Thanks, I haven't heard of Codeweavers before. I checked out a software company that specialized in WINE support, but that conversation went no where. I'll give these guys a shout.
I considered this. I wasn't able to come up with a secure way to accomplish this, when the guest requires network connectivity and is no longer receiving security updates.
What networks have you been responsible for maintaining? Do you have any experience applying these ideas in practice?
While you are correct in the abstract, I do not believe that their older Windows 7 machines will be able to make this upgrade, and perform at all. I do believe (that IF the application WOULD have run under Linux) that Linux machines could manage to upgrade kernels, and desktop environments, throughout this same time period. However, if you have been through this upgrade process, practically, in a functioning business environment, maybe I am wrong here.
I will try this with one workstation, and all I lose is the few hours of time applying the upgrade if this doesn't work.
I manage a small network for my parents. My dad is a lung doctor, and my mom is a nurse. I cannot get their current EHR system to run under Linux (WINE) and wasn't able to get their previous EHR to run under Linux either. So, for them, I do not save the thousands of dollars that were required to be spent when Windows XP was deprecated, and thousands of dollars again now that Windows 7 is approaching it's end-of-life because I cannot run one critical desktop application under Linux.
We evaluated OpenEHR. It would have required substantial modification to be able to collect, and present, patient data in the manner that would have been useful to their medical office. My software development company could have provided these modifications. As could another, more experienced, software development company that supports OpenEHR. We came to the conclusion that those modifications would be more expensive, and risky, than the commercial licensing, and constant Windows replacement costs. The commercial solution was ready, out of the box, and (not very well, but still) supported.
Until Linux offers better desktop application replacement support, there will be many corporate environments that depend on Windows application which cannot be migrated. WINE is not easy to get everything running under.
The software development company I use relied exclusively on Linux, and open-source software for our developments. However, that does not mean it is a good solution for everyone. Saying "everyone should use Linux" is just as wrong as saying "everyone should use Windows." There are different use cases for different technologies, and attempting to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't (in my experience) lead to a good outcome.
As someone that is presently in Ukraine, and has been to Russia, and Belarus, over the past week, I can tell you that there is no universal definition of "totally fine." To present one in some course of action is to presume that your definition of "totally fine" is the acceptable one (totally fine), which presupposes that all other definitions are incorrect.
This line of reasoning is very similar to the case of when your neighbor is morbidly obese, and going to die from their lifestyle choices, and you decide to do something about it. So, the next time you see your neighbor eating a donut, and drinking a delicious beer, you decide to kick in his door, and knock that crap out of his hand. Maybe you slap him in the face a few times, so he'll learn a lesson. Then, in addition to this, you also decide to use your influence to make it illegal for third parties (in this case, Israelis) to sell him donuts and beer. Since he lives in the same block as you, and that kind of stuff isn't all right.
This is effectively American foreign policy.
There might be some problems associated with selling dictatorships the tools to repress their populations. Just as there are definitely some problems with being sedentary, eating crap, and watching t.v. / posting on slashdot all day. But guess what? The United States is not in control of Israel, or of those dictatorships, and should not act as the world's police, in order to project our values onto an unwilling audience.
Maybe we could lead by example, and not use hacking tools domestically, as a starting point? Like, you know, not eating donuts, drinking beer, and being sedentary, ourselves, before we tell other people how to live. That might be a better path.
You cannot actually know this for sure without knowing their costs. Based on this article, they lost 28.8% of their traffic. If that 28.8% cost significantly more to maintain than the other 71.1%, then this move makes sense. They should focus on the profitable customers.
So, if all things are equal, then don't take away. If the thing you are taking away consumes something like 70% of your resources, then take it away as quickly as possible, or figure out a way to make it cost less.
When I acquired another company, somewhere between 5-10% of their customers were no longer our customers, within six months. We made the decision that that 5-10% took up way too much time, and were never happy, for the amount of revenue we were collecting. Right from the beginning, it was clear that some of those clients would not be a good fit for us. Over the next two years, another 5-10% have atrophied out, for the same reasons. Just because someone has been your customer doesn't mean they will always be a good fit for you, or you for them.
That actually may not be true, when looking at the complete picture.
Higher wages for fewer hours are better, given all other factors remain the same. In my state, and in other states, there are laws requiring benefits to be paid when a certain number of hours per week are worked. In those situations, it's better to work the required number of hours at a lower wage, and receive the additional benefits, than it would be to work fewer hours at a higher wage, without the benefits.
This isn't rocket science. Anyone that has paid payroll to employees knows this stuff.
Unfortunately, most people haven't paid payroll to comply with multiple different state's laws, and Federal laws, and don't understand basic economics.
The reason they'd be treated differently is that minority engineers are desired more than non-minority engineers. That is the entire basis of Google's Diversity Report. Look at page 5 of this report, and you can see the way that someone's gender is valued at Google. Look at page six - We have made progress in our leadership ranks, by gender and ethnicity. Now do you see the value placed on these attributes? They value these attributes, and actively discriminate in favor of recruitment, and retainment.
So, based on Google's diversity report, I believe your statement If you're a level 4 engineer then you're a level 4 engineer. is incomplete because it fails to take into account their Diversity Report, which actively states the relevances of these attributes.
Did you read Google's Diversity report before writing your post? Did you read it after reading my reply?
If a minority engineer is less common than a non-minority engineer, and that difference is desired, then they should cost more. I believe my above quotes show that difference is measured at Google, and desired at Google. Their response also makes sense given the constraints they operate under.
Google is actively trying to increase the diversity of their workforce. That means they are discriminating for under represented groups. Differences in pay are the easiest way things are subsidized / discriminated for.
In the supply of Level 4 Software Engineers, I'd actually think that Google would have to pay females significantly more than males to attract them, since they are almost certainly represented in the pool of Level 4 Software Engineers much less than men. Rare attributes are more expensive than common attributes.
It's not possible to treat people equally, and try to increase the diversity of a workforce that draws from an uneven pool of people. If 9/10 CS graduates are men, then why would companies be expected to have anything other than a 9/10 distribution in their workforce? When the expectations are different, then there has to be some sort of discrimination / subsidy in effect.
Isn't this basic economics, combined with basic statistics?
Yeah, if I can listen to it with my ears, I can record it. Probably in the same digital quality it came down as, but if not, then in some indistinguishable analog rip directly off the sound card...
This argument assumes that streaming is always streamed, from a server someplace else. ANY time there is ANY kind of offline ability to listen, that file has been cached locally.
Take a look at "Dystopian" and "Post Apocalyptic" literature. Those two terms will help anyone interested. There are probably subgenres I'm not exactly aware of, but those broad classifications are a good starting point.
If anyone actually believes that everything that could possibly go wrong, has gone wrong, they are not very creative in their imagination of potential things to go wrong....
Just kidding, my legs are fine. But seriously, there are some disabilities / diseases / problems that the risks associated with letting Elon Musk split open your skull, and start adding hardware, might be worth it. The cochlear implant is effectively such a cyborg implant, and many (formerly) deaf people are very grateful for this piece of technology.
I believe these types of decisions are best left to the individual, or the individual's parents, and not to governments, slashdot, or AI Cyborg Zombies, to decide.
I don't have to decide between guns or butter in my imagination. When I was young, I imagined cool robot friends and trips to other worlds. Now, I have a Roomba and travel internationally, but most technology that I imagine today involves clients and difficult trade-offs. My focus on imaginary technology now is limited by what I can have the company I own, sell to someone with money (no equity deals, please.) Children don't have the same practical concerns, and (thankfully, in my country) aren't worried about how feasible something is. There isn't much of a difference between science fiction, and fantasy, when you're young. If you come from a stable background, you can dream a lot when little.
Also thankfully, I never imaged how awesome financial technology could be when young. It's awfully nice having a visa card that works almost anywhere on earth, in any currency. I'm happy I didn't think about money when a little kid. The same for medical technology. I'm still happy no one in my party has died from dysentery, or a horse kick...
This question is really How limited of an imagination did you have when young, and how unrealistic and uneducated an understanding of technology do you have now?
Elon Musk is the exception. That guy builds some seriously cool stuff, about as cool as I imagined when I was little.
I'd rather live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and make less money. Granted, I do have to make sure I have security bolts holding the bars onto my windows, since the crackheads have vice grips to loosen the regular bolts and rob you, but at least I don't have to deal with expensive housing, a long commute, and crowds.
Whenever I get a call from a recruiter in the Bay Area, I tell them I am not interested in relocating unless they have something ridiculous to offer. 200k doesn't count as ridiculous. As earlier posts mentioned, 200k in the Bay or NYC sort of sucks.
You're asking the wrong question - instead of asking "how to find a good IT consultant" you should be asking yourself the questions "how can I position myself in order to be able to find a good IT consultant." If the actual decision maker (not you) is making decisions based on faulty understanding (warranty, cost, quality) then you are not in a position to make a good decision. Understanding this will help you resolve the actual problem (the decision making process) rather than the symptom (the poor performance of an IT consultant.) Once you address this, then you'll be able to do things like create evaluation time periods, measure effectiveness, measure cost, measure downtime, and other metrics that should help you solve the problem you initially tried to solve. Before that, you need to solve a deeper problem.
So, I believe you either need to change who is making the decision (delegation), change how they are making the decision (evaluation), or remove yourself from the equation (quit/stop caring), before you address the issue you initially asked about.
Fight as hard as you possibly can to fix this travesty. There is no reason you need to stand for this. Fight so hard that you don't have any time to study, do well, or participate in class in any kind of meaningful way. After you are removed from your degree program, then explain to all future employers the true reason you don't have a degree.
This will, in fact, help those employers hire exactly the type of employee they want.
A huge majority of ANY job (including the job I created for myself, with owning my own company) is putting up with a bunch of crap you cannot control, and dealing with it tactfully. Then, you have to decide when, and how, to walk away when things get bad enough. A technical degree makes sure that the holder has a certain amount of technical skills. It also makes sure that the degree holder is able to jump through a certain number of administrative hoops, and communicate about technical things. I don't think that a biometrics class being eight years out of date is something worth battling over.
There are many, many, technically skilled people that have LOTS of problems accepting things which they cannot control, communicating effectively, and being part of an organization. You are not in control of this course content, and the university curriculum. Once you accept this, and can move forward tactfully, you may learn a deeper lesson than the material being taught in the classroom.
I like your explanation, and hypothetical examples. Thank you for spending the time to explain these viewpoints as you did.
It seems to me like the critical portion of this question is the definition of the word "owe." I tend to take the viewpoint of the third group when it comes to the word "owe." I don't believe it's possible to "owe" someone something without some kind of agreement. I pay for my employees to provide "free" WordPress support, since my company makes a decent chunk of our income on the "free" WordPress ecosystem. I do this because I'd like to contribute back to WordPress, it's a good marketing channel to show people what we're capable of, and I appreciate the fact that I, individually, was able to un-learn programming and learn WordPress configuration through these Meetups. I think that is a good thing to do, but I do not owe this to anyone. Whenever someone says that my company owes this, I correct them, and let them know that we do not owe anyone for the use of WordPress. This mentality, and way of phrasing this sense of obligation, makes moderate, reasonable, people angry and consider the speaker to be an entitled person that does not properly understand obligation.
I also think the term "taking advantage of" in the headline puts the person that created the headline into the first group. This seems like a petitio principii (begging the question) rhetorical technique, which already assumes that the answer to the question is "Yes, Amazon owes for unfairly taking advantage of the free labor provided by Wikipedia."
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I haven't heard of Codeweavers before. I checked out a software company that specialized in WINE support, but that conversation went no where. I'll give these guys a shout.
I considered this. I wasn't able to come up with a secure way to accomplish this, when the guest requires network connectivity and is no longer receiving security updates.
What steps would you take to secure this?
What networks have you been responsible for maintaining? Do you have any experience applying these ideas in practice?
While you are correct in the abstract, I do not believe that their older Windows 7 machines will be able to make this upgrade, and perform at all. I do believe (that IF the application WOULD have run under Linux) that Linux machines could manage to upgrade kernels, and desktop environments, throughout this same time period. However, if you have been through this upgrade process, practically, in a functioning business environment, maybe I am wrong here.
I will try this with one workstation, and all I lose is the few hours of time applying the upgrade if this doesn't work.
Thanks for the suggestion.
I manage a small network for my parents. My dad is a lung doctor, and my mom is a nurse. I cannot get their current EHR system to run under Linux (WINE) and wasn't able to get their previous EHR to run under Linux either. So, for them, I do not save the thousands of dollars that were required to be spent when Windows XP was deprecated, and thousands of dollars again now that Windows 7 is approaching it's end-of-life because I cannot run one critical desktop application under Linux.
We evaluated OpenEHR. It would have required substantial modification to be able to collect, and present, patient data in the manner that would have been useful to their medical office. My software development company could have provided these modifications. As could another, more experienced, software development company that supports OpenEHR. We came to the conclusion that those modifications would be more expensive, and risky, than the commercial licensing, and constant Windows replacement costs. The commercial solution was ready, out of the box, and (not very well, but still) supported.
Until Linux offers better desktop application replacement support, there will be many corporate environments that depend on Windows application which cannot be migrated. WINE is not easy to get everything running under.
The software development company I use relied exclusively on Linux, and open-source software for our developments. However, that does not mean it is a good solution for everyone. Saying "everyone should use Linux" is just as wrong as saying "everyone should use Windows." There are different use cases for different technologies, and attempting to shoehorn everyone into a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't (in my experience) lead to a good outcome.
As someone that is presently in Ukraine, and has been to Russia, and Belarus, over the past week, I can tell you that there is no universal definition of "totally fine." To present one in some course of action is to presume that your definition of "totally fine" is the acceptable one (totally fine), which presupposes that all other definitions are incorrect.
This line of reasoning is very similar to the case of when your neighbor is morbidly obese, and going to die from their lifestyle choices, and you decide to do something about it. So, the next time you see your neighbor eating a donut, and drinking a delicious beer, you decide to kick in his door, and knock that crap out of his hand. Maybe you slap him in the face a few times, so he'll learn a lesson. Then, in addition to this, you also decide to use your influence to make it illegal for third parties (in this case, Israelis) to sell him donuts and beer. Since he lives in the same block as you, and that kind of stuff isn't all right.
This is effectively American foreign policy.
There might be some problems associated with selling dictatorships the tools to repress their populations. Just as there are definitely some problems with being sedentary, eating crap, and watching t.v. / posting on slashdot all day. But guess what? The United States is not in control of Israel, or of those dictatorships, and should not act as the world's police, in order to project our values onto an unwilling audience.
Maybe we could lead by example, and not use hacking tools domestically, as a starting point? Like, you know, not eating donuts, drinking beer, and being sedentary, ourselves, before we tell other people how to live. That might be a better path.
Maybe.
You cannot actually know this for sure without knowing their costs. Based on this article, they lost 28.8% of their traffic. If that 28.8% cost significantly more to maintain than the other 71.1%, then this move makes sense. They should focus on the profitable customers.
So, if all things are equal, then don't take away. If the thing you are taking away consumes something like 70% of your resources, then take it away as quickly as possible, or figure out a way to make it cost less.
When I acquired another company, somewhere between 5-10% of their customers were no longer our customers, within six months. We made the decision that that 5-10% took up way too much time, and were never happy, for the amount of revenue we were collecting. Right from the beginning, it was clear that some of those clients would not be a good fit for us. Over the next two years, another 5-10% have atrophied out, for the same reasons. Just because someone has been your customer doesn't mean they will always be a good fit for you, or you for them.
Here's a good response...
That actually may not be true, when looking at the complete picture.
Higher wages for fewer hours are better, given all other factors remain the same. In my state, and in other states, there are laws requiring benefits to be paid when a certain number of hours per week are worked. In those situations, it's better to work the required number of hours at a lower wage, and receive the additional benefits, than it would be to work fewer hours at a higher wage, without the benefits.
This isn't rocket science. Anyone that has paid payroll to employees knows this stuff.
Unfortunately, most people haven't paid payroll to comply with multiple different state's laws, and Federal laws, and don't understand basic economics.
The reason they'd be treated differently is that minority engineers are desired more than non-minority engineers. That is the entire basis of Google's Diversity Report. Look at page 5 of this report, and you can see the way that someone's gender is valued at Google. Look at page six - We have made progress in our leadership ranks, by gender and ethnicity. Now do you see the value placed on these attributes? They value these attributes, and actively discriminate in favor of recruitment, and retainment.
So, based on Google's diversity report, I believe your statement If you're a level 4 engineer then you're a level 4 engineer. is incomplete because it fails to take into account their Diversity Report, which actively states the relevances of these attributes.
Did you read Google's Diversity report before writing your post? Did you read it after reading my reply?
If a minority engineer is less common than a non-minority engineer, and that difference is desired, then they should cost more. I believe my above quotes show that difference is measured at Google, and desired at Google. Their response also makes sense given the constraints they operate under.
Yeah, I think this guy considers that all jobs into two categories - "requires degree" and "doesn't require degree."
That's one problem with allowing anonymous postings - people don't have to deal with any repercussions associated with their poorly formulated ideas.
Google is actively trying to increase the diversity of their workforce. That means they are discriminating for under represented groups. Differences in pay are the easiest way things are subsidized / discriminated for.
In the supply of Level 4 Software Engineers, I'd actually think that Google would have to pay females significantly more than males to attract them, since they are almost certainly represented in the pool of Level 4 Software Engineers much less than men. Rare attributes are more expensive than common attributes.
It's not possible to treat people equally, and try to increase the diversity of a workforce that draws from an uneven pool of people. If 9/10 CS graduates are men, then why would companies be expected to have anything other than a 9/10 distribution in their workforce? When the expectations are different, then there has to be some sort of discrimination / subsidy in effect.
Isn't this basic economics, combined with basic statistics?
Yeah, if I can listen to it with my ears, I can record it. Probably in the same digital quality it came down as, but if not, then in some indistinguishable analog rip directly off the sound card...
As someone that wrote an IEEE paper literally on energy trade-offs on computation versus communication, and presented it at an international conference, this BBC article is a bunch of hype.
This argument assumes that streaming is always streamed, from a server someplace else. ANY time there is ANY kind of offline ability to listen, that file has been cached locally.
I thought that they would be eaten...? Do they need to be automatically screened for disease for this to be economically viable?
I really liked "The Man in the High Tower" as a(n audio) book, but could not stand the T.V. show. What books of his did you like?
Seriously? There are entire genres of literature devoted to answering this question, quite creatively. Here's my favorite anthology:
Wastelands: Stories of the Apocalypse
Take a look at "Dystopian" and "Post Apocalyptic" literature. Those two terms will help anyone interested. There are probably subgenres I'm not exactly aware of, but those broad classifications are a good starting point.
If anyone actually believes that everything that could possibly go wrong, has gone wrong, they are not very creative in their imagination of potential things to go wrong....
I'd try this, if I could move my legs again...
Just kidding, my legs are fine. But seriously, there are some disabilities / diseases / problems that the risks associated with letting Elon Musk split open your skull, and start adding hardware, might be worth it. The cochlear implant is effectively such a cyborg implant, and many (formerly) deaf people are very grateful for this piece of technology.
I believe these types of decisions are best left to the individual, or the individual's parents, and not to governments, slashdot, or AI Cyborg Zombies, to decide.
I don't have to decide between guns or butter in my imagination. When I was young, I imagined cool robot friends and trips to other worlds. Now, I have a Roomba and travel internationally, but most technology that I imagine today involves clients and difficult trade-offs. My focus on imaginary technology now is limited by what I can have the company I own, sell to someone with money (no equity deals, please.) Children don't have the same practical concerns, and (thankfully, in my country) aren't worried about how feasible something is. There isn't much of a difference between science fiction, and fantasy, when you're young. If you come from a stable background, you can dream a lot when little.
Also thankfully, I never imaged how awesome financial technology could be when young. It's awfully nice having a visa card that works almost anywhere on earth, in any currency. I'm happy I didn't think about money when a little kid. The same for medical technology. I'm still happy no one in my party has died from dysentery, or a horse kick...
This question is really How limited of an imagination did you have when young, and how unrealistic and uneducated an understanding of technology do you have now?
Elon Musk is the exception. That guy builds some seriously cool stuff, about as cool as I imagined when I was little.
I'd rather live in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and make less money. Granted, I do have to make sure I have security bolts holding the bars onto my windows, since the crackheads have vice grips to loosen the regular bolts and rob you, but at least I don't have to deal with expensive housing, a long commute, and crowds.
Whenever I get a call from a recruiter in the Bay Area, I tell them I am not interested in relocating unless they have something ridiculous to offer. 200k doesn't count as ridiculous. As earlier posts mentioned, 200k in the Bay or NYC sort of sucks.
You are not in a position to be successful.
You're asking the wrong question - instead of asking "how to find a good IT consultant" you should be asking yourself the questions "how can I position myself in order to be able to find a good IT consultant." If the actual decision maker (not you) is making decisions based on faulty understanding (warranty, cost, quality) then you are not in a position to make a good decision. Understanding this will help you resolve the actual problem (the decision making process) rather than the symptom (the poor performance of an IT consultant.) Once you address this, then you'll be able to do things like create evaluation time periods, measure effectiveness, measure cost, measure downtime, and other metrics that should help you solve the problem you initially tried to solve. Before that, you need to solve a deeper problem.
So, I believe you either need to change who is making the decision (delegation), change how they are making the decision (evaluation), or remove yourself from the equation (quit/stop caring), before you address the issue you initially asked about.
Fight as hard as you possibly can to fix this travesty. There is no reason you need to stand for this. Fight so hard that you don't have any time to study, do well, or participate in class in any kind of meaningful way. After you are removed from your degree program, then explain to all future employers the true reason you don't have a degree.
This will, in fact, help those employers hire exactly the type of employee they want.
A huge majority of ANY job (including the job I created for myself, with owning my own company) is putting up with a bunch of crap you cannot control, and dealing with it tactfully. Then, you have to decide when, and how, to walk away when things get bad enough. A technical degree makes sure that the holder has a certain amount of technical skills. It also makes sure that the degree holder is able to jump through a certain number of administrative hoops, and communicate about technical things. I don't think that a biometrics class being eight years out of date is something worth battling over.
There are many, many, technically skilled people that have LOTS of problems accepting things which they cannot control, communicating effectively, and being part of an organization. You are not in control of this course content, and the university curriculum. Once you accept this, and can move forward tactfully, you may learn a deeper lesson than the material being taught in the classroom.
Yeah, exactly.
Many people will switch to potato vodka, or apple vodka, or mouthwash, if beer becomes expensive enough.
I like your explanation, and hypothetical examples. Thank you for spending the time to explain these viewpoints as you did.
It seems to me like the critical portion of this question is the definition of the word "owe." I tend to take the viewpoint of the third group when it comes to the word "owe." I don't believe it's possible to "owe" someone something without some kind of agreement. I pay for my employees to provide "free" WordPress support, since my company makes a decent chunk of our income on the "free" WordPress ecosystem. I do this because I'd like to contribute back to WordPress, it's a good marketing channel to show people what we're capable of, and I appreciate the fact that I, individually, was able to un-learn programming and learn WordPress configuration through these Meetups. I think that is a good thing to do, but I do not owe this to anyone. Whenever someone says that my company owes this, I correct them, and let them know that we do not owe anyone for the use of WordPress. This mentality, and way of phrasing this sense of obligation, makes moderate, reasonable, people angry and consider the speaker to be an entitled person that does not properly understand obligation.
I also think the term "taking advantage of" in the headline puts the person that created the headline into the first group. This seems like a petitio principii (begging the question) rhetorical technique, which already assumes that the answer to the question is "Yes, Amazon owes for unfairly taking advantage of the free labor provided by Wikipedia."
This question makes no sense. Why would someone owe for free things, which there is no contract/terms-of-service/financial agreement?
Today must be a slow news day....
This is literally just IRC with some graphics, and additional easy-to-use integrations.
9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.