Perhaps you should RTFA. They isolated the security-sensitive parts such that most fixes wouldn't touch them, and thus could be applied without revalidation.
Slashdot also has lots of systems-level types, for whom user mode linux is a damn powerful tool but who often don't hold with that whole modeling-language idea.
No real reason to cater to one audiance over the other -- I think it's perfectly reasonable for folks to actually (say) check what the UML link points at and run from context.
I don't have numbers (you can request them from Sistina's web site only after telling them who you are and why you care), but:
Back when I was at MontaVista and we were building our compile cluster with a GFS-based SAN backend, GFS was fast enough that the guy who was in charge of the cluster project spent more time telling me about why GFS was cool than about why it sucked. Given the individual in question, this in and of itself was substantially impressive.
The company usually has the ability to call the options - that is, demand payment of the strike price - the average employee holding 20,000 options at $5 is probably going to be hard put to come up with $100,000 if demanded of him - most people would have to borrow on it, and you'll find few banks willing to loan against a privately held stock.
But not always. The startup I work for issues options with a trivial (tenth-of-a-cent?) strike price in lieu of a good chunk of pay. In these cases, the line between "option" and "stock" isn't quite so well-defined.
The Linux equivalent would be moving GTK calls (not X calls, but GTK calls) over the wire. Because these are higher-level, they transfer much less data over the wire than moving your lower-level X calls (or VNC's encoding of the raw data, which also can't take advantage of anything above the bitplane layer).
The free clients just also implement these higher-level, lower-bandwidth constructs, which is why they're still able to work.
Sure, it's reasonable for a government official to request ID when reasonably required for some service, and to refuse service when that ID is not provided. That's not remotely the same thing as being required to provide ID on demand or be arrested.
I think the parent meant "any arbitrary" situation" rather than "any situation at all". They're dramatically different statements, and the former is vastly more reasonable than the latter.
I disagree -- while I traditionally (barring an ongoing, very happy relationship) have had substantial difficulties communicating with women, I've had no such difficulties whatsoever when in a professional environment.
That may have something to do with the fact that the women I've worked with have all been explicitly off-limits for one reason or another, and have considered me likewise, so there was never any reason for my "talking-to-a-woman" habits and memes (which have traditionally resulted in severe misunderstandings if not worse) to override my usual "talking-to-a-coworker" memes, which have always worked quite well.
Personally, I disagree that there's any kind of inherent difficulty in communicating between people of different genders -- as long as both parties aren't thinking of the other (consciously or otherwise) as someone to impress or otherwise treat differently on account of their gender.
Right, like a woman is ever going to be the boss in a embedded systems team.
Huh? The best manager I've ever had was Sandy Hoag, when she was the VP of Engineering back at MontaVista (MontaVista being, as you may recall, an embedded software company).
Consequently, I can say with certainty that the chauvinistic horseshit in your post is empirically wrong.
"Linux" is a trademark held by Linus Torvalds. General-purpose slander may not work, but there *are* specialized slander-of- torts.
The GPL may promote a number of freedoms (at the expense of some others), but freedom-of-speech, in this context (that is, speech <I>about</I> the software, rather than speech <I>containing</I> the software), is pretty much orthoganal to it.
"Starship Troopers" is an excellent example in aking his point, and I think you do a severe disservice in ignoring it.
The book was, largely, political in nature -- it made a particular point, and made it extremely effectively. The movie, on the other hand, made an almost completely opposing argument (as well as ripping out the cool technology and such).
Starship Troopers the movie wasn't really an adaptation at all, as much as it was a completely different movie making a completely different point from a completely different perspective with different characters in different settings using different technology. The settings, the technology -- some differences there are tolerable. Completely and utterly rewriting the moral of the story, on the other hand, isn't.
And I think I have an honest reason to be pissed off at the folks who made the movie. Not only did they for all intents and purposes defame a fantastic author (not to myself -- that doesn't matter -- but to all the people who *haven't* read his work), but they took a work -- an excellent work that was written with a purpose -- destroyed the purpose, took out the nifty bits, and left a movie that's at most memorable for the brief nudity it included.
I may not be owed anything -- but the memory of Robert A. Heinlein is, and it's been severely shortchanged.
Well, yes, but the GUI issues are something completely different -- specifically, that Sun has no clue how to write a decent widget set, and insists on going either too far in one direction (AWT -- only supplying widgets available natively on every supported platform) or too far in another (Swing -- emulating every widget even on platforms where they're available natively).
These benchmarks *didn't* include things like opening windows and so forth, and I think that's appropriate. Anyone who cares about writing a graphical Java app with decent performance should be using a different widget set anyhow, like IBM's SWT.
It's not as big of a boost as you might think, because not infrequently you'll be reading enough data to require two consecutive stripes to be read (anything that crosses a typically 64k boundary).
Then you can be penalized for seeking your heads independently, because you need to pay your seek time separately for the second 64k of a given read.
While attending CSU Chico I interned at MontaVista Software. Unlike everywhere else I had been (including the university), my peers there were, by and large, my betters. This made it a fantastic learning experience -- I had the opportunity to do everything from design and development of internal-use tools to software porting, low-level kernel debugging, and quite a bit more, all in an environment full of people who knew these areas better than I. (At one point I found myself sitting next to Robert Love at lunch, while he was working on the preemptive kernel patch. The "regulars" also included Paul Mundt, maintainer for the MIPS and SH ports of Linux, and a vast number of PPC kernel hackers).
My time in university made me better at what I now do -- I wouldn't have learned the finer points of database schema normalization otherwise, and would still consider the CPU a black box. All that said, though, if I had to point to one period in time of intense personal development, it would be my internship with MontaVista. (The ego correction from working with so many people so much better than me was a much-needed thing, too).
If you read the article: The outside of the tank isn't live; it's an inner second layer of the armor that is electrified. So no, it does nothing about folks jumping on the tank, but it's also not at risk of being shorted by debris.
Wow, that's a bit harsh... one web forum does not represent lefty opinion, particularly one that names itself the "underground."
I don't think he was describing all lefties as "Internet bottom feeders", but rather all ultra-radical political whackos (on either side of the spectrum).
There's a fallacy for that, though it's been long 'nuff since my logic classes that I don't recall the name. To restate it, though: Inability to draw an exact line where something starts or ends doesn't mean that the thing in question doesn't exist.
Let's say that, for our purposes, a "serious tech guy" is actually defined roughly as an "average power user". (I think that anything that can't be removed by an average power user is pretty clearly bloat, so this is perhaps a useful clarification).
Sure, "average power user" is a bit fuzzy too, but perhaps it gives you a better idea where *I* stand in my "not unreasonable" analysis.
No. Per his definition, if the serious under-the-hood types couldn't ditch Konquerer for another browser, it would then be bloat. What the average serious tech type chooses to do is irrelevant (per said definition).
I don't think this definition is inherently unreasonable.
Huh? You're doing your development session, and you tell Emacs you want to grep your code for comments with that keyword; grep comes back with *an association* of keyword locations to comments.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should RTFA. They isolated the security-sensitive parts such that most fixes wouldn't touch them, and thus could be applied without revalidation.
Slashdot also has lots of systems-level types, for whom user mode linux is a damn powerful tool but who often don't hold with that whole modeling-language idea.
No real reason to cater to one audiance over the other -- I think it's perfectly reasonable for folks to actually (say) check what the UML link points at and run from context.
I don't have numbers (you can request them from Sistina's web site only after telling them who you are and why you care), but:
Back when I was at MontaVista and we were building our compile cluster with a GFS-based SAN backend, GFS was fast enough that the guy who was in charge of the cluster project spent more time telling me about why GFS was cool than about why it sucked. Given the individual in question, this in and of itself was substantially impressive.
The company usually has the ability to call the options - that is, demand payment of the strike price - the average employee holding 20,000 options at $5 is probably going to be hard put to come up with $100,000 if demanded of him - most people would have to borrow on it, and you'll find few banks willing to loan against a privately held stock.
But not always. The startup I work for issues options with a trivial (tenth-of-a-cent?) strike price in lieu of a good chunk of pay. In these cases, the line between "option" and "stock" isn't quite so well-defined.
They bought this technology when they bought Sistina. Sistina has been working on GFS for a long time.
Oh, that's easy. It's all in the wire protocol.
The Linux equivalent would be moving GTK calls (not X calls, but GTK calls) over the wire. Because these are higher-level, they transfer much less data over the wire than moving your lower-level X calls (or VNC's encoding of the raw data, which also can't take advantage of anything above the bitplane layer).
The free clients just also implement these higher-level, lower-bandwidth constructs, which is why they're still able to work.
TightVNC is still horrifically slow (and somewhat bandwidth-consumptive) compared to RDP -- try them side-by-side some time.
Sure, it's reasonable for a government official to request ID when reasonably required for some service, and to refuse service when that ID is not provided. That's not remotely the same thing as being required to provide ID on demand or be arrested.
I think the parent meant "any arbitrary" situation" rather than "any situation at all". They're dramatically different statements, and the former is vastly more reasonable than the latter.
Hrm.
I disagree -- while I traditionally (barring an ongoing, very happy relationship) have had substantial difficulties communicating with women, I've had no such difficulties whatsoever when in a professional environment.
That may have something to do with the fact that the women I've worked with have all been explicitly off-limits for one reason or another, and have considered me likewise, so there was never any reason for my "talking-to-a-woman" habits and memes (which have traditionally resulted in severe misunderstandings if not worse) to override my usual "talking-to-a-coworker" memes, which have always worked quite well.
Personally, I disagree that there's any kind of inherent difficulty in communicating between people of different genders -- as long as both parties aren't thinking of the other (consciously or otherwise) as someone to impress or otherwise treat differently on account of their gender.
Right, like a woman is ever going to be the boss in a embedded systems team.
Huh? The best manager I've ever had was Sandy Hoag, when she was the VP of Engineering back at MontaVista (MontaVista being, as you may recall, an embedded software company).
Consequently, I can say with certainty that the chauvinistic horseshit in your post is empirically wrong.
"Linux" is a trademark held by Linus Torvalds. General-purpose slander may not work, but there *are* specialized slander-of- torts.
The GPL may promote a number of freedoms (at the expense of some others), but freedom-of-speech, in this context (that is, speech <I>about</I> the software, rather than speech <I>containing</I> the software), is pretty much orthoganal to it.
"Starship Troopers" is an excellent example in aking his point, and I think you do a severe disservice in ignoring it.
The book was, largely, political in nature -- it made a particular point, and made it extremely effectively. The movie, on the other hand, made an almost completely opposing argument (as well as ripping out the cool technology and such).
Starship Troopers the movie wasn't really an adaptation at all, as much as it was a completely different movie making a completely different point from a completely different perspective with different characters in different settings using different technology. The settings, the technology -- some differences there are tolerable. Completely and utterly rewriting the moral of the story, on the other hand, isn't.
And I think I have an honest reason to be pissed off at the folks who made the movie. Not only did they for all intents and purposes defame a fantastic author (not to myself -- that doesn't matter -- but to all the people who *haven't* read his work), but they took a work -- an excellent work that was written with a purpose -- destroyed the purpose, took out the nifty bits, and left a movie that's at most memorable for the brief nudity it included.
I may not be owed anything -- but the memory of Robert A. Heinlein is, and it's been severely shortchanged.
Well, yes, but the GUI issues are something completely different -- specifically, that Sun has no clue how to write a decent widget set, and insists on going either too far in one direction (AWT -- only supplying widgets available natively on every supported platform) or too far in another (Swing -- emulating every widget even on platforms where they're available natively).
These benchmarks *didn't* include things like opening windows and so forth, and I think that's appropriate. Anyone who cares about writing a graphical Java app with decent performance should be using a different widget set anyhow, like IBM's SWT.
I think you're responding to someone who's not me -- perhaps a sibling to my post?
(BTW, our new DB server here uses a 3ware Escalade; we're very, very happy with its performance)
It's not as big of a boost as you might think, because not infrequently you'll be reading enough data to require two consecutive stripes to be read (anything that crosses a typically 64k boundary).
Then you can be penalized for seeking your heads independently, because you need to pay your seek time separately for the second 64k of a given read.
While attending CSU Chico I interned at MontaVista Software. Unlike everywhere else I had been (including the university), my peers there were, by and large, my betters. This made it a fantastic learning experience -- I had the opportunity to do everything from design and development of internal-use tools to software porting, low-level kernel debugging, and quite a bit more, all in an environment full of people who knew these areas better than I. (At one point I found myself sitting next to Robert Love at lunch, while he was working on the preemptive kernel patch. The "regulars" also included Paul Mundt, maintainer for the MIPS and SH ports of Linux, and a vast number of PPC kernel hackers).
My time in university made me better at what I now do -- I wouldn't have learned the finer points of database schema normalization otherwise, and would still consider the CPU a black box. All that said, though, if I had to point to one period in time of intense personal development, it would be my internship with MontaVista. (The ego correction from working with so many people so much better than me was a much-needed thing, too).
I scanned the grandparent post, but missed the premise. Oops.
If you read the article: The outside of the tank isn't live; it's an inner second layer of the armor that is electrified. So no, it does nothing about folks jumping on the tank, but it's also not at risk of being shorted by debris.
Wow, that's a bit harsh... one web forum does not represent lefty opinion, particularly one that names itself the "underground."
I don't think he was describing all lefties as "Internet bottom feeders", but rather all ultra-radical political whackos (on either side of the spectrum).
There's a fallacy for that, though it's been long 'nuff since my logic classes that I don't recall the name. To restate it, though: Inability to draw an exact line where something starts or ends doesn't mean that the thing in question doesn't exist.
Let's say that, for our purposes, a "serious tech guy" is actually defined roughly as an "average power user". (I think that anything that can't be removed by an average power user is pretty clearly bloat, so this is perhaps a useful clarification).
Sure, "average power user" is a bit fuzzy too, but perhaps it gives you a better idea where *I* stand in my "not unreasonable" analysis.
No. Per his definition, if the serious under-the-hood types couldn't ditch Konquerer for another browser, it would then be bloat. What the average serious tech type chooses to do is irrelevant (per said definition).
I don't think this definition is inherently unreasonable.
I don't care if it was IBM, or even the FSF -- this is still a bad patent, and shouldn't have been granted, no matter who it is.
Huh? You're doing your development session, and you tell Emacs you want to grep your code for comments with that keyword; grep comes back with *an association* of keyword locations to comments.
I don't see how you claim this isn't covered.