1) Pretty much all these viruses/malware target Microsoft's own software
Relevent to OneCare how? Its completely different software, its not like OneCare is targeted. Shouldnt we evaluate these individual products on their merits?
2) Microsoft has more resources than all the other companies combined.
I really get tired of seeing this argument. They have a bajillion software products, they cant afford to pour all their resources into every single one of them. Many times their products actually have less resources than their competitors. Google's spending exceeds MSN's by an order of magnitude. I very seriously doubt they are funding OneCare to the tune of billions of dollars (which is what their competitors here are worth)
3) People are going with Microsoft's solution assuming that it is the best one
This isnt true, Norton, McAfee, etc. have brand loyalty. MS has none in this field. Sure there might be a few unsophisticated home users who buy it because of the brand but that will be absolutely dwarfed by the IT departments that use the established competitors.
"We are looking closely at the methodology and results of the test to ensure that Windows Live OneCare performs better in future tests," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
Thats the danger with tests like this. Companies like MS see them and instead of thinking "how can we use this data to make our product better?" they are focused on just making it look better for the test. I'm not trying to single MS out here, video card manufacturers do this sort of thing all the time, hell it may be that the top performers on this test did it too.
Incidentally, why all the MS hate? Why focus on the company on the bottom, if it was any other company the headline would have been "Norton at top of antivirus heap in tests". The companies at the top are much bigger in this area and their software more widely deployed so I would think their performance would be more relevent regardless of who scored where.
Just because your kids dont want you to know every single detail of their life doesnt mean that they are hooking up with 35 year olds. People take this business of monitoring their kids internet use too seriously. Would you tap your teenagers phone calls? If not whats the difference?
Just curious, are you consistent with that view across all professions?
Do you feel that male nurses, HR folks, etc should be given preferential treatment of some kind to counteract the 'disadvantage' of being in a minority?
Do you feel that white and asian basketball should be given some sort of advantage because there are more african american basketball players per capita in the NBA?
97% of CS curriculum is pretty gender nuetral. Memory allocators, NP-completeness, caches, etc. Is there a 'male' way versus a 'female' way to teach this? I hear a lot of complaints that games are often included in curriculum and are male centric. But every time I have seen a game in CS curriculum its been of the variety that typically appeal to females. ie they were similar to those easy to pick up games that you find on the web these days and have like an 80% female audience. I've also seen photo albums, family tree organizers, and social networking programs given as assignments. Frankly, I cant think of any assignments at my university that were male centric! (although I am sure that they are out there)
>After they sweat and study to get into a selective program, they aren't exposed to people sneering that they got in as a result of affirmative action (even if they did get in through "legacy preference" or some other euphemism).
I'll give you that it is wrong to sneer at someone who got in on their own merits if they are a member of a group where some people get in just for being members of that group. I think that the best solution would be to treat everyone equally regardless of gender. (or race, or eye color or whatever) Then the problem you describe wouldnt exist at all.
>They have role models.
I never got this idea that "that person cant be a role model for me because they are of a different race/gender/sexual orientation/whatever" But even then there are role models like Anita Borg out there.
>They have the comfort of being in a majority.
So does that mean that men going into nursing/human resources/whatever should get preferential treatment as well? After all they arent in the majority in those professions.
Why do you think a woman wouldnt be given a chance to prove she can code?
Even if your claim that there is gender discrimination is sales positions is true, that is a pretty radically different field from software engineering and does not imply that she wouldnt be given a chance to prove her programming skills.
Your claim that a man would be given a chance to prove his skills on a job interview and a woman would not based on some social conversations has even less evidence supporting it. You havent really given any strong evidence to back up your claims. Were these conversations with hiring managers where they said "I would definintly give a male a chance to prove himself but no way would I give a female that opportunity"?
I agree. I have met 1 person that has a high quality software engineering jobs but never went to college. But I have also met hundreds of software engineers. I think the myth comes from two places:
1) You do meet someone like that rarely (as I mentioned of above) and you are more likely to repeat that story to someone you know. The fact that people like that are 1% of software engineers in good R&D departments isnt included in the story.
2) So and so's kid is creating basic websites or doing some other form of really simple IT work and people dont know the difference between that and kernel hacking. (there are a decent amount of people who arent college educated in this group)
I think any employer would be wary of someone who claimed to be self taught with nothing to back it up regardless of gender. Self taught programmers can usually ace a technical screen if they are any good.
What makes you think that a male would be taken at his word that he is self taught and knows everything but a female would be laughed at?
Why do women need special treatment? Everyone acts like there needs to be sort of 'affirmative action' type of deal. What advantages do men have that women dont?
When I was an CS undergrad in college I remember hearing constantly about how 'women have it tougher in cs' and so forth. In my view exactly the opposite is true. I never once saw a female getting a worse grade because of her gender. I did however see one of the schools deans go ask professors for explanations when a female was doing poorly in a class. The result of that was that professors were under pressure to make sure that female students got through which resulted in unfair grading.
If women want to become engineers they should be allowed to and have the same opportunities as men, but preferential treatment just makes the ones that are legit look bad.
That argument makes no sense. If a poorly written application running on one mobile phone has the potential to bring down the west coast network then logically a malicous hacker should be able to bring down that same network. Anything a malfunctioning application can do a mean nasty coder can do much more reliably. If there is the possiblity that an application can do that by -accident- then it should be relatively easy for a skilled engineer to do it deliberately.
It sounds to me like he was just fishing for excuses about why hes not allowing third party apps. It isnt necessarily a bad thing that they arent allowed but that excuse is bogus.
The course itself is not the point of going to college. If you did this instead of taking a course you would be missing out on the interaction with the professor as well as the connections/letters of recommendation you would get if you were actually attending MIT.
On top of that you could take those open courses and understand the material better than anyone, but who do you think an employer is going to hire/grad school is going to admit? The guy who said he went through the open courses on MITs website or the guy who graduated from MIT.
This isnt anything particularly new, you could always go shell out fifty bucks for a textbook and read the thing. Noone would consider that as valuable as a college education though.
One of the sad truths about higher education is that 99% of the time the degree itself and the connections you made in college are far more valuable than anything you actually learned in school.
*shrug* The company I work for now is relatively small. I get my own office, flexible hours, free food, a better salary than any of the well known companies have ever offered me, etc.
I'll agree with you that a smaller company is more likely to freak out if you are just throwing money away on a company expense account, but Ive never had a problem getting reimbursed for legitimate stuff. Additionally, it is more important to actually bring value to a company and justify your existance if you work for a small company. At a big one you can sometimes get into a situtation where noone cares if you are just draining 100 grand a year from the company. (Ive seen this happen before)
Most big companies target specific compensation ranges relative to their competiters, MS is 66th percintile, Cisco is 70th, etc. Maybe I should have said that smaller companies will vary their offers more since they arent tied into HRs compensation system. If your superviser decides you are worth X dollars he/she has the power to offer you that much.
Plus there is always the outside chance that a small company will become large and you can retire on stock options. : )
Are you certain of that? I havent been near the Microsoft campus in over a year, but my friend who currently works there insists that they still have them.
Personally I can see the logic behind free food more easily than I can see the logic behind free drinks. I wont stay at work an extra hour for a coke, but I will stay if I can get a free meal by doing so.
Bear in mind that EA was also rated highly on this list for a while. This list is more about who can impress the editors with the best story about why their place is awesome to work at. What it really means is that Googles HR people are doing a great job of selling the company. Dont get me wrong, Google is a great place for a software engineer to work at, but this list doesnt mean diddly.
This list leaves most of the smaller companies off of it too. Maybe they should consider the title "100 best places to work if you want to work for a huge multinational." I am not knocking them for doing that, after all, how could they consider every small business in America? Just observing that there are some really great small companies out there. Also worth considering is that smaller companies will usually compensate you a lot better because they have fewer qualified applicants than the Googles and Microsofts of the world.
That may work great at the high level, but it doesnt gaurantee you made no mistakes in the implementation. It is inevitable that some functions are going to be very tricky. Add in enough functions and sooner or later someone is going to make a mistake that isnt caught in unit testing.
As an example, I remember seeing code that looked like the following once:
lock semaphore do 50 things safely unlock semaphore do one more thing that we should have done before unlocking
Thats the sort of absent minded mistake that will never be caught by a test suite and will very rarely manifest itself. And of course the high level idea of what its doing will still be correct. I realize this is a simple example, but there are more complicated ones that crop up too.
Testing boundary conditions and so forth may sound all wonderful in the world of academia, but in the real world it wont catch all bugs. And frankly, I cant remember the last time I saw a simple boundary condition error in the real world. Just putting in the "obvious" test cases usually doesnt do much in my experience.
You are implying that unit testing every function is somehow equivalent to mathematically proving nothing can go wrong and that simply isnt true. I'll give you that it does improve quality to a degree, but bugs will still be there. Even if it were perfect, conforming to DO-178B, EAL or whichever standard is you favorite is cost prohibitive and not really practical for most software development.
I dont see why you necessarily have to copy an entire array.
void foo(){ int arr1[52];/* a bunch of code that stores values into arr1 and then manipulates them and reads them back*/ }
The only overhead that had to be done here was moving the stack pointer down an extra 52*4 bytes, which is no more work than what it was doing already. Assuming you are in a language that doesnt initialize every element of an array when you declare it. Arrays on the stack are not inherintly inefficient although they certainly can be if you dont use them right.
Thats quite bold of you to claim that you are in an elite group that can churn out large programs in C with zero bugs.
Your claim that smart programmers using dmalloc, electric fence, or some other bounds checker will find all buffer overflows seems misguided to me. Those tools are great for catching buffer overflows that are actually being caused by your test suite. But arent most buffer overflow security holes caused by weird corner cases noone though of? I mean in the real world its never caused by something as simple as "=" versus "".
There are pointers to the code segment in every section of memory. (heap, stack, you name it) Do you honestly think that the only time a pointer to code gets followed is when you are bouncing around in between stack frames?
I am amazed that you would so arrogantly declare that simply doing a bit of static analysis would be sufficient to fix all (or even most) buffer overflows in complex programs with hundreds of thousands or even millions of lines of code. It sounds like you just looked at one tutorial of the 'classic' buffer overflow with overrunning in a stack frame causing arbitrary code execution and decided that was the only case programmers had to worry about. It seems like its always people who have a small amount of knowledge about computers (but really not all that much) who are the most eager to rip on MS.
He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest? If I were going to quit my job to make some kind of a statement I would want to be able to give an interview about it that started with something other than "My guess is that..."
The way that people are always talking about how screenshots can be faked doesnt seem like a valid argument to me.
I think that with the screenshot it isnt being viewed as ironclad evidence so much as an aid for the witness who is testifying about what he found. Kind of like how in traffic court an eyewitness will draw diagrams of what happened on a whiteboard. The diagrams, like the screenshots, can be doctored. They are considered to have the same level of credibility as the witness.
I think that harping on screenshots that are 99.999% likely to be accurate is kind of silly. They have the same level of credibility as any witness the riaa chooses to put forth. Which is pretty high. Yeah I know we all hate the riaa, but they respect the law and arent going to put someone on the stand who they know will lie.
I dont see any links to sales sites on there. Am I just missing some obvious bit of text? The only ones I can see go to pictures and reviews. Maybe when you were there you got served an ad that was based on the context of what you were viewing, but that would have happened regardless of whether the blurb was favorable or not.
Its not unusual for top X lists to sound like a little like ads, I mean obviously they liked the product so it seems logical that the little blurb would be favorable. They have listed products that were made by companies that gave them no money. I think your accusations of being them selecting products exclusively based on who advertises in their magazine arent well founded.
Its been released to business customers, and it currently has an install base larger than almost every other software software product sold from those stores you mentioned. It is very much "out". I think a good analogy would be movies that open in a couple of theatres and then see nationwide releases a week or so later. The movie is still said to have been released the day it started playing, not the day that it started playing nationwide.
My point with firefox and gmail is not that they werent important (they certainly were) but that PC World clearly doesnt have a problem with giving their top ranks to people who dont give them money. Many posters in this discussion have been implying otherwise.
Thats true, I was hardly claiming that ms was the first to let you hit a button to have all the little tooltips pop up. But the guy I was responding too seemed unaware of it and it fits in very well with the Office 2007 interface. (cue silly slogans about unleashing productivity) I thought that he/she would find it useful if he/she knew about it.
I didnt mean for it to be part of some "company X did this first!", "No! Company Y did! And company X sucks!" type of debate. Its just a nice feature that works well in that product. : )
Slashdot Mirror
1) Pretty much all these viruses/malware target Microsoft's own software
Relevent to OneCare how? Its completely different software, its not like OneCare is targeted. Shouldnt we evaluate these individual products on their merits?
2) Microsoft has more resources than all the other companies combined.
I really get tired of seeing this argument. They have a bajillion software products, they cant afford to pour all their resources into every single one of them. Many times their products actually have less resources than their competitors. Google's spending exceeds MSN's by an order of magnitude. I very seriously doubt they are funding OneCare to the tune of billions of dollars (which is what their competitors here are worth)
3) People are going with Microsoft's solution assuming that it is the best one
This isnt true, Norton, McAfee, etc. have brand loyalty. MS has none in this field. Sure there might be a few unsophisticated home users who buy it because of the brand but that will be absolutely dwarfed by the IT departments that use the established competitors.
"We are looking closely at the methodology and results of the test to ensure that Windows Live OneCare performs better in future tests," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
Thats the danger with tests like this. Companies like MS see them and instead of thinking "how can we use this data to make our product better?" they are focused on just making it look better for the test. I'm not trying to single MS out here, video card manufacturers do this sort of thing all the time, hell it may be that the top performers on this test did it too.
Incidentally, why all the MS hate? Why focus on the company on the bottom, if it was any other company the headline would have been "Norton at top of antivirus heap in tests". The companies at the top are much bigger in this area and their software more widely deployed so I would think their performance would be more relevent regardless of who scored where.
Just because your kids dont want you to know every single detail of their life doesnt mean that they are hooking up with 35 year olds. People take this business of monitoring their kids internet use too seriously. Would you tap your teenagers phone calls? If not whats the difference?
Just curious, are you consistent with that view across all professions?
Do you feel that male nurses, HR folks, etc should be given preferential treatment of some kind to counteract the 'disadvantage' of being in a minority?
Do you feel that white and asian basketball should be given some sort of advantage because there are more african american basketball players per capita in the NBA?
>They get curricula that match their interests.
97% of CS curriculum is pretty gender nuetral. Memory allocators, NP-completeness, caches, etc. Is there a 'male' way versus a 'female' way to teach this? I hear a lot of complaints that games are often included in curriculum and are male centric. But every time I have seen a game in CS curriculum its been of the variety that typically appeal to females. ie they were similar to those easy to pick up games that you find on the web these days and have like an 80% female audience. I've also seen photo albums, family tree organizers, and social networking programs given as assignments. Frankly, I cant think of any assignments at my university that were male centric! (although I am sure that they are out there)
>After they sweat and study to get into a selective program, they aren't exposed to people sneering that they got in as a result of affirmative action (even if they did get in through "legacy preference" or some other euphemism).
I'll give you that it is wrong to sneer at someone who got in on their own merits if they are a member of a group where some people get in just for being members of that group. I think that the best solution would be to treat everyone equally regardless of gender. (or race, or eye color or whatever) Then the problem you describe wouldnt exist at all.
>They have role models.
I never got this idea that "that person cant be a role model for me because they are of a different race/gender/sexual orientation/whatever" But even then there are role models like Anita Borg out there.
>They have the comfort of being in a majority.
So does that mean that men going into nursing/human resources/whatever should get preferential treatment as well? After all they arent in the majority in those professions.
Why do you think a woman wouldnt be given a chance to prove she can code?
Even if your claim that there is gender discrimination is sales positions is true, that is a pretty radically different field from software engineering and does not imply that she wouldnt be given a chance to prove her programming skills.
Your claim that a man would be given a chance to prove his skills on a job interview and a woman would not based on some social conversations has even less evidence supporting it. You havent really given any strong evidence to back up your claims. Were these conversations with hiring managers where they said "I would definintly give a male a chance to prove himself but no way would I give a female that opportunity"?
I agree. I have met 1 person that has a high quality software engineering jobs but never went to college. But I have also met hundreds of software engineers. I think the myth comes from two places:
1) You do meet someone like that rarely (as I mentioned of above) and you are more likely to repeat that story to someone you know. The fact that people like that are 1% of software engineers in good R&D departments isnt included in the story.
2) So and so's kid is creating basic websites or doing some other form of really simple IT work and people dont know the difference between that and kernel hacking. (there are a decent amount of people who arent college educated in this group)
I think any employer would be wary of someone who claimed to be self taught with nothing to back it up regardless of gender. Self taught programmers can usually ace a technical screen if they are any good.
What makes you think that a male would be taken at his word that he is self taught and knows everything but a female would be laughed at?
Why do women need special treatment? Everyone acts like there needs to be sort of 'affirmative action' type of deal. What advantages do men have that women dont?
When I was an CS undergrad in college I remember hearing constantly about how 'women have it tougher in cs' and so forth. In my view exactly the opposite is true. I never once saw a female getting a worse grade because of her gender. I did however see one of the schools deans go ask professors for explanations when a female was doing poorly in a class. The result of that was that professors were under pressure to make sure that female students got through which resulted in unfair grading.
If women want to become engineers they should be allowed to and have the same opportunities as men, but preferential treatment just makes the ones that are legit look bad.
That argument makes no sense. If a poorly written application running on one mobile phone has the potential to bring down the west coast network then logically a malicous hacker should be able to bring down that same network. Anything a malfunctioning application can do a mean nasty coder can do much more reliably. If there is the possiblity that an application can do that by -accident- then it should be relatively easy for a skilled engineer to do it deliberately.
It sounds to me like he was just fishing for excuses about why hes not allowing third party apps. It isnt necessarily a bad thing that they arent allowed but that excuse is bogus.
All those advantages you just listed are also true of textbooks.
The course itself is not the point of going to college. If you did this instead of taking a course you would be missing out on the interaction with the professor as well as the connections/letters of recommendation you would get if you were actually attending MIT.
On top of that you could take those open courses and understand the material better than anyone, but who do you think an employer is going to hire/grad school is going to admit? The guy who said he went through the open courses on MITs website or the guy who graduated from MIT.
This isnt anything particularly new, you could always go shell out fifty bucks for a textbook and read the thing. Noone would consider that as valuable as a college education though.
One of the sad truths about higher education is that 99% of the time the degree itself and the connections you made in college are far more valuable than anything you actually learned in school.
*shrug* The company I work for now is relatively small. I get my own office, flexible hours, free food, a better salary than any of the well known companies have ever offered me, etc.
I'll agree with you that a smaller company is more likely to freak out if you are just throwing money away on a company expense account, but Ive never had a problem getting reimbursed for legitimate stuff. Additionally, it is more important to actually bring value to a company and justify your existance if you work for a small company. At a big one you can sometimes get into a situtation where noone cares if you are just draining 100 grand a year from the company. (Ive seen this happen before)
Most big companies target specific compensation ranges relative to their competiters, MS is 66th percintile, Cisco is 70th, etc. Maybe I should have said that smaller companies will vary their offers more since they arent tied into HRs compensation system. If your superviser decides you are worth X dollars he/she has the power to offer you that much.
Plus there is always the outside chance that a small company will become large and you can retire on stock options. : )
Are you certain of that? I havent been near the Microsoft campus in over a year, but my friend who currently works there insists that they still have them.
Personally I can see the logic behind free food more easily than I can see the logic behind free drinks. I wont stay at work an extra hour for a coke, but I will stay if I can get a free meal by doing so.
Bear in mind that EA was also rated highly on this list for a while. This list is more about who can impress the editors with the best story about why their place is awesome to work at. What it really means is that Googles HR people are doing a great job of selling the company. Dont get me wrong, Google is a great place for a software engineer to work at, but this list doesnt mean diddly.
This list leaves most of the smaller companies off of it too. Maybe they should consider the title "100 best places to work if you want to work for a huge multinational." I am not knocking them for doing that, after all, how could they consider every small business in America? Just observing that there are some really great small companies out there. Also worth considering is that smaller companies will usually compensate you a lot better because they have fewer qualified applicants than the Googles and Microsofts of the world.
That may work great at the high level, but it doesnt gaurantee you made no mistakes in the implementation. It is inevitable that some functions are going to be very tricky. Add in enough functions and sooner or later someone is going to make a mistake that isnt caught in unit testing.
As an example, I remember seeing code that looked like the following once:
lock semaphore
do 50 things safely
unlock semaphore
do one more thing that we should have done before unlocking
Thats the sort of absent minded mistake that will never be caught by a test suite and will very rarely manifest itself. And of course the high level idea of what its doing will still be correct. I realize this is a simple example, but there are more complicated ones that crop up too.
Testing boundary conditions and so forth may sound all wonderful in the world of academia, but in the real world it wont catch all bugs. And frankly, I cant remember the last time I saw a simple boundary condition error in the real world. Just putting in the "obvious" test cases usually doesnt do much in my experience.
You are implying that unit testing every function is somehow equivalent to mathematically proving nothing can go wrong and that simply isnt true. I'll give you that it does improve quality to a degree, but bugs will still be there. Even if it were perfect, conforming to DO-178B, EAL or whichever standard is you favorite is cost prohibitive and not really practical for most software development.
I dont see why you necessarily have to copy an entire array.
/* a bunch of code that stores values into arr1 and then manipulates them and reads them back*/
void foo(){
int arr1[52];
}
The only overhead that had to be done here was moving the stack pointer down an extra 52*4 bytes, which is no more work than what it was doing already. Assuming you are in a language that doesnt initialize every element of an array when you declare it. Arrays on the stack are not inherintly inefficient although they certainly can be if you dont use them right.
Thats quite bold of you to claim that you are in an elite group that can churn out large programs in C with zero bugs.
Your claim that smart programmers using dmalloc, electric fence, or some other bounds checker will find all buffer overflows seems misguided to me. Those tools are great for catching buffer overflows that are actually being caused by your test suite. But arent most buffer overflow security holes caused by weird corner cases noone though of? I mean in the real world its never caused by something as simple as "=" versus "".
There are pointers to the code segment in every section of memory. (heap, stack, you name it) Do you honestly think that the only time a pointer to code gets followed is when you are bouncing around in between stack frames?
I am amazed that you would so arrogantly declare that simply doing a bit of static analysis would be sufficient to fix all (or even most) buffer overflows in complex programs with hundreds of thousands or even millions of lines of code. It sounds like you just looked at one tutorial of the 'classic' buffer overflow with overrunning in a stack frame causing arbitrary code execution and decided that was the only case programmers had to worry about. It seems like its always people who have a small amount of knowledge about computers (but really not all that much) who are the most eager to rip on MS.
Not only does it happen every year but slashdot already reported on it happening this year a couple days ago.
/ 28/0328251
http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12
He doesnt know the full story but he quit his job in protest? If I were going to quit my job to make some kind of a statement I would want to be able to give an interview about it that started with something other than "My guess is that..."
IANAL, but:
The way that people are always talking about how screenshots can be faked doesnt seem like a valid argument to me.
I think that with the screenshot it isnt being viewed as ironclad evidence so much as an aid for the witness who is testifying about what he found. Kind of like how in traffic court an eyewitness will draw diagrams of what happened on a whiteboard. The diagrams, like the screenshots, can be doctored. They are considered to have the same level of credibility as the witness.
I think that harping on screenshots that are 99.999% likely to be accurate is kind of silly. They have the same level of credibility as any witness the riaa chooses to put forth. Which is pretty high. Yeah I know we all hate the riaa, but they respect the law and arent going to put someone on the stand who they know will lie.
I dont see any links to sales sites on there. Am I just missing some obvious bit of text? The only ones I can see go to pictures and reviews. Maybe when you were there you got served an ad that was based on the context of what you were viewing, but that would have happened regardless of whether the blurb was favorable or not.
Its not unusual for top X lists to sound like a little like ads, I mean obviously they liked the product so it seems logical that the little blurb would be favorable. They have listed products that were made by companies that gave them no money. I think your accusations of being them selecting products exclusively based on who advertises in their magazine arent well founded.
Its been released to business customers, and it currently has an install base larger than almost every other software software product sold from those stores you mentioned. It is very much "out". I think a good analogy would be movies that open in a couple of theatres and then see nationwide releases a week or so later. The movie is still said to have been released the day it started playing, not the day that it started playing nationwide.
My point with firefox and gmail is not that they werent important (they certainly were) but that PC World clearly doesnt have a problem with giving their top ranks to people who dont give them money. Many posters in this discussion have been implying otherwise.
Thats true, I was hardly claiming that ms was the first to let you hit a button to have all the little tooltips pop up. But the guy I was responding too seemed unaware of it and it fits in very well with the Office 2007 interface. (cue silly slogans about unleashing productivity) I thought that he/she would find it useful if he/she knew about it.
I didnt mean for it to be part of some "company X did this first!", "No! Company Y did! And company X sucks!" type of debate. Its just a nice feature that works well in that product. : )