That assumes that working more hours translates to more money. Our bonus "takes into account" overtime, but it is not directly for every xxx hours we get xxx more. So I may make more a t my profession, but that does not mean that monetary it will save me money if I hire someone else to do work around the house.
Now, there is probably some type of heuristic I could use to determine at what point it is not worth my time, since some jobs would take me to long or I do not have the skill, but my point is that is little more complicated than just looking at pay.
But GPL is very much about the whole GPL ecosystem. Pieces of BSD-style licensed software work pretty well as part of GPL ecosystem, as can be seen by the multitude of such software, but a fully BSD-based ecosystem would simply not work. If it did, then Linux would not have pushed *BSD operating systems to the side lines, where hardly anybody cares about them.
My understanding is that the BSD development environment (very controlled) is what helped Linux. Why would the type of licensing hurt BSD? Do you think a BSD license wouldn't work for Linux's development environment?
We have that abomination at work. The poor quality of Outlook + google sync + Google is being used as a reason for explaining why Outlook is bad. At home I use Linux so I tend to be biased towards most Linux items, but Outlook's by far my favorite email / productivity client. (My wife uses Outlook to connect to Google "normally" with no problems.)
I'll bite. What would you do to make it shorter? That seems pretty sane to me. I'm assuming the language's methods are determined by the signature. There's not that much (maybe the []) you could remove and still determine what is being passed in.
I guess if you have a team who are going to have lots of questions because they aren't totally clear on what they're doing, stuffing them all in a room is a good idea. A well thought out and documented project plan would alleviate a lot of those problems though. I can imagine a room with 10 developers who can shout questions to each other would create an amazingly high amount of unwanted distractions.
I like some of the other posters suggestions of having a conference room type environment where people can meet to discuss things. I'm in a cubicle environment, so I can second that having loud people (aka my boss) shouting in the room can be distracting.*
* There has been times when overhearing conversations is good. Sometimes people are discussing a procedure/bug/system that you're aware of and can help guide them. Or if they're discussing something that will effect you. Having people in offices, you lose that but I don't think the advantages out-weigh the disadvantages of a cubicle setting.
if you keep waiting you end up with Debian that has delays longer than Ubuntu has between (non-LTS) releases.
I guess I could try one of the non-Debian based distros but my experiences with them have all been bad, worse than anything Ubuntu ever managed to do to Debian. Unless there are really bad deal breakers, I'd rather they get it out there and start the people on and the bugs filed while upstream might still bother to fix them. But yeah, backing up and being able to roll back to the last version is very much an advantage..
It sounds like you're more familiar with Debian's stable releases. I find that Debian testing is a pretty good balance between "stability" and "newness of software". I don't know if that would be something to consider...
Added plus: using a rolling release so once on a computer I don't have to reinstall it again.
Wasn't that because that was a LTS and since they have a policy of not upgrading during releases, that the LTS would have been stuck with Firefox 2? I understand the logic in that, but I disagree with the conclusion. At that point, the LTS almost becomes like windows where you need to wait for the next patch/update before using it. It's almost like Ubuntu's release cycle is a counter-reaction to Debian's.
Should companies be able to require employees to obtain a certification, but refuse to pay for it, under threat of losing their job to a certified individual? Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
Yes and yes. Next question? Seriously though, I don't think this is even an area you can legally enforce. I would think that the only time you could enforce this is if IT is singled out as having to doing this on their time & dime and other departments get to study for exams on company time. The company you described doesn't sound like a great place to work, but that's capitalism...
My workplace (not just for IT) handles that by having a min of 30 hours you must work per week. Sick, vacation and etc count towards those hours. That way, there is some room to cut back on hours during the "non-busy" times, with the idea that some weeks you'll be more busy than others. You just need to maintain an average set of hours. Maybe that's something your employer would be willing to accept?
the Protestant evolution has been away from being able to speak to Mary and the Saints. Other Abrahamic religions are clear (Islam certainly - I don't know much about Judaism) that it is sacriligeous to expect anyone other than God to answer your prayers.
I'm not familiar as much with Judaism today, but the idea from the Old Testament is that the high priest performed intercessory prayers & sacrifices on behalf of Israel. I still think the belief is that God answered the prayer, but the people had to go through the high priest as a mediator. (Christianity, if following the New Testament and not rituals from Catholicism/etc, holds that Jesus is the new high priest.And being himself God, there's no need for another mediator.) So Christianity*, being "an extension" of Judaism, would also hold that it would be sacrilegious to pray to someone other than God.
Hm, and notice that there are also few which originally had the concept of "distant reward" but, over the centuries, gradually shifted to "instant gratification". Most notably, Christianity.
The point is, I'd be bloody surprised if I got away with it for more than two weeks.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always seem to be the case. At least where I work, there's a PM who most of the developers and other PMs are aware of his incompetency, but he's still around. What sucks even more about that, is that he tends to get shunted over to low-maintenance projects (or ones no one really cares about) to do less damage, while the others pick up the slack. That doesn't seem to be the situation here, but I've definitely seen incompetency been rewarded.
I get that, but I'm not sure how that benefits the study.
“It’s a huge dropoff of awareness of the environment around them,” Dr. Hyman said. “It shows that even during as simple a task as walking, performance drops off when talking on the cellphone. They’re slower, less aware of their surroundings and weaving around more. It shows how much worse it would be if they were driving a car, which is a more complex task to manage.”
It seems to me, the goal of the study was to see how much of an impact a cellphone has on people not noticing their surrounding - not to see how primed Americans are to thinking of people who follow Islam as terrorists. Your suggestion would certainly be an interesting study but I'm not sure it's useful to the goals of the study in question.
“I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”
I think the implication is that, no, it's not common...
Bullshit, and any work environment that tries to enforce that rule sucks.
Yeah... until you're the one who has to support the code that this monkey wrote. If you're going to put comments, at least put comments that will help others understand what you're doing...
Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work.
"Stable" can mean a few things, but it's certainly not "stable" by your definition. Tell that to all the people who won't migrate from XP to Vista, because their applications won't function properly under Vista
Actually, the same is true for Linux. glibc anyone? Older applications don't always work on newer distros. It's just that a lot of stuff is rebuilt in the distros repos. It's not a failing of stability, it's more an advantage of the package manager systems then anything.
Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently. I have no idea what this means, and I suspect I'm not alone. Next "point".
Actually, I think I can answer this. At home I run Linux and at work we have Windows XP. Can you say, with a straight face, that Linux has anything close to what Outlook+Office+exchange allows you to do (and does it as well)? Yes, there are things that we can do that are "equivalent" but with Windows having it all integrated is a time-saver. Heck, Outlook 2007 uses Word as a default editor. Can you say the same thing about Evolution or Thunderbird or KDE's equivalent? Outlook's calendar is very easy to read whereas evolution's display (or at least its default one) looks like crap. The point is there's tons of "little" things that add up.
That said, I will always have Linux on my personal computer(s). But honestly, using Linux would likely make my company's employees less productive just by not having the Office suite available. That productiveness makes up for the cost of Windows when you break down the time saved. Until there's something available on Linux (or some distribution) that is at least as good as the Office suite then it's not worth it to switch.
In my opinion (based on doing web development in college) the "Web Designer" & "Design Technologist" descriptions need rolled into one title. The person doing the mockup needs to understand how websites and what is possible with HTML besides knowing how "to design". I'll give an example why.
One of the university's divisions hired a company to do the design of an event website for them (which we'd normally do internally). This company's expertise was in advertisement and it showed. While it looked beautiful it didn't look like how one expects a website to look and was incredibly ackward to develop for.
I think you stopped reading a couple sentences to early.
Emphasis is mine.
FreeBSD is actually capable of running some Linux apps faster than the Linux kernel can. Of course thats simply because those apps happen to agree with the way FreeBSD does things under the hood a little better and not an indication of superior OS, as there are just as many apps that perform worse. As a general rule however, performance is practically identical as running it on a native Linux kernel.
The one advantage I can think of is that Debian has a fairly significant amount of packages available in their repositories. Perhaps it's easier to port over the kernel than to port over all the resources Debian has at its disposal.
That's only a guess though. I'd still like to hear a well-thought out answer to your question. Every other thread seems to have moved in to tangents totally removed from the article (surprise!)...
Another question I have is, as a desktop user, do I even care? I have never tweaked my kernel so is switching "which kernel" my computer uses really going to noticeably affect me when I'm keeping Debian's userland? I realize that there are some that do tinker with the kernel but I would wager that a majority of users don't.
Oh, god, PulseAudio... the reason I've stopped using Linux for the time being
Out of curiousity, which distros actually default to pulseaudio? I know Fedora did a year ago (and I assume it still does). Debian defaults to alsa so I've never had a problem with sound. I would hope that only distros trying to be on the "bleeding edge" would be using that...
Slashdot Mirror
That assumes that working more hours translates to more money. Our bonus "takes into account" overtime, but it is not directly for every xxx hours we get xxx more. So I may make more a t my profession, but that does not mean that monetary it will save me money if I hire someone else to do work around the house.
Now, there is probably some type of heuristic I could use to determine at what point it is not worth my time, since some jobs would take me to long or I do not have the skill, but my point is that is little more complicated than just looking at pay.
But GPL is very much about the whole GPL ecosystem. Pieces of BSD-style licensed software work pretty well as part of GPL ecosystem, as can be seen by the multitude of such software, but a fully BSD-based ecosystem would simply not work. If it did, then Linux would not have pushed *BSD operating systems to the side lines, where hardly anybody cares about them.
My understanding is that the BSD development environment (very controlled) is what helped Linux. Why would the type of licensing hurt BSD? Do you think a BSD license wouldn't work for Linux's development environment?
We have that abomination at work. The poor quality of Outlook + google sync + Google is being used as a reason for explaining why Outlook is bad. At home I use Linux so I tend to be biased towards most Linux items, but Outlook's by far my favorite email / productivity client. (My wife uses Outlook to connect to Google "normally" with no problems.)
So, agreed!
I'll bite. What would you do to make it shorter? That seems pretty sane to me. I'm assuming the language's methods are determined by the signature. There's not that much (maybe the []) you could remove and still determine what is being passed in.
I understand that it's different than synpatic, but it is indeed in Debian. It's just simply been re-branded as "Debian Software Center".
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?package=software-center
Gotcha, I don't follow Ubuntu so I wasn't aware of the change. That software also comes with Debian as well.
I guess if you have a team who are going to have lots of questions because they aren't totally clear on what they're doing, stuffing them all in a room is a good idea. A well thought out and documented project plan would alleviate a lot of those problems though. I can imagine a room with 10 developers who can shout questions to each other would create an amazingly high amount of unwanted distractions.
I like some of the other posters suggestions of having a conference room type environment where people can meet to discuss things. I'm in a cubicle environment, so I can second that having loud people (aka my boss) shouting in the room can be distracting.*
* There has been times when overhearing conversations is good. Sometimes people are discussing a procedure/bug/system that you're aware of and can help guide them. Or if they're discussing something that will effect you. Having people in offices, you lose that but I don't think the advantages out-weigh the disadvantages of a cubicle setting.
You mean synaptic? It's available on Debian as well as Ubuntu.
if you keep waiting you end up with Debian that has delays longer than Ubuntu has between (non-LTS) releases.
I guess I could try one of the non-Debian based distros but my experiences with them have all been bad, worse than anything Ubuntu ever managed to do to Debian. Unless there are really bad deal breakers, I'd rather they get it out there and start the people on and the bugs filed while upstream might still bother to fix them. But yeah, backing up and being able to roll back to the last version is very much an advantage..
It sounds like you're more familiar with Debian's stable releases. I find that Debian testing is a pretty good balance between "stability" and "newness of software". I don't know if that would be something to consider ...
Added plus: using a rolling release so once on a computer I don't have to reinstall it again.
Wasn't that because that was a LTS and since they have a policy of not upgrading during releases, that the LTS would have been stuck with Firefox 2? I understand the logic in that, but I disagree with the conclusion. At that point, the LTS almost becomes like windows where you need to wait for the next patch/update before using it. It's almost like Ubuntu's release cycle is a counter-reaction to Debian's.
Should companies be able to require employees to obtain a certification, but refuse to pay for it, under threat of losing their job to a certified individual? Should it be or is it even legal to demand this of employees, especially if such a certification was not required at the time of hire?"
Yes and yes. Next question? Seriously though, I don't think this is even an area you can legally enforce. I would think that the only time you could enforce this is if IT is singled out as having to doing this on their time & dime and other departments get to study for exams on company time. The company you described doesn't sound like a great place to work, but that's capitalism...
My workplace (not just for IT) handles that by having a min of 30 hours you must work per week. Sick, vacation and etc count towards those hours. That way, there is some room to cut back on hours during the "non-busy" times, with the idea that some weeks you'll be more busy than others. You just need to maintain an average set of hours. Maybe that's something your employer would be willing to accept?
the Protestant evolution has been away from being able to speak to Mary and the Saints. Other Abrahamic religions are clear (Islam certainly - I don't know much about Judaism) that it is sacriligeous to expect anyone other than God to answer your prayers.
I'm not familiar as much with Judaism today, but the idea from the Old Testament is that the high priest performed intercessory prayers & sacrifices on behalf of Israel. I still think the belief is that God answered the prayer, but the people had to go through the high priest as a mediator. (Christianity, if following the New Testament and not rituals from Catholicism/etc, holds that Jesus is the new high priest.And being himself God, there's no need for another mediator.) So Christianity*, being "an extension" of Judaism, would also hold that it would be sacrilegious to pray to someone other than God.
Hm, and notice that there are also few which originally had the concept of "distant reward" but, over the centuries, gradually shifted to "instant gratification". Most notably, Christianity.
Care to elaborate on this?
The point is, I'd be bloody surprised if I got away with it for more than two weeks.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always seem to be the case. At least where I work, there's a PM who most of the developers and other PMs are aware of his incompetency, but he's still around. What sucks even more about that, is that he tends to get shunted over to low-maintenance projects (or ones no one really cares about) to do less damage, while the others pick up the slack. That doesn't seem to be the situation here, but I've definitely seen incompetency been rewarded.
I get that, but I'm not sure how that benefits the study.
“It’s a huge dropoff of awareness of the environment around them,” Dr. Hyman said. “It shows that even during as simple a task as walking, performance drops off when talking on the cellphone. They’re slower, less aware of their surroundings and weaving around more. It shows how much worse it would be if they were driving a car, which is a more complex task to manage.”
It seems to me, the goal of the study was to see how much of an impact a cellphone has on people not noticing their surrounding - not to see how primed Americans are to thinking of people who follow Islam as terrorists. Your suggestion would certainly be an interesting study but I'm not sure it's useful to the goals of the study in question.
Why do you think that would that be a better experiment?
“I was trying to think about what kind of distraction we could put out there, and I talked to this student who had a unicycle,” said Ira E. Hyman Jr., a professor in the university’s psychology department. “He said, ‘What’s more, I own a clown suit.’ You don’t have a student who unicycles in a clown suit every day, so you have to take advantage of these things.”
I think the implication is that, no, it's not common...
Work is work and play is play
Bullshit, and any work environment that tries to enforce that rule sucks.
Yeah... until you're the one who has to support the code that this monkey wrote. If you're going to put comments, at least put comments that will help others understand what you're doing...
Is stable, so I have the confidence that in 3 or 5 years time, the same applications will work.
"Stable" can mean a few things, but it's certainly not "stable" by your definition. Tell that to all the people who won't migrate from XP to Vista, because their applications won't function properly under Vista
Actually, the same is true for Linux. glibc anyone? Older applications don't always work on newer distros. It's just that a lot of stuff is rebuilt in the distros repos. It's not a failing of stability, it's more an advantage of the package manager systems then anything.
Is integrated - so I can work quickly and efficiently.
I have no idea what this means, and I suspect I'm not alone. Next "point".
Actually, I think I can answer this. At home I run Linux and at work we have Windows XP. Can you say, with a straight face, that Linux has anything close to what Outlook+Office+exchange allows you to do (and does it as well)? Yes, there are things that we can do that are "equivalent" but with Windows having it all integrated is a time-saver. Heck, Outlook 2007 uses Word as a default editor. Can you say the same thing about Evolution or Thunderbird or KDE's equivalent? Outlook's calendar is very easy to read whereas evolution's display (or at least its default one) looks like crap. The point is there's tons of "little" things that add up.
That said, I will always have Linux on my personal computer(s). But honestly, using Linux would likely make my company's employees less productive just by not having the Office suite available. That productiveness makes up for the cost of Windows when you break down the time saved. Until there's something available on Linux (or some distribution) that is at least as good as the Office suite then it's not worth it to switch.
In my opinion (based on doing web development in college) the "Web Designer" & "Design Technologist" descriptions need rolled into one title. The person doing the mockup needs to understand how websites and what is possible with HTML besides knowing how "to design". I'll give an example why.
One of the university's divisions hired a company to do the design of an event website for them (which we'd normally do internally). This company's expertise was in advertisement and it showed. While it looked beautiful it didn't look like how one expects a website to look and was incredibly ackward to develop for.
I think you stopped reading a couple sentences to early.
Emphasis is mine.
FreeBSD is actually capable of running some Linux apps faster than the Linux kernel can. Of course thats simply because those apps happen to agree with the way FreeBSD does things under the hood a little better and not an indication of superior OS, as there are just as many apps that perform worse. As a general rule however, performance is practically identical as running it on a native Linux kernel.
I haven't been impressed with Ubuntu's quality control of late. Do you know what you'd be looking for in a distro?
The one advantage I can think of is that Debian has a fairly significant amount of packages available in their repositories. Perhaps it's easier to port over the kernel than to port over all the resources Debian has at its disposal.
That's only a guess though. I'd still like to hear a well-thought out answer to your question. Every other thread seems to have moved in to tangents totally removed from the article (surprise!)...
Another question I have is, as a desktop user, do I even care? I have never tweaked my kernel so is switching "which kernel" my computer uses really going to noticeably affect me when I'm keeping Debian's userland? I realize that there are some that do tinker with the kernel but I would wager that a majority of users don't.
Oh, god, PulseAudio... the reason I've stopped using Linux for the time being
Out of curiousity, which distros actually default to pulseaudio? I know Fedora did a year ago (and I assume it still does). Debian defaults to alsa so I've never had a problem with sound. I would hope that only distros trying to be on the "bleeding edge" would be using that...