universe to know that our frame of reference, from Earth and this Solar System, is enough to preclude that we know that which is stationary. Which we can't know that because we likely do not really know the rotational period of the Sun about the Milkyway nor the movement of the Milkyway itself.
Despite how funny the parent post has been mod'ed, Vim, and Emacs as well, become very powerful when used on a very regular basis; there is just so much more that can be done with keyboard shortcuts and macros (macros set up via keyboard input and not openning window after window and then typing something in). In fact, just this morning I literally saved myself thousands of keystrokes by using Vim macros on a project of mine.
Especially if your job depends on it like it can with *nix webserver support and system administration.
But, if I did web developement much more often, like it was my job, I would at least use Quanta Plus. Again, a *nix product, but very, very good for a free, OSS product.
Please, what ever you do, don't just do it. All that leads to is opportunities to get your thought/logicp processes wrong, time and time again.
As a Computer Engineering student at UT Arlington, the best way I could have prepared myself for learning how to program was to learn logic, specifically: Discreet Structures. This will not only help you with high level language structures, like loops, but it is essential to understanding binary logic: the foundation of computer operations, it is also helpful in understanding and doing calculus, which you will have to take if you pursue an engineering degree.
For example, if you do not understand that the opposite of the color black is not the color white, then you will have trouble with binary logic and the structures and sets built there on.
It's ok to acustom yourself to programming languages. But, my point is that you understand the logic behind any computer language you learn.
If you want to use a book to learn a language, a good and challenging series can be found under the Dietel & Dietel authors.
If you want to tackle object oriented programming, go for learning Ruby; it's free, simple, powerful, and open source (not that the later is too critical unless you want to change the back end of it: requires much programming understanding).
Hope this helps.
P.S. The binary opposite of the color 'black' is 'not black'. The binary opposite of 'white' is 'not white'. The binary opposite of 'on' is 'not on', which is often defined as 'off'. Perhaps by the time you get into college, either the one you choose already teaches logic early on in the program or they will have when you get there.
With all due respect, there's a reason they make Toughbooks/Extreme-Condition-Notebooks differently than IBM makes Thinkpads. Stuff like sealing off the electronics from the elements.
Although, I heard back in the day that IBM laptops use to be designed to withstand a 6 foot drop.
I lived in southern Louisiana for 19 years, about 8 of them in New Orleans. I believe the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of all of the selfish Louisiana politians over the last (fill-in-the-blank) years.
I think this can be powerful enough to set some hearts right. Hopefully.
Both browsers display the code without a problem. I personally think Konqueror's display looks better. Perhaps because of the text in the lower right hand column when viewed in Firefox: the titles look too big..
Please help the McDonald's north of UTA: as I pulled up to purchase a hotfudge sundae at their drive through, I happened to see the BIOS out put as their system was rebooting... into Windows 95!
The guy at the payment window didn't find their use of Windows 95 as amusing as I did.
Go to a library and you can read up on how things are set up.
That's crazy, liberial talk: "I know better than you and since I don't think you know what you're talking about, I'll send you to where you can find out about it."
You then go on to contradict yourself and confirm what I posted:
You don't change the government or the politicians, you start by changing yourself and the people you know. It has the same effect.
Which is exactly why it's not money that solves problems; it's people.
As for those who do not care, they don't need money thrown at their problem, they need people who actually care, not a bruerocracy who's going to defy logic for the sake of sticking to their rules.
In other words: most problems are determinate on people's behavior as to whether they fester or are corrected. In fact, there are some problems that would be fixed in America if our government's money was taken away from them.
"A team of history ignorning crack-pots are proposing reintroducing large mammals such as elephants, lions, cheetahs and wild horses to North America to replace populations lost 13,000 years ago."
They died off for a reason and it most likely wasn't man's fault. Even if it was man's fault, it's still a stupid idea.
"Blindness" is such a strong and misleading representation for something that has every thing to do with attention, and thus, focus. After all, focus is where the fire is (or was, if you look at focus' etymology) of one's passion.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I throughly dispise working with Windows' GUI, etc., I have seen, so far, one instance of a problem with a hard shutdown on NTFS. Other than that seems to hold its own as a journaling file system.
This is coming from doing lots and lots of hard reboots on Windows 2k* servers in a web hosting environment.
That does not mean other programs or hardware, i.e. SCSI RAID w/big caches on both the drives and the RAID card itself, might have a problem with such actions.
I can actually say that Microsoft has gotten journaling right with NTFS, even if it were to turn out that they license it from someone else (not claiming they do, just a conjecture).
Now, if they'll only change their stupid permissions schema.
Thank you for your generous reply.
Would you mind if I shared this, and your previous post, with the ACM chapter at my university (http://acm.uta.edu/)?
After Kernel Trap did their interview with Hans Reiser, we have been looking for good advice from experienced programmers. While we were originally looking at forming a base of questions to use in interviews, I think this sort of exchange is just as helpful.
Again, thanks for your input.
You'll mostly see it on managed web servers for resellers.
That might even go down with the rise of CentOS.
Just how much would/could documentation of a codebase affect the fourth point about programmers (not) being 'interchangeable'?
-Thanks for the input.Just how much would/could documentation of a codebase affect your fourth point about programmers not being 'interchangeable'?
-Thanks for any input.Exactly.
I never thought I'd say this about an operating system, but, I feel at peace using FreeBSD. There was always something agitating about the Linux culture, like I wasn't sure if I was missing something. I think your comment about the "constant upgrade" is a facet of what I felt; like I was always driven to be ready for the next upgrade or whatnot.
Part of my move came after taking several CSE classes at http://cse.uta.edu/UTA and BSD seeming like it's actually engineered and purposed to be the way it is, instead of someone going about following the wind (but, that's pure conjecture... the wind part).
I have FreeBSD every where I need it:
Another thing I can say about FreeBSD is that it seemed to run faster out of the box than my compiled Linux 2.6 Linux kernels did. This could just be an issue of the rest of my hardware (desktop at home). It's still nice to have that perception regardless.
Lastly, the documentation is excellent and thorough.
I actually used to be the same way, just not so often.
It slowed down significantly when I switched from Gentoo to Debian, which is when I started needing a system more as a tool than a toy. I don't mean to imply any thing. That's just the way I was/am.
Ultimately, all that stopped all together when I started using FreeBSD this last Summer.
I've heard the same.
Except one in particular said he did it about every 6 months.
This is exactly the kind of behavior I dispise in a "programmer": it's petty, full of selfishness, insecurity, and incompetence.
I thoroughly believe that if a "programmer" is worth his salt, he/she can do any project without fear of being canned when it's completed, not because they know their boss can't do without them, but because they know their skills are such that they are a valueable asset to any company.
And, I would HATE to work at a company, as a programmer, that did not recognize such behavior or allowed it to continue.
While this article can have lots of humor in it, it just brings up a point of contention I have had with former coworkers.
"Energy-momentum is what causes space-time to curve,..."
Just for clarification: So, gravity by itself doesn't cause space-time to curve?
A couple of other things:
1) Since the Earth is traveling so fast around the Sun itself, the spin of the Earth isn't like a basketball on Meadowlark Lemon's finger, as one might imagine it spinning on it's own axis, but is traveling in a linear fashion as it goes around the Sun; meaning, no point on the Earth is ever, relative to Space itself (and assuming Space has an exact center, if not, then, at least, the Milkyway having an exact center), to occupy the same 'space' twice.
Assuming the Milkyway is moving, as a galaxy, in some direction, perhaps even rotating around something, and that the Sun is assumed to be rotating around the center of the Milkyway, and the the Earth is rotating around the Sun... Doesn't that really mean that "spinning" is a perceived phenomena and not a reality? Instead, since the Milkyway (presumably) is traveling relative to Space itself, and the Sun is traveling around the center of the Milkyway, and then the Earth around the Sun, the best we can come to spinning is some form of zig-zagging through "Absolute Space" (assuming such a thing exists, if not then we can define it as "the center of all Space"). And,
2) If a ray of light is traveling through Space and is then deflected by an object, does the light ray, in any way, know that it has been deflected? If it were us and we were looking forward, we would 'see' our destination (who really knows what we would 'see' while traveling the speed of light) and light traveling from that destination would have also been deflected by an object that we, as a ray of light, would also be deflected by. Thus, wouldn't we seem to continue in the same path we were traveling in in the first place? Would a ray of light even notice it was being deflected?
So, finally, I think spinning is a poor choice of words for describing gravitational fields since it precludes the assumption that either the Sun is stationary relative to 'all Space' or 'the center of all Space' or the Earth is stationary. But, we know the answer to the later. Or, better yet, that we have sufficient knowledge about the Universe to know that our frame of reference, from Earth and this Solar System, is enough to preclude that we know that which is stationary. Which we can't know that because we likely do not really know the rotational period of the Sun about the Milkyway nor the movement of the Milkyway itself.
They should have used TCP!
First off: thanks for the best, as in simple, succinct, and concrete, arguement against evolution I've, quite possibly, ever heard.
It's refreshing to hear a clear voice of reason over the muddled, presumptuous reasonings of, well... , many.
This is a keeper.
Despite how funny the parent post has been mod'ed, Vim, and Emacs as well, become very powerful when used on a very regular basis; there is just so much more that can be done with keyboard shortcuts and macros (macros set up via keyboard input and not openning window after window and then typing something in). In fact, just this morning I literally saved myself thousands of keystrokes by using Vim macros on a project of mine.
Especially if your job depends on it like it can with *nix webserver support and system administration.
But, if I did web developement much more often, like it was my job, I would at least use Quanta Plus. Again, a *nix product, but very, very good for a free, OSS product.
Please, what ever you do, don't just do it. All that leads to is opportunities to get your thought/logicp processes wrong, time and time again.
As a Computer Engineering student at UT Arlington, the best way I could have prepared myself for learning how to program was to learn logic, specifically: Discreet Structures. This will not only help you with high level language structures, like loops, but it is essential to understanding binary logic: the foundation of computer operations, it is also helpful in understanding and doing calculus, which you will have to take if you pursue an engineering degree.
For example, if you do not understand that the opposite of the color black is not the color white, then you will have trouble with binary logic and the structures and sets built there on.
It's ok to acustom yourself to programming languages. But, my point is that you understand the logic behind any computer language you learn.
If you want to use a book to learn a language, a good and challenging series can be found under the Dietel & Dietel authors.
If you want to tackle object oriented programming, go for learning Ruby; it's free, simple, powerful, and open source (not that the later is too critical unless you want to change the back end of it: requires much programming understanding).
Hope this helps.
P.S. The binary opposite of the color 'black' is 'not black'. The binary opposite of 'white' is 'not white'. The binary opposite of 'on' is 'not on', which is often defined as 'off'. Perhaps by the time you get into college, either the one you choose already teaches logic early on in the program or they will have when you get there.
Thus, implying as tough as the notebook mentioned by the previous poster.
With all due respect, there's a reason they make Toughbooks/Extreme-Condition-Notebooks differently than IBM makes Thinkpads. Stuff like sealing off the electronics from the elements.
Although, I heard back in the day that IBM laptops use to be designed to withstand a 6 foot drop.
Quite impressive.
I wonder how much the North Texas LUG had to do with this.
This is totally accurate.
I lived in southern Louisiana for 19 years, about 8 of them in New Orleans. I believe the burden of responsibility falls on the shoulders of all of the selfish Louisiana politians over the last (fill-in-the-blank) years.
I think this can be powerful enough to set some hearts right. Hopefully.
Both browsers display the code without a problem. I personally think Konqueror's display looks better. Perhaps because of the text in the lower right hand column when viewed in Firefox: the titles look too big..
Screw those cowards.
That was actually funny.
Please help the McDonald's north of UTA: as I pulled up to purchase a hotfudge sundae at their drive through, I happened to see the BIOS out put as their system was rebooting... into Windows 95!
The guy at the payment window didn't find their use of Windows 95 as amusing as I did.
Hmmm...
That's crazy, liberial talk: "I know better than you and since I don't think you know what you're talking about, I'll send you to where you can find out about it."
Which is exactly why it's not money that solves problems; it's people.You then go on to contradict yourself and confirm what I posted:
As for those who do not care, they don't need money thrown at their problem, they need people who actually care, not a bruerocracy who's going to defy logic for the sake of sticking to their rules.
Money doesn't fix 'problems'.
People do.
In other words: most problems are determinate on people's behavior as to whether they fester or are corrected. In fact, there are some problems that would be fixed in America if our government's money was taken away from them.
"A team of history ignorning crack-pots are proposing reintroducing large mammals such as elephants, lions, cheetahs and wild horses to North America to replace populations lost 13,000 years ago ."
They died off for a reason and it most likely wasn't man's fault. Even if it was man's fault, it's still a stupid idea.
You're absolutely right.
"Blindness" is such a strong and misleading representation for something that has every thing to do with attention, and thus, focus. After all, focus is where the fire is (or was, if you look at focus' etymology) of one's passion.