The Secrets of Consulting: A Guide to Giving and Getting Advice Successfully by Gerald M. Weinberg
It has a lot of little anecdotes that help you recall concepts of how to manage your own time. Things like Rudy's law of Rutabaga stick with me even though I haven't picked up the book in a while. I read this book based on someone's recommendation on/. a long time ago, and I am glad I did.
I saw a program a while back interviewing an author about a book called "Crashing Through", where the main character looses his sight when he is very young, and then has it restored to him later in life. The problem was that because his brain had not learned to interpret the signals coming from it, he was unable to get "Normal" vision. From what I remember of the interview, a lot of people who have been in a similar situation get very depressed because they know their vision will never be restored and they are overwhelmed by the amount of new and useless info their brain is receiving.
The DOCSIS 1.1 spec introduces Service flows, which were not part of the 1.0 spec, they allow voice in that you can lock up bandwidth with more flavors of QoS than I really want to think about. With DOCSIS 1.1 you can use the Downstream Maximum Sustained Rate as defined in Section C.2.2.5.2.2 of the DOCSIS 1.1 RFI (www.cablemodem.com) to limit users to a specified Bandwidth. Once this is used the CMTS ( for people not in the industry read: the head end unit that talks to the cable modem) must enforce upstream grants instead of the modem, and hacking a CMTS is a MUCH bigger task. Now, of course if you have a DOCSIS 1.0 modem on a 1.1 plant you have to use CoS to provision the modem, or else the modem will most likely freak out. How the hackers uncap is they have to find vulnerable firmware (which the MSO(read: Cable Company)s could probably upgrade and fix this problem) which downloads its tftp file through the ethernet link. This is a vulnerability that should really be closed, but might be useful useful in a development enviornment. However if you try to spoof the bandwidth settings with a DOCSIS 1.1 CMTS you will have a record within the CMTS of the bandwidth settings, and it will be near impossible to spoof the connection speed so that the MSO won't be able to see it. You also have to remember that when someone steals bandwidth it really screws up everyone else on that upstream, since the resource planning (if existant) for the upstream bandwidth gets shot to hell.
This ability to control bandwidth is one of the main advantages of DOCSIS 1.1, however since many MSOs do not utilize such features as the CMTS-MIC authenication string, new firmware, SNMP v3, or Baseline privacy, it is no wonder that things like uncapping occur. Heck we all know better than to not install security patches for programs, upgrading firmware on modems is no different. In addition since there are so many modems out there that are DOCSIS 1.0 only, the only real thing pushing DOCSIS 1.1 is VoIP solutions (read: an extra $30/voice line/month for an MSO). However with the presence of CBR solutions in the marketplace and the momentum behind them and the cutting edge nature of VoIP (read expensive deployment cost / very few large vendors with DOCSIS 1.1 capable CMTSs/CMs) it will take a while before DOCSIS 1.1 becomes deFacto and uncapping becomes more a thing of the past.
I personally switched majors after I got my BSME. I managed to get my MS "majoring in" EE (Long Story...). I chose to get an ME degree because that's what my dad was, and it turned out later to be a boneheaded move. Right now, I program firmware and software for a cable modem vendor. I still have no idea what I want to do with the rest of my life. I work with a guy whose only degree is ChemE, he now writes automated tests for cable modems in Tcl under Linux and likes it very much. Honestly what I'd tell you to do is figure out what major intrests you the most and do it. It's not like you can't do something else in life, all you need is the determination and the will to succeed in it and you will. What got me on the EE path was that I worked for a big auto company back when I was an ME, and every morning I woke up and said, "Do I really have to go to work today?" It was only then I realized that I should've been an EE. I got a new degree and am pretty happy now. What you really need to learn from college is how to learn, and most stuff you can pick up on your own. The only solid advice I can give is figure out what job you could get today with that degree and ask yourself, "After a year would I be dreading going into work?" If you answer yes, then that degree is not right for you. I'd have to say I've never really regretted getting either of my engineering degrees, just some of the jobs I've gotten because of them...
Just for clarification, could you specify what version of Windows you're speaking of?
Mostly I was referring to 95/98 they're the ones I have the most experience with, except at work. ACL is pretty nice, because most of the time when I'm on the machine I can do whatever I want, but only when I'm on the network do the start getting rigorously inforced.
As for number one, BSODs are typically caused by bad drivers, or bad third-party software (ie, stuff not under MS's control). I've had my own share of segfaults and such in various unices.
Yes there are a lot of problems that Microsoft doesn't really have control over, but it's so much easier to blame them:) And yes I have had the same problems through the years with UNIX systems, but usually not in this number. I do have to admit that with NT and 2000 I have had better luck, but I'm not going to lower my expectations just because the system is a complex almost impossible behemoth that no one person alone could understand. Wow, I guess I do have management potential after all.
Addressing number 4 in the list of "Bad" is simple -- Windows 2000 has a tab on the Task Manager to show all processes, with customizable columns.
What I was referring to was under 98 when I look at the system manager there are various programs that exist as drivers but are programs and when my system gets unstable I try to kill them, and their names usually aren't too verbose on what they do, though after a while I can kind of figure out what they do. I had had some "issues" with 2k which caused me to shy away from using it (they have been eliminated, but once bitten twice shy), although I do admit it's way superior to both NT and 95 IMHO.
For number 5, who said you have to write Win32 code?
Nothing, it's just that what I'd like is something as easy (in my mind) as java to learn that wasn't a resource hog (java). I just thought it would be nice to have a windowing system that people could program as directly as possible to the windowing system, but yet be able to learn it as a first experience to gui programming. (I program embedded systems for a living and gui coding is in my mind needs a different mindset when you do it) I guess this is wayyyyy too much to ask, but I figure why the hell not ask for it? More proof I can be a manager.
As for the problems with the GUI (X), the only sane solution is to get rid of it!
Preach on.
Of course, that's never going to happen.
While I pretty much agree with everything you said I wish I didn't have to agree with this. Not that anyone is reading this thread at this point:)
1)We should be thinking about ways in which the UNIX philosophy is deficient, rather than continually reassuring ourselves that it's all
okay. Look at it pragmatically: Who's got the biggest market penetration? Who's system is easier to learn to program in for the beginner, ignoring cost?
UN*X is a tool. Like all tools there are different tools for different jobs. I think comparing UNIX to MS's products is foolish because they are designed for completely different purposes originally. Maybe what we need to do is develop something that is single-user if our main objective is to crush Microsoft, but I don't think that is what I use Linux for. I think what we're tired of is not having the flexibility in MS's enviornment to yield the true potential we think is in our machines. I am also of the personal belief that X-Windows and window managers sometimes can make me swear more than any MS product can. What I want is speed and power, and I don't want to sit for days trying to figure out how to tweak it to my needs. Just fix it one way for all Window managers and stick with it. Let people tweak it if they want but first make them all look basically the same. Frankly I'd rather learn how to adapt to a window manager once so that whoever I logged in as I could be as quick as I am when logged in as myself. No matter what box no matter where.
Okay, these are total flamebait questions, so please, please don't respond to these in particular. Use your imagination, and think of some ways in which Windows is better than UNIX, rather than touting all the advantages of your pet operating system. Otherwise, you're just brainwashing yourselves with your own marketing.
Here is why I like Windows better than UNIX:
1) No matter what Windows box I sit at the controls are always the same. Emacs should have the meta key where the alt key is on most IBM PCs, but I never see it by default on a Linux box, and I know people on Sun boxen are a heck of a lot quicker in emacs with it. Also RedHat's version of gnome when you hit Alt-F4 goes to the 4th VT, this drives me insane after coming in from the cold of NT. Yes I know I can fix all that, but I shouldn't have to.
2) In windows I am (in a non-networked enviornment) root. I do what I please, no permissions, freedom like none offered by a UNIX system. This is not something UNIX should ever offer, BTW it's something only a single-user machine needs and a multi-user enviornment should probably never have.
3) Whenever I need help I just go to someone else around and they point me to someone who knows how to fix my problem. And stupid tech support people don't refuse to talk to me. (Yes I know if I read the docs eveything is explained. Try explaining that to some of the computer illiterates I've met)
4) Usually it's easy to aquire software.
5) A few clicks and I have a working non-postscript printer. Amen.
What's bad about MS Windows:
1) BSOD. If it isn't stable it isn't worth installing.
2) It's not designed to be a multi-user enviornment.
3) It's insecure due to the lack of walling between the user and his power to do bad things. I actually believe that UN*X provides stronger protections from the user shooting himself in the foot than MS Windows in some respects. (However in UNIX when I shoot my foot I tend to blow my lower torso off)
4) Windows isn't as visible to what is going on. A ps ax isn't available to selectively kill, sure you can do a vulcan neck pinch, but what the hell are some of those programs running? I have no friggin clue half the time. It would be nice if whenever you did something you could find out what the hell is going on. This is my same complaint about RedHat's linuxconf. I never have a clue of what it's doing and I usually end up regressing back to my slackware years.
5) Programming in Win32 is like smoking crack. I've got better things to do with my life.
6) I don't have lots of cool free software that Linux provides
What I think the community needs to realize is that maybe we should think about a couple of things:
1) Can we make a really good Single-User Operating System? I'd like something that let me f up the system completely but yet have everything laid out in an understandable fashion if I take the time to read the docs. To be honest, I never would have figured out Linux if not for the LDP. I however think copying MS's products is a waste of time, I think if we went our own way people would have to follow, just like they're starting to follow Linux, and maybe we could make an OS that even our Moms could understand and even possibly maintain. *SHUDDER*
2) Improving the front end for UNIX users, the GUI is the place to go, but what we really need to do is lock down a keyboard structure for all commands that will happen on the X-Windows. Frankly until this happens I'll get more and more frustrated because I don't have the time to learn how to program effectively in each new WM to come along. Why can't we just agree on some type structure of keyboard strcture for the gui where by hitting a single key with no windows in focus magical stuff would happen that would save us from using the mouse. Then standardize it. I don't care what window manager I use, I don't care about the licensing crap, I don't care about your internal struggles over programming methods, just make my life easier, let me use the keyboard more, and the mouse less. The speed of the keyboard is what makes UNIX powerful and the quicker I reach the state or nerdvana where I am one with my computer the happier I'll be. While tweakablity is a really good reason to move to UNIX a uniform command structure is the most important thing to getting any system used widely used.
3)At some point we might have to consider the fact that X-Windows, while it is a standard may have to be sacrificed at the altar of programming sanity. Just because it won the race due to the availability of it's source doesn't mean it is better.
I know this is a lot of flame-bait especially since I can not offer solutions. I thought however I needed to say what I thought the problems were, so do with them what you wish. Someday maybe I'll actually achieve nerdvana. *SIGH*
for the Sci.electronics.Repair FAQ humor section for a bunch of Engineer and lawyer jokes. I found it the other day and almost died laughing, even though it is cruel I liked Chapter 40 a lot:)
Slashdot Mirror
The Secrets of Consulting: A Guide to Giving and Getting Advice Successfully by Gerald M. Weinberg /. a long time ago, and I am glad I did.
It has a lot of little anecdotes that help you recall concepts of how to manage your own time. Things like Rudy's law of Rutabaga stick with me even though I haven't picked up the book in a while. I read this book based on someone's recommendation on
I saw a program a while back interviewing an author about a book called "Crashing Through", where the main character looses his sight when he is very young, and then has it restored to him later in life. The problem was that because his brain had not learned to interpret the signals coming from it, he was unable to get "Normal" vision. From what I remember of the interview, a lot of people who have been in a similar situation get very depressed because they know their vision will never be restored and they are overwhelmed by the amount of new and useless info their brain is receiving.
The DOCSIS 1.1 spec introduces Service flows, which were not part of the 1.0 spec, they allow voice in that you can lock up bandwidth with more flavors of QoS than I really want to think about. With DOCSIS 1.1 you can use the Downstream Maximum Sustained Rate as defined in Section C.2.2.5.2.2 of the DOCSIS 1.1 RFI (www.cablemodem.com) to limit users to a specified Bandwidth. Once this is used the CMTS ( for people not in the industry read: the head end unit that talks to the cable modem) must enforce upstream grants instead of the modem, and hacking a CMTS is a MUCH bigger task. Now, of course if you have a DOCSIS 1.0 modem on a 1.1 plant you have to use CoS to provision the modem, or else the modem will most likely freak out. How the hackers uncap is they have to find vulnerable firmware (which the MSO(read: Cable Company)s could probably upgrade and fix this problem) which downloads its tftp file through the ethernet link. This is a vulnerability that should really be closed, but might be useful useful in a development enviornment. However if you try to spoof the bandwidth settings with a DOCSIS 1.1 CMTS you will have a record within the CMTS of the bandwidth settings, and it will be near impossible to spoof the connection speed so that the MSO won't be able to see it. You also have to remember that when someone steals bandwidth it really screws up everyone else on that upstream, since the resource planning (if existant) for the upstream bandwidth gets shot to hell.
This ability to control bandwidth is one of the main advantages of DOCSIS 1.1, however since many MSOs do not utilize such features as the CMTS-MIC authenication string, new firmware, SNMP v3, or Baseline privacy, it is no wonder that things like uncapping occur. Heck we all know better than to not install security patches for programs, upgrading firmware on modems is no different. In addition since there are so many modems out there that are DOCSIS 1.0 only, the only real thing pushing DOCSIS 1.1 is VoIP solutions (read: an extra $30/voice line/month for an MSO). However with the presence of CBR solutions in the marketplace and the momentum behind them and the cutting edge nature of VoIP (read expensive deployment cost / very few large vendors with DOCSIS 1.1 capable CMTSs/CMs) it will take a while before DOCSIS 1.1 becomes deFacto and uncapping becomes more a thing of the past.
Just for clarification, could you specify what version of Windows you're speaking of?
Mostly I was referring to 95/98 they're the ones I have the most experience with, except at work. ACL is pretty nice, because most of the time when I'm on the machine I can do whatever I want, but only when I'm on the network do the start getting rigorously inforced.
As for number one, BSODs are typically caused by bad drivers, or bad third-party software (ie, stuff not under MS's control). I've had my own share of segfaults and such in various unices.
Yes there are a lot of problems that Microsoft doesn't really have control over, but it's so much easier to blame them:) And yes I have had the same problems through the years with UNIX systems, but usually not in this number. I do have to admit that with NT and 2000 I have had better luck, but I'm not going to lower my expectations just because the system is a complex almost impossible behemoth that no one person alone could understand. Wow, I guess I do have management potential after all.
Addressing number 4 in the list of "Bad" is simple -- Windows 2000 has a tab on the Task Manager to show all processes, with customizable columns.
What I was referring to was under 98 when I look at the system manager there are various programs that exist as drivers but are programs and when my system gets unstable I try to kill them, and their names usually aren't too verbose on what they do, though after a while I can kind of figure out what they do. I had had some "issues" with 2k which caused me to shy away from using it (they have been eliminated, but once bitten twice shy), although I do admit it's way superior to both NT and 95 IMHO.
For number 5, who said you have to write Win32 code?
Nothing, it's just that what I'd like is something as easy (in my mind) as java to learn that wasn't a resource hog (java). I just thought it would be nice to have a windowing system that people could program as directly as possible to the windowing system, but yet be able to learn it as a first experience to gui programming. (I program embedded systems for a living and gui coding is in my mind needs a different mindset when you do it) I guess this is wayyyyy too much to ask, but I figure why the hell not ask for it? More proof I can be a manager.
As for the problems with the GUI (X), the only sane solution is to get rid of it!
Preach on.
Of course, that's never going to happen.
While I pretty much agree with everything you said I wish I didn't have to agree with this. Not that anyone is reading this thread at this point:)
1)We should be thinking about ways in which the UNIX philosophy is deficient, rather than continually reassuring ourselves that it's all okay. Look at it pragmatically: Who's got the biggest market penetration? Who's system is easier to learn to program in for the beginner, ignoring cost?
UN*X is a tool. Like all tools there are different tools for different jobs. I think comparing UNIX to MS's products is foolish because they are designed for completely different purposes originally. Maybe what we need to do is develop something that is single-user if our main objective is to crush Microsoft, but I don't think that is what I use Linux for. I think what we're tired of is not having the flexibility in MS's enviornment to yield the true potential we think is in our machines. I am also of the personal belief that X-Windows and window managers sometimes can make me swear more than any MS product can. What I want is speed and power, and I don't want to sit for days trying to figure out how to tweak it to my needs. Just fix it one way for all Window managers and stick with it. Let people tweak it if they want but first make them all look basically the same. Frankly I'd rather learn how to adapt to a window manager once so that whoever I logged in as I could be as quick as I am when logged in as myself. No matter what box no matter where.
Okay, these are total flamebait questions, so please, please don't respond to these in particular. Use your imagination, and think of some ways in which Windows is better than UNIX, rather than touting all the advantages of your pet operating system. Otherwise, you're just brainwashing yourselves with your own marketing.
Here is why I like Windows better than UNIX:
1) No matter what Windows box I sit at the controls are always the same. Emacs should have the meta key where the alt key is on most IBM PCs, but I never see it by default on a Linux box, and I know people on Sun boxen are a heck of a lot quicker in emacs with it. Also RedHat's version of gnome when you hit Alt-F4 goes to the 4th VT, this drives me insane after coming in from the cold of NT. Yes I know I can fix all that, but I shouldn't have to.
2) In windows I am (in a non-networked enviornment) root. I do what I please, no permissions, freedom like none offered by a UNIX system. This is not something UNIX should ever offer, BTW it's something only a single-user machine needs and a multi-user enviornment should probably never have.
3) Whenever I need help I just go to someone else around and they point me to someone who knows how to fix my problem. And stupid tech support people don't refuse to talk to me. (Yes I know if I read the docs eveything is explained. Try explaining that to some of the computer illiterates I've met)
4) Usually it's easy to aquire software.
5) A few clicks and I have a working non-postscript printer. Amen.
What's bad about MS Windows:
1) BSOD. If it isn't stable it isn't worth installing.
2) It's not designed to be a multi-user enviornment.
3) It's insecure due to the lack of walling between the user and his power to do bad things. I actually believe that UN*X provides stronger protections from the user shooting himself in the foot than MS Windows in some respects. (However in UNIX when I shoot my foot I tend to blow my lower torso off)
4) Windows isn't as visible to what is going on. A ps ax isn't available to selectively kill, sure you can do a vulcan neck pinch, but what the hell are some of those programs running? I have no friggin clue half the time. It would be nice if whenever you did something you could find out what the hell is going on. This is my same complaint about RedHat's linuxconf. I never have a clue of what it's doing and I usually end up regressing back to my slackware years.
5) Programming in Win32 is like smoking crack. I've got better things to do with my life.
6) I don't have lots of cool free software that Linux provides
What I think the community needs to realize is that maybe we should think about a couple of things:
1) Can we make a really good Single-User Operating System? I'd like something that let me f up the system completely but yet have everything laid out in an understandable fashion if I take the time to read the docs. To be honest, I never would have figured out Linux if not for the LDP. I however think copying MS's products is a waste of time, I think if we went our own way people would have to follow, just like they're starting to follow Linux, and maybe we could make an OS that even our Moms could understand and even possibly maintain. *SHUDDER*
2) Improving the front end for UNIX users, the GUI is the place to go, but what we really need to do is lock down a keyboard structure for all commands that will happen on the X-Windows. Frankly until this happens I'll get more and more frustrated because I don't have the time to learn how to program effectively in each new WM to come along. Why can't we just agree on some type structure of keyboard strcture for the gui where by hitting a single key with no windows in focus magical stuff would happen that would save us from using the mouse. Then standardize it. I don't care what window manager I use, I don't care about the licensing crap, I don't care about your internal struggles over programming methods, just make my life easier, let me use the keyboard more, and the mouse less. The speed of the keyboard is what makes UNIX powerful and the quicker I reach the state or nerdvana where I am one with my computer the happier I'll be. While tweakablity is a really good reason to move to UNIX a uniform command structure is the most important thing to getting any system used widely used.
3)At some point we might have to consider the fact that X-Windows, while it is a standard may have to be sacrificed at the altar of programming sanity. Just because it won the race due to the availability of it's source doesn't mean it is better.
I know this is a lot of flame-bait especially since I can not offer solutions. I thought however I needed to say what I thought the problems were, so do with them what you wish. Someday maybe I'll actually achieve nerdvana. *SIGH*
http://192.132.34.17/pub/electronics/repairfaq/REP AIR/F_humor.html
for the Sci.electronics.Repair FAQ humor section for a bunch of Engineer and lawyer jokes. I found it the other day and almost died laughing, even though it is cruel I liked Chapter 40 a lot:)