Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Development cycle (Score 2) 232

by neurovish (#47775113) Attached to: How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

Agile developers expect agile everything. Ubuntu happens to just be a happy compromise between agile and waterfall.

If you look at RHEL, it's 5-10 year old packages, kept alive by an enormous engineering team that backports fixes to old, dead software, which creates a huge pile of technical debt for any developer trying to use "modern", highly modular frameworks.

As far as developers go, In the Ruby, Python, and Node ecosystems, anything that's not the latest doesn't exist. They don't use the system package management, they use gem, pip, and npm. They really don't care about the underlying OS, until it gets in the way, and getting in the way is exactly what a decade-old OS does.

Just to throw out an example. Take some modern ruby on rails application, say Discourse. (discourse.org). Go download a tarball from github. Now try to make it work with nothing but software from the official RHEL repository. Let me know how that works out for you. After you tear out all your hair and skin trying to do that, try to get the pieces from 3rd party repos that will make that work. See how much you have to bring in as far as new libraries and new packages just to make it work. It's still a nightmare even with the 3rd party repos, and that RHEL support contract doesn't cover them - every single piece that's likely to break your application, is now outside of your support agreement, so your company is now wasting at least $799/year for support.

Here you go, seems straightforward and easy enough: https://meta.discourse.org/t/i...

If modern, highly modern frameworks are interested in getting into the big enterprise space, then they will dedicate the time to making their software work with RHEL. If a company is running Ubuntu in production, then they don't particularly care that much about stability, have a small server install base, or a team that can hack around enough to make things work.

Comment: Re:IT departments, on the other hand... (Score 1) 232

by neurovish (#47774901) Attached to: How Red Hat Can Recapture Developer Interest

From working in Linux-based IT for nearly a decade now, IT departments get very frustrated by Red Hat's package management and the concept of needing both an Entitlement and various Channels to get updates; on the flip side of this summary is Ubuntu, which IT departments can't stand due to it's constant change and instable nature. Every IT department I've worked in and with seems to prefer administering and deploying Debian and battles with devs on Ubuntu and management on Red Hat.

How so? Most things these days have gone over to VM, so you buy an unlimited VM license for a host, and there you go. My channels are "Red Hat Enterprise Linux (core server)" and "Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (v. 6)". There are a lot of more esoteric channels, but the core updates are pretty much all you need. If your environment is complex enough that you need packages from the other channels, then it should also be complex enough for Satellite and the extra special red hat sauce to make a point and click Linux enterprise.

Comment: Re:My opinion on the matter. (Score 1) 810

by neurovish (#47768581) Attached to: Choose Your Side On the Linux Divide

- Useless on a server - where you only reboot 4 times a year or so and never have to hot-plug anything or change wireless networks.

Bull. Lots of servers currently run daemontools or similar, or else they use some other hack, because the SysVinit doesn't have any way to restart services (like crond) the one time they exit after running fine for months...

Alternatively, somebody has to take the time to set-up exhaustive monitoring, including ALL the trivial services running on the servers, and some dummy has to watch it around the clock, and manually perform this extremely simple and menial task. Or else maybe you're the dummy who gets paged at 3AM to do a trivial service restart, due to some simple and transitory event.

I would have been just as happy with upstart or anything else, but it was a dammed nuisance lacking that 30 year-old feature, and downright embarrassing that Linux still lacked it, while it's been working well in the base of Windows since the first version of NT.

You're going to need the exhaustive monitoring anyways. Just because you say "don't worry, it'll automatically fix itself" doesn't mean that anybody will buy it, and all it takes is the one time where things do not come back cleanly. That is going to happen.

Comment: Re:you must not have done well in math class (Score 1) 214

by neurovish (#47694757) Attached to: Figuring Out Where To Live Using Math

Of the top ten States in terms of strictest gun laws, 7 have the lowest number of gun deaths.

You know when gun deaths were really low? Before guns were invented. The homicide rate, however, was about an order of magnitude higher than it is now.

Your statement is true, but utterly irrelevant to the question of where the safest places to live are. Does it matter what weapon is used to kill you? Or rob you or, rape you, or... Of course it doesn't. You have fallen victim to (or else are disingenuously pushing, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're foolish, not malicious) to a very clever stratagem pushed by advocates of gun control: Focusing only on gun crime and ignoring other crime.

The statistic that matters isn't the number of gun deaths, it's the number of homicides, assaults, rapes, robberies, etc., total. And on any one of those scales, those states with strict gun laws don't do particularly well. To make them look good you have to do exactly what you did: arbitrarily exclude much of the violence.

Maybe because places that don't have a problem with crime in the first place don't care about making laws to restrict access to weapons?

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 68

by neurovish (#47466105) Attached to: HP Claims Their Moonshot System is a 'New Style of IT' (Video)

We got demoed this 6 months or so ago.

I still fail to see what this buys you over a bunch of regular blades or rackmounts running your virtualisation platform of choice.

Best use-case proposal I've seen is for something like VDI. Instead of sharing the resources of one server, every desktop gets their own processor and memory.

Comment: Re:Not the data I was looking for... (Score 1) 148

by neurovish (#47323887) Attached to: What's Your STEM Degree Worth?

FTFA:

The worst STEM majors earn more than the best high school graduates. Those in the bottom quintile of ability who go on to major in STEM have lifetime earnings of about $2.3 million, compared to $2 million for high school graduates in the top quintile of ability; business majors do slightly worse than STEM majors. The worst social science majors earn about the same as the best high school graduates, and the worst arts and humanities majors earn less.

Full time salaried job versus burger flipper - yes, that's what the degree gives you.

Why does "best high school graduate" mean burger flipper? There are plenty of trades that pay a good wagw where you will get ahead easier by putting in your time learning the trade than going to college. A lineman can pull down 6 figures, also plumbers, electricians, etc. "no college" doesn't mean "completely unskilled". Most of these jobs will be a straight 40 hours/week and done, so they are coming out ahead of a similarly paid computer scientist working 60 hour weeks.

Comment: Re:But people forget what MENSA concluded (Score 1) 561

by neurovish (#47323713) Attached to: Match.com, Mensa Create Dating Site For Geniuses

On a side note, if you have an IQ of 150-170 and are not doing your own research or tinkering to come up with something new, you are wasting your brain. Start tinkering, start building, there HAS to be something you know you can do better or build better.

meh, that sounds like a lot of work

Comment: Re:Mmhmm (Score 1) 382

by neurovish (#47179123) Attached to: High Frequency Trading and Finance's Race To Irrelevance

As for TFA's comment about dividend stocks... Yeah, they count as a pretty decent safe-haven in a bear market; but overall, they have a piss-poor return - Three to four percent sustained, at best. Beats (core) inflation, but not by much... Certainly not enough to retire on unless you literally sock away half of your paycheck for the next 40 years.

We appear unwaveringly headed for a securities market implosion, and not merely of the recession/depression kind, but something much, much worse.

3-4% with another 3-4% on top in dividends is in-line with the historic market gains. There's math involved, but how does that compound when the capital gains are recycled back into buying more of the same stock? No, I didn't read much of the article, so I don't know what it said about dividend paying stocks.

Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.

Working...