Re: Mailing List Archive
On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Leon Brocard wrote: > Robin Houston sent the following bits through the ether: > > > - This is a public list. Anyone can subscribe using an advertised > > address. > > This is the key point. It is a public list. If you don't like the idea > that your potential employers or employees could read everything you > write then: > o grow up > o conversations in the pub are not the same as a mailing list > o people are leaky in real life - it pays to be honest all the time > > I'm proud of everything google finds out about me. Why shouldn't you > be? > I go trawling search engines to see what they turn up about me also. It's fun. But It isn't a question of google finding out about you: it is about how much information you want made available to complete strangers. How would you feel if a member of this list was sacked because someone accessed an archive and noticed a post during work hours? Bear in mind, we are living with Big Brother now. Regards Kieran
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef --)
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Greg McCarroll wrote: > * Michael Stevens ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > we really want standardisation of technology interfaces in the industry, > > > and threads go a little towards that - oh and a law that alows be to > > > go around and shooting people who work in IT and i deep unworthy[1]. > > > > I do agree with this part. > > > the standardisation on the bloody massacre part? > I think this needs to be hammered out before anyone starts a consultancy. Kieran
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef --)
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, Michael Stevens wrote: > On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 08:37:02PM +0000, Kieran Barry wrote: > > TCL is used because its multithreaded. Perl 6 is going to be > > multithreaded. It should be able to wipe TCL out. > > I've never actually understood the appeal of threads. Why do > people like them? > The concept of execution threads within a process makes it easy to share resources like database connections. As I understand it, that's it. The pre-forked model that Apache uses has a problem because it's tough to share resources. Incidentally, I think this is the reason servlets are used. Regards Kieran
Re: ArsDigita working practices (was: Big Macs v The Naked Chef --)
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Chris Benson wrote: > On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:04:24PM +, Robin Houston wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 08:01:51PM +, Chris Benson wrote: > > > > > Another link is > > > > > > http://www.arsdigita.com/careers/ > > > > > > They seem to be a very good model for a consultancy business > > > > Personally I wouldn't like to work anywhere that thinks like this: > > http://www.arsdigita.com/asj/managing-software-engineers/ > > > > Even if that article is slightly tongue-in-cheek, it disturbs me :-) > I get the feeling that some of Greenspun's writings are written as advertising. One theme running through his writings seems to me is to explain his architecture to the audience. He keeps things really simple, so that even a manager should be able to understand him. But it remains advertising. He goes just slightly over the top about how great ArsDigita is. > I suspect it is *not* tongue-in-cheek -- he wants only the best and does > expect 70-80 hour weeks ... during a project. In some discussion I saw > about this he justified it two ways that I remember: (1) not everyone > worked on projects all the time and (2) if people did work full time on > projects they'd be getting about ~us$500k / year. (Having spent the > entire 80's doing 70-80 hour weeks for less than gbp10k I'd liked to > have had the chance!). > Hmm. My experience says that on many projects, there are people you don't want to work overtime. This is because they created many of the reasons why overtime is necessary. Greenspun believes that everyone should be potentially great (or great already.) He suggests that when a project needs work, people work harder. And an interesting point is that he is in a small town (Cambridge, Masse-however you spell the damn thing), so that commuting is much quicker. On a typical day, I leave for work at 7.25, get to work at about 9.10, leave at 6.30 and arrive home around 8.15. (This is since Hatfield. Total work time 8.30 after lunch. If my commute was 10 minutes each way, I'd have 3hours and 10 minutes of extra work time a day. (Not that I'd necessarily want to work it...) Look at the consultancy thread, where despite the project being composed of a group of friends, a lot of people wanted to work from home. > There are also good bits there which have been mentioned in other threads: > > The average home cannot accomodate a pinball machine. An office > can. The average home can have video games, which are very popular > with young programmers, but not people with whom to play. The > average home cannot have a grand piano but almost any office can. > For the time being, the techy is "talent". We should be treated well, until they find a way to clone us. At the very least, if we aren't being treated well, it implies that the project isn't valued. > I don't think I'd like to work for them though ... I'm getting old'n'soft > :-( and I find the attitude that comes over in Phil Greenspun's writing > rather (very!) arrogant. And of course they use TCL. > I think that Greenspun needs to be outspoken to pay for the techies toys. TCL is used because its multithreaded. Perl 6 is going to be multithreaded. It should be able to wipe TCL out. > But the organisational structure and strategy/vision *is* interesting. Yup. There isn't enough talent around, so people get promoted beyond their competence. If you train your people they'll only leave. The only way out of that cycle is to train in-house, and treat people so well that they stay. Discuss. Kieran
RE: Feelers for London Open Source Convention
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dave Cross wrote: > At Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:15:01 + (GMT), Kieran Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > > > I thought Joe Dolce was only number 1 for a week or so, to be knocked > > off the top by Jealous Guy from Roxy Music. And poor old Vienna hung > > about at number 2 for yonks. > > Hmm... you may be right. Anyone know a site that lists UK top tens > for the 1980s? > > > Anyone remember what kept Sweet Dreams off number 1 in the States? > > Hint: trick question. > > Well, according to <http://80s.koreamusic.net/billboard/1983.html> > it made number one for one week on 3rd Sept 1983. > Hmm. I seem to recall that Sweet Dreams got to number two while the Police (Every Breath You Take) was at the top, then another mega-hit (Beat It? C'mon Eileen?) came along as well. I obviouly blinked and missed the week at the top. Regards Kieran
RE: Feelers for London Open Source Convention
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Dave Cross wrote: > At Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:18:12 -, Mark Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Joe Dolce] > > > Do any others watch those Top Ten programs on Ch4? I think I > > knew this due to watching the Top Ten Comedy records! Wow, I really > > must get out more. > > And there's me thinking that you must be an old git like me who > remembers it happening :) > > Everyone else was, of course, correct too. But Mark was fastest. I guess > this is an advantage of working somewhere where there's bugger all > work going on... > I thought Joe Dolce was only number 1 for a week or so, to be knocked off the top by Jealous Guy from Roxy Music. And poor old Vienna hung about at number 2 for yonks. Anyone remember what kept Sweet Dreams off number 1 in the States? Hint: trick question. Regards Kieran
Re: Books
On 7 Jan 2001, David Hodgkinson wrote: > > And anyway, computing by publisher is getting a lot better. You just > > browse O'Reilly, Addison Wesley and Prentice Hall. > > Heretic. Manning publish Conway's OO Perl book. > What? You browse for errors/ typos in Conway's book? Anyway, the point was, you avoid the Osbourne, Sams etc books. Signal to noise is too high in them. Doh! That, of course, means that my point was invalid, cos the talk was about finding known books, rather than avoiding mining the dross. Regards kieran
Re: Books
On Thu, 4 Jan 2001, David H. Adler wrote: > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:59:05PM +, David Hodgkinson wrote: > > Struan Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > er, what's wrong with foyles if it's not a silly question? > > > > Insane filing system > > They (used to, at least) file their Science Fiction (and some other > sections) by publisher rather than author or even title. Good luck > finding a book if you don't know the publisher... > The computing section is somewhat more sane these days. And anyway, computing by publisher is getting a lot better. You just browse O'Reilly, Addison Wesley and Prentice Hall. If they were to sort by Publisher, shouldn't they subsort by ISBN? Thinking can definitely damage your health :( Regards Kieran
