1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux

This is a discussion on 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop - Linux ; Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart) http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html Traits: * Nym shifting (see below) * Self confessed thief and proud of it * Homophobic * Racist * Habitual liar * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 97

Thread: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

  1. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  2. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  3. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  4. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Moshe Goldfarb is flatfish (in real life Gary Stewart)

    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2008/...arb-troll.html
    http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/2007/...ish-troll.html

    Traits:

    * Nym shifting (see below)
    * Self confessed thief and proud of it
    * Homophobic
    * Racist
    * Habitual liar
    * Frequently cross posts replies to other non-Linux related newsgroups
    * Frequently cross posts articles originally not posted to COLA

  5. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard wrote:
    > DFS wrote:



    >>>> You can "understands cross-platform" all you want (Linonut
    >>>> "understands" it too), but at the end of the day 100% of your code
    >>>> is written on Windows, by Windows, for Windows.
    >>>
    >>> Wrong, wrong and wrong.

    >>
    >> uh huh.


    I'd love to be able to prove you're lying.

    What kind of code do you write (apps, games, embedded, mobile, etc)?
    What kind of non-Windows code do you write?



    >> Excuse me? I don't believe for a second that you choose the
    >> target/production platform only *after* testing the code on it.
    >>

    >
    > Proper engineering requires that boundaries be set, but decisions
    > such as which OS is to be used should be based on requirements and
    > best fit and not on your inability to use anything but Windows.


    blah blah blah... you're a silly bull****ter, Ian.



    >>> In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is
    >>> not. This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    >>> requirements.

    >>
    >> But you just said the opposite: you just said the OS is chosen after
    >> the code is written?

    >
    > < > includes the operating system.>> This indicates that there should be
    > an abstraction layer between the code and the operating system.
    > Hence, it is a simple matter to develop a code base for a set of
    > operating systems and then use proper testing to select the best one.


    The best one for what?


    > The point here is that choosing the OS at the beginning forces firm
    > decisions to be made on assumptions, which may be wrong.


    huh? More blah blah blah... talking circles to cover your previous loony
    statements.

    First: "the OS should be chosen to best meet the requirements."
    Then: "develop a code base for a set of operating systems and then use
    proper testing to select the best one."




    >>> Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a requirement.

    >>
    >> Nor is being too stupid to "use learn" English.

    >
    > Fine, "Being too stupid to learn a new OS is NOT a requirement."


    Judging by your confusion here I expect you really are too stupid to learn a
    new OS.



    >> Recently when I was use learning Linux (StartCom), I switched from
    >> KDE to a
    >> Gnome session. When I switched back to KDE, the "OS" had simply
    >> deleted every last item in the KDE | System menu (it previously
    >> contained some 30 entries). Go dirtware! Don't fret for me though,
    >> Ian; I found where KDE stores the menu config file and I restored my
    >> System menu and beat the slopware at its game (which is screwing
    >> users over at every opportunity, of course).

    >
    > You have the amazing ability to have failures that no one else seems
    > to have.


    No one else except the millions of Linux victims filing bug reports
    practically every second of every day. The bewildering range of bull****
    Linux problems is really amazing.

    Linux freezes *when* USB device plugged in: "It now freezes my computer and
    I have no idea how to fix that."
    #1 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ht=USB+freezes


    Linux freezes *unless* USB device plugged in: "...don't know why but I need
    to have a usb mouse plugged-in otherwise the system hangs."
    #7 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...hlight=freezes



    > You must be a very unlucky person or have esoteric Windows
    > only hardware.


    Anything but Linux is at fault - that's a given on cola.




  6. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    DFS wrote:

    > Ian Hilliard wrote:
    >> DFS wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>>> You can "understands cross-platform" all you want (Linonut
    >>>>> "understands" it too), but at the end of the day 100% of your code
    >>>>> is written on Windows, by Windows, for Windows.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wrong, wrong and wrong.
    >>>
    >>> uh huh.

    >
    > I'd love to be able to prove you're lying.
    >
    > What kind of code do you write (apps, games, embedded, mobile, etc)?
    > What kind of non-Windows code do you write?
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Excuse me? I don't believe for a second that you choose the
    >>> target/production platform only *after* testing the code on it.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Proper engineering requires that boundaries be set, but decisions
    >> such as which OS is to be used should be based on requirements and
    >> best fit and not on your inability to use anything but Windows.

    >
    > blah blah blah... you're a silly bull****ter, Ian.
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is
    >>>> not. This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    >>>> requirements.
    >>>
    >>> But you just said the opposite: you just said the OS is chosen after
    >>> the code is written?

    >>
    >> < >> includes the operating system.>> This indicates that there should be
    >> an abstraction layer between the code and the operating system.
    >> Hence, it is a simple matter to develop a code base for a set of
    >> operating systems and then use proper testing to select the best one.

    >
    > The best one for what?
    >
    >
    >> The point here is that choosing the OS at the beginning forces firm
    >> decisions to be made on assumptions, which may be wrong.

    >
    > huh? More blah blah blah... talking circles to cover your previous loony
    > statements.
    >
    > First: "the OS should be chosen to best meet the requirements."
    > Then: "develop a code base for a set of operating systems and then use
    > proper testing to select the best one."
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>>> Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a requirement.
    >>>
    >>> Nor is being too stupid to "use learn" English.

    >>
    >> Fine, "Being too stupid to learn a new OS is NOT a requirement."

    >
    > Judging by your confusion here I expect you really are too stupid to learn
    > a new OS.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> Recently when I was use learning Linux (StartCom), I switched from
    >>> KDE to a
    >>> Gnome session. When I switched back to KDE, the "OS" had simply
    >>> deleted every last item in the KDE | System menu (it previously
    >>> contained some 30 entries). Go dirtware! Don't fret for me though,
    >>> Ian; I found where KDE stores the menu config file and I restored my
    >>> System menu and beat the slopware at its game (which is screwing
    >>> users over at every opportunity, of course).

    >>
    >> You have the amazing ability to have failures that no one else seems
    >> to have.

    >
    > No one else except the millions of Linux victims filing bug reports
    > practically every second of every day. The bewildering range of bull****
    > Linux problems is really amazing.
    >
    > Linux freezes *when* USB device plugged in: "It now freezes my computer
    > and I have no idea how to fix that."
    > #1 at
    > #http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ht=USB+freezes
    >
    >
    > Linux freezes *unless* USB device plugged in: "...don't know why but I
    > need to have a usb mouse plugged-in otherwise the system hangs."
    > #7 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...hlight=freezes
    >
    >
    >
    >> You must be a very unlucky person or have esoteric Windows
    >> only hardware.

    >
    > Anything but Linux is at fault - that's a given on cola.


    I have tried to explain what is good engineering. Unfortunately, you seem to
    be too set in your current ways to see that there are always viable
    alternatives, which are in many cases better than that which is currently
    in use. Hence, I suggest that you continue to live in your imaginary little
    world. Just don't be surprised when it comes crashing down around you.

    Ian

  7. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    DFS wrote:

    > No one else except the millions of Linux victims filing bug reports
    > practically every second of every day.


    Die idioten muss man sein lassen, weil gegen Dummheit ist kein Kraut
    gewachsen.

    Ian

  8. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Ian Hilliard wrote:
    >>> DFS wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>>>>> You can "understands cross-platform" all you want (Linonut
    >>>>>> "understands" it too), but at the end of the day 100% of your code
    >>>>>> is written on Windows, by Windows, for Windows.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Wrong, wrong and wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> uh huh.

    >>
    >> I'd love to be able to prove you're lying.
    >>
    >> What kind of code do you write (apps, games, embedded, mobile, etc)?
    >> What kind of non-Windows code do you write?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Excuse me? I don't believe for a second that you choose the
    >>>> target/production platform only *after* testing the code on it.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Proper engineering requires that boundaries be set, but decisions
    >>> such as which OS is to be used should be based on requirements and
    >>> best fit and not on your inability to use anything but Windows.

    >>
    >> blah blah blah... you're a silly bull****ter, Ian.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> In some cases, the end platform is Windows, but in many cases it is
    >>>>> not. This is simply because the OS should be chosen to best meet the
    >>>>> requirements.
    >>>>
    >>>> But you just said the opposite: you just said the OS is chosen after
    >>>> the code is written?
    >>>
    >>> < >>> includes the operating system.>> This indicates that there should be
    >>> an abstraction layer between the code and the operating system.
    >>> Hence, it is a simple matter to develop a code base for a set of
    >>> operating systems and then use proper testing to select the best one.

    >>
    >> The best one for what?
    >>
    >>
    >>> The point here is that choosing the OS at the beginning forces firm
    >>> decisions to be made on assumptions, which may be wrong.

    >>
    >> huh? More blah blah blah... talking circles to cover your previous loony
    >> statements.
    >>
    >> First: "the OS should be chosen to best meet the requirements."
    >> Then: "develop a code base for a set of operating systems and then use
    >> proper testing to select the best one."
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> Being too stupid to use learn a new OS is NOT a requirement.
    >>>>
    >>>> Nor is being too stupid to "use learn" English.
    >>>
    >>> Fine, "Being too stupid to learn a new OS is NOT a requirement."

    >>
    >> Judging by your confusion here I expect you really are too stupid to learn
    >> a new OS.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Recently when I was use learning Linux (StartCom), I switched from
    >>>> KDE to a
    >>>> Gnome session. When I switched back to KDE, the "OS" had simply
    >>>> deleted every last item in the KDE | System menu (it previously
    >>>> contained some 30 entries). Go dirtware! Don't fret for me though,
    >>>> Ian; I found where KDE stores the menu config file and I restored my
    >>>> System menu and beat the slopware at its game (which is screwing
    >>>> users over at every opportunity, of course).
    >>>
    >>> You have the amazing ability to have failures that no one else seems
    >>> to have.

    >>
    >> No one else except the millions of Linux victims filing bug reports
    >> practically every second of every day. The bewildering range of bull****
    >> Linux problems is really amazing.
    >>
    >> Linux freezes *when* USB device plugged in: "It now freezes my computer
    >> and I have no idea how to fix that."
    >> #1 at
    >> #http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...ht=USB+freezes
    >>
    >>
    >> Linux freezes *unless* USB device plugged in: "...don't know why but I
    >> need to have a usb mouse plugged-in otherwise the system hangs."
    >> #7 at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.p...hlight=freezes
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> You must be a very unlucky person or have esoteric Windows
    >>> only hardware.

    >>
    >> Anything but Linux is at fault - that's a given on cola.

    >
    > I have tried to explain what is good engineering. Unfortunately, you seem to
    > be too set in your current ways to see that there are always viable
    > alternatives, which are in many cases better than that which is currently
    > in use. Hence, I suggest that you continue to live in your imaginary little
    > world. Just don't be surprised when it comes crashing down around you.
    >
    > Ian


    All you have done is spout a load of nonsense. There is some truth in a
    lot of what you say but a lot of hot air too.

    For instance "all interfaces should be a single point". I suspect what
    you meant was use an OS independent API. If such exists which meets the
    needs of the program designer. Often they dont.

  9. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > All you have done is spout a load of nonsense. There is some truth in a
    > lot of what you say but a lot of hot air too.
    >
    > For instance "all interfaces should be a single point". I suspect what
    > you meant was use an OS independent API. If such exists which meets the
    > needs of the program designer. Often they dont.


    Just because you don't do it, doesn't make it wrong. The concepts came out
    of the control system development industry, but they have proven to be best
    practice for pretty well every form of software development.

    On the other hand, if you don't want to learn, it is up to you. In fact,
    keep up the bad work. It makes me look all the better

    Ian

  10. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> All you have done is spout a load of nonsense. There is some truth in a
    >> lot of what you say but a lot of hot air too.
    >>
    >> For instance "all interfaces should be a single point". I suspect what
    >> you meant was use an OS independent API. If such exists which meets the
    >> needs of the program designer. Often they dont.

    >
    > Just because you don't do it, doesn't make it wrong. The concepts came out
    > of the control system development industry, but they have proven to be best
    > practice for pretty well every form of software development.
    >
    > On the other hand, if you don't want to learn, it is up to you. In fact,
    > keep up the bad work. It makes me look all the better
    >
    > Ian


    Actually you're looking like you're a waffler. No one picks the OS after
    testing the SW to see which it runs best on. You design for the target
    platform/platforms. Single points of entry/common APIs go a long way to
    help of course.

  11. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > Ian Hilliard writes:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> All you have done is spout a load of nonsense. There is some truth in a
    >>> lot of what you say but a lot of hot air too.
    >>>
    >>> For instance "all interfaces should be a single point". I suspect what
    >>> you meant was use an OS independent API. If such exists which meets the
    >>> needs of the program designer. Often they dont.

    >>
    >> Just because you don't do it, doesn't make it wrong. The concepts came
    >> out of the control system development industry, but they have proven to
    >> be best practice for pretty well every form of software development.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, if you don't want to learn, it is up to you. In fact,
    >> keep up the bad work. It makes me look all the better
    >>
    >> Ian

    >
    > Actually you're looking like you're a waffler. No one picks the OS after
    > testing the SW to see which it runs best on. You design for the target
    > platform/platforms. Single points of entry/common APIs go a long way to
    > help of course.


    No, you set constraints. You develop cross platform code and then test the
    platforms fully to select the best one. This ensures the best performance
    and highest reliability. Too often, decisions are made based on incomplete
    information or more likely and dangerously based on comfort zone.

    The platform is often chosen based on that to which the developers are used
    to and not on the basis of any empirical analysis. It common to realise too
    late in the project that the platform of choice cannot fulfill the
    requirements completely. The traditional result of this is firstly to try
    to kludge a workaround then to throw more computing power at the problem
    but generally to deliver a sub-optimal solution.

    The effect of such sub-optimal solutions in the control industry was in some
    cases disastrous. The solution was to define a set of platforms for which
    the development would be done and an actual comparison of the platforms
    would be made. As a welcome side effect, the difference in behaviour of the
    different platforms and the different tool chains developed for the
    different platforms increased the ability to detect errors in the unit
    testing stage.

    The development of a rich abstraction layer reduces the amount of work
    necessary in development and improves productivity. Changes in the platform
    are also easily handled in the abstraction layer. The coding rules ensure
    that processor integer width and endianness are not a consideration.

    These days, I generally have the code tested on Windows on x86, Linux on
    x86_64 and Solaris on SPARC. This shows me if the code can be run at 32 bit
    little-endian, 64-bit little-endian and 64 bit big-endian. Each platform
    has its own debugging tools, which are all used as part of the debugging
    process. By leaving the decision as to the platform to late in the project
    provides impetus to the developers to carry out full testing on all
    platforms. In the end, the delivered platform is often the expected
    platform. I have however had cases where the expected platform was unable
    to meet the requirements and it is in such cases that it is great to have
    alternatives. The result of the total process is high reliability of the
    code and predictable development costs.

    The process has a good record of providing code that exceeds 99.999%
    availability on Windows, excluding the standard reboot cycles and in Unix
    and Linux in real terms. This would just not be possible using the standard
    desktop development techniques.

    I provide this information so that you can learn. Should you wish to remain
    ignorant, that is your prerogative.

    Ian

  12. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Ian Hilliard writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> All you have done is spout a load of nonsense. There is some truth in a
    >>>> lot of what you say but a lot of hot air too.
    >>>>
    >>>> For instance "all interfaces should be a single point". I suspect what
    >>>> you meant was use an OS independent API. If such exists which meets the
    >>>> needs of the program designer. Often they dont.
    >>>
    >>> Just because you don't do it, doesn't make it wrong. The concepts came
    >>> out of the control system development industry, but they have proven to
    >>> be best practice for pretty well every form of software development.
    >>>
    >>> On the other hand, if you don't want to learn, it is up to you. In fact,
    >>> keep up the bad work. It makes me look all the better
    >>>
    >>> Ian

    >>
    >> Actually you're looking like you're a waffler. No one picks the OS after
    >> testing the SW to see which it runs best on. You design for the target
    >> platform/platforms. Single points of entry/common APIs go a long way to
    >> help of course.

    >
    > No, you set constraints. You develop cross platform code and then test the
    > platforms fully to select the best one. This ensures the best
    > performance


    Nonsense. This almost never happens. You target a market and you know
    what platform the market uses.

    Can it happen? Yes. Does it happen in general? Of course not.

  13. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    > Nothing new there. All phases are prone to error. But requirements phase
    > is the most important of nearly all in a planned and bid project.
    >


    Agreed. But a good project manager realizes that there may be errors in the
    requirements or there may be last minute new requirements. No matter how
    good the process is, mistakes ALWAYS occur.

    Every project has something coming out of left field. The trick is to
    construct the project to be able to handle these things without having any
    major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would realize that.
    Clearly you don't.

    Ian

  14. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Nothing new there. All phases are prone to error. But requirements phase
    >> is the most important of nearly all in a planned and bid project.
    >>

    >
    > Agreed. But a good project manager realizes that there may be errors in the
    > requirements or there may be last minute new requirements. No matter how
    > good the process is, mistakes ALWAYS occur.


    More longwinded gassing for what I already said.

    >
    > Every project has something coming out of left field. The trick is to


    As I said.

    > construct the project to be able to handle these things without having any
    > major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would realize that.
    > Clearly you don't.


    You're a blowhard. The nature of things coming from the "left field"
    (you should be in Dilbert) means you can not possibly account for all
    things. e.g Lets say in the last acceptance phase it was suddenly
    realised that they forgot to ask for X. X totally effects the design of
    the rest. Whoops.

    And I don't believe even the mighty you can design a project which can
    encompass all unknowns and have it come in under budgets and schedule
    UNLESS you're one of these morons that adds 50% to all task estimates
    and then quadruples the final estimate. It never ceases to amaze me how
    many people do just that.

    >
    > Ian


    --
    * SynrG notes that the number of configuration questions to answer in sendmail
    is NON-TRIVIAL
    -- Seen on #Debian

  15. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Hadron wrote:

    >> construct the project to be able to handle these things without having
    >> any major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would realize
    >> that. Clearly you don't.

    >
    > You're a blowhard.


    Just because I have tried to provide you with some good knowledge does not
    make me a blowhard. On the other hand, only a fool rejects good advice.

    > The nature of things coming from the "left field"
    > (you should be in Dilbert) means you can not possibly account for all
    > things. e.g Lets say in the last acceptance phase it was suddenly
    > realised that they forgot to ask for X. X totally effects the design of
    > the rest. Whoops.


    A flexible design is able to cope with incremental changes in requirements.
    Unfortunately, a large percentage of the Windows only IT industry have
    never learnt to do good flexible design which is is able to handle a
    seachange.

    >
    > And I don't believe even the mighty you can design a project which can
    > encompass all unknowns and have it come in under budgets and schedule
    > UNLESS you're one of these morons that adds 50% to all task estimates
    > and then quadruples the final estimate. It never ceases to amaze me how
    > many people do just that.


    There is no need to add 50% to the estimates. You don't have to plan for all
    the eventualities. You just have firm change control and keep the design
    flexible with firm assignment of functionality to components.

    I realize that I am wasting my time trying to explain the technique, because
    you clearly don't want to learn. As such, I would say that this thread is
    finished.

    Ian


  16. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:23:22 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * The Ghost In The Machine peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >> wrote
    >>>
    >>> You can "understands cross-platform" all you want (Linonut
    >>> "understands" it too), but at the end of the day 100% of your code is
    >>> written on Windows, by Windows, for Windows.

    >
    > DFS is a gibbering idiot. He's also a liar if he makes claims about the
    > usage of someone's else code without having visited their shop.


    He didn't just claim that all our - or is it just your? - code is written
    on and for Windows, did he? No, he didn't. He couldn't have. he
    couldn't be that clueless, could he?

    At home, all the code I write is Linux code. At work, most of it is -
    and the rest soon will be, as we're moving towards web-based interfaces
    for most things, running under Apache, probably Postgres, and other such
    - predominantly Linux-based - tools.


    > You're forgetting about "Windows XP Stripped Down for OLPC" edition
    > .


    Do they still have that weird version that only lets you run three(?)
    apps? Let's see... firewall, av, anti-spyware and... er... nope, sorry,
    not allowed to actually *do* anything with the machine...



  17. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:54:20 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:

    > On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    > wrote:
    >>
    >> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes Linux code can
    >> be ported to almost two dozen totally different microprocessors, with
    >> some care (because of the endianity problem).

    >
    > I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never
    > had a problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after
    > the stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of
    > bit masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    > transparently despite "endianity".


    Assuming one writes one's C code properly. There's a fair bit of bad C
    code out there.


  18. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On Sun, 18 May 2008 21:02:38 +0800, Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >>> construct the project to be able to handle these things without having
    >>> any major effect. If you were a real project manager, you would
    >>> realize that. Clearly you don't.

    >>
    >> You're a blowhard.

    >
    > Just because I have tried to provide you with some good knowledge does
    > not make me a blowhard.


    No, "you're a blowhard" because you're trying to explain good practices
    to him, a problem compounded by the fact you actually seem to have an
    idea what actually qualifies as good practice. Unforgivable sins, you
    know.

    >> And I don't believe even the mighty you can design a project which can
    >> encompass all unknowns and have it come in under budgets and schedule
    >> UNLESS you're one of these morons that adds 50% to all task estimates
    >> and then quadruples the final estimate. It never ceases to amaze me how
    >> many people do just that.

    >
    > There is no need to add 50% to the estimates. You don't have to plan for
    > all the eventualities. You just have firm change control and keep the
    > design flexible with firm assignment of functionality to components.


    I tend to add some wiggle room into the mix, for the simple reason that
    every project I've worked on, it turns out there is some aspect which
    ends up not having been sufficiently defined, or if sufficiently defined,
    turns out not to accurately reflect what the customer actually wanted.
    Don't quadruple, don't even add 50% except on the most trivial projects
    (eg ones estimated to take a day to complete) but do include a bit of
    breathing room; even the most flexible design still requires some time to
    cope with the unforeseen.

    'Sides, should it turn out you have one of those rare cases where
    everything was sufficiently defined and actually does do what the
    customer wanted, it just means you're under-budget and ahead of schedule
    - so knock 10% or whatever off the fee, everyone goes away happy.


  19. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    Ian Hilliard wrote:

    > If you were a real project manager, you would realize that.


    Hadron's most recent project consisted or organizing his weekly pocket pool
    session.
    --
    Regards,
    [tv]

    ....Have you seen Quasimodo? I had a hunch he was back.

    Owner/Proprietor, Cheesus Crust Pizza Company
    Good to the last supper

  20. Re: 1st place prize: Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Slop

    On 2008-05-18, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
    > On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:54:20 +0000, Gregory Shearman wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-05-14, The Ghost In The Machine
    >> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Of course "platform" has more meaning when one realizes Linux code can
    >>> be ported to almost two dozen totally different microprocessors, with
    >>> some care (because of the endianity problem).

    >>
    >> I code using linux on the x86, mips and arm architectures and I've never
    >> had a problem with endianity. As far as I'm aware, the CPU looks after
    >> the stuffing of bytes between the registers and memory... and the use of
    >> bit masks and the "<<" ">>" C language bit shift operators all work
    >> transparently despite "endianity".

    >
    > Assuming one writes one's C code properly. There's a fair bit of bad C
    > code out there.


    It means making your data portable, ie use either ascii representation
    or network byte order to transmit integers floats etc across the
    network...

    --
    Regards,

    Gregory.
    Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast