HN user
Recently came across this nice guide on Git pull request workflow: https://github.com/susam/gitpr
All the important stuff is in the first 4 pages. I have the PDF version on my desktop. Also printed pages 3 and 4 and stuck it to my cubicle wall.
I am inclined to try either FreeBSD or OpenBSD.
FreeBSD comes with the bonus that it is supported on some cloud and VPS offerings, so whatever I learn can come useful for practical purpose.
But OpenBSD also seems like a great idea because I have read great things about its security and documentation.
I am not inclined to try NetBSD because it seems to offer neither of these advantages.
Is my assessment right so far or very misguided?
Is there anyone who has used at least two of these three BSDs? What do they recommend?
90 hours/week = 18 hours/day (assuming 5-day work week). That leaves only 6 hours for other chores, travel and sleep. This is not sustainable.
So I'll assume people who can pull off a 90-hour work week work all 7 days of the week which would amount to 13 hours/day. That still leaves sufficient time for a 7-hour sleep and 4 hours of chores and entertainment.
Now, if you are your own boss where you decide the scope and the deadlines, the work is going to be fun and I can understand that you would not mind working 13 hours/day. But I don't think working 13 hours/day for a boss or a company that considers me a cost in a business transaction of buying my skills is going to be fun.
What is p and t? You say that this work shows that p and t are different. What two entities are proven to be equal then in this work?
So does this article prove that two uncountable infinities are equal? Can you tell us precisely what two entities have been proven equal in this article?
I understand aleph-0, aleph-1 and 2^aleph-0 and I also understand that if continuum hypothesis is true, then aleph-1 = 2^aleph-0. Is this what these mathematicians have proven, or have they proven something else?
Can you simplify for us what exactly have the mathematicians in this article proven?
I get that they have proven some infinity A = some infinity B but can you tell us what these A and B are.
Also, isn't the cardinality of reals equinumerous with that of the cardinality of the power set of naturals?
In a breakthrough that disproves decades of conventional wisdom, two mathematicians have shown that two different variants of infinity are actually the same size
I thought there are only two types of infinity and Cantor already proved that they are different.
* Uncountable infinity which is the cardinality of the set of real numbers
* Countable infinity which is the cardinality of the set of integers
Cantor has already proved that uncountable infinity is larger than countable infinity.
Is this article claiming that mathematicians have proved that these two infinities are equal now? Doesn't that contradict Cantor's proof? What's going on here? Is the Cantor's proof flawed or have we introduced a contradiction to mathematics?
There is no need to imagine. Emacs, Vim, Atom, Notepad++, etc. are all free software.
... removal of most GNU tools ...
It is not that GNU tools were removed. It is more like GNU tools were not added. There is no reason too. Mac provides its own POSIX compliant tools. If you prefer GNU tools, well there is GNU/Linux. If you don't mind more traditional POSIX compliant tools, then macOS is a good option, as are FreeBSD, OpenBSD, etc.
Mac is still Unix: https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm
It is not uncommon to come across open positions that actually do require Unix (not Linux) experience.
For example, American Express has a large deployment of AIX systems and they indeed look for candidates with experience in AIX systems, although I believe someone with experience in another Unix or Unix-like system should also be okay.
But I agree that such openings are usually quite specific about which Unix system they are working with.
Thank you for commenting here!
I am curious. Can you be a little specific and tell us what Linux or Unix experience do you have?
I mean can you specify the Linux distro names and the Unix brand names (AIX, Solaris, etc.) that you have worked with?
Don't you think the risk you are talking about in believing a 20 year old is exaggerated? Is it that hard to go back to the manager and ask if "Unix-like" is acceptable although the job description says "Unix"? Or just do a little bit of Googling to figure out if what the candidate is saying could have merit?
From my perspective, it appears that the recruiter is the jerk and not the candidate. I have met many computer-illiterate recruiters but never one like this who would repeat the same response over and over again despite the candidate having clarified his position.
What is Bottle faster and simpler than? CherryPy? Flask? Ice?
Do you have benchmarking results to support your claim?
What aspects of Bottle are simpler? Writing code using it? Deploying it? Can you elaborate with some concrete examples?
+1
Projects like these are always welcome on Hacker News. I am saddened to see comments like the parent's (that are too eager to discourage any technical decision that does not conform to their opinion) popping up in this community often.
The very purpose of the "Show HN" prefix is to show off fun projects like these to the HN community and the more such projects we have (regardless of what technical decisions were taken to create the project), the better it serves that purpose.
How does running a different OS than most people can give a company an advantage? Can you elaborate this?
Can you share some anecdotes that make you think that Oracle India had it way way worse than the Oracle US counterparts?
Sorry that is not how the database market works.
Oracle lives in a market protected by high barriers to entry and low customer expectations.
This is false. Oracle has a very tough competitor called Microsoft SQL Server. In fact, Oracle tries to catch up with many existing Microsoft SQL Server feature with its every release. Like it or not, the NoSQL database servers like MongoDB, ElasticSearch, etc. are also competitors of Oracle. That is why Oracle was forced to introduce supporting for storing, indexing and querying JSON in their database. This was a completely new feature that required Oracle to develop new querying syntax, new querying mechanisms and new constraint validation syntax. There are many such examples where Oracle is forced to improve due to competition.
And no one, from CTO to DBA, makes any demand to substantially improve the product, such as by rectifying theoretical problems with SQL that have been recognized for decades.
This is true. But then everyone from CTO to DBA make a lot of demand in substantially improving the product in other awys, such as providing new features regarding scalability, robustness, security and auditing. This is why Oracle Database has seen a lot of enhancements in multitenancy in the last few versions.
Why spend money on engineering when customer and vendor are both satisfied?
Oracle does spend a lot of money on engineering. Why? Because it has a lot of development to do in their database to remain competitive. If anyone thinks that the field of RDBMS is mostly a stagnant field and no new development happens in this area, then that is a gross misunderstanding of this market. Database market is still very competitve especially when Microsoft SQL server leads the game with modern features and as open source databases and NoSQL databases are eating away the market share.
See the following two URLs for example to see how Oracle has been adding new features in the last two releases:
* https://docs.oracle.com/database/121/NEWFT/chapter12102.htm
* https://docs.oracle.com/database/122/NEWFT/new-features.htm
While all this looks good on release notes, it is only someone like me, who has had the misfortune of being an Oracle developer, that can vouch that the development process and the development pace within Oracle is hopelessly archaic and painfully slow. Oracle still follows the waterfall model of development for example. There are probably hundreds of reasons and contributing factors to this. A few of those hundreds off the top of my head.
* Management that does not care about absolutely anything apart from their own promotion.
* A culture that rewards talking out loud rather than actual work.
* Top-down heavy handed management that provides zero autonomy to engineers, thus no motivation in engineers to innovate and improve engineering practices.
Oracle is lethargic from the perspective of its employees because the company is extraordinarily sluggish and apathetic.
The pace at which Oracle develops software, the flagship Oracle Database for example, is ridiculously slow. The Database team takes about 3 months to 6 months to develop tiny changes (say 10 to 20 lines of code). In other Fortune 500 companies I have worked for, I have seen such changes taking about a few days (5 days max!). I am not kidding! What takes say 3 days to develop in a normal software company may take about 3 months to develop in Oracle. And mind you, Oracle Database is one of the premier departments of Oracle; other departments are even worse!
Oracle is also remarkably apathetic to its employees. The link[1] shared by foo101, i.e. has a few anecdotes that highlights this apathy. In fact, when I read James Gosling's account of Oracle in that link, I thought, "Wow! This is so accurate. Even someone of the name and fame as James Gosling had to face the same lowly problems at Oracles that relatively unknown developers in Oracle face."
Disclaimer: I worked for Oracle for 2 years.
[1] http://www.eweek.com/development/java-creator-james-gosling-...
I have worked in Oracle for 2 years and I have worked at other Fortune 500 companies. Oracle, by far, is the most soulless and lethargic company among all of them.
Did you look at the address bar while posting this? It says, "news.ycombinator.com", not "reddit.com"!
TL;DR
1. keep emotions out of the exchange
2. discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum)
3. listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately
4. show respect
5. acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion
6. try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.
I don't see how this comment can be true. I have worked for a few big name companies that did not require engineers to work for more than 8 hours per day. In fact, most of my teammates used to work between 4-7 hours per day. These companies did not provide extra money for overtime work but it did provide compensation-off for overtime work, i.e. if I worked say 12 hours on two different days, I could take one day paid leave for free.