abvr

I would love to see a comparison between scp and wcp over NFS, more specifically large single file sizes, if folks are looking to discern more performance parameters.

wcp is good stuff!

Check out the Extended Kalman filter for non-linear systems.

Yes, unfortunately current manufacturing practices forced them to switch over to Chinese clones of the Cherry MX. I'm writing this on their late 90's Cherry MX Blue based keyboard (which I'm lucky to still use) which were switched over to the cheaper Chinese switches in the last decade.

Slightly unrelated, but as a fan and user of Edge, I really miss their old 'Save tabs for later' feature.

That's the most ridiculous comment I've seen on HN.

Thanks, maybe I'll make a post of this instead of posing it as a question, that might create a discussion.

Oops, looks like that has already been done heh.

Aslo ends up being ironically, kinda of the scapegoat for no fault of hers, other than the fact that she was the mastermind of the whole operation?

That's what seperates them both, it's not about immediate formal checking from a compiler here, but rather if our proof is being justified adequately according with the rules of deduction and reasoning, it's a more intuitive approach in math, although you do end up knowing whether something is right or wrong, akin to programs.

How are these things actually measured or scaled?

Whoa at the work hours, if you don't mind me asking, just curious to know what kind of work entails such long hours? Also I'm assuming it paid equally well for the time devoted to it, frankly the hours itself is a big turn off regardless of the quality of work.

Great one.

I really do miss the old Internet though.

Wait, saying both C and UNIX aren't small and beautiful seems like one major oxymoron. Care to elaborate on those? IIUC, both of them were created in a small and concise design to perform tasks that most systems of the time failed to hold up to. In fact, the very reason they've endured such long time spans must be enough proof of their beautiful concise yet efficient design. Take any language or operating system today, they just cannot design them without some inspiration or functionality derived from C or UNIX.

Complexity today is insane, take Linux for example, but the darn thing works! The original UNIX was the exact opposite of today's major operating systems in a way, which was designed to perform tasks based on the UNIX philosophy. Linux or any other OS today take complexity to levels the creators of UNIX never foresaw and is one of those aspects they wish today wasn't done. But the world itself has changed since the 70s, and so has Linux too, evolved into having thousands of system calls, whereas the original UNIX had 20.

Yes, but he isn't exactly wrong about it either, and sure it seems as though it has really affected him, but Apple too need to take a look into their near past, and introspect things. Sure, they seem to be suddenly overcompensating the Mac fans by launching things out of the blue like the new Mac Pro or the iMac Pro, but with no real incentive to the average user to upgrade into their desktop hardware anymore, for one the price tag itself would turn off desktop enthusiasts who would prefer to either just build their own rigs, or go for other tower vendors, and moreover the latest Mac hardware just doesn't offer anything remarkable for their prices other than premium aesthetic looking machines that one would assemble themselves. Sure, people trash the trashcan Mac Pro but it was something truly original at the time and still maybe. And the same goes for the Macbook Pro line.

OL too comes with GNOME out of the box and there is always KDE if one wants to switch.

Just use anything command line, I personally stick to Mutt.

Check it out or neomutt or even Alpine if your taste suits that.

I'd posted a first draft earlier that day, and realized I had to add a few more lines, and give it a better heading. Sorry about that.

I'm a bit disappointed that there's no DMR here, but seems to be a pretty interesting document otherwise.

Besides this whole scheme could be filed under insider trading in some form.

Huh, how ironic would that be, as the company's primary compliance policies urge it's employees against insider trading and other such practices and warns them multiple times not only when they're inducted into it but several times throughout their employment.

Wow, didn't know that. And gotta agree, at least they've got some great films on that list.

Let me break it to you, there is no perfect language, just the ones most general purpose enough to cover most common problems and most suited for your applications. Each language has it own use and one doesn't trump another in terms of functionality or usage, they only compete when they lie in the same paradigm and this is where most language oriented comparisons are drawn whether be it time of execution or performance. This is also why there are more than one language within the same paradigm, as each one tends to have it's own intricacies and features that was solely developed for the purpose of improving upon it's predecessor. So there you are, stuck with more than one language to suit your needs and hence the untenable need for a perfect language.

Also, trying to bend a certain language to adopt features and functionality that are unwarranted for it's use cases is another reason for the criticism some languages draw upon from the community, therefore it's best for the language to stick to what it does best and stop it at that instead of trying to fit in to uses which it was never intended for when it was first developed. But the language itself is agreeable to evolve through time, but to constrain itself to it's actual purpose would be better for both the language and it's users.

If a person watching this closely without any knowledge of the people in this video, they may just see Linus as one arrogant brat who could care less about anything the person speaking is intending to convey.

Yes, settle down, I did it merely to initiate some fun banter on folks here, but it looks like we are getting some valuable insights and I am interested in what people of this time have to say on this topic. This is a copypasta after all.

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.

Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.

One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?

(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.

You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.

Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?

If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.

Thanks for listening.

As always, anchoring the already broken interview system by introducing even more wacky gimmicks to the process. Let's hope this one stands to be a refreshing sign that they are looking for ways to both improve the process and their own stand in the industry when it comes to recruitment, as giants like them seem to lead the way when it comes to this process.

However, until they actually test it out for themselves, both they and the talent pool are not going to have a clear idea on whether such practices work well to improve the hiring process and hence source the right people.

But whatever maybe interviewing and the process of recruitment is bound to have some false positives/negatives which are completely fine given the fact that the pool is humungous and that the candidate may in the future seek to establish themselves by improving upon their lack of skill by filling in their knowledge gaps and the companies should provide adequate support and morale boosts for such employees, those who strive to achieve better knowledge and skillset given enough time and backing.

Just their word, and I also said I hoped they kept their word.

I'm just trying to be optimistic in this case, although I agree with how acquisitions always run into the ground regardless of the company, but something tells me IBM would think twice about doing something remotely like that to RH. For one thing, they contribute excellent work into the kernel and some of their senior engineers have had pivotal roles in adding components to the kernel which may have been a significant factor in improving it, and a minor testament that they care about the system as a whole. That doesn't guarantee anything but it is quite evident from their perspective that they are just looking to both increase their foothold in the industry and improve the base system.

That I feel is just hyperbole, too many people tend to think this deal is some kid of death warrant to Red Hat, but in reality it is only going to strengthen it by adding more and providing support, both financial and managerial to any dearth of resources that may come around ope source companies, that is if IBM can keep their hands out of the technology and management of Red Hat. I think and hope they will be wise about handling things and learn from companies like Oracle who are now infamous for obliterating good technology.

Could you elaborate on why you hold a distasteful attitude towards this person?

Just curious.

Absolute madlad.

Wouldn't label him a GOAT as such as he merely created Windows NT. OTOH, Carmack is on a whole other level altogether, it is unfair to list both of them together.

Oh yes, one of my bucket list kinda goals in life is to be able to get to a level where I can grok TAoCP at a visceral level and understand the underlying mathematics used to derive the algorithmic complexities and how they all function. I think any computer science person who is passionate about the topics should give it a try at some point in their lives.