Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | muxator's commentslogin

Hi, could you give some pointers about this? Thanks!


It's down to the mount options, use 'soft' and the program trying to access the (inaccessible) server gets an error return after a while, or 'intr' if you want to be able to kill the hung process.

The caveat is a lot of software is written to assume things like fread(), fopen() etc will either quickly fail or work. However, if the file is over a network obviously things can go wrong so the common default behaviour is to wait for the server to come back online. Same issue applies to any other network filesystem, different OS's (and even the same OS with different configs) handle the situation differently.


> after a while

'After a while' usually requiring the users to wait with an unresponsive desktop environment, because they opened a file manager whilst NFS was huffing. So they'd manage to switch to a virtual terminal and then out of habit type 'ls', locking that up too.

After a few years of messing around with soft mounts and block sizes and all sorts of NFS config nonsense, I switched to SMB and never looked back


>> Don't know about FreeBSD but hard hanging on a mounted filesystem is configurable (if it's essential configure it that way, otherwise don't).

> Hi, could you give some pointers about this? Thanks!

* https://man.archlinux.org/man/nfs.5.en#soft

* https://kb.netapp.com/on-prem/ontap/da/NAS/NAS-KBs/What_are_...


> - nobody reads intermediate commit messages one by one on a PR, period [...] > > - “every commit must compile” - again, unnecessary overzealousness. [...]

In my part of the world both of these are true, and proudly so. We keep catching a myriad of errors, big and small. The history is easy to read, and helps anyone catching up with how a certain project evolved.

I understand it might not be true for everyone, every team, in every line of business; but this sort of discipline pays off in quality oboth of the code _and_ the team members' abilities.


Hi, fellow compulsive selectors! Thanks, I am no longer feeling alone!


Me three, there are many dozens of us!

Compulsive selecting while reading, and hitting CTRL+S every couple seconds while editing documents, are the two "weird" habits I couldn't kick for decades now. Most of the time, I'm not even conscious I'm doing those things; I only notice when the text isn't selectable or the program pops up a modal in response to CTRL+S.


I am with you on CTRL+s whenever I am using ANY software that saves upon pressing CTRL+s.


The hardest part is to remember not to do it when sharing screens...


I still do it, for emphasis. Never had anyone complain thus far.


Me too!

Developed this habit as a kid on a Mac IIcx in 1992. Hard to break.


Glad also to feel justified at last!


Neat method. However, the frequency range for the device is 7600-13600 Hz: less than an octave.


This is the first device of that kind. It's a research paper. The method described works. They weren't going for the limits of the technology here, but proving that it works. Others with different requirements of frequency ranges can create their own versions.


Terrible! I was expecting at least a 7599-13601 Hz split.


Ah, so you're pointing out that you could scale it up and down and stack them to convert white noise into chords? Cool!


Make two of them mirror imaged to each other, and the middle of the audience hears the music in a different key than the wings.


Kudos for mentioning the second season of The Wire. At first, when watching the season, the theme felt misplaced, but it ended up being a very well done sociological exploration on deindustrialization. Given the current geopolitical issues it seems relevant even in contemporary times.


I already knew before watching the show that each season focused on a different aspect of Baltimore; though I didn't know any spoilers or major plot points. So I wasn't as thrown as most first-time viewers always seem to be. I quite liked it my first time.


With all its present and past limitations, Brazil is a democracy. I do not know India enough, but it is not a regime either.


It's worth remembering that the origin of BRICS was the Goldman Sachs portfolio for emerging markets. For some bizarre reason the term became loved by Western far left and then took a life of its own.


I did not claim the opposite. Although I do question the morality of partnering with Russia in 2024.


Yes, it is. Every government is a regime:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/regime

The word frequently has a negative connotation, but that isn't strictly part of the definition.


Agreed! In Rome for some time now one can top up his paper NFC ticket; there is no reason to throw it away.


Yep, the ones in Athens can be refilled too.


How come is a 15% IPC increase generation for generation a disappointing result? There might be greener pastures, I agree, but a 15% increase year over year for the quality factor of a product is nothing to be disappointed of. It's good execution, even more so in a mature and competitive sector such as microelectronics.


It's not year over year. It's 2 years.

It's disappointing because M4 is significantly ahead. I would expect Zen to make a bigger leap to catch up.

Also, this small leap opens up for Intel's Arrow Lake to take the lead.


Actually from Zen 4 to Zen 5 there is a little more than one year and a half (supposing that they will indeed go on sale in July), almost matching the AMD announcement done around the launch of Zen 4 that they will shorten the time between generations from 2 years to 1 1/2 years.


Process node advantage is real.


Of course it's real. But not only is M4 significantly faster in ST, it'll probably 3-4x more efficient than Zen5 mobile just like how M3 is against Zen4 mobile.

This difference in efficiency cannot be explained by node advantage alone as N3E vs N4 is probably around only 15-20% more efficient.


I wonder how much of the performance delta there is the OS. The performance benchmarks for Zen won't be running on OSX, credible risk they're running through the overhead of Windows.


> Firefox was bad when Chrome came out

Funny how different people's experiences can be. When Chrome came out in 2008 I remember trying it just for fun (more than once), and it never clicked with me, so I stayed with Firefox.

What was harder for me was keeping with all the unnecessary redesigns, empty eye candy, dumbing down, the Fennec debacle (exensions used to work, then they suddenly stopped for a bunch of years; plus, no keyword search for no reason).

By that time staying away from Google had become a goal in itself, but I understand who migrated to chrome.

Anyway, I am firmly convinced Chrome won because of Google's abuse of its web search monopoly. The innovations that its team introduced were groundbreaking from a technical point of view, but Firefox was a perfectly capable browser.


Just a single data point, but when I copy & paste a snippet from Stack Overflow, I always add a comment "// source: https://stack overflow.com/questions/xxx#yyy".

I both find it respectful of who wrote the answer in the first place and useful for future users of the code: the Stack Overflow answer often provides context and explanation for what would otherwise be an obscure piece of code.

Pretty darn useful if you ask me: those who want to have more information can follow the link, casual readers can skip it, and the whole process if fair to the author.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: