> 1) You have two machines on a network. One has a big disk, the other has 
> a tape drive and small disk. You have a tar tape with too much 
> information to fit on the small disk. How do you untar it onto the big 
> disk?

OK, I have no clue how to do that.

But then, I don't know how to do almost anything network-related in Unix 
beyond configuring the IP address and default gateway.

> 2) In the ls-listing drwxrsxrwx what does the s mean?  (Note that if you 
> said "look in the ls man page" or even what the name of the flag is, it 
> was good enough, even if you didn't know the semantics the flag implied.)

Hmm. Isn't that SetUID or Sticky or something?

> I don't remember what the third one was, but it was pretty much the same 
> level. The sort of thing which, if you don't know how to solve it, you 
> certainly shouldn't know the root password.

And that's the difference: I wouldn't be applying for a Unix sysadmin 
job. ;-) [Or at least, not unless they provide nontrivial training first...]

> I also have a list of "interview questions" for testing the breadth of 
> someone's knowledge. If I was ever hiring someone as a primary 
> programmer for a new and growing company, I'd want them to know more 
> than just Web2.0 javascripting. :-)

I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is. Does 
anybody actually have a definition for it?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:55:28 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is.

It is a fuzzy term.


> Does anybody actually have a definition for it?

Sort of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:55:28 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is.
> 
> It is a fuzzy term.

That's more or less what I thought. (Or I'd have shut up by now...)

>> Does anybody actually have a definition for it?
> 
> Sort of:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0

Riiiight...

So it's like Web 1.0, but more enterprisy? :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Hmm. Isn't that SetUID or Sticky or something?

That's better than many of the people he interviewed to be a sysadmin.

> I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is. Does 
> anybody actually have a definition for it?

You know what "B2B" and "B2C" means? Business to Business and Business 
to Consumer? I think most of the Web 2.0 stuff is "Consumer to Consumer".

Of course, it started off as a marketing term. O'Reilly said "Let's call 
it Web 2.0. What will it be about?"

There are other terms you should be familiar with too:

"Developer's Wiki" - We're too lazy to actually write documentation on 
how to use the system, so we let the users reverse-engineer it and 
maintain the documentation for us. This has the additional advantage of 
having all documentation inaccessible whenever our server is down, which 
is often, because we don't care enough to write the documentation in the 
first place. And *another* advantage that there's no good starting 
point, and no way to know when the feature you're looking for *isn't* 
available!

"XML" - We're too lazy to document our data interchange formats, so 
we're hoping that by using an inefficient format, it'll include enough 
information that you can guess what we mean by looking at examples. 
Plus, it lets us pretend to parse it correctly by writing simple but 
incorrect code ourselves!

"REST" - Rather than use an RPC format that is capable of being 
generated automatically like SOAP, which (like XML) we don't really 
understand, we're going to use a catchy phrase like "REST" which is 
completely inapplicable in all practical implementations. Plus, it gives 
us the advantage of making you reimplement all parsing and security 
mechanisms for every service with which you interact.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> > On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:55:28 +0100, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> I'm still fuzzy on exactly what the hell "Web 2.0" actually is.
> > 
> > It is a fuzzy term.

> That's more or less what I thought. (Or I'd have shut up by now...)

  "Web 2.0" is the conglomeration of the WWW technologies which have been
developed over the years.

  "Web 1.0" is: You request a webpage, you get a webpage (with fixed
contents). That's it.

  Gmail is a good example of "Web 2.0": The contents of the page are
updated on request, from dynamic information in the server side. Also,
you can send information (such as, for example, a WIP email) to the server
and it can store it and show it to you later. All this without having to
reload pages or jump between different pages.

  Many people have the opinion that "Web 2.0" is just a hype word.
It really isn't. It really has some concrete ideas behind it.

> So it's like Web 1.0, but more enterprisy? :-D

  No, it's Web 1.0 with the various dynamic interactivity technologies
which have appeared in the WWW during the years.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>> Hmm. Isn't that SetUID or Sticky or something?
> 
> That's better than many of the people he interviewed to be a sysadmin.

Woohoo! I'm better than somebody! :-D

Oh, wait...

> You know what "B2B" and "B2C" means? Business to Business and Business 
> to Consumer? I think most of the Web 2.0 stuff is "Consumer to Consumer".
> 
> Of course, it started off as a marketing term. O'Reilly said "Let's call 
> it Web 2.0. What will it be about?"
> 
> There are other terms you should be familiar with too:
> 
> "Developer's Wiki" - We're too lazy to actually write documentation on 
> how to use the system, so we let the users reverse-engineer it and 
> maintain the documentation for us. This has the additional advantage of 
> having all documentation inaccessible whenever our server is down, which 
> is often, because we don't care enough to write the documentation in the 
> first place. And *another* advantage that there's no good starting 
> point, and no way to know when the feature you're looking for *isn't* 
> available!
> 
> "XML" - We're too lazy to document our data interchange formats, so 
> we're hoping that by using an inefficient format, it'll include enough 
> information that you can guess what we mean by looking at examples. 
> Plus, it lets us pretend to parse it correctly by writing simple but 
> incorrect code ourselves!
> 
> "REST" - Rather than use an RPC format that is capable of being 
> generated automatically like SOAP, which (like XML) we don't really 
> understand, we're going to use a catchy phrase like "REST" which is 
> completely inapplicable in all practical implementations. Plus, it gives 
> us the advantage of making you reimplement all parsing and security 
> mechanisms for every service with which you interact.

Woah - suddenly I don't think it's *me* who should be starting their own 
web comic... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 11:32:28 -0800, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

>I believe there's a way simpler way of doing it that doesn't use any 
>trinary operators or server-specific features.  It's brutally 
>inefficient, but that wasn't a criterion. :-)
>
>I'll go pull it out of the code I wrote to solve exactly this problem, 
>next time I'm in that partition.

I imagine there are several ways to skin that cat.  I'm sure I can write another
version by joining
a couple of subqueries on the table, but it would likely be quite inefficient, as you
stated.  I
don't know about it being simpler, though.

Post a reply to this message

Kyle wrote:
> I imagine there are several ways to skin that cat.

Simpler conceptually:

It was something like this. We have a table of data coming in,
different sources providing us with data, and we know the
starttime, but we have to also know how long the data was
valid.  So, roughly, and with the wrong syntax:

create table metadata (
   starttime, duration default null,
   source, information
)

update metadata as y set duration =
   (select min(starttime) from metadata as x
     where y.source = x.source and
           y.starttime < x.starttime)
   where y.duration is null

After that sort of thing ran overnight without finishing,
I said screw it, and wrote a program to go through
the table and do the update programmatically, which
ran in about five minutes or so. With the ability
to tell how far you were finished.

Then, to answer the question Andrew actually was asked, you'd modify it 
to look for or count durations > 10 minutes, rather than storing them in 
the table.  That's what I meant about finding the ends of sessions 
instead of the start.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:51:00 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake, saying:

> 1) You have two machines on a network. One has a big disk, the other has  
> a tape drive and small disk. You have a tar tape with too much  
> information to fit on the small disk. How do you untar it onto the big  
> disk?

I'm confused - can't the big disk machine access the tape drive directly  
over the network?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> I'm confused - can't the big disk machine access the tape drive directly 
> over the network?

No. How would you do that?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message