[Previous] Fix or repair daily?...
[Next] Toyota Unveils All-New FJ Cruiser Sport Utility Vehicle...
Some slightly related from Technorati and Google.
[Blogs.sun.com] fintanr's weblog: We can't stress this enough. In practice this gives mpstat output that has as close to 0 as possible in the idle column, and definitely 0 in the wait column, but with the columns still lined up (Bryan has a great comment on this, I'm paraphrasing here, but its along the lines "the tool was designed to report data with columns matching the titles, if the columns aren't matching the titles thats a pretty good indication that you have a problem"). So an mpstat from a sample rig may look like the following during an actual benchmark run.
[Webservices.xml.com] webservices.xml.com: The Semantic Blog: I haven't pulled the trigger on this yet, partly because every stage in the evolution of RSS provokes such tumultuous debate that I wanted to float a trial balloon here and gauge the reaction. My hunch, though, is that before long I'll be producing, consuming, and storing a small but growing number of XHTML-enhanced blogs. And then, I hope, we'll start to see conventions bubbling up from the grass roots. We don't need a grand ontology in order to be able to mark up things like code fragments.
[Blogs.msdn.com] Alex Barnett blog :: On the matter of the RSS downside, that using RSS requires 'one more application to learn',...great point...but there are two thoughts I have on this. First, if potential users of RSS readers understand the value it can bring, then users will learn (remember: the email clients and browsers were once new apps to learn, but their value was enough to get over the learning barrier). The second is that web-based readers are 'apps' too, but with Yahoo, MSN and other online services companies bringing in RSS to their offering (while investing in usability dollars as they do so), the customer won't necessarily feel they are 'learning a new app' - it is just another feature of a website.
[Blogs.msdn.com] Funny, It Worked Last Time :: Of course, I never mentioned what it is we actually were working on... I'm out to create a string class for C++ that doesn't suck. Now, there's three ways that C++'s std::string sucks. The first sin is that you have to use a backing store -- you can't tell it to use a string literal like L"Schöne Grüße" as a source, since allocator<char> requires that the target be modifiable. All contents have to be copied, because contents are always mutable. The second sin is that it assumes that the compiler and author knows what they're doing when they manipulate its contents. To C++, a basic_string<T> is really just a pretty interface on a vector<T>. The third sin may vary to some people; for me, it exists in the forms of some stupid promises that 14882 (the ISO C++ standard) wasn't willing to make, most notably that the c_str() method is capable of invalidating references, pointers, and iterators. This was mostly done to accomodate copy on write and other implementation details, but it makes writing conformant string-handling code infuriatingly difficult if you ever have to interface std::string with C functions that need C strings (such as, say, the Win32 API!)
[Software.ericsink.com] Eric Sink's Weblog: Maybe. SourceGear has tried it this way in the past, and sometimes it has worked well. But in the long run you will regret the decision to insulate your programmers from everything but code. Programmers in a small ISV have too much influence to let them have a narrow perspective. Make them see the perspective of the user. Put your programmers on the phone to help a customer with a tough problem. Your product quality will improve as you expose programmers to the consequences of the bugs they create.
Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Ferrari, Funky Cars
