It seems as if a whole bunch of the archs are "quasi-archs".
The CPU is only a portion of the architecture. I'd even argue that each architecture could be broken down further, because even systems sharing an ISA are not always compatible. For example, "sparc" might be taken to include sun4c, sun4m, sun4d, and sun4u. Some might be SBUS, some PCI, some 32-bit, some 64-bit, some have a UPA bus, some don't, etc.
There's nothing like working some shitty dead-end job for less than minimum wage (probationary pay), like cleaning floors and emptying wastbaskets as a movie usher, to make you realize the value of a good post-secondary education.
What happens if that kid gets a good post-secondary education, graduates, and learns the hard way that there is more supply than demand in his field? Retraining is hard and expensive and he/she just got out of school, so the low-pay alternatives suddenly look like the only alternatives. There are lots of college graduates who get stuck with $20K/year jobs, because all the jobs in the glossy brochures are either all taken or they suck, not suprisingly for reasons left out of the brochures.
Eventually, I think the USA is going to have to find satisfaction in not being #1. We've had a good run, are still wealthy by global measures, and can still hold our own. We should be happy that other countries are on par or improving, just as long as we can avoid any wars over stupid religious differences along the way.
For small cliques, academics in US schools are also very competitive, but for all the wrong reasons. The competitiveness is often borne out of selfish and blinded-by-pride parents and arrogance of the students, which leaves the kids completely alienated in the long run.
The Simpsons are a parody of US culture (yes, US culture came first, so, sorry, there's no blaming Bart). People in other countries could learn a lot about us just by watching that show. Man, that's pretty damn sad.
It's more than a cool idea. It is like one of those magic tricks, where there are no wires or supports or anything, but it works, and the audience is left dumb by it. It's the kind of thing that makes science exciting.
To capture the essence of the enterprise, you need to hire four newly graduated students and have them write the worst program possible in Java. Don't worry, the "worst" part comes automatically. Then, apply this program to several brands of servers and see which one actually survives. That is the one you recommend in the review.
Therefore, the artificial limitation of the supply of drugs and the subequent high prices in the USA is good, right? I'd be heartbroken to see a drug pusher have to give up their $100K BMW. Heartbroken, I tell you.
With the billions spent on patching, cleaning up viruses, reconfiguring user-botched systems, removing spyware, and secretaries playing with animated text in Word, Microsoft generates jobs for us all.
or is it that Microsoft creates a drain on what would be otherwise profitable small businesses destroying jobs for us all?
You know, Microsoft is the rain and ditch cycle of the software industry. Dig a ditch, rain fills it up, dig it again, fill, dig, fill, dig...wow we just got a lot of work done, right?
Windows Server OSs have grown up a lot since NT 4.0 and and deserves a much better reputation too.
Are you sure about this? Windows XP is no gem (it took til SP2 to get a default firewall and the most basic stack-attack protection), and I remember fightng tooth-and-nail to get stuff like network printers configured under Win 2000. The user interfaces were redundant and inconsistent and the documentation sucked old haggy ass. MS Word also had no problems locking Win 2000 up so hard a power cycle was required.
Windows always reminds me of the axiom: the more things change, the more that remains the same.
Is it just me, or is there a tendency to say that hardware supports Windows, but is supported by Linux/Unix?
My DSL modem is like this, where it actually has a a full administrative interface at port 80, but the documentation provided absolutely no clue. The only thing that came in the box was a Windows-only install wizard CD-ROM. Once set up from Windows, it plugs into my OpenBSD firewall no questions asked.
It was quite annoying to have to drag out Windows to later discover Windows wasn't even needed. I dislike my ISP for that, but they are my only choice, right now.
I don't know about tomorrow, but I predict the stock market will be up in 20 years.
How can you be so sure? What if growth reaches a critical point and stagnates? What if there is a world-wide war? What if OPEC had been lying about oil reserves all along? What if everyone becomes addicted to Slurm? What if GWB manages to repeal the twenty-second amendment and becomes emporer-elect forever even past death, because Jesus will channel GWBs thoughts through a bowl of green jello in the White House kitchen?
You just can't predict the future of technology with anything remotely like accuracy that far out.
If we could predict technology that far out, it also implies we could predict the stock market that far out. Given that no one can generally predict a stock even for today, just one day, means this Gartner report exists only to make themselves feel important.
I hate to pee on analysts, but I don't listen to you at all. I look at stock estimates and think, "what do they know that I don't?" Generally, not much. It seems a person can be more successful simply following supply and demand trends than any other method. Doing better requires intimate insider knowledge, which no one has on any appreciable scale.
So, I conclude, Gartner are a bunch of analyst weenies.
Or a minority from the school's point of view. Affirmative action has lowered the bar for MIT, for example. I guess they got tired of being practially an all-male school.
Also, watch out that prestigious schools are often grad-school-prep rather than real-world-prep.
The better the school you go to the better chance you have of getting a good entry-level job in your field which, in turn, jump-starts your career...
This is only very slightly true but for all the wrong reasons. The types of people who are easily impressed tend to be shitty employers in the long run. They care more about politics than substance. The only other times it is true is if you walk the alumni network, but, then, the expectations are pretty high. They are doing you a favor by giving you a job and the social pressure is awkward at least. Unless you really think you can be buddy-buddy with the guy that gave you your job, then it's best to go somewhere else.
If you can't make it in the alumni network, then having a prestigious name on your diploma is actually a drag. People who go to "lesser" schools think you are an elitist, morons think you are some sort of god. It is just a lot better to be "average," because all your co-workers will be on a level playing field.
Unless you are very socially adept and can work alumni networks well, having a prestigious name on your diploma is not important. YOU are important, and you can learn and do well at any competent university. In fact, going to an expensive school will work against you, because paying off unsecured school loans feels like throwing money away. It is a genuine psychological drag and gets in the way of more important things, like a down payment towards a house.
Please, don't put yourself into debt over the false idol of prestige. Focus on learning for yourself. Don't believe that people will simply hand you a job out of school because of a name. Don't believe that you are guaranteed any amount of money because of a name. Don't set yourself up to fall hard later on. Believe in yourself and work on improving yourself, and no matter your alma mater, you will be able to look confident in an interview or impress your co-workers during internships. After a few years, your diploma becomes an irrelevant piece of paper, anyway.
The idealism that drives people towards money, education, and "success" all too often leaves them ignoring the other important things that make families and communties work well. They end up alienated from themselves and their own families, and they end up alienated from the communities, no matter the illusion put forth by social gatherings and club memberships.
Having lived in the USA my whole life observing people urban, rural, rich and poor, the happiest people are not ambitious but they make the base effort to get by financially while reserving the rest of their time enjoying their families. They are also not afraid to tackle problems as a family, because they don't have to hide behind a veil of status or wealth.
Another problem created by universities is that true knowledge and intelligence are taken for granted and rarely adequately rewarded. Of course, there is the occasional star engineer who can't be swept under the carpet, but most of the time good work is lost on co-workers and management. It's like pushing a boulder uphill for eternity.
Money and the social consequences of money create further problems. So, a person has money and starts a family. What of the children who are well educated, well dressed, and live in the best neighborhoods who, then, have to come to terms with the blatent inequities in their classroom? School is hell for these children, and their parents are very likely in denial about it.
Had to submit this as parts...keep getting those inane "500" errors with long posts:
Your questions have a fallacy embedded within them that assumes people will be honest with themselves about "job satisfaction", "quality of life", and "satisfaction with intangibles".
I've generally come to the conclusion that pretty much everyone, rich-educated or poor-not, has about the same number of problems. When we feel like we've eliminated one problem, there's a brand new one to take its place. Okay, so someone has a 4-year degree (education problem solved). They now have five to ten years of unsecured loan payments sucking at them like a parasite (oops, new problem). Their friends went to a two year school for nursing, get paid just as much, have about the same amount of responsibility at the workplace, have about the same amount of political BS to deal with, but have a head start financially.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the infinite energy source we've all been waiting for.
You'd still need to write ALSA and X11 video overlay code to get it to run on Linux.
Why waste your time with ALSA? OpenAL is more cross-platform, for example, and does some neat stuff, too.
It seems as if a whole bunch of the archs are "quasi-archs".
The CPU is only a portion of the architecture. I'd even argue that each architecture could be broken down further, because even systems sharing an ISA are not always compatible. For example, "sparc" might be taken to include sun4c, sun4m, sun4d, and sun4u. Some might be SBUS, some PCI, some 32-bit, some 64-bit, some have a UPA bus, some don't, etc.
There's nothing like working some shitty dead-end job for less than minimum wage (probationary pay), like cleaning floors and emptying wastbaskets as a movie usher, to make you realize the value of a good post-secondary education.
What happens if that kid gets a good post-secondary education, graduates, and learns the hard way that there is more supply than demand in his field? Retraining is hard and expensive and he/she just got out of school, so the low-pay alternatives suddenly look like the only alternatives. There are lots of college graduates who get stuck with $20K/year jobs, because all the jobs in the glossy brochures are either all taken or they suck, not suprisingly for reasons left out of the brochures.
Eventually, I think the USA is going to have to find satisfaction in not being #1. We've had a good run, are still wealthy by global measures, and can still hold our own. We should be happy that other countries are on par or improving, just as long as we can avoid any wars over stupid religious differences along the way.
For small cliques, academics in US schools are also very competitive, but for all the wrong reasons. The competitiveness is often borne out of selfish and blinded-by-pride parents and arrogance of the students, which leaves the kids completely alienated in the long run.
Bart Simpson is clearly to blame for this.
The Simpsons are a parody of US culture (yes, US culture came first, so, sorry, there's no blaming Bart). People in other countries could learn a lot about us just by watching that show. Man, that's pretty damn sad.
Who cares about smart, people at Yale get to be President!
It's more than a cool idea. It is like one of those magic tricks, where there are no wires or supports or anything, but it works, and the audience is left dumb by it. It's the kind of thing that makes science exciting.
To capture the essence of the enterprise, you need to hire four newly graduated students and have them write the worst program possible in Java. Don't worry, the "worst" part comes automatically. Then, apply this program to several brands of servers and see which one actually survives. That is the one you recommend in the review.
Therefore, the artificial limitation of the supply of drugs and the subequent high prices in the USA is good, right? I'd be heartbroken to see a drug pusher have to give up their $100K BMW. Heartbroken, I tell you.
With the billions spent on patching, cleaning up viruses, reconfiguring user-botched systems, removing spyware, and secretaries playing with animated text in Word, Microsoft generates jobs for us all.
or is it that Microsoft creates a drain on what would be otherwise profitable small businesses destroying jobs for us all?
You know, Microsoft is the rain and ditch cycle of the software industry. Dig a ditch, rain fills it up, dig it again, fill, dig, fill, dig...wow we just got a lot of work done, right?
Windows Server OSs have grown up a lot since NT 4.0 and and deserves a much better reputation too.
Are you sure about this? Windows XP is no gem (it took til SP2 to get a default firewall and the most basic stack-attack protection), and I remember fightng tooth-and-nail to get stuff like network printers configured under Win 2000. The user interfaces were redundant and inconsistent and the documentation sucked old haggy ass. MS Word also had no problems locking Win 2000 up so hard a power cycle was required.
Windows always reminds me of the axiom: the more things change, the more that remains the same.
Is it just me, or is there a tendency to say that hardware supports Windows, but is supported by Linux/Unix?
My DSL modem is like this, where it actually has a a full administrative interface at port 80, but the documentation provided absolutely no clue. The only thing that came in the box was a Windows-only install wizard CD-ROM. Once set up from Windows, it plugs into my OpenBSD firewall no questions asked.
It was quite annoying to have to drag out Windows to later discover Windows wasn't even needed. I dislike my ISP for that, but they are my only choice, right now.
I don't know about tomorrow, but I predict the stock market will be up in 20 years.
How can you be so sure? What if growth reaches a critical point and stagnates? What if there is a world-wide war? What if OPEC had been lying about oil reserves all along? What if everyone becomes addicted to Slurm? What if GWB manages to repeal the twenty-second amendment and becomes emporer-elect forever even past death, because Jesus will channel GWBs thoughts through a bowl of green jello in the White House kitchen?
The GP post was serious. Cowpies are actually a very useful source of heating fuel. Just vent the chimney outside, thank you.
South Park's impression of J Lo took care of a few year's worth of latino jokes, and I'm still laughing about The Great White North (a true classic).
this is like a knitter knitting a loom that could, in turn, knit other sweaters or auto-generate looms or something along those lines.
Thus creating the pink goo phenomenon, where the world is consumed by pink warm fuzzy mufflers.
You just can't predict the future of technology with anything remotely like accuracy that far out.
If we could predict technology that far out, it also implies we could predict the stock market that far out. Given that no one can generally predict a stock even for today, just one day, means this Gartner report exists only to make themselves feel important.
I hate to pee on analysts, but I don't listen to you at all. I look at stock estimates and think, "what do they know that I don't?" Generally, not much. It seems a person can be more successful simply following supply and demand trends than any other method. Doing better requires intimate insider knowledge, which no one has on any appreciable scale.
So, I conclude, Gartner are a bunch of analyst weenies.
They said everyone else just had programming experience, but I had at least some experience with the software development lifecycle.
Given that Motorola is big into the CMMs, they probably shat themselves hearing that you knew anything about the "software development lifecycle."
...they are ultra-geeks.
Or a minority from the school's point of view. Affirmative action has lowered the bar for MIT, for example. I guess they got tired of being practially an all-male school.
Also, watch out that prestigious schools are often grad-school-prep rather than real-world-prep.
The better the school you go to the better chance you have of getting a good entry-level job in your field which, in turn, jump-starts your career...
This is only very slightly true but for all the wrong reasons. The types of people who are easily impressed tend to be shitty employers in the long run. They care more about politics than substance. The only other times it is true is if you walk the alumni network, but, then, the expectations are pretty high. They are doing you a favor by giving you a job and the social pressure is awkward at least. Unless you really think you can be buddy-buddy with the guy that gave you your job, then it's best to go somewhere else.
If you can't make it in the alumni network, then having a prestigious name on your diploma is actually a drag. People who go to "lesser" schools think you are an elitist, morons think you are some sort of god. It is just a lot better to be "average," because all your co-workers will be on a level playing field.
Unless you are very socially adept and can work alumni networks well, having a prestigious name on your diploma is not important. YOU are important, and you can learn and do well at any competent university. In fact, going to an expensive school will work against you, because paying off unsecured school loans feels like throwing money away. It is a genuine psychological drag and gets in the way of more important things, like a down payment towards a house.
Please, don't put yourself into debt over the false idol of prestige. Focus on learning for yourself. Don't believe that people will simply hand you a job out of school because of a name. Don't believe that you are guaranteed any amount of money because of a name. Don't set yourself up to fall hard later on. Believe in yourself and work on improving yourself, and no matter your alma mater, you will be able to look confident in an interview or impress your co-workers during internships. After a few years, your diploma becomes an irrelevant piece of paper, anyway.
The idealism that drives people towards money, education, and "success" all too often leaves them ignoring the other important things that make families and communties work well. They end up alienated from themselves and their own families, and they end up alienated from the communities, no matter the illusion put forth by social gatherings and club memberships.
Having lived in the USA my whole life observing people urban, rural, rich and poor, the happiest people are not ambitious but they make the base effort to get by financially while reserving the rest of their time enjoying their families. They are also not afraid to tackle problems as a family, because they don't have to hide behind a veil of status or wealth.
Okay, that's it.
Another problem created by universities is that true knowledge and intelligence are taken for granted and rarely adequately rewarded. Of course, there is the occasional star engineer who can't be swept under the carpet, but most of the time good work is lost on co-workers and management. It's like pushing a boulder uphill for eternity.
Money and the social consequences of money create further problems. So, a person has money and starts a family. What of the children who are well educated, well dressed, and live in the best neighborhoods who, then, have to come to terms with the blatent inequities in their classroom? School is hell for these children, and their parents are very likely in denial about it.
Had to submit this as parts...keep getting those inane "500" errors with long posts:
Your questions have a fallacy embedded within them that assumes people will be honest with themselves about "job satisfaction", "quality of life", and "satisfaction with intangibles".
I've generally come to the conclusion that pretty much everyone, rich-educated or poor-not, has about the same number of problems. When we feel like we've eliminated one problem, there's a brand new one to take its place. Okay, so someone has a 4-year degree (education problem solved). They now have five to ten years of unsecured loan payments sucking at them like a parasite (oops, new problem). Their friends went to a two year school for nursing, get paid just as much, have about the same amount of responsibility at the workplace, have about the same amount of political BS to deal with, but have a head start financially.