Yeah, I accidentally broke a fan blade off of my current CPU fan. I didn't want to screw around with it, so I just broke off the blade directly opposite. That was four months ago; still running with the same fucking fan.
He's not as off-base as you think. Why do we want free enterprise? Why do we want people to start businesses? For economic progress, of course. We all want to be richer and better off, to get better health care, to have enough to eat, and so on.
If the government takes my money and makes something really useful with it, which provides more economic benefit to the country: giving it away so everyone can build on it and be more technologically advanced; or hiding it away so no one else can use it, and someone has to waste time building it a second time?
Agreed. The "more jaded than thou" set likes to feign disinterest in id's latest, claiming they don't even need to look at the screenshots because they know the gameplay's going to suck.
Regardless of the validity of judging a game's gameplay from 15 seconds of video, they're missing the point-- id makes a good chunk of its money licensing its engines. Lots of games used the Quake 2 and 3 engines, and many games will use the Doom 3 engine. If you play the sorts of games that use these engines, you should be interested in id's latest engine because it's a peek into the future.
Yup. That's why I got DVD-R. It's still hit or miss on what it'll play on (seems to do best on players designed to play other things, too-- ones that double as CD players, gaming consoles, etc., but that's just anecdotal), but I'm about 50/50. I'd hate to get even worse.
"That's what corporations do. It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit."
Incorrect juxtaposition. The corporate officer may or may not fulfill what you state to be his duty; corporations may or may not act to maximize stockholder benefit. A much more accurate statement is that, in general, the corporate officer will undertake whatever actions maximize his own benefit.
In the instance of stock options, an officer will work to increase the value of the stock, but only until such time as he sells off all of his stock. If that leaves the company destroyed, out of business, what does it matter to the man who's now $100 million richer?
Idealizing capitalism down to some activity performed by some mythical corporation mind (remember, corporations don't think-- people do) is almost as erroneous as believing communism would be easy to implement because people will be happy to work for the good of the many. Even corporate officers with the best of intentions will balk at the choice which will maximize the long-term value and health of the business if it's going to cost them $20 million in the short term.
"You program for the platform where you're most likely to make money".
Correct. So you code for the platform with tens of millions of units in peoples' houses, not the one with a few hundred thousand. I highly doubt trust, undocumented API calls, whatever have anything to do with it.
"Sony hyped the PS2 to no end, and they lived up to the hype."
Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a graphics snob. I value gameplay highly too, of course, which means there aren't many games I can play.:) I've never been too happy with PS2 graphics. They're okay, but now that I've been spoiled by the latest PC and XBox stuff, most of the PS2 stuff looks hideous. I still love the stuff that's artfully done-- ICO, for example. Or games that are just generally amazing, like GTA3. Or stuff that is above and beyond PS2 graphics when it comes out, like Devil May Cry. But I haven't bought a PS2 game in a while, partly because I think they all look a bit ugly.
I've got JSRF and Gunvalkyrie on my XBox. I've got Morrowind and America's Army on my PC. The graphics snob in me makes it hard to pick up PS2 games, as fun as they are.:) (Although I still play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night-- I guess I'm just strange.)
" The other two systems are a year newer then the PS2. What you're saying is like saying that the dreamcast has slow pixelated graphics compared to the PS2. Of course it does."
Ah, but their chip was supposedly so fucking revolutionary, remember? Ooh, the emotion engine. Spare me-- if it's so revolutionary, it shouldn't be so easy to best a year later. But the XBox kicks its ass, technically (other departments are, of course, a different story entirely).
"Anyway, it seems to me that the difference isn't marketing, but developer trust. The 3rd party developers that are only going to release for a limited number of platforms, or have a long development cycle, trust Sony to be straightforward with their plans, and to not leave them behind when their marketing strategy suddenly changes."
Actually, what happened is they worked really hard to win over developers for the PSX, around the time Nintendo was being arrogant and pissing off developers left and right. They got a lot of great titles, had better hardware, so everyone bought a PSX. They successfully managed to get most of those people to buy a PS2, and now it's simply a matter of numbers. Most developers hate coding for the fucking thing. I don't think there are really any "trust" issues here-- unless it's a matter of trusting that you'll sell more copies of your game if your potential audience is ten times larger.
You have some good points, but you're a bit off here:
"Well, I don't think you compete [with p2p], but you do create a service that has its own value.
Err, that's called "competing"..? I guess he assumes the p2p sites will all be shut down by the RIAA at some point."
Actually, I think there is a demand for a much more convenient service than p2p. In fact, I know there is such a demand (because I am that demand); the question, of course, is whether there's enough demand to make it profitable. I can go to emusic (I don't know MusicNet), read their recommendations, search through their catalog, and pick a few albums to download. Then I simply click on one link to download the entire album and save a playlist to replay it later. It's all very high bandwidth. The rate at which I get albums is orders of magnitude faster than with any p2p service, and for me it's certainly worth the very low price.
No kidding. There's been so much doom and gloom about the ineffectiveness of internet ads and how no one pays attention to them. Here they have an audience much better than TV-- they're interested, they WANT to watch your ad, they aren't getting up to go to the bathroom.
If the advertisers get any goddammed sense, they'll foot the bill for adcritic to host their ads. At that point, I will go out and watch them. Until then, I won't pay for adcritic, and I'll skip all their TV ads with my Tivo.
"having pop up ads would effectively force you to watch ads no matter what"... assuming they don't make hardware that blocks 'em out. Sure, you'd have a fucking annoying black rectangle on your screen, but it's certainly possible.
" Look, my mom has trouble with Excel. You think she'd be able to run Linux? You think she'd be able to build a kernel module? Even install an RPM package?"
Right. So here's the deal. My parents have installed two software packages intentionally in the entire lifetime of their latest computer which runs Windows 98 or XP or 2K or what-fucking-ever (a couple years). Their installs were roughly as simple as Mozilla's Linux installer, interestingly enough. Any other software on the box either came there, or trojaned itself on (Gator et. al.).
They don't change their video resolution. They don't create new shortcuts. They fire up the box, click on one of about 5 icons, use the program, and close it. Sometimes they switch between programs. When they need to do something more difficult (send e-mail attachments, open an unrecognized file extension in a particular program, etc.), they ask me or someone else who knows more about computers.
So, if they were using Linux instead of Windows, and the two programs had installers as sophisticated as Mozilla's (a faulty assumption, so assume they just asked me to install 'em while I was in town), what would be the difference? The difference would be they wouldn't have Gator, and that's about it.
Is there a reason for them to switch to Linux, given they already have something that basically works? No. Would they get anything extra out of it? No. But Linux wouldn't be any more difficult for them than Windows already is.
Interestingly, though I meant for this argument to be pro-Linux, it looks a lot more pro-Mac.:) Linux window managers should stop emulating MS Windows so damned much. I use the command line, and the computer semi-illiterate don't know how to use MS Windows anyway.
Agreed. I've seen far too many people justify copyright infringement by saying they hate the RIAA, or the RIAA charges too much. Those are pretty poor arguments. The best way to stand up to them is to find alternatives; taking the easy way out and downloading RIAA tracks doesn't help develop viable alternatives.
I haven't purchased, downloaded, or otherwise attempted to acquire RIAA music in some time now. And it doesn't hurt a bit.
"Live" is a bit odd with a lot of electronic music, but I didn't really "get" a lot of the music until I'd spent a good amount of time at clubs and raves. Now, the tricky part is that there are plenty of shitty clubs that aren't about the music, and plenty of raves that suck.
If you're local to anywhere that has a lot of this sort of stuff, try to see if you can find what's really good there. For example, in San Francisco I like Spesh, and any of the looq crew that spin at 111 Minna, and sometimes at the DNA Lounge. BTW, Jondi and Spesh have a CD out that I highly recommend; "We Are Connected" is a good album and that particular single found its way into a Digweed mix. They're great to go to in person because the audience is more interested in the music, and less into going someplace to "be seen".
If you're not anywhere you can see stuff live, you can try to track down some decent webcasts of the stuff if they're still around after the RIAA and CARP fucked them over. It's a great way to experience the myriad genres and hear a lot of music for free. Stanford's radio station webcasts at a not entirely acceptable bitrate, but has good shows and a schedule up to boot. They have DJs in studio fairly often, and on Summer and Winter solstices have 24 hour marathons.
Well, I'm excited for anyone getting into this sort of music, because for me it was a really amazing time when I was discovering it. There's so much good stuff out there (although some of it's stagnating now, but that's another rant).
We have an automated script to take your changed files and copy 'em over to a share. Then we send out an e-mail to the team (small) and say it's going to be committed soon. One person is assigned "primary", and must look at it; everyone else can optionally.
It doesn't take much time, but it's only the smallest CRs that get away without at least a few changes. Sometimes it's just comments, sometimes it's a better way to do something. At the least, everyone has a better idea what's going on in code they're not in right now, but very well might be in the near future. An added benefit is that people who see CR coming clean up their code a bit more than usual.
I agree-- formal CRs suck in most cases (although some critical apps developers like them for some bits of code that might, say, kill someone if they malfunction, or that take $10,000 to test). But the e-mail deal works really well for our team. But we don't have any assholes or know-it-alls, so that helps.
Subscriber: wait, why don't you charge us based on bandwidth? Then instead of getting bitchy whenever someone starts downloading too much shit from some newsgroup and putting caps on your "always on" service, or wasting time tracking down sharers, or trying to figure out if someone's hooking their connection up to three computers behind a router, you could make money on someone regardless?
Exec: You know that math I mentioned? Yeah, well, we have all these nice statistics, and we're really quite partial to them. My boss said I had to use them for something, and this is all I could think of.
Unless he read a different article than he submitted, the submitter made a bit of the summary up. Specifically, he said that "these effects are also thought to be, to some extent, nonreversible."
The only time the article references that is when it states: And brain activity in the people who continually played games did not recover in the periods when they weren't playing games, the research showed.
I didn't see evidence of a test in which they deprived the gaming group of games for a couple months, and then tested them. That being said, it's obvious that getting daily exercise has all sorts of benefits, with or without the study.
Certain types of video games definitely are used for the "veg out" factor. I'd be interested to see a study comparing people who play 2-7 hours of games a day (he DID pick a pretty hard core group) to people who watch 2-7 hours of TV a day.
"My brief experiences with XP are that it is a little flakey(er?) than 2K, and all that WPA-invasion-of-privacy Gestapo crap makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach."
I haven't found XP any flakier than 2K; in fact, it's done a better job with some legacy software and hardware I have sitting around. I have a few pet ways to crash the hell out of it, but most are reproducible on 2K as well.
I consider XP to be the superior operating system from a technical standpoint. OTOH, all that "Gestapo crap" really makes me not want to use it. Fortunately for me I just roll my chair 3 feet to the right and I'm using Linux.:) That's becoming increasingly common these days. I don't have any reason to use XP, really-- except, of course, a few games, and I dev Windows stuff at work. But like you said, the divide between Windows flavors is becoming large. So why will there be any reason to use Windows at home any more? For me, I don't think there will.
Perhaps I'm asking for too much from a short piece, but I wasn't clear on what it was about before or after reading it. Okay, so there's one example of a case in France. Great, now we're getting somewhere-- but it stops there.
What are they talking about? What special laws are they referring to? So, first, we take as a given that there are jurisdictional issues with someone putting up something on a server in Texas, and someone reading it in Germany. And, yes, lawyers and politicians are trying to figure this out. The article does say that it's useful to think of it as a bunch of computers being connected and sending around bits-- thanks.
I'm just asking, because this sounds like an interesting article. There very well might be internet-specific laws. There might be examples of cases making internet exceptions, or not making internet exceptions. I don't know-- I'd like to find out. But this article didn't say a damned thing.
" Fuck that too. As a system administrator, I refuse to work at a company where all developers have unlimited root access on the production network."
Whoah there. The original post simply said that you're in a trouble if you're at a company where individuals have the right to install software on their boxes. I want to be able to install software-- not all the other random shit you pretend I said.
"That said, it's nice if a workstation's/usr/local is writable by the user of that workstation and IS leaves a pristine read-only copy around for you or them to rsync if the need arises."
Hey, I didn't say it was their fault.:) It's just a bad situation all around. And while I'm happy to let other departments suffer, the devs should have a bit more control.
I a developer keeps screwing up his box, there's an easy solution....
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I accidentally broke a fan blade off of my current CPU fan. I didn't want to screw around with it, so I just broke off the blade directly opposite. That was four months ago; still running with the same fucking fan.
He's not as off-base as you think. Why do we want free enterprise? Why do we want people to start businesses? For economic progress, of course. We all want to be richer and better off, to get better health care, to have enough to eat, and so on.
If the government takes my money and makes something really useful with it, which provides more economic benefit to the country: giving it away so everyone can build on it and be more technologically advanced; or hiding it away so no one else can use it, and someone has to waste time building it a second time?
Agreed. The "more jaded than thou" set likes to feign disinterest in id's latest, claiming they don't even need to look at the screenshots because they know the gameplay's going to suck.
Regardless of the validity of judging a game's gameplay from 15 seconds of video, they're missing the point-- id makes a good chunk of its money licensing its engines. Lots of games used the Quake 2 and 3 engines, and many games will use the Doom 3 engine. If you play the sorts of games that use these engines, you should be interested in id's latest engine because it's a peek into the future.
Yup. That's why I got DVD-R. It's still hit or miss on what it'll play on (seems to do best on players designed to play other things, too-- ones that double as CD players, gaming consoles, etc., but that's just anecdotal), but I'm about 50/50. I'd hate to get even worse.
"That's what corporations do. It is the corporate officer's duty to undertake whatever actions maximize stockholder benefit."
Incorrect juxtaposition. The corporate officer may or may not fulfill what you state to be his duty; corporations may or may not act to maximize stockholder benefit. A much more accurate statement is that, in general, the corporate officer will undertake whatever actions maximize his own benefit.
In the instance of stock options, an officer will work to increase the value of the stock, but only until such time as he sells off all of his stock. If that leaves the company destroyed, out of business, what does it matter to the man who's now $100 million richer?
Idealizing capitalism down to some activity performed by some mythical corporation mind (remember, corporations don't think-- people do) is almost as erroneous as believing communism would be easy to implement because people will be happy to work for the good of the many. Even corporate officers with the best of intentions will balk at the choice which will maximize the long-term value and health of the business if it's going to cost them $20 million in the short term.
"You program for the platform where you're most likely to make money".
:) I've never been too happy with PS2 graphics. They're okay, but now that I've been spoiled by the latest PC and XBox stuff, most of the PS2 stuff looks hideous. I still love the stuff that's artfully done-- ICO, for example. Or games that are just generally amazing, like GTA3. Or stuff that is above and beyond PS2 graphics when it comes out, like Devil May Cry. But I haven't bought a PS2 game in a while, partly because I think they all look a bit ugly.
:) (Although I still play Castlevania: Symphony of the Night-- I guess I'm just strange.)
Correct. So you code for the platform with tens of millions of units in peoples' houses, not the one with a few hundred thousand. I highly doubt trust, undocumented API calls, whatever have anything to do with it.
"Sony hyped the PS2 to no end, and they lived up to the hype."
Unfortunately, I'm a bit of a graphics snob. I value gameplay highly too, of course, which means there aren't many games I can play.
I've got JSRF and Gunvalkyrie on my XBox. I've got Morrowind and America's Army on my PC. The graphics snob in me makes it hard to pick up PS2 games, as fun as they are.
" The other two systems are a year newer then the PS2. What you're saying is like saying that the dreamcast has slow pixelated graphics compared to the PS2. Of course it does."
Ah, but their chip was supposedly so fucking revolutionary, remember? Ooh, the emotion engine. Spare me-- if it's so revolutionary, it shouldn't be so easy to best a year later. But the XBox kicks its ass, technically (other departments are, of course, a different story entirely).
"Anyway, it seems to me that the difference isn't marketing, but developer trust. The 3rd party developers that are only going to release for a limited number of platforms, or have a long development cycle, trust Sony to be straightforward with their plans, and to not leave them behind when their marketing strategy suddenly changes."
Actually, what happened is they worked really hard to win over developers for the PSX, around the time Nintendo was being arrogant and pissing off developers left and right. They got a lot of great titles, had better hardware, so everyone bought a PSX. They successfully managed to get most of those people to buy a PS2, and now it's simply a matter of numbers. Most developers hate coding for the fucking thing. I don't think there are really any "trust" issues here-- unless it's a matter of trusting that you'll sell more copies of your game if your potential audience is ten times larger.
Agreed. Ha ha, funny, and all that-- but this isn't exactly sticking it to the man. This will change nothing (well, aside from being amusing).
The guy down the street might have broken into my house while I was gone, but I don't have a grand jury indictment against him.
"No, you read the article. He first broke in on March 8th then arranged his big expose on the 18th. Ten days of silence."
Ten days? Seems sinister. Could that possibly be roughly the amount of time it takes to get an appointment with the appropriate county employee?
Wing Commander: Secret Ops already did this.
You have some good points, but you're a bit off here:
"Well, I don't think you compete [with p2p], but you do create a service that has its own value.
Err, that's called "competing"..? I guess he assumes the p2p sites will all be shut down by the RIAA at some point."
Actually, I think there is a demand for a much more convenient service than p2p. In fact, I know there is such a demand (because I am that demand); the question, of course, is whether there's enough demand to make it profitable. I can go to emusic (I don't know MusicNet), read their recommendations, search through their catalog, and pick a few albums to download. Then I simply click on one link to download the entire album and save a playlist to replay it later. It's all very high bandwidth. The rate at which I get albums is orders of magnitude faster than with any p2p service, and for me it's certainly worth the very low price.
No kidding. There's been so much doom and gloom about the ineffectiveness of internet ads and how no one pays attention to them. Here they have an audience much better than TV-- they're interested, they WANT to watch your ad, they aren't getting up to go to the bathroom.
If the advertisers get any goddammed sense, they'll foot the bill for adcritic to host their ads. At that point, I will go out and watch them. Until then, I won't pay for adcritic, and I'll skip all their TV ads with my Tivo.
"having pop up ads would effectively force you to watch ads no matter what"... assuming they don't make hardware that blocks 'em out. Sure, you'd have a fucking annoying black rectangle on your screen, but it's certainly possible.
" Look, my mom has trouble with Excel. You think she'd be able to run Linux? You think she'd be able to build a kernel module? Even install an RPM package?"
:) Linux window managers should stop emulating MS Windows so damned much. I use the command line, and the computer semi-illiterate don't know how to use MS Windows anyway.
Right. So here's the deal. My parents have installed two software packages intentionally in the entire lifetime of their latest computer which runs Windows 98 or XP or 2K or what-fucking-ever (a couple years). Their installs were roughly as simple as Mozilla's Linux installer, interestingly enough. Any other software on the box either came there, or trojaned itself on (Gator et. al.).
They don't change their video resolution. They don't create new shortcuts. They fire up the box, click on one of about 5 icons, use the program, and close it. Sometimes they switch between programs. When they need to do something more difficult (send e-mail attachments, open an unrecognized file extension in a particular program, etc.), they ask me or someone else who knows more about computers.
So, if they were using Linux instead of Windows, and the two programs had installers as sophisticated as Mozilla's (a faulty assumption, so assume they just asked me to install 'em while I was in town), what would be the difference? The difference would be they wouldn't have Gator, and that's about it.
Is there a reason for them to switch to Linux, given they already have something that basically works? No. Would they get anything extra out of it? No. But Linux wouldn't be any more difficult for them than Windows already is.
Interestingly, though I meant for this argument to be pro-Linux, it looks a lot more pro-Mac.
Agreed. I've seen far too many people justify copyright infringement by saying they hate the RIAA, or the RIAA charges too much. Those are pretty poor arguments. The best way to stand up to them is to find alternatives; taking the easy way out and downloading RIAA tracks doesn't help develop viable alternatives.
I haven't purchased, downloaded, or otherwise attempted to acquire RIAA music in some time now. And it doesn't hurt a bit.
"Live" is a bit odd with a lot of electronic music, but I didn't really "get" a lot of the music until I'd spent a good amount of time at clubs and raves. Now, the tricky part is that there are plenty of shitty clubs that aren't about the music, and plenty of raves that suck.
If you're local to anywhere that has a lot of this sort of stuff, try to see if you can find what's really good there. For example, in San Francisco I like Spesh, and any of the looq crew that spin at 111 Minna, and sometimes at the DNA Lounge. BTW, Jondi and Spesh have a CD out that I highly recommend; "We Are Connected" is a good album and that particular single found its way into a Digweed mix. They're great to go to in person because the audience is more interested in the music, and less into going someplace to "be seen".
If you're not anywhere you can see stuff live, you can try to track down some decent webcasts of the stuff if they're still around after the RIAA and CARP fucked them over. It's a great way to experience the myriad genres and hear a lot of music for free. Stanford's radio station webcasts at a not entirely acceptable bitrate, but has good shows and a schedule up to boot. They have DJs in studio fairly often, and on Summer and Winter solstices have 24 hour marathons.
Well, I'm excited for anyone getting into this sort of music, because for me it was a really amazing time when I was discovering it. There's so much good stuff out there (although some of it's stagnating now, but that's another rant).
We have an automated script to take your changed files and copy 'em over to a share. Then we send out an e-mail to the team (small) and say it's going to be committed soon. One person is assigned "primary", and must look at it; everyone else can optionally.
It doesn't take much time, but it's only the smallest CRs that get away without at least a few changes. Sometimes it's just comments, sometimes it's a better way to do something. At the least, everyone has a better idea what's going on in code they're not in right now, but very well might be in the near future. An added benefit is that people who see CR coming clean up their code a bit more than usual.
I agree-- formal CRs suck in most cases (although some critical apps developers like them for some bits of code that might, say, kill someone if they malfunction, or that take $10,000 to test). But the e-mail deal works really well for our team. But we don't have any assholes or know-it-alls, so that helps.
Subscriber: wait, why don't you charge us based on bandwidth? Then instead of getting bitchy whenever someone starts downloading too much shit from some newsgroup and putting caps on your "always on" service, or wasting time tracking down sharers, or trying to figure out if someone's hooking their connection up to three computers behind a router, you could make money on someone regardless?
Exec: You know that math I mentioned? Yeah, well, we have all these nice statistics, and we're really quite partial to them. My boss said I had to use them for something, and this is all I could think of.
Unless he read a different article than he submitted, the submitter made a bit of the summary up. Specifically, he said that "these effects are also thought to be, to some extent, nonreversible."
The only time the article references that is when it states:
And brain activity in the people who continually played games did not recover in the periods when they weren't playing games, the research showed.
I didn't see evidence of a test in which they deprived the gaming group of games for a couple months, and then tested them. That being said, it's obvious that getting daily exercise has all sorts of benefits, with or without the study.
Certain types of video games definitely are used for the "veg out" factor. I'd be interested to see a study comparing people who play 2-7 hours of games a day (he DID pick a pretty hard core group) to people who watch 2-7 hours of TV a day.
"My brief experiences with XP are that it is a little flakey(er?) than 2K, and all that WPA-invasion-of-privacy Gestapo crap makes me feel sick in the pit of my stomach."
:) That's becoming increasingly common these days. I don't have any reason to use XP, really-- except, of course, a few games, and I dev Windows stuff at work. But like you said, the divide between Windows flavors is becoming large. So why will there be any reason to use Windows at home any more? For me, I don't think there will.
I haven't found XP any flakier than 2K; in fact, it's done a better job with some legacy software and hardware I have sitting around. I have a few pet ways to crash the hell out of it, but most are reproducible on 2K as well.
I consider XP to be the superior operating system from a technical standpoint. OTOH, all that "Gestapo crap" really makes me not want to use it. Fortunately for me I just roll my chair 3 feet to the right and I'm using Linux.
Perhaps I'm asking for too much from a short piece, but I wasn't clear on what it was about before or after reading it. Okay, so there's one example of a case in France. Great, now we're getting somewhere-- but it stops there.
What are they talking about? What special laws are they referring to? So, first, we take as a given that there are jurisdictional issues with someone putting up something on a server in Texas, and someone reading it in Germany. And, yes, lawyers and politicians are trying to figure this out. The article does say that it's useful to think of it as a bunch of computers being connected and sending around bits-- thanks.
I'm just asking, because this sounds like an interesting article. There very well might be internet-specific laws. There might be examples of cases making internet exceptions, or not making internet exceptions. I don't know-- I'd like to find out. But this article didn't say a damned thing.
Doh, no edit button.
I don't agree with what I just posted. Wherever I work, I'm gonna have root on something, goddammit.
" Fuck that too. As a system administrator, I refuse to work at a company where all developers have unlimited root access on the production network."
/usr/local is writable by the user of that workstation and IS leaves a pristine read-only copy around for you or them to rsync if the need arises."
Whoah there. The original post simply said that you're in a trouble if you're at a company where individuals have the right to install software on their boxes. I want to be able to install software-- not all the other random shit you pretend I said.
"That said, it's nice if a workstation's
Ah, something we can agree on.
Hey, I didn't say it was their fault. :) It's just a bad situation all around. And while I'm happy to let other departments suffer, the devs should have a bit more control.
I a developer keeps screwing up his box, there's an easy solution....