In places I've worked, interns get assigned to "real" projects; projects that actually matter to the company. (No, probably not the cutting-edge, critical projects, but "real" ones nonetheless.) And, since the company wants the work done well, mentoring is part of the deal.
Since the company needs good people, it's in the company's interest to give interns interesting tasks, and generally give them an experience which will encourage them to apply for a job there when they graduate. Oh, and to tell their classmates, friends, and fellow networkers which companies treat their interns well.
A fairly high proportion of the interns we work with turn into regular employees, and good ones. Everybody wins.
(Me, I sneaked in through the window while HR was momentarily distracted. Shhhh.)
Consider the source. Mr. Ranum is just trying to build his company's market. That is why he wants to whip up hysteria (e.g. "weapons dealers"... "terrorism"...), and that is why he advocates keeping vulnerabilities secret. Disclosed vulnerabilities get fixed, and we know they have been fixed. Mr. Ranum doesn't want that; he wants us to be ignorant and afraid.
... Their software got ported to Linux a couple of years ago, but the Linux drivers for the boards (open source) don't have most of the capabilities found in their windows (closed source) counterparts because the company fears releasing a piece of technology in the chips that they've developed....
With open source, you have more developers porting the drivers to more platforms used by more customers. (And you don't even have to pay the developers!) PHBs still do not get it? Good luck...
Even with closed source, your competition will still find out everything they want to know about your hardware. (See "How to have fun with disassemblers, logic analyzers, microscopes, and other nifty tools".) PHBs don't understand this either? Good luck...
(Also: still guarding technology which was developed a couple of years ago? These days, that is a long time.)
From what i know about ServerBench it uses a threaded IO model on NT, but a fork/process model on Linux.
If so, that would make a big difference.
Instead of getting all wrapped around benchmarks (let alone closed-source benchmarks!) we would be better off paying attention to the efficiency of the server program:
Speed
It is so easy now to get a high-efficiency server program that speed is no longer a significant discriminant. In ancient times, the Web server forked a new process every time a user requested a page, graphic, or other file. The second generation of Web servers pre-forked a big pool of processes, e.g., 64 of them, and let each one handle a user. The server computer's operating system ensured that each process got a fair share of the computer's resources. A computer running a pre-forking server could handle at least three times the load. The latest generation of Web server programs uses a single process with internal threads. This has resulted in another tripling of performance.
It is possible to throw away 90 percent of your computer's resources by choosing the wrong Web server program. Traffic is so low at most sites and computer hardware so cheap that this doesn't become a problem until the big day when the site gets listed on the Netscape site's What's New page. In the summer of 1996, that link delivered several extra users every second at the Bill Gates Personal Wealth Clock (
http://www.webho.com/WealthClock). Every other site on Netscape's list was unreachable. The Wealth Clock was working perfectly from a slice of a 70 Mhz pizza-box computer...
See "So You Want to Run Your Own Server" (Chapter 8 of Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing), at http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/server. (It might be a good idea to read the other chapters also...)
Just so; it's the classic Loss Leader. Correct also about MS using this as an opportunity to pack corporate tech staffs with MS droids. Significantly, Red Hat's representative spoke about work in progress to make their certification more accessible, whereas MS was not represented at the conference. It seems that the "new kid on the block" is listening to the customers and making improvements -- contrary to the entirely negative tone of the headline.
At the Index at the top of the FAQ, click "What is the best book to learn C++ from?"; this item includes
Have a look at
the ACCU (The Association of C and C++ Users) site. This is one of the best sites for book recommendations by experienced programmers who are not afraid to speak their mind (booksellers tend to give rosy reviews, and reviews of the form "This book is perfect, I love it, I have read almost three chapters, and can't wait to read more" are worse than useless - why anyone would take advice on how to learn C++ from someone who completely lacks C++ experience beats me). The ACCU rates books for level of experience required and overall quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Since the company needs good people, it's in the company's interest to give interns interesting tasks, and generally give them an experience which will encourage them to apply for a job there when they graduate. Oh, and to tell their classmates, friends, and fellow networkers which companies treat their interns well.
A fairly high proportion of the interns we work with turn into regular employees, and good ones. Everybody wins.
(Me, I sneaked in through the window while HR was momentarily distracted. Shhhh.)
Consider the source. Mr. Ranum is just trying to build his company's market. That is why he wants to whip up hysteria (e.g. "weapons dealers" ... "terrorism" ...), and that is why he advocates keeping vulnerabilities secret. Disclosed vulnerabilities get fixed, and we know they have been fixed. Mr. Ranum doesn't want that; he wants us to be ignorant and afraid.
With open source, you have more developers porting the drivers to more platforms used by more customers. (And you don't even have to pay the developers!) PHBs still do not get it? Good luck...
Even with closed source, your competition will still find out everything they want to know about your hardware. (See "How to have fun with disassemblers, logic analyzers, microscopes, and other nifty tools".) PHBs don't understand this either? Good luck...
(Also: still guarding technology which was developed a couple of years ago? These days, that is a long time.)
P.S.: Eric S. Raymond addresses the driver question in Why Closing Drivers Loses A Vendor Money, part of The Magic Cauldron. Good stuff.
Instead of getting all wrapped around benchmarks (let alone closed-source benchmarks!) we would be better off paying attention to the efficiency of the server program:
(by Philip Greenspun, from So you want to run your own server, which is Chapter 8 of Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing)See "So You Want to Run Your Own Server" (Chapter 8 of Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing), at http://www.arsdigita.com/books/panda/server. (It might be a good idea to read the other chapters also...)
Just so; it's the classic Loss Leader. Correct also about MS using this as an opportunity to pack corporate tech staffs with MS droids. Significantly, Red Hat's representative spoke about work in progress to make their certification more accessible, whereas MS was not represented at the conference. It seems that the "new kid on the block" is listening to the customers and making improvements -- contrary to the entirely negative tone of the headline.
More from Stroustrup on Java:
l )
Q: What is your take on the Java revolution?
A: What Java revolution?
(read the complete interview by Chuck Allison from the C/C++ Journal,
1996, at http://www.research.att.com/~bs/cuj_interview.htm
No images, please; we're impatient. This is especially true at home, using a 14.4 Kb/s (!) modem.
bool_t obsolete = (paid_for && works);