If we're talking about gun control, or some other non-scientific area, I agree with you. However, the scientific community is not split on global warming. We're making the earth warmer, that's the nearly unanimous view. Remember, there are still a couple goofy scientists that some Religious Right wackos support who claim HIV is not the cause of AIDs. This is roughly the position of the remaining scientists who have not yet accepted that we are causing global warming. For more info on the topic, please read wikipedia.org. Don't take my word for it.
The issue here is that people are using popular opinion and propaganda to make up their minds about scientific issues. If we just stick to science, there's plenty of debate about global warming, just not over whether or not we are the primary cause.
I consider myself a staunch moderate, and there are liberals and conservatives who both hate my views. My vote for next president: John McCain, (unless the next Democrat happens to send his kids to my daughter's school). Should we ban guns? No. Eliminate the death penalty? I frankly don't care. Abortion? I'm pro-choice, but believe we should work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Illegal immigration? I feel we can only afford one class of American, and either need to bring them out of the shadows and offer them a path to citizenship, or deport them. Is worrying that we're making the earth too warm an extreme view? Not for anyone who has read the entire Wikipedia.org article on it. I don't see the downfall of our democracy happening any time soon, but I see a troubling trends. In particular, the Religious Right's attack on science scares the heck out of me.
You don't "believe in" evolution... If you're open to examining facts, I'll have a discussion with you about what I know of evolution, and I can help point you to experts who study it. If you have unshaking faith in the literal truth of the Bible, let's not bother, since you are immune to the evidence the world has to show you.
I'm not saying that evolution=true means god-created-earth=false. It just means that literal interpretation of Genesis has been disproved. Animals evolve. My grandmother bred large dogs into small ones. We evolve, too. It's in the fossil record, in an unbroken proven chain. Is the earth more than 10,000 years old? You bet. Just count the seasonal layers of ice deposited on the (now melting) glaciers to see 1 million years of history. Count seasonal sediment layers on the ocean floor to see a hundred million years. Scientists can show you billions of years worth of history that our world has to tell us. And, it's not just one group of scientists. It's the biologists, who can prove evolution through genetics, and the geologists who can prove the age of fossils, and the anthropologists who study humans, the zoologists who study animals, and the astronomers who can see all the way back to near the time of the Big Bang. Even I, in computer science, have been able to study evolution in computer simulations, where I was independently able to add evidence to the theory that evolution often happens in spurts.
One more thing... please don't quote Fox News as if they are an unbiased authority. Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and Fox has a politically motivated view on global warming. For a good review on the issue, please read the wikipedia article. Until then, so long as you're quoting Fox News, and remain poorly informed, your part of the problem, not the solution.
You could be right, but from my own experience talking to people here in NC, most people don't even believe the earth is getting warmer. I Googled for statistics, but couldn't find any. I did find this typical blog entry:
First of all, I must say that I don't believe global warming exists no matter how much evidence scientists come up with to support it. I think it's just a lot of fear-mongering from ice berg-hugging scientists who are trying to distract us from the War on Terror.
I think this guy more-or-less represents the majority opinion in this state.
Over 50% of Americans don't "believe in" evolution. They also don't believe carbon dating, fossils, or second-hand-smoke health threats. Most also don't "believe in" global warming. Many politicians, including GW, use our self-imposed ignorance of scientific facts to their own advantage.
The downfall of our own democracy may one day happen due to our own ignorance. I think to combat the threat, we should be encouraging celebrities to speak out about science, to help spread knowledge of what is real, and to combat the growing threat of people who do not know the difference. Celebrities are more influential than experts.
I fully agree with you. I may have sounded a bit harsh with the "sneering" comment. Frankly, I do it with a smile in a joking rather than mean way, and early on I do it in code reviews rather than at their desk. I try to give them a chance to make a few files ready for a first review, and politely explain any deviations from our coding practice early on. Later, I get more picky as the coder learns the ropes.
I've tried teaching more up-front, rather than waiting for them to make mistakes and then pointing them out, but it simply doesn't work. It's not my choice, just human nature. For whatever reason, I see super-bright guys often make the same mistakes early on, and if I try to steer them around the obstacles, I'm simply ignored. I find that super-bright guys have to learn by doing.
For example, writing comments while coding just makes sense. Every programmer I've work closely with eventually adopts this practice, as do most experienced coders. However, it often takes a year or two, since early on they're in too much of a hurry. I also try to get them to write the interfaces and data structures first, before starting in on the algorithm. It just doesn't happen with guys right out of school. So, the lessons are learned better when I look over their shoulder and point out that they've just written 1000 lines of crud because they fubared the data-structures. It sounds mean, but I so far as I can tell, it's just the way people are, and their's not much I can do about it. I've tried rules like not letting programmers write code until their interfaces and data structures pass review, but they hate it. However, one good "I told you so" incident is all it takes to reform a guy forever.
It's true that I care more about the company and the product than the employee, and that comes across. One of my recent programmers noticed that it took me about a year to learn his name, and I don't think he liked that (he has a difficult name, I'm not good with names, and frankly don't care). That's one reason I'm a better tech-lead than boss (I try to stay out of direct management). However, I can honestly say that the career tracks I try to build offer both the employee and the company maximum benefits. I get plenty of satisfaction believing I'm creating good jobs, good products, and helping our customers, employees, and even the investors.
The typical career of a coder I work closely with goes something like this. I hire them out of school because I feel they have plenty of algorithms potential, and lots of drive. Someone else has to make sure they have good team-working skills and a compatible personality, because for some reason, I can never tell.
They initially write some crummy code, not like anything an experienced programmer would be proud of. I try not to pick on their early work, but I make sure they work on code that's well isolated from the core. Within probably six months, though, a really bright programmer can get comfortable with how to write solid code, and focus on algorithms, data structures, and interfaces, rather than how best to write an iterator. By then, I start seeing productivity on par with most highly experienced programmers. That's when I let them write core algorithms and new tools critical to the company. Productivity ramps up continuously for probably about their first three years, at which point, I'm getting far more out of them than if I hired a programmer with 20 years experience. I let them take over responsibility for virtually the entire code base (600K lines at this point).
At some point, they've not only learned what they can from us, they have also impressed some other software managers, and gained skills and confidence that will last the rest of their career. Even though we offer solid raises to programmers who progress rapidly, eventually someone offers them a 50% pay hike. In the end, I know I'll lose them, but I do try to keep them an extra year or two, and I argue with management to get star programmers a significant chunk of sto
Yep, this is normal. Most companies have no coding standards, and it's a free-for-all. The companies that do have coding standards often just ham-string their programmers with a bunch of useless code comments (like an "AUTHOR" field above EVERY function). In C, it gets VERY ugly, since the language itself doesn't seem to offer guidelines. It's better in Java and other languages that sort of hand-hold programmers a bit.
I find that coding in straight C, coding standards in our group are very helpful. For example, right now, one of our guys is converting the entire 600K line code base from DataDraw2.0 to DataDraw3.0 (used to manage all the data). DataDraw2.0 generated a 15K line sed script that helps automate the upgrade, but it only works because every line of code in the system is consistent. Our guys spend pretty close to 0 time trying to figure out what tricks the other guys used, and instead just read and write algorithms. Anyone can edit anyone else's work with far less pain than at most companies, and we have far less pain handing a project from one developer to another.
One thing I look for when hiring is willingness to work in a team environment, even when it means compromising on just about every aspect of code development. The best programmer I ever met (Ken McElvain, CTO/founder of Synplicity), is a perfect example of a guy who is probably better off working alone. The team just slows him down, and the team has a heck of a time trying to keep up with his work. If you're such a guy, more power to you, and while I would gladly hire a super-programmer like Ken, they're darned rare, and typically, already rich. They hire guys like me, rather than the other way around.
I make a poor manager, so I let others run the small business I founded. However, I do recruit guys and have a plan for getting the most out of our employees... I try to do it above-board, and let them know about my tricks during the interview.
In short, I try to hire super-bright guys right out of school, with salaries slightly lower than competing offers. I also explain that I expect them to work like heck, and eventually quit when other companies offer them salaries I can't match. In return, I promise they will have a chance to learn everything I know about EDA, and instead of fixing bugs in someone else's code for a living, they'll have a chance to make a major contribution. I tell them they'll have a chance to see their efforts directly help grow the company. I buy them laptops so they have a chance to work around the clock, both at home and at work.
In Silicon Valley, this strategy worked very well. It works fairly well in NC, but the laptops don't work out. Around here, people just don't seem to take work home with them. Partly, I blame the favorable ratio of girls-to-guys here relative to Silicon Valley, and the stronger focus on families. It's also just the culture. I also have difficulty getting the guys here emotionally committed the way that they do in Silicon Valley, which makes a big difference. I moved here partly figuring that since salaries are 25% lower, I could start the company with less capital. That was wrong... the guys in Silicon Valley make up for their pay with 25% more work.
I also have another way of motivating a programmer. If I look over their shoulder, and sneer at some code that wasn't done quite right, I find that's much more effective at getting them fired-up and coding right than trying to directly teach them how to do it right in the first place. Their own code is very personal to them, and they'll work like heck to make it meet my standards, but no one likes to simply be lectured about how to write code in the first place, especially if they're very bright and use to writing better code than their teachers.
Good point. I've also followed bosses, and had them and co-workers follow me. If you get a good team together, it can last a lot longer than your average start-up. It's just a simple human tragedy that so many people stick with poor relationships with their boss for so long. I've had two great bosses, and one who was barely a boss at all but wound up having a great team anyway. Three of my bosses basically didn't work for me, and I'd love to say it's all their fault, but two of them are still highly regarded and successful, and... well the other one actually wasn't good. Everyone's different, and you and your boss can both be great at what you do, and just not work well together. When you find someone you work well with, it's a good idea to stick with him.
Yeah, I think they're focusing on the wrong kind of lying...
In my experience, physical abuse is rare, and emotional abuse is typically somewhat self-inflicted (if your boss doesn't like your work, don't make yourself crazy... just get a new boss).
However, I find lying to some degree is far higher than 2/5. Stock options are the typical one. When you ask "How many shares are outstanding?", the typical response is "Try to imagine that each share is $10." They'll say that even when the current selling price is $0.10. Some bosses also distort information badly, if not down-right lying, to benefit themselves. If you bust your buns making the whole project succeed, it's quite likely your boss will get a bonus or stock options, and you'll get nothing.
In the end, you've got to fend for yourself, while forming a positive relationship with your boss, even though he doesn't always tell you the whole story.
Very nice, but there are additional reasons I recommend Ubuntu over Fedora for newbie home-users. Fedora tends to be less stable, and average unskilled computer users will take their computer back to Best-Buy to have Windows reinstalled if they run into any problems. Most of the Linux-savy guys where I work run Fedora, and for good reasons. In particular, it's nice to be mostly compatible with RedHat, since Enterprise is so pervasive in business use.
Obviously, we'd need more info about the user to make the best call. That's one of the cool things about Linux. It's kind of like Starbucks... I can have my Vente Skim Latte with stiff foam and a shot of vanilla.
Good call, but why not just recommend RedHat Enterprise? Also stable, and it gives newbies a warm fuzzy feeling to pay $150/year for free software and poor support:-)
My own feeling is that RedHat has always pushed an expert interface for IT professionals, rather than dumbing it down for Windows newbies, but if you're talking about a newbie who is installing it at work, sure RedHat (or Derivative) is natural. Again, Suse was also natural here, until it went evil. I recommended RedHat Enterprise just two weeks ago to a client that has difficulty making decisions in the Linux area.
But for home use, I still push average unskilled computer users to Ubuntu.
I agree with your point of view, and I use and recommend Debian over Ubuntu on servers, for example, or for guys who are going to make solid use of apt-get or do lots of open-source development. However, the post seems to be asking what's good for a typical Windows user, new to Linux. I feel this has been Ubuntu's monomaniacal focus, and that they edge out a slight advantage over Debian. All the Debian based distros are very similar, and the really good work is done in Debian. However, the additional contribution made on top of Debian helps focus it for particular applications. I find Ubuntu less frightening to Windows users, partly because of the live-CD, partly because of the pretty picture on boot, etc. Frankly, I wish the distro would smile at users, like the old Macs use to do. The other interesting area Ubuntu seems to be going after is users who want a company they can call at when things don't work. While I can get excellent Debian support, there's not a single company that I can point to as the default go-to-guy. I know it would turn off us open-source guys, but I think it would be wise to advertise Canonical's phone number and web site during the install for anyone who feels they want to pay a few bucks to figure out how to log-in and start Firefox.
Prior to Suse going evil, I would have strongly considered Suse for newbie Linux users. I have a Windows sys-admin friend who recently told me he felt Suse was the best distro for those comfortable with administration of Windows servers. He says it tries harder than the others to look and feel more like Windows. It's a huge shame they decided to turn-off the open-source community, but on the bright side, it's one less distro for us all to waste our time on. Well before Ubuntu came along, we already had waaaay too many distros. Of course, it might be fun creating one, and I'm a pretty good hacker... maybe I'll cone Debian and call it Bill-ian;-)
Heck, yeah. I have had good luck getting people to try the live Ubuntu disk. In comparison, my Fedora disks just don't sell. Hopefully, Fedora will get on this bandwagon soon.
Re your sig... funny... I like the one that reads, "Be good to America or we well export democracy to your country."
Heck, mod parent up! It's a simple answer for a simple question. RedHat always catered to advanced users, Suse went evil recently, Fedora rocks in may ways but is highly unstable and in the end not quite as easy as... Ubuntu. Did I read someone pushing Slackware?!? Great distro, but no way for the noob. Debian rocks, but again, for the noob... Ubuntu.
I wish I could move it home. bill@billrocks.org is at my house, but my work email is at Yahoo. We're a small company of only 7 people, so I have trouble justifying to the boss that we should save the $20/month by paying me to maintain a server:-)
I'm a big fan of greylisting, and I totally agree with you. Most of my spam is from our company's e-mail server hosted by Yahoo. I'm basically screwed, and stuck with C/R, so far as I can tell. Yahoo sends me nearly 200 spams per day.
I agree that C/R is a poor solution. However, with the bone-headedness of the whole freaking world's mail server administrators, spam is getting through in record amounts. Until they come around and fix the problem, C/R is the ONLY viable mechanism guys like me have to participate in the on-line community. Also, it is simply untrue that C/R breaks down if everyone switches to it. Instead, the spam simply goes away. Many people like me have been forced into C/R. If anyone knows a better solution for me, I'd love to hear it, but it can't include having me modify Yahoo's mail server.
Adding C/R to the mail servers is not a good approach. There are better things the servers can do, essentially by trying to verify that the sender is real before passing on the mail. However, if you cannot configure the server (like my Yahoo account), the spam gets to you, and you need a way to filter it. I run C/R on my local machine, in addition to spam filters. The mail it filters out just goes to another folder that I can still search through if I want. I agree with the general opinion that C/R is not the best solution, but if you're like me, you have no other choice. If your mail server administrator is bone-headed, there simply is no other way the end-user can get his mail without having to read hundreds of horrible spams each day. It's just the ugly truth.
Are we finally going to reach a point where only trusted addresses can email us?
Yes, I think we are. I recently had a very enlightening discussion on/. with a strong opponent of challenge/response. It seems that the servers can be configured to eliminate most spam. Well... they haven't been configured, and the spam keeps coming. I hate to have to use it, but challegen/response is the only way I can effectively participate in the on-line community, now that my e-mail is well publicized (bill@billrocks.org). I have to say, I love the freedom to post my e-mail address. It makes me feel like a real person.
I have to agree... He's saying that a computer without Windows is not a product. A bigger BS statement has rarely been made by a reputable PC manufacturer.
Then there's reality. HP, Dell, etc are all full of sh-t. They have been illegally coerced into providing EVERY machine with Windows because Microsoft wants it that way (gee... I wonder why...). The Microsoft tax continues, and the/. community pays...
Slashdot Mirror
If we're talking about gun control, or some other non-scientific area, I agree with you. However, the scientific community is not split on global warming. We're making the earth warmer, that's the nearly unanimous view. Remember, there are still a couple goofy scientists that some Religious Right wackos support who claim HIV is not the cause of AIDs. This is roughly the position of the remaining scientists who have not yet accepted that we are causing global warming. For more info on the topic, please read wikipedia.org. Don't take my word for it.
The issue here is that people are using popular opinion and propaganda to make up their minds about scientific issues. If we just stick to science, there's plenty of debate about global warming, just not over whether or not we are the primary cause.
I consider myself a staunch moderate, and there are liberals and conservatives who both hate my views. My vote for next president: John McCain, (unless the next Democrat happens to send his kids to my daughter's school). Should we ban guns? No. Eliminate the death penalty? I frankly don't care. Abortion? I'm pro-choice, but believe we should work together to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Illegal immigration? I feel we can only afford one class of American, and either need to bring them out of the shadows and offer them a path to citizenship, or deport them. Is worrying that we're making the earth too warm an extreme view? Not for anyone who has read the entire Wikipedia.org article on it. I don't see the downfall of our democracy happening any time soon, but I see a troubling trends. In particular, the Religious Right's attack on science scares the heck out of me.
No problem. Read this artcle There's plenty more on the net. Try Google.
You don't "believe in" evolution... If you're open to examining facts, I'll have a discussion with you about what I know of evolution, and I can help point you to experts who study it. If you have unshaking faith in the literal truth of the Bible, let's not bother, since you are immune to the evidence the world has to show you.
I'm not saying that evolution=true means god-created-earth=false. It just means that literal interpretation of Genesis has been disproved. Animals evolve. My grandmother bred large dogs into small ones. We evolve, too. It's in the fossil record, in an unbroken proven chain. Is the earth more than 10,000 years old? You bet. Just count the seasonal layers of ice deposited on the (now melting) glaciers to see 1 million years of history. Count seasonal sediment layers on the ocean floor to see a hundred million years. Scientists can show you billions of years worth of history that our world has to tell us. And, it's not just one group of scientists. It's the biologists, who can prove evolution through genetics, and the geologists who can prove the age of fossils, and the anthropologists who study humans, the zoologists who study animals, and the astronomers who can see all the way back to near the time of the Big Bang. Even I, in computer science, have been able to study evolution in computer simulations, where I was independently able to add evidence to the theory that evolution often happens in spurts.
One more thing... please don't quote Fox News as if they are an unbiased authority. Fox is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, and Fox has a politically motivated view on global warming. For a good review on the issue, please read the wikipedia article. Until then, so long as you're quoting Fox News, and remain poorly informed, your part of the problem, not the solution.
I think this guy more-or-less represents the majority opinion in this state.
It's a good thing we always know what we're talking about here on /. :-)
Over 50% of Americans don't "believe in" evolution. They also don't believe carbon dating, fossils, or second-hand-smoke health threats. Most also don't "believe in" global warming. Many politicians, including GW, use our self-imposed ignorance of scientific facts to their own advantage.
The downfall of our own democracy may one day happen due to our own ignorance. I think to combat the threat, we should be encouraging celebrities to speak out about science, to help spread knowledge of what is real, and to combat the growing threat of people who do not know the difference. Celebrities are more influential than experts.
I fully agree with you. I may have sounded a bit harsh with the "sneering" comment. Frankly, I do it with a smile in a joking rather than mean way, and early on I do it in code reviews rather than at their desk. I try to give them a chance to make a few files ready for a first review, and politely explain any deviations from our coding practice early on. Later, I get more picky as the coder learns the ropes.
I've tried teaching more up-front, rather than waiting for them to make mistakes and then pointing them out, but it simply doesn't work. It's not my choice, just human nature. For whatever reason, I see super-bright guys often make the same mistakes early on, and if I try to steer them around the obstacles, I'm simply ignored. I find that super-bright guys have to learn by doing.
For example, writing comments while coding just makes sense. Every programmer I've work closely with eventually adopts this practice, as do most experienced coders. However, it often takes a year or two, since early on they're in too much of a hurry. I also try to get them to write the interfaces and data structures first, before starting in on the algorithm. It just doesn't happen with guys right out of school. So, the lessons are learned better when I look over their shoulder and point out that they've just written 1000 lines of crud because they fubared the data-structures. It sounds mean, but I so far as I can tell, it's just the way people are, and their's not much I can do about it. I've tried rules like not letting programmers write code until their interfaces and data structures pass review, but they hate it. However, one good "I told you so" incident is all it takes to reform a guy forever.
It's true that I care more about the company and the product than the employee, and that comes across. One of my recent programmers noticed that it took me about a year to learn his name, and I don't think he liked that (he has a difficult name, I'm not good with names, and frankly don't care). That's one reason I'm a better tech-lead than boss (I try to stay out of direct management). However, I can honestly say that the career tracks I try to build offer both the employee and the company maximum benefits. I get plenty of satisfaction believing I'm creating good jobs, good products, and helping our customers, employees, and even the investors.
The typical career of a coder I work closely with goes something like this. I hire them out of school because I feel they have plenty of algorithms potential, and lots of drive. Someone else has to make sure they have good team-working skills and a compatible personality, because for some reason, I can never tell.
They initially write some crummy code, not like anything an experienced programmer would be proud of. I try not to pick on their early work, but I make sure they work on code that's well isolated from the core. Within probably six months, though, a really bright programmer can get comfortable with how to write solid code, and focus on algorithms, data structures, and interfaces, rather than how best to write an iterator. By then, I start seeing productivity on par with most highly experienced programmers. That's when I let them write core algorithms and new tools critical to the company. Productivity ramps up continuously for probably about their first three years, at which point, I'm getting far more out of them than if I hired a programmer with 20 years experience. I let them take over responsibility for virtually the entire code base (600K lines at this point).
At some point, they've not only learned what they can from us, they have also impressed some other software managers, and gained skills and confidence that will last the rest of their career. Even though we offer solid raises to programmers who progress rapidly, eventually someone offers them a 50% pay hike. In the end, I know I'll lose them, but I do try to keep them an extra year or two, and I argue with management to get star programmers a significant chunk of sto
Yep, this is normal. Most companies have no coding standards, and it's a free-for-all. The companies that do have coding standards often just ham-string their programmers with a bunch of useless code comments (like an "AUTHOR" field above EVERY function). In C, it gets VERY ugly, since the language itself doesn't seem to offer guidelines. It's better in Java and other languages that sort of hand-hold programmers a bit.
I find that coding in straight C, coding standards in our group are very helpful. For example, right now, one of our guys is converting the entire 600K line code base from DataDraw2.0 to DataDraw3.0 (used to manage all the data). DataDraw2.0 generated a 15K line sed script that helps automate the upgrade, but it only works because every line of code in the system is consistent. Our guys spend pretty close to 0 time trying to figure out what tricks the other guys used, and instead just read and write algorithms. Anyone can edit anyone else's work with far less pain than at most companies, and we have far less pain handing a project from one developer to another.
One thing I look for when hiring is willingness to work in a team environment, even when it means compromising on just about every aspect of code development. The best programmer I ever met (Ken McElvain, CTO/founder of Synplicity), is a perfect example of a guy who is probably better off working alone. The team just slows him down, and the team has a heck of a time trying to keep up with his work. If you're such a guy, more power to you, and while I would gladly hire a super-programmer like Ken, they're darned rare, and typically, already rich. They hire guys like me, rather than the other way around.
Holly cow, that's harsh!
I make a poor manager, so I let others run the small business I founded. However, I do recruit guys and have a plan for getting the most out of our employees... I try to do it above-board, and let them know about my tricks during the interview.
In short, I try to hire super-bright guys right out of school, with salaries slightly lower than competing offers. I also explain that I expect them to work like heck, and eventually quit when other companies offer them salaries I can't match. In return, I promise they will have a chance to learn everything I know about EDA, and instead of fixing bugs in someone else's code for a living, they'll have a chance to make a major contribution. I tell them they'll have a chance to see their efforts directly help grow the company. I buy them laptops so they have a chance to work around the clock, both at home and at work.
In Silicon Valley, this strategy worked very well. It works fairly well in NC, but the laptops don't work out. Around here, people just don't seem to take work home with them. Partly, I blame the favorable ratio of girls-to-guys here relative to Silicon Valley, and the stronger focus on families. It's also just the culture. I also have difficulty getting the guys here emotionally committed the way that they do in Silicon Valley, which makes a big difference. I moved here partly figuring that since salaries are 25% lower, I could start the company with less capital. That was wrong... the guys in Silicon Valley make up for their pay with 25% more work.
I also have another way of motivating a programmer. If I look over their shoulder, and sneer at some code that wasn't done quite right, I find that's much more effective at getting them fired-up and coding right than trying to directly teach them how to do it right in the first place. Their own code is very personal to them, and they'll work like heck to make it meet my standards, but no one likes to simply be lectured about how to write code in the first place, especially if they're very bright and use to writing better code than their teachers.
Good point. I've also followed bosses, and had them and co-workers follow me. If you get a good team together, it can last a lot longer than your average start-up. It's just a simple human tragedy that so many people stick with poor relationships with their boss for so long. I've had two great bosses, and one who was barely a boss at all but wound up having a great team anyway. Three of my bosses basically didn't work for me, and I'd love to say it's all their fault, but two of them are still highly regarded and successful, and... well the other one actually wasn't good. Everyone's different, and you and your boss can both be great at what you do, and just not work well together. When you find someone you work well with, it's a good idea to stick with him.
Yeah, I think they're focusing on the wrong kind of lying...
In my experience, physical abuse is rare, and emotional abuse is typically somewhat self-inflicted (if your boss doesn't like your work, don't make yourself crazy... just get a new boss).
However, I find lying to some degree is far higher than 2/5. Stock options are the typical one. When you ask "How many shares are outstanding?", the typical response is "Try to imagine that each share is $10." They'll say that even when the current selling price is $0.10. Some bosses also distort information badly, if not down-right lying, to benefit themselves. If you bust your buns making the whole project succeed, it's quite likely your boss will get a bonus or stock options, and you'll get nothing.
In the end, you've got to fend for yourself, while forming a positive relationship with your boss, even though he doesn't always tell you the whole story.
Very nice, but there are additional reasons I recommend Ubuntu over Fedora for newbie home-users. Fedora tends to be less stable, and average unskilled computer users will take their computer back to Best-Buy to have Windows reinstalled if they run into any problems. Most of the Linux-savy guys where I work run Fedora, and for good reasons. In particular, it's nice to be mostly compatible with RedHat, since Enterprise is so pervasive in business use.
Obviously, we'd need more info about the user to make the best call. That's one of the cool things about Linux. It's kind of like Starbucks... I can have my Vente Skim Latte with stiff foam and a shot of vanilla.
Good call, but why not just recommend RedHat Enterprise? Also stable, and it gives newbies a warm fuzzy feeling to pay $150/year for free software and poor support :-)
My own feeling is that RedHat has always pushed an expert interface for IT professionals, rather than dumbing it down for Windows newbies, but if you're talking about a newbie who is installing it at work, sure RedHat (or Derivative) is natural. Again, Suse was also natural here, until it went evil. I recommended RedHat Enterprise just two weeks ago to a client that has difficulty making decisions in the Linux area.
But for home use, I still push average unskilled computer users to Ubuntu.
I agree with your point of view, and I use and recommend Debian over Ubuntu on servers, for example, or for guys who are going to make solid use of apt-get or do lots of open-source development. However, the post seems to be asking what's good for a typical Windows user, new to Linux. I feel this has been Ubuntu's monomaniacal focus, and that they edge out a slight advantage over Debian. All the Debian based distros are very similar, and the really good work is done in Debian. However, the additional contribution made on top of Debian helps focus it for particular applications. I find Ubuntu less frightening to Windows users, partly because of the live-CD, partly because of the pretty picture on boot, etc. Frankly, I wish the distro would smile at users, like the old Macs use to do. The other interesting area Ubuntu seems to be going after is users who want a company they can call at when things don't work. While I can get excellent Debian support, there's not a single company that I can point to as the default go-to-guy. I know it would turn off us open-source guys, but I think it would be wise to advertise Canonical's phone number and web site during the install for anyone who feels they want to pay a few bucks to figure out how to log-in and start Firefox.
;-)
Prior to Suse going evil, I would have strongly considered Suse for newbie Linux users. I have a Windows sys-admin friend who recently told me he felt Suse was the best distro for those comfortable with administration of Windows servers. He says it tries harder than the others to look and feel more like Windows. It's a huge shame they decided to turn-off the open-source community, but on the bright side, it's one less distro for us all to waste our time on. Well before Ubuntu came along, we already had waaaay too many distros. Of course, it might be fun creating one, and I'm a pretty good hacker... maybe I'll cone Debian and call it Bill-ian
Heck, yeah. I have had good luck getting people to try the live Ubuntu disk. In comparison, my Fedora disks just don't sell. Hopefully, Fedora will get on this bandwagon soon.
Re your sig... funny... I like the one that reads, "Be good to America or we well export democracy to your country."
Heck, mod parent up! It's a simple answer for a simple question. RedHat always catered to advanced users, Suse went evil recently, Fedora rocks in may ways but is highly unstable and in the end not quite as easy as ... Ubuntu. Did I read someone pushing Slackware?!? Great distro, but no way for the noob. Debian rocks, but again, for the noob... Ubuntu.
I wish I could move it home. bill@billrocks.org is at my house, but my work email is at Yahoo. We're a small company of only 7 people, so I have trouble justifying to the boss that we should save the $20/month by paying me to maintain a server :-)
I'm a big fan of greylisting, and I totally agree with you. Most of my spam is from our company's e-mail server hosted by Yahoo. I'm basically screwed, and stuck with C/R, so far as I can tell. Yahoo sends me nearly 200 spams per day.
I agree that C/R is a poor solution. However, with the bone-headedness of the whole freaking world's mail server administrators, spam is getting through in record amounts. Until they come around and fix the problem, C/R is the ONLY viable mechanism guys like me have to participate in the on-line community. Also, it is simply untrue that C/R breaks down if everyone switches to it. Instead, the spam simply goes away. Many people like me have been forced into C/R. If anyone knows a better solution for me, I'd love to hear it, but it can't include having me modify Yahoo's mail server.
Adding C/R to the mail servers is not a good approach. There are better things the servers can do, essentially by trying to verify that the sender is real before passing on the mail. However, if you cannot configure the server (like my Yahoo account), the spam gets to you, and you need a way to filter it. I run C/R on my local machine, in addition to spam filters. The mail it filters out just goes to another folder that I can still search through if I want. I agree with the general opinion that C/R is not the best solution, but if you're like me, you have no other choice. If your mail server administrator is bone-headed, there simply is no other way the end-user can get his mail without having to read hundreds of horrible spams each day. It's just the ugly truth.
Yes, exactly! I must say my respect for Jeremy could not be higher. We here on /. should do well to live up to his example.
I have to agree... He's saying that a computer without Windows is not a product. A bigger BS statement has rarely been made by a reputable PC manufacturer.
Then there's reality. HP, Dell, etc are all full of sh-t. They have been illegally coerced into providing EVERY machine with Windows because Microsoft wants it that way (gee... I wonder why...). The Microsoft tax continues, and the