How about talking to the users and actually have them show you what is wrong?
It does not even have to be the developers. If your company is so big that the users are too many to talk directly to the developers, then surely there is a helpdesk that they can call and who can help them file the bug report. With a little screen sharing whoever the user talks to can do the needed screen dumps.
It seems that IT nowadays are so afraid of actually talking to a user that is is funny. It is supposed to save money, but taken to the extremes as described here it is just silly.
The future of data centers may be "no user serviceable parts inside". The unit of replacement may be the shipping container. When 10% or so of units have failed, the entire container is replaced. Inktomi ran that way at one time.
I saw a while back (probably a year or two) that this is the way Microsoft will run (runs?) their Azure systems.
By the time 10% of the units are not working, it may be time to upgrade to the latest technology anyway. If you exclude disks, then I am certain you could run such a container for more than 10 years that way.
Maintenance, like anything else you do in a datacenter or wherever you work, must be done correctly. If maintenance reduces the reliability of the maintained entity, then per definition, it was not correctly performed.
Doing something correctly requires knowledge, planning and training. Just like everything else.
Agreed. You cannot go wrong with Canon or Nikon. My family have a Canon compact and a Nikon SLR. Both are super for their class.
On the other hand, for a newbie, I am not so certain that the difference between the brands (Sony, Panasonics... lots of them) are that great anyway. For a few hundred dollars you should get a decent compact. Just remember to get a memory chip with some capacity. Look at price per capacity, but I assume a 4 GB should cost next to nothing these days, and it will keep more than a thousand images.
The whole board is $89! That is less than one would pay for a CPU alone a couple of years ago. So if a part of it breaks, you replace it with the cheap "motherboard of the day". ...and part of the reason for the low price is that the chips are not socketed.
Lets just say that I do not think your comment reflect on the real world. The only people I know who (still) use USENET (one person) use it for downloading copyrighted material. Actually, a number of years ago he said that he was surprised that all the copyright people went after torrent sites when all the good stuff was on USENET...
I was a bit short in my comment, and you are correct.
My example is correct if you do not have central management. If you want central management (and you will want that), then VMware will cost you more. However, my response was to a claim that Windows licenses will cost less if you use Hyper-V. That is not the case.
We are deploying Hyper-V in remote offices, and the one thing that makes this happen is convenience. No need to retrain people, as Hyper-V is really easy to set up and manage for a Windows centric shop. We also use VMware in our larger systems.
Deploying ESXi would cost us exactly the same amount of money as deploying Hyper-V.
There is nothing in what Microsoft does in support or licensing that discourage the use of VMware. When we have talked to Microsoft (yes, we do), they try to talk us into using Hyper-V (they sell stuff, so of course they do), but they make a point of the fact that Windows is fully supported on several virtualisation platforms, and the first one to be supported was VMware ESX.
And for the "10 licenses for free" statement: No, Microsoft do not give away licenses for free. That is not their business model. Their business model is to make you pay for Windows licenses, whether they run on metal, VMware, Xen, Hyper-V or whateverVisor.
>Visual C++ Express [microsoft.com]
>There are also free editions for c#, vb.et, etc
You are not permitted to use those editions to create commercial applications. They are for personal use/education only. It is in the license agreements.
Because the struggle against stupidity is a constantly ongoing battle, and pausing it will give all the scam artists more space to scam innocent people.
Then there is of course the definition of who is the "shithead". Those of us who simply say "prove it", or those who are willing to believe anything that seems only faintly credible by people who have a good long list of false claims?
...some company has made a contract with some other company based on the belief that a lot of people are going to buy mobile phones in the reasonably near future.
Meanwhile some other company are ordering a lot of flat meat-like substances based on the belief that lots of people will buy hamburgers in the near future.
My current bank does not have branches. I can do anything by using their website, email or telephone. Cash? If I have them, I spend them. If I need them I use an ATM. Checks? I cannot remember the last time I saw one...
>Yes IE will run in Metro as a full screen app... but I'd be truly SHOCKED if it couldn't also be run as a windowed app in the classic desktop.
When running IE in Metro, you can open a menu (sheet icon) and select "Use desktop view" which changes to the desktop version of IE.
After playing a little with it in a VM, I see the Metro interface as being very good for typical home use, as it is hiding the complexity of the traditional Windows desktop for those who simply want to use a few applications (ans among home users, I think those are the majority).
Your argument sounds much like what I used to get many years ago when I criticized vi (or is it VI) for having the most non.intuitive and silly user interface for editing text files, and why could there not be a simple, user friendly text editor in Unix? (This has since been corrected in Linux...) The real argument (but not openly expressed) was that this was the pain you should get through to be worthy of using a computer. Which was BS then as it is now.
Making things difficult does not make people learn more. It simply makes things difficult.
Most computer users of any generations don't care the least about what happens when they press a button or click on an icon. Even thinking that they will start to care or become proficient because something is difficult is just silly. Most will simply give up. How can that be a goal?
The only reason we have had the computer explosion during the last 15 years is because things have become simpler (MAC, Windows). It is beyond me why this exact point in time should be the time when things are "simple enough". What are the criteria for being simple enough?
And there are more then enough obstacles in the world without creating artificial ones in computer GUIs.
Slashdot Mirror
How about talking to the users and actually have them show you what is wrong?
It does not even have to be the developers. If your company is so big that the users are too many to talk directly to the developers, then surely there is a helpdesk that they can call and who can help them file the bug report. With a little screen sharing whoever the user talks to can do the needed screen dumps.
It seems that IT nowadays are so afraid of actually talking to a user that is is funny. It is supposed to save money, but taken to the extremes as described here it is just silly.
Now, predictably, people are upset because we cannot tailor the apps to our business rules.
If you need the source code to tailor an ERP and /or CRM system to your business rules, you picked the wrong product.
To use a sort of car analogy how many people look under the hood of their car?
So you can open the cover of your car? Doesn't that void the warranty?
I commented specifically on the use of a 7805 voltage regulator which is not a switching converter.
Yes, and in the process it wastes 7/12 (58%) of the energy. not what you would call "green".
The future of data centers may be "no user serviceable parts inside". The unit of replacement may be the shipping container. When 10% or so of units have failed, the entire container is replaced. Inktomi ran that way at one time.
I saw a while back (probably a year or two) that this is the way Microsoft will run (runs?) their Azure systems.
By the time 10% of the units are not working, it may be time to upgrade to the latest technology anyway. If you exclude disks, then I am certain you could run such a container for more than 10 years that way.
Precisely my thought.
Maintenance, like anything else you do in a datacenter or wherever you work, must be done correctly. If maintenance reduces the reliability of the maintained entity, then per definition, it was not correctly performed.
Doing something correctly requires knowledge, planning and training. Just like everything else.
Agreed. You cannot go wrong with Canon or Nikon. My family have a Canon compact and a Nikon SLR. Both are super for their class.
On the other hand, for a newbie, I am not so certain that the difference between the brands (Sony, Panasonics... lots of them) are that great anyway. For a few hundred dollars you should get a decent compact.
Just remember to get a memory chip with some capacity. Look at price per capacity, but I assume a 4 GB should cost next to nothing these days, and it will keep more than a thousand images.
The whole board is $89! That is less than one would pay for a CPU alone a couple of years ago.
So if a part of it breaks, you replace it with the cheap "motherboard of the day".
...and part of the reason for the low price is that the chips are not socketed.
Lets just say that I do not think your comment reflect on the real world. The only people I know who (still) use USENET (one person) use it for downloading copyrighted material. Actually, a number of years ago he said that he was surprised that all the copyright people went after torrent sites when all the good stuff was on USENET...
I was a bit short in my comment, and you are correct.
My example is correct if you do not have central management. If you want central management (and you will want that), then VMware will cost you more.
However, my response was to a claim that Windows licenses will cost less if you use Hyper-V. That is not the case.
Yes, I know there is a free version of Hyper-V, where you get more or less the same as the free version of ESXi.
Now please show me exactly how you get cheaper Windows licenses if you use Hyper-V than if you run on ESX. The blog does not say it.
What a load of BS FUD.
We are deploying Hyper-V in remote offices, and the one thing that makes this happen is convenience. No need to retrain people, as Hyper-V is really easy to set up and manage for a Windows centric shop. We also use VMware in our larger systems.
Deploying ESXi would cost us exactly the same amount of money as deploying Hyper-V.
There is nothing in what Microsoft does in support or licensing that discourage the use of VMware. When we have talked to Microsoft (yes, we do), they try to talk us into using Hyper-V (they sell stuff, so of course they do), but they make a point of the fact that Windows is fully supported on several virtualisation platforms, and the first one to be supported was VMware ESX.
And for the "10 licenses for free" statement: No, Microsoft do not give away licenses for free. That is not their business model. Their business model is to make you pay for Windows licenses, whether they run on metal, VMware, Xen, Hyper-V or whateverVisor.
>What is your setup and why in Spagetti Monster's name are you running VM over NFS ethernet?
Maybe because VMware recommend it?
>Hyper V is the virtualization software where enabling remote management requires you to
...install Systems Center Virtual Machine Manager
>Visual C++ Express [microsoft.com]
>There are also free editions for c#, vb.et, etc
You are not permitted to use those editions to create commercial applications. They are for personal use/education only. It is in the license agreements.
Because the struggle against stupidity is a constantly ongoing battle, and pausing it will give all the scam artists more space to scam innocent people.
Then there is of course the definition of who is the "shithead". Those of us who simply say "prove it", or those who are willing to believe anything that seems only faintly credible by people who have a good long list of false claims?
BTW: Wanna buy a car that runs on water?
>XP comes in a 64 bit flavor as well,
Which is based on the Windows 2003 Server codebase, so technically it is Windows 2003 Workstation.
Does it really matter? Probably not... Just thought you might like to know...
>bored with the current generation of game hardware
If the gamers are bored with the game hardware, they may find it immensely more interesting to start playing games on it.
Just to add to that:
500 email per day is pretty close to one email per minute in a working day. Not your average officeworker...
...some company has made a contract with some other company based on the belief that a lot of people are going to buy mobile phones in the reasonably near future.
Meanwhile some other company are ordering a lot of flat meat-like substances based on the belief that lots of people will buy hamburgers in the near future.
Big deal!
Why would that be a problem?
My current bank does not have branches. I can do anything by using their website, email or telephone. Cash? If I have them, I spend them. If I need them I use an ATM. Checks? I cannot remember the last time I saw one...
>Yes IE will run in Metro as a full screen app... but I'd be truly SHOCKED if it couldn't also be run as a windowed app in the classic desktop.
When running IE in Metro, you can open a menu (sheet icon) and select "Use desktop view" which changes to the desktop version of IE.
After playing a little with it in a VM, I see the Metro interface as being very good for typical home use, as it is hiding the complexity of the traditional Windows desktop for those who simply want to use a few applications (ans among home users, I think those are the majority).
Ah, yes, picking on the choice of words instead of commenting on the intended meaning of the post.
That is SO clever! You must be proud of yourself! You really pwned me there!
Especially since english/american is not my native language.
Your argument sounds much like what I used to get many years ago when I criticized vi (or is it VI) for having the most non.intuitive and silly user interface for editing text files, and why could there not be a simple, user friendly text editor in Unix? (This has since been corrected in Linux...) The real argument (but not openly expressed) was that this was the pain you should get through to be worthy of using a computer. Which was BS then as it is now.
Making things difficult does not make people learn more. It simply makes things difficult.
Most computer users of any generations don't care the least about what happens when they press a button or click on an icon. Even thinking that they will start to care or become proficient because something is difficult is just silly. Most will simply give up. How can that be a goal?
The only reason we have had the computer explosion during the last 15 years is because things have become simpler (MAC, Windows). It is beyond me why this exact point in time should be the time when things are "simple enough". What are the criteria for being simple enough?
And there are more then enough obstacles in the world without creating artificial ones in computer GUIs.