Well I hire too, and I do not hire humorless and dispropotionate people like yourself who do not understand what professionalism means, but do revel in the limited private power granted to you by an employer as if it includes some kind of moral authority.
Making some lowbrow jokes on a volunteer project is not a crime, and it does not merit being added to an extrajudicial employment black list.
I don't use it exclusively, but these features are what swung me.
1) mini map - a godsend when understanding quickly the structure of large files, particularly those you are lumbered with
2) slick multi-select and edit
3) fast search all files and interactive step though
4) same L&F on Mac, Windows, Linux since I need to use all three.
> GPS refers specifically to the system implemented by the NAVSTAR satellite constellation operated by the United States Air Force,
> has for decades, and no one in the industry uses the term to refer to anything else.
If an org wants to have domain squatting rights on the English language, maybe it could fucking well name its shit more creatively. It would be like a dreary large computer company calling their product the Personal Computer. If they made bread, they'd probably call it "Bread".
20-30MB is larger than the deployment for enterprise applications I've written / worked on and would describe as "sprawling", but which also helpfully include substantial functionality and do useful work.
Adding that to every application download, and installing dozens of "WORA" libraries on every machine is way beyond being a little suboptimal (it's a nice demonstration of Java having completely failed to deliver on its original goals though).
> I mean, forgive me, but it seems that this is a vast improvement. Who wants a > system that's basically a collection of scripts? That just seems so fragile and un-documentable.
Did someone tell you "script" is a bad word?
You have a choice to keep this represented in a higher layer (text file scripts laid out sensibly written in a high-level architecture-independent language), or as a set of compiled binaries forming a monolithic Windows-style system with a multiplicity of hidden inference rules.
And the current init files can be improved if you don't like the layout or want to make new facilities available - do you think it's impossible to add dependency graph tracking in a way that is accessible to scripts rather than having a "registry"?
> Why would you want to convert rich information into a string and shove it down a pipe before you make use of it?
I think you've lost sight of the purpose of an OS and the purpose of logs. An OS is not running for the sake of running an OS, and logs are not persistent structured application data, but ad-hoc information about the behaviour of the system for human consumption.
They need to be filtered, sliced, and flattened as needed *post-facto* to be of any use. Given that you don't even know what I want to log, from where, how is that going to be normalised in a centralized journal? Will it let me query by anything more than straight filter on app or PID etc - like I can already do?
> programmers need to start being held accountable for the quality of their work. They are.
But I guess you mean that people who aren't paying for your work, and companies which aren't paying for the processes and professional services necessary for some level of quality, should hold programmers who don't have any kind of engineering or financial relationship with them accountable.
> If that really worked, there would be no QA dept. for software. No, that's just poor reasoning.
Quality must be built-in, not added-on. QA expectations and improvement scope are largely imposed on any QA department, therefore the level of 'quality' reached can never be an absolute bar.
Developers in general need to minimise the vector product of bug count/severity that could be exposed before it gets to QA. This allows the bar to be raised, and focus to be spent on where it should be rather than catching obvious mistakes, or dealing with unnecessary performance/cognitive/configuration complexity.
What does "better" mean? Apart from the fact that the beta sucks, what was it being changed for? Better doesn't mean more javascript, flat shading, loss of features or links to web2.0 junk I'm not interested in.
I lurked for a long time, joined a long time ago (this isn't my original UID, which I can't remember).
There isn't anything wrong with Classic. It's probably the only discussion site which is worth checking daily, includes a diverse interesting and clued-in community of people, works quickly, self-limits the sillier side, and works on any browser platform.
Better to me means quicker, retains old members + fresh blood, works on even more browser platforms.
"Although we see no startling breakthroughs, and indeed, believe such to be incompatible with the nature of software, many encouraging innovations are under way. A disciplined, consistent effort to develop, propagate, and exploit them should indeed yield an order-of-magnitude improvement."
-- Brooks
I can't agree this was the least right of all of his predictions - he said exactly what you intimated he was wrong about. On that, he was bang on, and it's less surprising since it was an epistemological prediction. The area he was least right about was the rate of technological progress, which is much less fundamental, and therefore underestimated how quickly tools, storage, and compting speed would increase, with a consequent impact on the size of development team, production of documents, automation of testing and so on.
It still doesn't work - if the poor performance was realised in the exit price for selling stockholders, they were at fault since they had governance, no matter how poor, over the firm.
If the poor performance wasn't factored in the exit price, the selling stockholders suffered no loss, but the current stockholders did.
Lastly institutional investors are also professional investors, and should not be investing unless they have believe they have appropriate governance and so forth,
But your last point rings true. All that matters is where there are pools of money to go after, the logic of it be damned.
It doesn't make sense to allow this kind of action.
If there is a valid case on behalf of investors, is the money paid to come from IBM? If only some investors are paid, they have found a way to subordinate the other investors holdings to their interests. If they are able to proportionally remove any holdings by responsible executives, you'd better hope it's less than the lawyers get. If all investors are paid, they will receive "their own money" in a different form, again less the take from the lawyers.
So the only way this would make any kind of sense is if the action was against the board or executives in their own capacity, or e.g. banks or auditors who did not meet their professional obligations.
That could only be the case if you deliberately run everything you buy until it breaks.
Even as a single individual I have had experience of owning probably over 100 hard drives over 30 years. The vast majority were still working correctly when I end-of-lifed them, after 2, 5, or in some cases 10 years.
So... 1) dramatic variation: uneven enforcement OR uneven adherence to regulations? 2) low variation: no-one is looking OR that violations are petty and adherence is relatively good?
We need to understand which case it actually is - otherwise we are pressuring the overseers to "fix" the problem by gaming the numbers or having a quota of violations found.
HP and MS should always have been taking notes - IBM is wiser, older, slicker. It's been on the radar for years that the money won't be in hardware - how could it be if you end up competing with Dell, HP, Samsung et al in the race of a thousand discounts to be the bottom?
What they are doing looks like a very (relatively) well-executed multi-year strategy. Consumer hardware would have always gone first, since the margin isn't there when you don't own the space vertically. There will be still be significant opportunities in upselling services once you've got your enterprise hardware foot in the door, and it avoids spooking your corporate customers, so if you have non-commodity hardware, you may as well sell it.
Buying established companies in infrastructure and the enabling software stack is the expensive but least risky way to position themselves. I'd say they are banking on a permanent change to enterprise software, including coding practices, to establish themselves as the premium provider on the mission critical/high availability/high performance side for a very long time.
Slashdot Mirror
Well I hire too, and I do not hire humorless and dispropotionate people like yourself who do not understand what professionalism means, but do revel in the limited private power granted to you by an employer as if it includes some kind of moral authority. Making some lowbrow jokes on a volunteer project is not a crime, and it does not merit being added to an extrajudicial employment black list.
Is your argument that appropriateness is dependent on your taste?
I don't use it exclusively, but these features are what swung me. 1) mini map - a godsend when understanding quickly the structure of large files, particularly those you are lumbered with 2) slick multi-select and edit 3) fast search all files and interactive step though 4) same L&F on Mac, Windows, Linux since I need to use all three.
> GPS refers specifically to the system implemented by the NAVSTAR satellite constellation operated by the United States Air Force, > has for decades, and no one in the industry uses the term to refer to anything else. If an org wants to have domain squatting rights on the English language, maybe it could fucking well name its shit more creatively. It would be like a dreary large computer company calling their product the Personal Computer. If they made bread, they'd probably call it "Bread".
So? That book is not universally regarded by many grammarians (note the passive voice).
Computers are not an American invention. You did well though to nab Germans to build rockets for you.
20-30MB is larger than the deployment for enterprise applications I've written / worked on and would describe as "sprawling", but which also helpfully include substantial functionality and do useful work.
Adding that to every application download, and installing dozens of "WORA" libraries on every machine is way beyond being a little suboptimal (it's a nice demonstration of Java having completely failed to deliver on its original goals though).
> I mean, forgive me, but it seems that this is a vast improvement. Who wants a
> system that's basically a collection of scripts? That just seems so fragile and un-documentable.
Did someone tell you "script" is a bad word?
You have a choice to keep this represented in a higher layer (text file scripts laid out sensibly written in a high-level architecture-independent language), or as a set of compiled binaries forming a monolithic Windows-style system with a multiplicity of hidden inference rules.
And the current init files can be improved if you don't like the layout or want to make new facilities available - do you think it's impossible to add dependency graph tracking in a way that is accessible to scripts rather than having a "registry"?
> instead of bombing my system back into the 60s.
Ironically we were going to the Moon in the 60s and had supersonic passenger flight. We don't now.
> Why would you want to convert rich information into a string and shove it down a pipe before you make use of it?
I think you've lost sight of the purpose of an OS and the purpose of logs. An OS is not running for the sake of running an OS, and logs are not persistent structured application data, but ad-hoc information about the behaviour of the system for human consumption.
They need to be filtered, sliced, and flattened as needed *post-facto* to be of any use. Given that you don't even know what I want to log, from where, how is that going to be normalised in a centralized journal? Will it let me query by anything more than straight filter on app or PID etc - like I can already do?
> programmers need to start being held accountable for the quality of their work.
They are.
But I guess you mean that people who aren't paying for your work, and companies which aren't paying for the processes and professional services necessary for some level of quality, should hold programmers who don't have any kind of engineering or financial relationship with them accountable.
> If that really worked, there would be no QA dept. for software.
No, that's just poor reasoning.
Quality must be built-in, not added-on. QA expectations and improvement scope are largely imposed on any QA department, therefore the level of 'quality' reached can never be an absolute bar.
Developers in general need to minimise the vector product of bug count/severity that could be exposed before it gets to QA. This allows the bar to be raised, and focus to be spent on where it should be rather than catching obvious mistakes, or dealing with unnecessary performance/cognitive/configuration complexity.
What does "better" mean? Apart from the fact that the beta sucks, what was it being changed for? Better doesn't mean more javascript, flat shading, loss of features or links to web2.0 junk I'm not interested in.
I lurked for a long time, joined a long time ago (this isn't my original UID, which I can't remember).
There isn't anything wrong with Classic. It's probably the only discussion site which is worth checking daily, includes a diverse interesting and clued-in community of people, works quickly, self-limits the sillier side, and works on any browser platform.
Better to me means quicker, retains old members + fresh blood, works on even more browser platforms.
There we go, have we helped define it?
Next time I log onto slashdot, if it directs me to beta, I'm not coming back.
40 double D.
> People are biased, sterotyping assholes.
Indeed.
> I have very few complaints.
Couldn't find your email program, huh?
"Although we see no startling breakthroughs, and indeed, believe such to be incompatible with the nature of software, many encouraging innovations are under way. A disciplined, consistent effort to develop, propagate, and exploit them should indeed yield an order-of-magnitude improvement."
-- Brooks
I can't agree this was the least right of all of his predictions - he said exactly what you intimated he was wrong about. On that, he was bang on, and it's less surprising since it was an epistemological prediction. The area he was least right about was the rate of technological progress, which is much less fundamental, and therefore underestimated how quickly tools, storage, and compting speed would increase, with a consequent impact on the size of development team, production of documents, automation of testing and so on.
It still doesn't work - if the poor performance was realised in the exit price for selling stockholders, they were at fault since they had governance, no matter how poor, over the firm.
If the poor performance wasn't factored in the exit price, the selling stockholders suffered no loss, but the current stockholders did.
Lastly institutional investors are also professional investors, and should not be investing unless they have believe they have appropriate governance and so forth,
But your last point rings true. All that matters is where there are pools of money to go after, the logic of it be damned.
It doesn't make sense to allow this kind of action.
If there is a valid case on behalf of investors, is the money paid to come from IBM? If only some investors are paid, they have found a way to subordinate the other investors holdings to their interests. If they are able to proportionally remove any holdings by responsible executives, you'd better hope it's less than the lawyers get.
If all investors are paid, they will receive "their own money" in a different form, again less the take from the lawyers.
So the only way this would make any kind of sense is if the action was against the board or executives in their own capacity, or e.g. banks or auditors who did not meet their professional obligations.
That could only be the case if you deliberately run everything you buy until it breaks.
Even as a single individual I have had experience of owning probably over 100 hard drives over 30 years. The vast majority were still working correctly when I end-of-lifed them, after 2, 5, or in some cases 10 years.
So...
1) dramatic variation: uneven enforcement OR uneven adherence to regulations?
2) low variation: no-one is looking OR that violations are petty and adherence is relatively good?
We need to understand which case it actually is - otherwise we are pressuring the overseers to "fix" the problem by gaming the numbers or having a quota of violations found.
No, I was agreeing with him.
You posted that only because you _like_ thinking you've spread a little light. Selfish bastard.
HP and MS should always have been taking notes - IBM is wiser, older, slicker. It's been on the radar for years that the money won't be in hardware - how could it be if you end up competing with Dell, HP, Samsung et al in the race of a thousand discounts to be the bottom?
What they are doing looks like a very (relatively) well-executed multi-year strategy. Consumer hardware would have always gone first, since the margin isn't there when you don't own the space vertically. There will be still be significant opportunities in upselling services once you've got your enterprise hardware foot in the door, and it avoids spooking your corporate customers, so if you have non-commodity hardware, you may as well sell it.
Buying established companies in infrastructure and the enabling software stack is the expensive but least risky way to position themselves. I'd say they are banking on a permanent change to enterprise software, including coding practices, to establish themselves as the premium provider on the mission critical/high availability/high performance side for a very long time.