The 15 seconds per day rule

@dtsomp wrote:

Damn, this ‘Rule of 200’ actually works. http://bit.ly/b3J1dL Thanx @hakmem.

There exists an even better rule which I’ve briefly mentioned before. I found about it via a comment made by John D. Cook:

I read somewhere that you can finish nearly any project if you work on it 15 seconds every day. The trick is “every day.” And if you do put in 15 seconds, you’re likely to put in more. Or more realistically, maybe you commit to 15 minutes a day. Same idea. Overcoming inertia is everything.

Usually when I fail to finish a project, it’s because I go for days at a stretch giving it *zero* time, not because I work consistently but progress too slowly.

Adobe Digital Editions E_ACT_TOO_MANY_ACTIVATIONS error

After reformatting my desktop (and installing the world) I was bitten by the “too many activations” error while trying to register my Adobe-ID. I lost about an hour chatting to the web support staff, with no sucess. I resorted to Adobe forums, where Jim Lester provided a helpful answer:

Support through ADE is not offered via phone or Web Chat support. It is only offered through submitting a web case (http://www.adobe.com/support/digitaleditions – click on ‘Submit a web case’). Avereage resolution time for these cases runs about 3 days.

Note: you have 6 activations (for computers, and then 6 seperate activations for devices) and each time you reformat you lose your activation

I submitted my web case and in less than 24h I got a friendly email informing me that I was OK.

Being Geek

I finished reading “Being Geek” by Michael Lopp. I am sure that Panagiotis (one of my “Your People“) will appreciate it more than me. For the first 20 chapters or so I got increasingly bored (to the point that I switched to reading another book). Then in the middle the book changes pace and provides valueable advice on how to prepare yourself before delivering a presentation. The author argues that there exists no good advice on how to write a presentation, I urge people to read Tufte‘s work, or at least “The cognitive style of PowerPoint“. Then the book becomes boring again.

While the book tries to be a personal growth / career book, it deals so much with interdepartmental politics and intrigue that it is no wonder people work overtime. Their regular worktime is spent not on what they are supposed to work on, but on forecasting fault and making sure it is delegated to others. I’ve got two more issues with the book. First, either it is full of grammatical and syntactic errors, or it makes use of so many American idioms that it is difficult to be read by someone for whom English is not a native language.

Second, I am highly irritated by the liberal use of the word engineer and its interchangeable use for computer scientist and programmer. There are people who are none, one, two or even three out of three, but the terms are not interchangeable. My absolute worst was when the author implied that engineers are not good project managers. Oh really? An Engineer knows his science, understands deadlines, knows that has to deliver a withing the budget solution and can manage people. Sorry Rands, I have an army Engineers to prove this. For example, Civil Engineers do this for a living in Greece and in the process manage people (and teams of people) of multicultural, multilingual and varying educational backgrounds. The fact that one can engineer solutions, does not make one an engineer.

I should have listened to Ozan. So why did I buy the book? Kudos to O’Reilly for providing cool bargaining deals on their eBook offers! I bought it in a buy one, get one free offer. Then why did I recommend the book to @stsimb? The book is not without value. I simply found it hard and tiring to decipher it. On the other hand I know @stsimb for ~15 years and can understand that there exist books that he might like while in fact I definitely did not. Given that I read most of the book while in the bus, this was not a total waste of time.

The (n-th) return of the Database Machine

Once there were Database Machines. Talk to your favorite database person and they will tell you that this is an outdated idea. It is so old, that it can be served again as new and innovative. @mperedim remembers that I predicted that right after Oracle bought Sun. I am neither a market analyst nor I have predictive powers. It is just that Oracle has tried this before: Unbreakable Linux just a few years ago and with Sun hardware and Solaris in the 90s (It also happens that they had tried a lot of things with Sun before, like trying to move all their development desktops to Solaris x86. Or working with Sun on the NC which is no different than today’s netbook paradigm, or the X terminal of the early 90s or even the dumb terminal). So with a 20-year amnesia cycle in CS why not reintroduce the idea? Enter the Sun Oracle Database machines.

Oracle wants to sell such machines. It eliminates support (contract) complexity. Oracle needs a base Operating System that it can control its development and a hardware platform that can be optimized for what Oracle does best. Now clients can buy turn key solutions from Oracle just like they do when they buy IBM. Picture this: Two Linux machines, with Oracle 10g installed exchanging every kind of traffic except sqlplus. Whose fault is this? Oracle’s? The Linux vendor’s? It turned out to be a weird combination of the hardware. And this was discovered because the DBA and the System Administrator under the same employer decided to solve the problem (I was the System Administrator involved). Imagine two different vendors and the client trying to solve the problem: I would expect a lot of finger pointing instead of actually finding the solution and/or workaround.

Oracle now has the opportunity to market the product as a cost saver (“You only need an army of DBAs, not an army of DBAs and an army of systems administrators for different operating systems. Oh, and by the way our patching process just got simpler, you need to call only us”). While in fact a solution’s complexity is unaffected, support contract and communication complexity for the client is simplified. This looks better than buying IBM (or Microsoft) to the person that signs the checks.

Now if someone can make WebKit work with Emacs and we will have Lisp Machines resurrect…

PS: You do not believe in CS amnesia? In “Getting started as a PhD student” Matt Welsh writes: “you should never read anything from the 1960’s or 70’s or you will realize that it all has been done before”.

“Why did you choose DragonFly?”

In this thread Samuel J. Greear asks:

What has drawn you to use the DragonFly BSD operating system and/or participate in its development by following this list? Technical features, methodologies, something about the community? I suspect the HAMMER filesystem to be the popular choice, but what other features affect or do you see affecting your day to day life as an administrator, developer, or [insert use case here], now or in the future?

Since I do not follow the mailing list I will answer here: Well it is of BSD origin! The real reason I used DragonFlyBSD years ago, was that we needed to run pf on the machine and DragonFly was the only BSD that installed on it (with some tweaks though). So simple. It also felt a lot like FreeBSD-4 (for some inexplicable reason, I was never really happy with FreeBSD-5, never installed version 6, returning to using it on production systems in versions 7 and 8). Plus, I got to submit a (minor) bug report :)

I really miss not running DragonFly these days.

[via]