Way back when I looked into it (which again, was a while ago and quite brief, so I may/probably am totally wrong) the big problem seemed to be adding small amounts of storage to a large array.
In my particular use case, I have a 20TB file server (raid6, 12x 2TB drives). Lets say I fill that up and want to add 4 more TB. With my current RAID6/dm-crypt/lvm/xfs setup, this is fairly easy. Add 2 drives and expand everything. With ZFS it seemed hard to add arbitrary amounts of storage like this in most configurations.
I'd add that even if this and the other stuff I listed was legitimate, I'll probably end up using it at some point once it's more mainstream. I really like the data integrity stuff, and all the clone/snapshot stuff sounds excessively useful.
They are strongly against one set of freedoms in support of the subset of freedoms they deem more important.
Which is fine, but I've always found their choice in terminology and strong focus around the word "free" to be annoying. Consequently I try to avoid using the term "free software" and instead usually opt for "open source", which while it doesn't convey the idea that it's restrictively licensed to ensure it and any derivatives remain open source, it also doesn't falsely convey that it is entirely free (as in do whatever you want with it free of restrictions).
I too have kinda been watching passively with a kinda "I'll look into this once it's ready" attitude.
The gist as far as I understand it is (again, take with huge helping of salt (it's not that bad for your health any more!), I'm posting these partly to be told I'm wrong):
Pros: - data integrity (checksums and more rigorous checks that something is actually written to the disk)
Cons: - cpu and ram overhead (even by current standards, uses a tonne of resources) - doesn't like hardware raid (apparently a lot of the pros rely on talkign to an actual disk) - expandability sucks (can be done, but weird rules based on pool sizes and such) compared to most raid levels where you can easily toss a new disk in there and expand.
Repeat after me: 'Languages are easy. Libraries are hard.'
So much this!
And not just the libraries, but the entire tool stack. Sure a c++ guy can pick up java the language fairly quickly, but there are a shit tonne of widely used libraries and tools that require anywhere from weeks to months of solid experience to really become proficient in, and some that are complex enough that you can build a whole career on them.
Sure the principles carry over mostly, but there's still plenty of stuff in the details bin that doesn't.
There were plenty of tools that we all ran screaming from when better stuff came along, and most of them are now dust. It's only a handful that stuck around for various reasons, and the people who stuck with them are lucky bastards.
Sure, but how many systems were written with it that you expect to be around in 10 years.
COBOL is still around because complicated yet relatively static systems were written in it, and those systems are still needed, still do what they need to, and are big enough that re-writing them would be a massive risk.
Web apps come and go, old school payroll systems are forever.
Is it ever chosen for new projects though? Would there ever be a reason to?
I get that for the type of programs originally written in COBOL it makes no sense to do a complete re-write. Things like accounting and payroll and inventory management are pretty static, and once you've got a working system, why change it.
But does COBOL offer any reason to start a new system with it?
It's all a package. Geographic location, work culture, personal interest, and money all play a part in various proportions. I have an interest in money, but I have no interest in maintaining some old accounting system that's been bandaged for decades any more than I have an interest in moving to where that kind of work exists.
By random I don’t mean randomly installed, but if it makes you feel better:
Trying to run a Debian or similar server, you inevitable end up with a bunch of X packages because some specifically chosen tool which has been thoroughly vetted by both the software architecture team and configuration management and the impact of which has been thoroughly analyzed on a prototype installation and the impact of which has been thoroughly examined to unsure no negative impact on overall system capability comes with a built in GUI and no one bothered to package a non-X version.
Interestingly one of my favorite Canadian programs ("Made in Canada") spoofed the TV/media industry and regularly made fun of how sub-par Canadian content was.
The CRTC is fighting an un-winnable battle using stupid means. Through population and economy, the US can produce more and better (or at least more popular) content than we can. This is just a reality. We've produced some good stuff, but we simply don't have the mass to compete and probably never will. Requiring broadcasters to dedicate certain amounts of time to content that no one will watch and that can't even pay for itself isn't going to fix this problem. Trying to make competing content less accessible in the hopes that people will break down and stop ignoring Canadian content is just gonna piss people off.
I love Canada, but sometimes you have to accept reality.
This is actually a major benefit of gentoo, and one of the reasons I run it on my servers (they are all hobby-ish, I get that gentoo in production is probably a bad idea).
Trying to run a Debian or similar server, you inevitable end up with a bunch of X packages because some random tool comes with a built in GUI and no one bothered to package a non-X version.
It extends even beyond X or no-X. You find yourself with database drivers for all the major (and some minor) databases regardless if you use any of them, and loads of other cruft.
This is obviously part of the tradeoff for a system that just works, but it's annoying when some gnome library breaks the update on a _server_.
As a side note, it's becoming increasingly frustrating to be a non-systemd user. I've had to re-arrange a tonne of packages as stuff switches. I know systemd is inevitable, but I'd like to hold out just a little longer:(
Furthermore, I really don't think a comment should be used to explain a language element that is clearly defined in The C Programming Language (K&R) by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie. A C programmer should assume the reader is familiar with what is in K&R, otherwise the comments become a language tutorial.
I generally agree that comments shouldn't be required to explain language mechanics unless they are obscure (which the bitset stuff isn't, I mean if you've never run into them they might be, but that would be the same for any language construct and as you said, you generally assume a developer is going to know the language they are working with).
What I personally would generally include would be a comment along the lines of "this struct represents the KillAllHumans message body as per <some specification;>" where the struct is defined, and then a comment along the lines of "overlay our message structure over the buffer to extract our data". This way even if someone wasn't familiar with the bitset notation, they could probably infer it.
As for Perl, once I really learned Perl I found it to be extremely intuitive. It is a very powerful and very expressive language. All of the sigils (and related "line noise" characters) make the code much easier to read and they make it extremely trivial to define and understand complicated data structures. Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, got an undergraduate degree in natural and artificial languages and then went on to do graduate work in linguistics.
Perl... easy to read... ok back to your room now;p
I'll grant you that perl is very organic, probably the best "code as you think" language that I know of, but the vast collection of syntax and the functional density one can achieve (and some seem compelled to do so) makes it a pain to read if you didn't write it.
I've read the camel book cover to cover, and at one point I was fairly good with it, but after a few years of neglect that skillset has completely dissolved. I have a feeling if I tried to do anything with it now, I'd be hitting up google for things like "how do you iterate through an array of hashmap references".
I don't even bother with infoworld links any more. It'll be a bunch of slides with a sentence of text, an unrelated image, and ads everywhere (ads on the slides, ads before the slides, an add in the middle of the slideshow, and an ad at the end). Content wise, usually they find one or two interesting things, then fill the rest of the slots with stupid shit everyone already knows.
- Create small upstart service - Grow it to be wildly popular with a huge user base - Gradually figure out how to turn that into money - Say "screw that shit", give up control and get rid of users as fast as possible - Go into the soft drink industry instead?
Even as a long time Linux user, I still enjoy his blog (and even bought a copy of his book). It's interesting, easily digestible, and well presented tidbits from someone who actually works with the stuff.
Probably doesn't belong on slashdot any more than his other posts though as you said, however I would have been ok with it if they'd linked directly to his post rather than linking to the dice article which is pretty much just a mirror of it.
Even as a long term Linux user who hasn't done much windows related since XP SP2 was news, I do still read and actually enjoy Raymond Chen's blog, and even bought his book.
The dice article is pretty pointless though as it just mirrors Raymond Chen's post.
I too enjoyed the earlier seasons much more than the later ones (I've only caught the occasional episode from the current season). Back when they had a limited budget and had to be clever (and thrifty) in testing the myths it added something to the show.
Most of the funding didn't go through (I'm guessing some jackass used a prepaid visa card and drained it before the funding period was over), so he actually only got like $76 or so.
I suspect most people funded the guy so they could poke fun at him in the comments, which I guess is one way of raising money.
Kickstarter recently(ish) stopped screening projects, so now there are even more completely ridiculous projects with no hope of producing anything viable.
Any startup is risky for sure. To get money from traditional funding sources, you need to have all your ducks in a row, a well developed plan, and convince a lender (who is usually pretty damn good at risk assessment) that you've got a shot. Even then, success is only moderately likely.
Kickstarter doesn't even have the barrier of convincing some suit that you might be able to make money. You have to convince regular people, who don't have the same skepticism as say a bank, although I think this has been and will continue to develop over time in the "crowd funding community" as people see more failures and understand why they failed/what the red flags are.
That said, imo kickstarter is all about the long shot. It's about backing stuff that would probably be too risky or too niche for traditional funding. I've backed some projects. Some have succeeded, some have not, but in general I've gone into it knowing what it is (a gamble).
Slashdot Mirror
Way back when I looked into it (which again, was a while ago and quite brief, so I may/probably am totally wrong) the big problem seemed to be adding small amounts of storage to a large array.
In my particular use case, I have a 20TB file server (raid6, 12x 2TB drives). Lets say I fill that up and want to add 4 more TB. With my current RAID6/dm-crypt/lvm/xfs setup, this is fairly easy. Add 2 drives and expand everything. With ZFS it seemed hard to add arbitrary amounts of storage like this in most configurations.
I'd add that even if this and the other stuff I listed was legitimate, I'll probably end up using it at some point once it's more mainstream. I really like the data integrity stuff, and all the clone/snapshot stuff sounds excessively useful.
They are strongly against one set of freedoms in support of the subset of freedoms they deem more important.
Which is fine, but I've always found their choice in terminology and strong focus around the word "free" to be annoying. Consequently I try to avoid using the term "free software" and instead usually opt for "open source", which while it doesn't convey the idea that it's restrictively licensed to ensure it and any derivatives remain open source, it also doesn't falsely convey that it is entirely free (as in do whatever you want with it free of restrictions).
I too have kinda been watching passively with a kinda "I'll look into this once it's ready" attitude.
The gist as far as I understand it is (again, take with huge helping of salt (it's not that bad for your health any more!), I'm posting these partly to be told I'm wrong):
Pros:
- data integrity (checksums and more rigorous checks that something is actually written to the disk)
Cons:
- cpu and ram overhead (even by current standards, uses a tonne of resources)
- doesn't like hardware raid (apparently a lot of the pros rely on talkign to an actual disk)
- expandability sucks (can be done, but weird rules based on pool sizes and such) compared to most raid levels where you can easily toss a new disk in there and expand.
Repeat after me: 'Languages are easy. Libraries are hard.'
So much this!
And not just the libraries, but the entire tool stack. Sure a c++ guy can pick up java the language fairly quickly, but there are a shit tonne of widely used libraries and tools that require anywhere from weeks to months of solid experience to really become proficient in, and some that are complex enough that you can build a whole career on them.
Sure the principles carry over mostly, but there's still plenty of stuff in the details bin that doesn't.
Exactly.
There were plenty of tools that we all ran screaming from when better stuff came along, and most of them are now dust. It's only a handful that stuck around for various reasons, and the people who stuck with them are lucky bastards.
Interestingly there is a small but strong Ada community with Apple levels of fanboyism going on.
Sure, but how many systems were written with it that you expect to be around in 10 years.
COBOL is still around because complicated yet relatively static systems were written in it, and those systems are still needed, still do what they need to, and are big enough that re-writing them would be a massive risk.
Web apps come and go, old school payroll systems are forever.
Is it ever chosen for new projects though? Would there ever be a reason to?
I get that for the type of programs originally written in COBOL it makes no sense to do a complete re-write. Things like accounting and payroll and inventory management are pretty static, and once you've got a working system, why change it.
But does COBOL offer any reason to start a new system with it?
Indeed.
It's all a package. Geographic location, work culture, personal interest, and money all play a part in various proportions. I have an interest in money, but I have no interest in maintaining some old accounting system that's been bandaged for decades any more than I have an interest in moving to where that kind of work exists.
By random I don’t mean randomly installed, but if it makes you feel better:
Trying to run a Debian or similar server, you inevitable end up with a bunch of X packages because some specifically chosen tool which has been thoroughly vetted by both the software architecture team and configuration management and the impact of which has been thoroughly analyzed on a prototype installation and the impact of which has been thoroughly examined to unsure no negative impact on overall system capability comes with a built in GUI and no one bothered to package a non-X version.
Indeed.
Interestingly one of my favorite Canadian programs ("Made in Canada") spoofed the TV/media industry and regularly made fun of how sub-par Canadian content was.
The CRTC is fighting an un-winnable battle using stupid means. Through population and economy, the US can produce more and better (or at least more popular) content than we can. This is just a reality. We've produced some good stuff, but we simply don't have the mass to compete and probably never will. Requiring broadcasters to dedicate certain amounts of time to content that no one will watch and that can't even pay for itself isn't going to fix this problem. Trying to make competing content less accessible in the hopes that people will break down and stop ignoring Canadian content is just gonna piss people off.
I love Canada, but sometimes you have to accept reality.
This is actually a major benefit of gentoo, and one of the reasons I run it on my servers (they are all hobby-ish, I get that gentoo in production is probably a bad idea).
Trying to run a Debian or similar server, you inevitable end up with a bunch of X packages because some random tool comes with a built in GUI and no one bothered to package a non-X version.
It extends even beyond X or no-X. You find yourself with database drivers for all the major (and some minor) databases regardless if you use any of them, and loads of other cruft.
This is obviously part of the tradeoff for a system that just works, but it's annoying when some gnome library breaks the update on a _server_.
As a side note, it's becoming increasingly frustrating to be a non-systemd user. I've had to re-arrange a tonne of packages as stuff switches. I know systemd is inevitable, but I'd like to hold out just a little longer :(
Furthermore, I really don't think a comment should be used to explain a language element that is clearly defined in The C Programming Language (K&R) by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie. A C programmer should assume the reader is familiar with what is in K&R, otherwise the comments become a language tutorial.
I generally agree that comments shouldn't be required to explain language mechanics unless they are obscure (which the bitset stuff isn't, I mean if you've never run into them they might be, but that would be the same for any language construct and as you said, you generally assume a developer is going to know the language they are working with).
What I personally would generally include would be a comment along the lines of "this struct represents the KillAllHumans message body as per <some specification;>" where the struct is defined, and then a comment along the lines of "overlay our message structure over the buffer to extract our data". This way even if someone wasn't familiar with the bitset notation, they could probably infer it.
As for Perl, once I really learned Perl I found it to be extremely intuitive. It is a very powerful and very expressive language. All of the sigils (and related "line noise" characters) make the code much easier to read and they make it extremely trivial to define and understand complicated data structures. Larry Wall, the creator of Perl, got an undergraduate degree in natural and artificial languages and then went on to do graduate work in linguistics.
Perl... easy to read... ok back to your room now ;p
I'll grant you that perl is very organic, probably the best "code as you think" language that I know of, but the vast collection of syntax and the functional density one can achieve (and some seem compelled to do so) makes it a pain to read if you didn't write it.
I've read the camel book cover to cover, and at one point I was fairly good with it, but after a few years of neglect that skillset has completely dissolved. I have a feeling if I tried to do anything with it now, I'd be hitting up google for things like "how do you iterate through an array of hashmap references".
In general I found it difficult to twist my brain into doing things the lua way.
It seems to go out of it's way to be slightly different.
* itworld (reading another post where they messed it up, so I messed it up!)
I don't even bother with infoworld links any more. It'll be a bunch of slides with a sentence of text, an unrelated image, and ads everywhere (ads on the slides, ads before the slides, an add in the middle of the slideshow, and an ad at the end). Content wise, usually they find one or two interesting things, then fill the rest of the slots with stupid shit everyone already knows.
So, uh, the basic business plan would be:
- Create small upstart service
- Grow it to be wildly popular with a huge user base
- Gradually figure out how to turn that into money
- Say "screw that shit", give up control and get rid of users as fast as possible
- Go into the soft drink industry instead?
Agree.
Even as a long time Linux user, I still enjoy his blog (and even bought a copy of his book). It's interesting, easily digestible, and well presented tidbits from someone who actually works with the stuff.
Probably doesn't belong on slashdot any more than his other posts though as you said, however I would have been ok with it if they'd linked directly to his post rather than linking to the dice article which is pretty much just a mirror of it.
Even as a long term Linux user who hasn't done much windows related since XP SP2 was news, I do still read and actually enjoy Raymond Chen's blog, and even bought his book.
The dice article is pretty pointless though as it just mirrors Raymond Chen's post.
I too enjoyed the earlier seasons much more than the later ones (I've only caught the occasional episode from the current season). Back when they had a limited budget and had to be clever (and thrifty) in testing the myths it added something to the show.
Most of the funding didn't go through (I'm guessing some jackass used a prepaid visa card and drained it before the funding period was over), so he actually only got like $76 or so.
I suspect most people funded the guy so they could poke fun at him in the comments, which I guess is one way of raising money.
Indeed.
Kickstarter recently(ish) stopped screening projects, so now there are even more completely ridiculous projects with no hope of producing anything viable.
Here's a really sad one from a guy who clearly has a mental disability: https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...
Any startup is risky for sure. To get money from traditional funding sources, you need to have all your ducks in a row, a well developed plan, and convince a lender (who is usually pretty damn good at risk assessment) that you've got a shot. Even then, success is only moderately likely.
Kickstarter doesn't even have the barrier of convincing some suit that you might be able to make money. You have to convince regular people, who don't have the same skepticism as say a bank, although I think this has been and will continue to develop over time in the "crowd funding community" as people see more failures and understand why they failed/what the red flags are.
That said, imo kickstarter is all about the long shot. It's about backing stuff that would probably be too risky or too niche for traditional funding. I've backed some projects. Some have succeeded, some have not, but in general I've gone into it knowing what it is (a gamble).
Ah, awesome.
What happened with Metro? Last I heard/saw it was still kicking (legit question, I don't really follow what's going on in Windows anymore).