well - I'm somewhat confused here... initially I took it as Vista being a DHCP client and not working with some DHCP server implementations. But your wording above implies you're using Vista as a DHCP server? (Why on earth would you do that?)
And as to a switch not acting like a switch, that's no one's fault but the switch manufacturer, you can't blame any OS for that one.
I agree - why is there a trackpad? Surely that's redundant given the wacom tablet? But that's the least of this beasts problems.
It weighs in at a minimum 8.3 pounds. Battery life is not stated, but, given the alienware "desktop replacement laptop" I'd bet a 2 hour battery life will cause this to weigh in at over 10#s easy.
So, for comparison, a MBP 17" with same screen resolution and a 7200 rpm drive starts at about 2900. And you get 2-5 hours battery life (depending on what you're doing) at 1.5#s less weight.
The only thing we'll be waiting on is a quad core CPU. Then again, 4 cores won't do you any good if you'll only be able to run it for 30m on battery...
Not a single number in the doc, and couldn't find the referenced article at either referenced site. Horrible linkage. (Yes, I actually wanted to see the actual numbers... silly me)
I heard some versions of ISC dhcpd are not RFC compliant in a way that causes problems with Vista ).
It couldn't be because Vista is not compliant? (I don't know - Vista is a dead horse. As it is looking less likely every day that I'll ever run it, I care less and less about it.:)
Your other comments are interesting. As to the perceived concept that we're all in the top 10%, that's a common self-delusion. Many people are incapable of objective assessments of their own skills. So I'd agree with you that far more people think they're good coders than practice shows they are. My estimate is that roughly 1% of the programmers can actually program at a level I'd consider adequate for the enterprise.
As for hiring the "not so good", if you're really a top coder (which includes design/architecture btw) and you've done your work correctly, you will not be doing much maintenance on your code. What you're describing is, in fact, what architects do at most larger companies.
Well, throw in earlier animals, such as the various dinosaurs, and you'll get some interesting data points that will most likely lie outside your graphs. Add in the parrots that have actual vocabularies of over 100 words, and the entire premise falls apart.
"Actually there is a shortage of TALENTED IT people"
Seems there's a shortage of barely competent people, not just talented ones.
I'd agree with this statement, except I'd remove the word "barely". That aside, having been solely in IT for the last decade after a career switch, I'm still not sorry. As for being competitive with someone where $1.50 buys lunch, you betcha. You just have to be in the right company with the right mind set.
I've yet to see a +4 hour time difference result in a successful outsourced project, out of the roughly 30 I know of personally or extremely close second hand. It's amazing how little you can pay to get nothing done overseas. Or how much...
Then again, there are people that believe if it will take one (true) architect 6 months to complete a project, then surely 12 coders, 2 BAs, a PM, and a manager can get it done it less than 15 days.(The answer to this one is it will take longer than 12 months for the same work, if it ever is completed in the first place. If you outsource it overseas, it will take twice as many folks twice as long, but it will cost you only 60% per month.... yes, those folks are mathematically challenged.)
Let's put it this way - 4 months, 7 folks in India - net result - about 0 lines of usable code. 1 week 1 guy in the US - 2 usable widgets. 8 folks in india 1 ticket in 6 months vs 1 person in the US completing roughly 1 ticket every 2-3 days. A team of 12 in China over 7 months vs 2 folks in the US and 1 month. Those are real numbers from first hand experience over the past 8 years.
Yet boards continue to want us to outsource to "save money" ignoring the $/product cost, and only focusing on $/hour cost, assuming work output is equal. Our real problem are the MBAs who wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook with 2 transactions being in charge currently. Fortunately, MBAs appear to have fallen out of favor recently.
which in modern usage is only used for copyrights these days, and not even there very often. Too damn hard to read. (MCMXCIX as an example, or MCMLXXXVIII - quick - what's that?)
The problem is that even the $3/bottle micro and not so micro-brews around here are little better than fermented swamp water.
There are tons of breweries, brew houses, and micro-brews about, even in TX (for a later poster) and most are crap. (Note to future brewers - throwing lots of hops into your beer does not a good recipe make. Brewing excellent beer is a quest for balance. Any idiot can throw in two handfuls of hops)
Now, in a place like TX, there are further artficial barriers to entry, in the form of a forced middleman. The breweries have to sell to a distributor, who can only sell to stores. No direct sales allowed. Yet, somehow, Costco still manages to buy directly from (out of state) manufacturers and sell directly to consumers - yeah Costco!
But, to answer your first question - I've tried a lot of crap. I no longer have an interest in "free" beer, as there's usually a reason it's "free" - mainly, no one in their right mind will pay for it. You know you have a problem when someone takes a sip of a "free" beer, puts it down, and buys a $5 beer and walks off.
Thanks to your ever helpful Supreme Court, interstate commerce regulations are the sole province of the feds, and states cannot regulate out of state sales. So feel free to directly order that beer/wine/alcohol/car from an out of state manufacturer. (Those with in-state plants may be subject to state regulation)
So, question: Can you brew and distribute better beer, for less money? If so, why isn't someone already doing that?
Because there's this perceived "quality" associated with cost in the consumer's mind, and free can't possibly be as good as something that costs, say, $4. (I like Brugge and Westmalle Tripples, they are almost $5 per bottle, even in Belgium, their country of origin) If they were to offer their beer for $1/bottle, it's doubtful their clientelle would increase, and might even decrease, due to the perceived "value" of the beer. Sad, but true.
Wow - run from that job. Seriously, it sounds like no one there had a clue.
Oracle may suck, but it does run relatively securely (as does any other DB) if you follow proper procedures.
We had hot-failover oracle DB servers running in a 5 9s configuration for 3 years without any unscheduled downtime. There was no need to patch the DB because it was fully firewalled from everything except the application servers, and we could patch those in sequence without bringing down the entire system, or customers even realizing that we were doing so.
The entire point is that you can make anything secure, yes, even MS products with the possible exception of IIS/ASP apps, with proper system architecture design coupled with software architecture and application coding. Some are more onerous (MS) to do so. Some might require validating, security, and filtering front-ends to do so, but anything can be made relatively "secure". Note that doing so may limit certain types of functionality and access, so it becomes a balancing act of functionality vs security.
The programmer only needs to create the framework to accept inputs and process accordingly. Intelligence as we understand it is rarely wholly rational. I think this is why Neural Nets have failed to reach any state we would call intelligent, much less sentient. The framework is missing a key factor.
Now that is an interesting concept. Flood the data channel effortlessly and make them wonder why you're reading "4X4 Trucks" and "Interestesting uses of sheer in Interior Design".
Should provide some interesting sequencing on google search results. However, which one is recommended and works with FF 3.0? FasterFox is 2.0.
You apparently have no clue on how multi-cast works.
Broadcast is a case of where every user is a recipient for every available channel all the time.
Multi-cast is where each user subsrcibes to a specific channel or channels. Odds are very great that this would require significantly less bandwidth than the broadcast case above across a segment, and as long as the feed to the segment can carry the bandwidth you'd never hit a "channel unavailable" message.
yes - this is the correct answer and only answer I've been able to come to. SPs of all types only provide a drop to the exchange and their equipment at the exchange. The exchange owns everything from there to the houses. This allows for all sorts of interesting things to happen, like combined cabling for multitude of services, and swapping between providers. It would also end the monopolies overnight, because there no longer would be Verizon/ATT/TW/Comcast owned exchanges for phone/optical/coax cabling.
It does, of course, impact the bottom line for all those mega-corps, by removing their monopoly hold.
This actually comes up more often than you'd care to admit to. The fact that you can't delete a version, nor revert to a previous version in the tree and make it current are both reasons SVN fails miserably in the SCM world.
They're both minor though. Branching is SVN's major failure.
Okay, CVS sucks. SVN sucks just a little less. (Yes, SVN still sucks.)
That said, I'm not sure that I can offer a better solution than either of those for all cases. Clear Case is far superior if you're into branching. SVN blows big hairy balls when it comes to branching, although it is still better than CVS, which really only has the single claim to fame of being better than Source Safe. That's like poking yourself in the eye repeatedly. CC sucks on administration though.
All the others I'm familiar fail in such unimportant areas such as atomic commits. I personally love it when my SCM tells me I've committed a piece of code, the logs agree, but the builds break because the actual code is missing - MKS/Starteam I'm specfically talking about you!.
Basically, SCM is much like CMS (Content Management Systems) they all suck, it's just a question of which one sucks less for your particular needs. Just don't be fooled that it's actually "good".
Then again, my particular circumstances cover multiple different areas, several of which I'm loathe to claim.
It all depends upon project, scope, and capability of the programmers. Some things are simply too big for 1 or 2 programmers. Others cover too many areas.
Slashdot Mirror
same thing, really.
I have the flash plugin, even on my 64 bit linux box. I also have noscript. So, by default, I have no flash. (Requires script to run to load...)
Yes, it means if I want to see something in flash I need to manually load it, but I'd rather have that than a crashing system.
Don't install that plugin?
Seriously, I run noscript and a couple of dev plugins, and that's it with only rare lockups. This would be on OSX, Linux 64bit, and XP.
Now that was insightful!
well - I'm somewhat confused here... initially I took it as Vista being a DHCP client and not working with some DHCP server implementations. But your wording above implies you're using Vista as a DHCP server? (Why on earth would you do that?)
And as to a switch not acting like a switch, that's no one's fault but the switch manufacturer, you can't blame any OS for that one.
Ambiguities in RFCs? Say it isn't so!!! ;)
I agree - why is there a trackpad? Surely that's redundant given the wacom tablet? But that's the least of this beasts problems.
It weighs in at a minimum 8.3 pounds. Battery life is not stated, but, given the alienware "desktop replacement laptop" I'd bet a 2 hour battery life will cause this to weigh in at over 10#s easy.
So, for comparison, a MBP 17" with same screen resolution and a 7200 rpm drive starts at about 2900. And you get 2-5 hours battery life (depending on what you're doing) at 1.5#s less weight.
The only thing we'll be waiting on is a quad core CPU. Then again, 4 cores won't do you any good if you'll only be able to run it for 30m on battery...
Not a single number in the doc, and couldn't find the referenced article at either referenced site. Horrible linkage. (Yes, I actually wanted to see the actual numbers... silly me)
I heard some versions of ISC dhcpd are not RFC compliant in a way that causes problems with Vista ).
It couldn't be because Vista is not compliant? (I don't know - Vista is a dead horse. As it is looking less likely every day that I'll ever run it, I care less and less about it.:)
Your other comments are interesting. As to the perceived concept that we're all in the top 10%, that's a common self-delusion. Many people are incapable of objective assessments of their own skills. So I'd agree with you that far more people think they're good coders than practice shows they are. My estimate is that roughly 1% of the programmers can actually program at a level I'd consider adequate for the enterprise.
As for hiring the "not so good", if you're really a top coder (which includes design/architecture btw) and you've done your work correctly, you will not be doing much maintenance on your code. What you're describing is, in fact, what architects do at most larger companies.
Well, throw in earlier animals, such as the various dinosaurs, and you'll get some interesting data points that will most likely lie outside your graphs. Add in the parrots that have actual vocabularies of over 100 words, and the entire premise falls apart.
"Actually there is a shortage of TALENTED IT people"
Seems there's a shortage of barely competent people, not just talented ones.
I'd agree with this statement, except I'd remove the word "barely". That aside, having been solely in IT for the last decade after a career switch, I'm still not sorry. As for being competitive with someone where $1.50 buys lunch, you betcha. You just have to be in the right company with the right mind set.
I've yet to see a +4 hour time difference result in a successful outsourced project, out of the roughly 30 I know of personally or extremely close second hand. It's amazing how little you can pay to get nothing done overseas. Or how much...
Then again, there are people that believe if it will take one (true) architect 6 months to complete a project, then surely 12 coders, 2 BAs, a PM, and a manager can get it done it less than 15 days.(The answer to this one is it will take longer than 12 months for the same work, if it ever is completed in the first place. If you outsource it overseas, it will take twice as many folks twice as long, but it will cost you only 60% per month.... yes, those folks are mathematically challenged.)
Let's put it this way - 4 months, 7 folks in India - net result - about 0 lines of usable code. 1 week 1 guy in the US - 2 usable widgets. 8 folks in india 1 ticket in 6 months vs 1 person in the US completing roughly 1 ticket every 2-3 days. A team of 12 in China over 7 months vs 2 folks in the US and 1 month. Those are real numbers from first hand experience over the past 8 years.
Yet boards continue to want us to outsource to "save money" ignoring the $/product cost, and only focusing on $/hour cost, assuming work output is equal. Our real problem are the MBAs who wouldn't be able to balance a checkbook with 2 transactions being in charge currently. Fortunately, MBAs appear to have fallen out of favor recently.
which in modern usage is only used for copyrights these days, and not even there very often. Too damn hard to read. (MCMXCIX as an example, or MCMLXXXVIII - quick - what's that?)
milli = 1/1000.
Kilo = 1000
Ziegenbock?
The problem is that even the $3/bottle micro and not so micro-brews around here are little better than fermented swamp water.
There are tons of breweries, brew houses, and micro-brews about, even in TX (for a later poster) and most are crap. (Note to future brewers - throwing lots of hops into your beer does not a good recipe make. Brewing excellent beer is a quest for balance. Any idiot can throw in two handfuls of hops)
Now, in a place like TX, there are further artficial barriers to entry, in the form of a forced middleman. The breweries have to sell to a distributor, who can only sell to stores. No direct sales allowed. Yet, somehow, Costco still manages to buy directly from (out of state) manufacturers and sell directly to consumers - yeah Costco!
But, to answer your first question - I've tried a lot of crap. I no longer have an interest in "free" beer, as there's usually a reason it's "free" - mainly, no one in their right mind will pay for it. You know you have a problem when someone takes a sip of a "free" beer, puts it down, and buys a $5 beer and walks off.
Thanks to your ever helpful Supreme Court, interstate commerce regulations are the sole province of the feds, and states cannot regulate out of state sales. So feel free to directly order that beer/wine/alcohol/car from an out of state manufacturer. (Those with in-state plants may be subject to state regulation)
So, question: Can you brew and distribute better beer, for less money? If so, why isn't someone already doing that?
Because there's this perceived "quality" associated with cost in the consumer's mind, and free can't possibly be as good as something that costs, say, $4. (I like Brugge and Westmalle Tripples, they are almost $5 per bottle, even in Belgium, their country of origin) If they were to offer their beer for $1/bottle, it's doubtful their clientelle would increase, and might even decrease, due to the perceived "value" of the beer. Sad, but true.
Wow - run from that job. Seriously, it sounds like no one there had a clue.
Oracle may suck, but it does run relatively securely (as does any other DB) if you follow proper procedures.
We had hot-failover oracle DB servers running in a 5 9s configuration for 3 years without any unscheduled downtime. There was no need to patch the DB because it was fully firewalled from everything except the application servers, and we could patch those in sequence without bringing down the entire system, or customers even realizing that we were doing so.
The entire point is that you can make anything secure, yes, even MS products with the possible exception of IIS/ASP apps, with proper system architecture design coupled with software architecture and application coding. Some are more onerous (MS) to do so. Some might require validating, security, and filtering front-ends to do so, but anything can be made relatively "secure". Note that doing so may limit certain types of functionality and access, so it becomes a balancing act of functionality vs security.
The programmer only needs to create the framework to accept inputs and process accordingly. Intelligence as we understand it is rarely wholly rational. I think this is why Neural Nets have failed to reach any state we would call intelligent, much less sentient. The framework is missing a key factor.
you forgot "you insensitive clod!"
Now that is an interesting concept. Flood the data channel effortlessly and make them wonder why you're reading "4X4 Trucks" and "Interestesting uses of sheer in Interior Design".
Should provide some interesting sequencing on google search results. However, which one is recommended and works with FF 3.0? FasterFox is 2.0.
You apparently have no clue on how multi-cast works.
Broadcast is a case of where every user is a recipient for every available channel all the time.
Multi-cast is where each user subsrcibes to a specific channel or channels. Odds are very great that this would require significantly less bandwidth than the broadcast case above across a segment, and as long as the feed to the segment can carry the bandwidth you'd never hit a "channel unavailable" message.
If they'd just use that little built-in feature that allows multi-casting, they wouldn't need to care about cable bandwidth.
yes - this is the correct answer and only answer I've been able to come to. SPs of all types only provide a drop to the exchange and their equipment at the exchange. The exchange owns everything from there to the houses. This allows for all sorts of interesting things to happen, like combined cabling for multitude of services, and swapping between providers. It would also end the monopolies overnight, because there no longer would be Verizon/ATT/TW/Comcast owned exchanges for phone/optical/coax cabling.
It does, of course, impact the bottom line for all those mega-corps, by removing their monopoly hold.
All righty then, let's run out and test git immediately. :)
Although I've heard of other issues, I'll give it a test run. SVN/CVS/CC/MKS/StarTeam/SS have all sucked rocks so far.
This actually comes up more often than you'd care to admit to. The fact that you can't delete a version, nor revert to a previous version in the tree and make it current are both reasons SVN fails miserably in the SCM world.
They're both minor though. Branching is SVN's major failure.
Okay, CVS sucks. SVN sucks just a little less. (Yes, SVN still sucks.)
That said, I'm not sure that I can offer a better solution than either of those for all cases. Clear Case is far superior if you're into branching. SVN blows big hairy balls when it comes to branching, although it is still better than CVS, which really only has the single claim to fame of being better than Source Safe. That's like poking yourself in the eye repeatedly. CC sucks on administration though.
All the others I'm familiar fail in such unimportant areas such as atomic commits. I personally love it when my SCM tells me I've committed a piece of code, the logs agree, but the builds break because the actual code is missing - MKS/Starteam I'm specfically talking about you!.
Basically, SCM is much like CMS (Content Management Systems) they all suck, it's just a question of which one sucks less for your particular needs. Just don't be fooled that it's actually "good".
I'd say 5-7.
Then again, my particular circumstances cover multiple different areas, several of which I'm loathe to claim.
It all depends upon project, scope, and capability of the programmers. Some things are simply too big for 1 or 2 programmers. Others cover too many areas.