[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sysadmin qualifications (Re: apt-get vs. aptitude)

Le 18.10.2013 17:54, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :

On 10/17/2013 8:31 PM, berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:



Le 17.10.2013 21:57, Miles Fidelman a écrit :

berenger.morel@neutralite.org wrote:

Le 16.10.2013 17:51, Jerry Stuckle a écrit :

I only know few people who actually likes them :)
I liked them too, at a time, but since I can now use standard smart pointers in C++, I tend to avoid them. I had so much troubles with 
them,
so now I only use them for polymorphism and sometimes RTTI.
I hope that someday references will become usable in standard
containers... (I think they are not because of technical problems, 
but I
do not know a lot about that. C++ is easy to learn, but hard to
master.)



Good design and code structure eliminates most pointer problems;
proper testing will get the rest. Smart pointers are nice, but in real time processing they are an additional overhead (and an unknown 
one at that since you don't know the underlying libraries).
Depends on the smart pointer. shared_ptr indeed have a runtime cost, since it maintains additional data, but unique_ptr does not, afaik, 
it is made from pure templates, so only compilation-time cost.


You guys should love LISP - it's pointers all the way down. :-)


I do not really like pointers anymore, and this is why I like smart
pointers ;)
So, what you name an OS is only drivers+kernel? If so, then ok. But some people consider that it includes various other tools which does not require hardware accesses. I spoke about graphical applications, and you disagree. Matter of opinion, or maybe I did not used the good 
ones, I do not know.
So, what about dpkg in debian? Is it a part of the OS? Is not it a
ring 3 program? As for tar or shell?
Boy do you like to raise issues that go into semantic grey areas :-)
Not specially, but, to say that C has been made to build OSes only, you 
then have to determine what is an OS to make the previous statement
useful. For that, I simply searched 3 different sources on the web, and 
all of them said that simple applications are part of the OS.
Applications like file browsers and terminal emulators.
Without using the same words for the same concepts, we can never
understand the other :)



Yes, and you can also search the web and find people claim that the
Holocost never happened, Global Warming is a myth and the Earth is the 
center of the universe.

Just because it's in the internet does not mean it is so.  The key is
to find it from RELIABLE resources.
You know that it is the same for you? I am not completely stupid, it is not because I will read something somewhere that I'll trust it. When I read something, I have the same process: comparing it to other sources, and then thinking about it. The point is, that I can hardly quote the French dictionary on this mailing list, and I do not feel the need of buying such resources written in English, since I do not like at the moment in an English-speaking country.
Now, more useful than saying that my sources are not reliable, could you provide your owns? Some that I can check, of course. But which are not on the Internet, since they are not reliable. Will be pretty hard, right?
No, but I do understand why comparing text is slower than integers on 
x86 computers. Because I know that an int can be stored into one
word, which can be compared with only one instruction, while the text will imply to compare more than one word, which is indeed slower. And 
it can even become worse when the text is not an ascii one.
So I can use that understanding to know why I often avoid to use text as keys. But it happens that sometimes the more problematic cost is not the speed but the memory, and so sometimes I'll use text as keys 
anyway.
Knowing what is the word's size of the SQL server is not needed to
make things work, but it is helps to make it working faster. Instead 
of requiring to buy more hardware.
On the other hand, I could say that building SQL requests is not my 
job, and to left it to specialists which will be experts of the
specific hardware + specific SQL engine used to build better
requests. They will indeed build better than I can actually, but it have a time overhead and require to hire specialists, so higher price 
which may or may not be possible.
Seems to me that you're more right on with your first statement. How can one not consider building SQL requests as part of a programmer's 
repertoire, in this day and age?
I agree, it is part of programmer's job. But building a bad SQL request is easy, and it can make an application unusable in real conditions when 
it worked fine while programming and testing.



Proper testing includes simulating "real conditions".
Simulating real conditions is possible, in theory. In practice, I doubt it. Otherwise, applications would not have any bug discovered after the release. Some people told me to never underestimate the fact that users can do things you will not think they would do. I tend to trust those guys, since I have seen users doing very strange things with both their hardware and software. In those users, I include people who write softwares and sysadmins.
Windows actually provides a stable environment, very good programming tools ( visual studio is a really good IDE ), and when you write for it, 
you know that most computers will be able to run your program.



LOL.
I guess I should have spoken about desktop computers. Not precise enough, I apologize.
If you laugh for windows stability, I speak about recent ones. And, since you will probably say you have seen them crashing, I can show you a question I have written on the list recently, where an update of Debian made my system not bootable, and even moving back the kernel did not fixed the problem. tsc clock or something like that. I have also seen more than one message speaking about Xorg's crashes, and have experienced some undesired behaviors too. 

Perfect softwares are myths.
Reply to: