Le 2012-02-02 05:24, Invisible a écrit :
>
> I can see that knowing about how (say) Google manages their data centres
> might be quite useful if you're applying to Google. If you're applying
> to somebody who isn't Google, I'm not sure how that's useful.
>

IT manager: "We have multiple data centres, built out of containers, 
each with their own blah blah blah..."

Darren: "Ah.. Like Google?"

IT Manager (to himself) "Good.  I won't have to go over it with this 
candidate."  (to Darren) "Yes, except that they do XYZ, whereas we rely 
on ABC to do that... Yada Yada Yada...

-----

IT manager: "We have multiple data centres, built out of containers, 
each with their own blah blah blah..."

Andy: "I didn't know you could do that!"

IT Manager (to himself) "Sigh.  I'm going to have to start from the 
birds and Bees with this guy..."


-----

Which of the two, do you think the IT manager will hire?

> ...unless it *isn't* useful at all, it's just another one of those
> worthless things that "create the right impression".
>
>>> As usual with Wikipedia, the page babbles about updates and feeds and
>>> XML and "syndication" and something about RDF, but utterly fails to
>>> explain WHAT IT IS.
>>
>> <sigh>
>>
>> From wikipedia:
>>
>> --- snip ---
>>
>> RSS feeds benefit publishers by letting them syndicate content
>> automatically.
>
> WTF does "syndicate" mean?
>
>> A standardized XML file format allows the information to
>> be published once and viewed by many different programs.
>
> Because XHTML isn't an XML format already. Oh, wait... actually yes it
> is. And many different programs can view it. So...?
>
>> They benefit
>> readers who want to subscribe to timely updates from favorite websites or
>> to aggregate feeds from many sites into one place.
>
> This at least hints at what RSS is actually about. But it still seems
> quite vague. I'm still not clear exactly what it's getting at.
>
>> RSS feeds can be read using software called an "RSS reader", "feed
>> reader", or "aggregator", which can be web-based, desktop-based, or
>> mobile-device-based.
>
> So... you need software that supports RSS in order to use RSS? OK, fair
> enough.
>
>> The user subscribes to a feed by entering into the
>> reader the feed's URI or by clicking a feed icon in a web browser that
>> initiates the subscription process.
>
> We still haven't established exactly what point "subscribing" serves,
> but OK...
>
>> The RSS reader checks the user's
>> subscribed feeds regularly for new work, downloads any updates that it
>> finds, and provides a user interface to monitor and read the feeds.
>
> This is all very abstract. It checks "regularly" for "new work",
> downloads any "updates", and provides a UI to "monitor" such updates. So
> what does that *mean*, in real world terms?
>
>> RSS
>> allows users to avoid manually inspecting all of the websites they are
>> interested in, and instead subscribe to websites such that all new
>> content is pushed onto their browsers when it becomes available.
>
> As best as I can tell, the idea behind RSS seems to be that you can see
> if any of your subscribed websites have been updated, without having to
> visit each of them one at a time. (As if that's in some way "hard" or
> something.) Why the heck the article doesn't just /say/ this on line
> one, I don't know. Instead it talks obliquely about how "all new content
> is pushed onto the browser when it becomes available". (Funny, when it
> says a feed reader "regularly checks for updates", that sounds to me
> like a /pull/ model, not /push/...)
>
>> Now, I read your blog and keep up on it by using - that's right - an RSS
>> feed.
>
> Damn... and I thought I'd turned that off... heh. Apparently not.
>
>> I have the feed set up in Google Reader so that when you post
>> something new on your blog, I see it as part of the Reader page.
>>
>> That way I don't have to visit your blog to see what's going on in your
>> blog. I see an item show up in my reading list so, as wikipedia says, I
>> "avoid manually inspecting all of the websites [I] am interested in" and
>> can see what's new.
>
> So what does that actually look like? I'm still trying to get my head
> around how this actually works. What counts as "new content", how it
> displays all this stuff in an intelligible form, and so on.
>
>>>>> I usually visit Tom's Hardware when I want to see what's happening in
>>>>> the hardware world.
>>>>
>>>> I doubt you're going to get that by reading some text on a screen.
>>>
>>> That's why I just built a new PC - to experience the Core i7 first-hand.
>>> :-P
>>
>> So then why bother going to Tom's Hardware again?
>
> Sarcasm? :-P
>
>>> The BBC's iPlayer system "works". I mean, it's so horrifyingly blurry
>>> that you sometimes can't see people's faces clearly enough to recognise
>>> who's who, and often the end credits are unreadable. But technically
>>> that still counts as "works", right?
>>
>> I don't know what kind of connection you use, but I stream on iPlayer
>> occasionally from halfway around the world (did that with last night of
>> the proms IIRC) and projected it onto a 10' screen. Didn't look
>> particularly blurry to me.
>
> Want to bet that the BBC has servers all over the world?
>
> With the latest update to our set top box, we can actually access
> iPlayer and display it on a real TV. I can actually compare the recorded
> TV broadcast directly next to the iPlayer version of the exact same
> program. And let me tell you, the image quality is incomparable. (And
> that's only SD, not HD.)
>
> On top of that, at peak times iPlayer becomes almost unusable. It
> freezes constantly. I'm not sure whether it's the BBC servers or the ISP
> network that can't keep up, but you just can't watch anything. But then,
> if you select "high quality mode", then it runs like that all the time.
>
> I don't think an 8 Mbit/sec Internet connection would be considered
> especially slow...
>
>>> I just looked it up. The transfer rate of a DVD is 10.5 mbit/sec. The
>>> maximum broadband speed you can get is 8 mbit/sec. So... does that mean
>>> that people in America have something faster than ADSL or something?
>>
>> I don't - I have 3 Mbps down ADSL. I have to not be doing other things
>> with the network connection when I'm streaming Netflix, but I do get a
>> high quality HD image with 5.1 sound with programmes that include it.
>
> The sound isn't the problem, it's the video. Sound is easily streamable.
> But I'm baffled as to how you can download video in anything approaching
> real-time, unless the quality is diabolically poor.
>
>> But more to the point, do you now understand what streaming is?
>
> Yes. Although I'm still puzzled as to how anybody could make money out
> of selling such poor quality stuff...


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message