> but I've seen managers hang around who were doing mostly nothing. Come to think of it, doesn't it make you even madder to see someone just standing around chatting when you are working hard very late?
I have had a manager who'd be there when things were stressed and overtime was needed. What he did in those hours when not having soem work of his own to do?
When he could (he was an ex techie, and could do quite a few things) he would just help out, otherwise, make sure that we could do our work (ie, ensure we had something to eat and drink, that we would not be bothered by cleaners, took a break at times, and try to generally be supportive)
Whenever such a situation occured, overhours were not mandatory, there were always enough people willing to do them without that.
The best part of having your manager hang around in such situations is that he'll call an end to it when reaching his own physical limit. That is a much better check then you have without him/her around, and one that you won't have to justify either.
> But you will still find a lot of high quality, oft-updated DOS-based software for Ham use -- it just works.
Heh, the last thing I had connected to a ham radio here was one of my C64s.. ah well, guess its telling for how logn I have been out of the loop with HAM more then anything I guess.
> A person has a hard enough time running their own life, but socialism's idea of fixing this is that by putting ANOTHER person (or group of persons) in charge of 100,000,000+ lives, then that will somehow just work out.
As opposed to putting a person in charge of approx 225,000,000 people? (an elected person maybe, but socialism does not exclude that option, certain extreme governments that called themselves communist did, but that is an entirely different story)
If you want to critisize socialism, at least get an idea what it is about. There are countries in northern Europe that use a form of socalism, have democratic governments, and among the highest living standards in the world, so it can definitely work (oh, and unlike the USA, they do not have approx 12% of their population livign below the poverty line either)
For simulation, all you need is hinting, your brain does the rest.
In case of racign hames, a good force feedback controlelr will do a lot of the hinting already, so as soon as you are concentrated on the driving, you hardly miss the lack of g forces (you do notice them in a real car of course).
Short preface, I am self employed after having struggled with a problem similar to yours for about 1 1/2 years. I hope to be in the position of recruoiting people in the comming 6 months.
> FWIW, the response that my resume drew in early September (shortly after changing my resume) was the best that I have had in years, so changing my resume may not have hurt. It is hard to say, however, because September is a huge "hiring month." A disproportionate amount of hiring takes place in September, so the increase in the interest from employers may have been due to merely seasonal factors.
One reason why it may still get you response is because it provokes. That said, you first have to get people to read it instead of putting it aside after the first or so paragraph, and I'm afraid I'd have to agree with gujo-odori that many won't. (oh, and to Gujo-odori, excelent post, hope it gets moderated approprately so others will see it and learnn a bit)
Provoking in itself doesn't hurt as long as you can get people to think, but findign the line where it will make peopel think without annoying them or pissign them off is extremely difficult, even more so when you are dealing with someone whom you don't know.
In my specific case, the issue seems to have been that HR people read from my resume that I'd not be an easy person to manage (and they are somewhat right there).
At a certain point for me the conclusion was simple. I don't feel like presenting myself differently from what I am, and if I am hard to manage, then I better go manage myself.
> I am even more befuddled as to why the "natural course of things" is reversed in the sense that I know so much more than nearly every person with whom I have interviewed in the last two years.
HR people are not really there to judge your technocal knowledge or skills, they are first of all there to see if you'd fit into the organisation and if there are any obvious problems with you as a person. At least overhere, when you pass the initial filter, you also get to talk to people who do know a lot more in depth. One of the tasks of HR in this is to ensure those peopel are not wasting their time.
On another note, if the people in HR would be technically skilled, the company would most likely not be busy recruiting technical people, they'd be hiring new HR people.
This all is also (sadly enough because it is extremely pointless imho) why certifications play the role they do. They provide HR with a checklist for knopwledge that they simply know they cannot judge. It is an additional filter (and a bad one for that), no more and no less.
So first of all, you'll have to make sure that the HR people think you'd fit well in their organisation, and why you'd be the best person to add. You main tool for this is not even your resume, but your application letter.
Your resume should never be more then a few minutes read. If you insist on including lots of information, consider making a portfolio of your work that you can include (always ask first if they'd be interested in receiving it!) or use an appendix to your resume to explain details when you think they are relevant. What is very important is that it provides a startingpoint for an interesting talk, it should not tell all there is, if it does there is no reason to interview you usually.
> I have no problems using TTF fonts should I want to.
I think there is a small legal issue with ttf bytecode that amkes that hintign doesn't really work unless you specifically compile it in (and get the appropriate license or want to run the risk of patent infringement and its possible consequences)
Specifically, this concerns the following patents registered by Apple
Hmm, interesting, I was udner the impression that OpenGL moved into a seperate organisation as to make it less SGI dependent... but itcould of course be that they kept the atents and sold those to MS now.
I seem to recall SGI doing quite a bit of Linux work. I also seem to recall MS havign a large state in that company. I'd appear to me that they have been spending money on Linux all along, and not just as a result from settlements.
Hmm, just wondering, where could theyattack OpenGL? Much of OpenGL existed (tho in an earlier incarnation) and was available about half a decade before MS conceived its first 3d api for all I can see.
AN interesting sidenote, MS used to have (still has?) a large stake in SGI.
I bet they will find yet another one of those 3 letter companies on their way.. one that happens to have a lot more 'IP' then MS can dream of for now. MS, meet IBM... Oh wait... you already know eachother;P
Nah, this looks more like 2 other things - They actually think that such a thing might happen - Its nice publicity and a good marketing argument
> *cough* *cough* IP Stack *cough* *cough* (Although that might have been in the public domain...)
You are refering to them using BSD code? because most of it is gone by now from windows, and that what they used and still usr, they did not steal from anyone, they had clear permission to use it. And no, it was not public domain.
> Unless we're talking about buffer overflows and the likes, the amount of trust between BGP peers is fairly limited (at least when things are configured properly).
That is one possibility indeed, but any bug in handling of input can spell disaster. (format string vulnerabilities to just name another possibility).
Taking something from the OpenBSD team makes chances on such things pretty small, but not entirely impossible.
> Back in the days when I was involved in looking after the peering of an ISP, that trust was limited to the peer announcing some routes, which our router would only use if they were already preconfigured as being expected from that particular peer. Anything else was logged, then discarded by the router.
This is a very sensible policy and I wish everyone would do the same, but it doesn't prevent problems in input validation etc.
What I said doesn't just apply to BGP, its more something to take into account in general. Establishign a trust relation between 2 machines only enhances security if ou can trust both machines, and even then it should only be used as an additional measure, not as a primary security measure, and can easily result in a false sense of security.
This kind of trust relationship is exactly why routers are an interesting target for 'crackers'. They are trusted by especially border routers of other parties, and those happen to be ideal places for mountign man in the middle attacks.
THe fact that a service is only available to selected peers is in no way a guarantee that you are going to have less trouble with it security wise.
I agree with regards to tcpdump, its small and relatively good at its job. That said, I mostly use it to capture packets and dump them to a file for analysis with other programs (ntop, snort, and tcpdump itself)
Ethereal? Its nice if it wasn't ridden with bugs and security issues. More alternatives in this market are a good thing, especially when talking about gui based capture tools.
Heh... the only mobo I have had that actually managed to set itself on fire was an original Intel ATX 'Advanced/EV' board (early socket 7 era board, it was also available with socket 5)
I've been pretty content with MSI, Asus and Abit tho.
> They realised they couldn't implement dozens of features/fixes they wanted for 5.3, and are holding them off until 5.4, the "Easy way out". This clearly shows that 5.3 is a rush release that does not meet their own requirements. It was already delayed for many months,
So your suggestion would be? I see 2 other options:
Hold it off another 6 monhts or so to complete all those features
or
Ship with those features in their broken and instable state?
I think not including them, and getting people a new version with better and more modern hardware support and many new features, and mature enough to be used for production was the wise choice here.
> during which it was very unstable, and only very recently did it get to a stage where it could actually stay up for long periods of time. For some users, this still isn't possible. Look at the errata for rootsakes!
I have seen quite a few crashes of -current on the way to release, but in the meantime it also has been running my desktop for a long time without many problems.
Well, a dual pII 333 running freebsd 5.3 release (from a local build) seems to do well at being webserver, mysql server, mail server, samba server and lots more. It might run faster with 4.10 , but I'd miss out on many of the nice new features that 5.x offers like acls, better jails, better support for the rest of the hardware that I use, gcc 3.4.x etc.
That old p700 would do the same tasks as it was running on 4.x quite well on 5.x, tho maybe a bit or even quite a bit slower.
I don't know about MACs, but I used Amigas in the 2nd half of the 80s, and there was quite a virus problem there, with a quite nice variety, and a nice variety fo anti virus programs as well.
Most used to spread thanks to an exitensive warez and demo scene that swapped floppies, and would use the boot record of floppies as infection vector. Later when modems became more readily available and BBSes were abound, most linked into scripts or binaries to spread.
Even back then the Amiga platform had nowhere near the number of users the at the time rather crappy pc/dos platform had.
While what you say about bundling is somethign I experienced as well (try to get vendors to preload OS/2 for example, which happened to be part of my job at the time), but around 1995, word was also a better product.
> Gee, I don't know. Maybe some of the failures of Word Perfect (and every other competitor) had something to do with Microsoft's ability to lock them all out of every large Enterprise by their bundling practices.
Not really. They did have a better product then WP (after trying and failing a few times first)
The lock-in only comes when they have a large enough marketshare and is used to not allow others to overtake them even if they'd have a theoretically better product.
> Innovate? Microsoft? Your kidding, right? Their only innovations have been with slimy business practices. No one can dispute their absolute genious there.
Their business is to create a strategy for getting peopel to repeatedly give them money, then go buy the technology for it one way or another (they do valid research also, but a lot of their products are bought from others)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd think this is a lot easier done with sticking a hf amplifier between the transmitter and the antenna.
> Own the world through patents and ideas.
And back them up with bullets and missiles eh?
Well, slashdot produces extremely crappy html (tho it is a lot better in 'light mode')
> but I've seen managers hang around who were doing mostly nothing. Come to think of it, doesn't it make you even madder to see someone just standing around chatting when you are working hard very late?
I have had a manager who'd be there when things were stressed and overtime was needed. What he did in those hours when not having soem work of his own to do?
When he could (he was an ex techie, and could do quite a few things) he would just help out, otherwise, make sure that we could do our work (ie, ensure we had something to eat and drink, that we would not be bothered by cleaners, took a break at times, and try to generally be supportive)
Whenever such a situation occured, overhours were not mandatory, there were always enough people willing to do them without that.
The best part of having your manager hang around in such situations is that he'll call an end to it when reaching his own physical limit. That is a much better check then you have without him/her around, and one that you won't have to justify either.
> But you will still find a lot of high quality, oft-updated DOS-based software for Ham use -- it just works.
Heh, the last thing I had connected to a ham radio here was one of my C64s.. ah well, guess its telling for how logn I have been out of the loop with HAM more then anything I guess.
> A person has a hard enough time running their own life, but socialism's idea of fixing this is that by putting ANOTHER person (or group of persons) in charge of 100,000,000+ lives, then that will somehow just work out.
As opposed to putting a person in charge of approx 225,000,000 people? (an elected person maybe, but socialism does not exclude that option, certain extreme governments that called themselves communist did, but that is an entirely different story)
If you want to critisize socialism, at least get an idea what it is about. There are countries in northern Europe that use a form of socalism, have democratic governments, and among the highest living standards in the world, so it can definitely work (oh, and unlike the USA, they do not have approx 12% of their population livign below the poverty line either)
For simulation, all you need is hinting, your brain does the rest.
In case of racign hames, a good force feedback controlelr will do a lot of the hinting already, so as soon as you are concentrated on the driving, you hardly miss the lack of g forces (you do notice them in a real car of course).
Short preface, I am self employed after having struggled with a problem similar to yours for about 1 1/2 years. I hope to be in the position of recruoiting people in the comming 6 months.
> FWIW, the response that my resume drew in early September (shortly after changing my resume) was the best that I have had in years, so changing my resume may not have hurt. It is hard to say, however, because September is a huge "hiring month." A disproportionate amount of hiring takes place in September, so the increase in the interest from employers may have been due to merely seasonal factors.
One reason why it may still get you response is because it provokes. That said, you first have to get people to read it instead of putting it aside after the first or so paragraph, and I'm afraid I'd have to agree with gujo-odori that many won't.
(oh, and to Gujo-odori, excelent post, hope it gets moderated approprately so others will see it and learnn a bit)
Provoking in itself doesn't hurt as long as you can get people to think, but findign the line where it will make peopel think without annoying them or pissign them off is extremely difficult, even more so when you are dealing with someone whom you don't know.
In my specific case, the issue seems to have been that HR people read from my resume that I'd not be an easy person to manage (and they are somewhat right there).
At a certain point for me the conclusion was simple. I don't feel like presenting myself differently from what I am, and if I am hard to manage, then I better go manage myself.
> I am even more befuddled as to why the "natural course of things" is reversed in the sense that I know so much more than nearly every person with whom I have interviewed in the last two years.
HR people are not really there to judge your technocal knowledge or skills, they are first of all there to see if you'd fit into the organisation and if there are any obvious problems with you as a person. At least overhere, when you pass the initial filter, you also get to talk to people who do know a lot more in depth. One of the tasks of HR in this is to ensure those peopel are not wasting their time.
On another note, if the people in HR would be technically skilled, the company would most likely not be busy recruiting technical people, they'd be hiring new HR people.
This all is also (sadly enough because it is extremely pointless imho) why certifications play the role they do. They provide HR with a checklist for knopwledge that they simply know they cannot judge. It is an additional filter (and a bad one for that), no more and no less.
So first of all, you'll have to make sure that the HR people think you'd fit well in their organisation, and why you'd be the best person to add. You main tool for this is not even your resume, but your application letter.
Your resume should never be more then a few minutes read. If you insist on including lots of information, consider making a portfolio of your work that you can include (always ask first if they'd be interested in receiving it!) or use an appendix to your resume to explain details when you think they are relevant. What is very important is that it provides a startingpoint for an interesting talk, it should not tell all there is, if it does there is no reason to interview you usually.
Anyway, hope this helps a bit.
> I have no problems using TTF fonts should I want to.
I think there is a small legal issue with ttf bytecode that amkes that hintign doesn't really work unless you specifically compile it in (and get the appropriate license or want to run the risk of patent infringement and its possible consequences)
Specifically, this concerns the following patents registered by Apple
US05155805
US05159668
US05325479
Hmm, interesting, I was udner the impression that OpenGL moved into a seperate organisation as to make it less SGI dependent... but itcould of course be that they kept the atents and sold those to MS now.
I seem to recall SGI doing quite a bit of Linux work. I also seem to recall MS havign a large state in that company. I'd appear to me that they have been spending money on Linux all along, and not just as a result from settlements.
Hmm, just wondering, where could theyattack OpenGL? Much of OpenGL existed (tho in an earlier incarnation) and was available about half a decade before MS conceived its first 3d api for all I can see.
AN interesting sidenote, MS used to have (still has?) a large stake in SGI.
I bet they will find yet another one of those 3 letter companies on their way.. one that happens to have a lot more 'IP' then MS can dream of for now. ;P
MS, meet IBM... Oh wait... you already know eachother
Nah, this looks more like 2 other things
- They actually think that such a thing might happen
- Its nice publicity and a good marketing argument
> *cough* *cough* IP Stack *cough* *cough* (Although that might have been in the public domain...)
You are refering to them using BSD code? because most of it is gone by now from windows, and that what they used and still usr, they did not steal from anyone, they had clear permission to use it. And no, it was not public domain.
Please go read up on the BSD license.
> Unless we're talking about buffer overflows and the likes, the amount of trust between BGP peers is fairly limited (at least when things are configured properly).
That is one possibility indeed, but any bug in handling of input can spell disaster. (format string vulnerabilities to just name another possibility).
Taking something from the OpenBSD team makes chances on such things pretty small, but not entirely impossible.
> Back in the days when I was involved in looking after the peering of an ISP, that trust was limited to the peer announcing some routes, which our router would only use if they were already preconfigured as being expected from that particular peer. Anything else was logged, then discarded by the router.
This is a very sensible policy and I wish everyone would do the same, but it doesn't prevent problems in input validation etc.
What I said doesn't just apply to BGP, its more something to take into account in general. Establishign a trust relation between 2 machines only enhances security if ou can trust both machines, and even then it should only be used as an additional measure, not as a primary security measure, and can easily result in a false sense of security.
When I visit someone's house I find that they usually do not expect me to pay for dinner.
You do realize how fundamental 'no taxation without representation' is to American history do you?
This kind of trust relationship is exactly why routers are an interesting target for 'crackers'. They are trusted by especially border routers of other parties, and those happen to be ideal places for mountign man in the middle attacks.
THe fact that a service is only available to selected peers is in no way a guarantee that you are going to have less trouble with it security wise.
I agree with regards to tcpdump, its small and relatively good at its job. That said, I mostly use it to capture packets and dump them to a file for analysis with other programs (ntop, snort, and tcpdump itself)
Ethereal? Its nice if it wasn't ridden with bugs and security issues. More alternatives in this market are a good thing, especially when talking about gui based capture tools.
Heh... the only mobo I have had that actually managed to set itself on fire was an original Intel ATX 'Advanced/EV' board (early socket 7 era board, it was also available with socket 5)
I've been pretty content with MSI, Asus and Abit tho.
> They realised they couldn't implement dozens of features/fixes they wanted for 5.3, and are holding them off until 5.4, the "Easy way out". This clearly shows that 5.3 is a rush release that does not meet their own requirements. It was already delayed for many months,
So your suggestion would be? I see 2 other options:
Hold it off another 6 monhts or so to complete all those features
or
Ship with those features in their broken and instable state?
I think not including them, and getting people a new version with better and more modern hardware support and many new features, and mature enough to be used for production was the wise choice here.
> during which it was very unstable, and only very recently did it get to a stage where it could actually stay up for long periods of time. For some users, this still isn't possible. Look at the errata for rootsakes!
I have seen quite a few crashes of -current on the way to release, but in the meantime it also has been running my desktop for a long time without many problems.
> Does anyone know about compatibility of NetBSD with things like Postgresql, MySQL, Apache and PHP?
There are packages for all of them.
I have not yet found a way to get Apache 2 to work with php as a module tho (1.3.x works fine)
Well, a dual pII 333 running freebsd 5.3 release (from a local build) seems to do well at being webserver, mysql server, mail server, samba server and lots more. It might run faster with 4.10 , but I'd miss out on many of the nice new features that 5.x offers like acls, better jails, better support for the rest of the hardware that I use, gcc 3.4.x etc.
That old p700 would do the same tasks as it was running on 4.x quite well on 5.x, tho maybe a bit or even quite a bit slower.
I don't know about MACs, but I used Amigas in the 2nd half of the 80s, and there was quite a virus problem there, with a quite nice variety, and a nice variety fo anti virus programs as well.
Most used to spread thanks to an exitensive warez and demo scene that swapped floppies, and would use the boot record of floppies as infection vector. Later when modems became more readily available and BBSes were abound, most linked into scripts or binaries to spread.
Even back then the Amiga platform had nowhere near the number of users the at the time rather crappy pc/dos platform had.
While what you say about bundling is somethign I experienced as well (try to get vendors to preload OS/2 for example, which happened to be part of my job at the time), but around 1995, word was also a better product.
> Gee, I don't know. Maybe some of the failures of Word Perfect (and every other competitor) had something to do with Microsoft's ability to lock them all out of every large Enterprise by their bundling practices.
Not really. They did have a better product then WP (after trying and failing a few times first)
The lock-in only comes when they have a large enough marketshare and is used to not allow others to overtake them even if they'd have a theoretically better product.
> Innovate? Microsoft? Your kidding, right? Their only innovations have been with slimy business practices. No one can dispute their absolute genious there.
Their business is to create a strategy for getting peopel to repeatedly give them money, then go buy the technology for it one way or another (they do valid research also, but a lot of their products are bought from others)