Certainly not within the framework of a for-profit company. Maybe if you went non-profit you could do it, but for-profit company's exist to make money. That doesn't exclude ethical behavior, but it makes it very difficult to enforce it. Winging it is about all you can do.
Didn't I give an example that would contradict this statement?:)
Trust is not always based on individuals. A well established company with a long history of trustworthiness and the ability to protect itself from hostile takeovers can be trustworthy. Maybe that trust eminated from the individuals, but it's become part of the company culture itself.
That's what he's trying to establish, though it can be fragile because we are dealing with people who make choices not ideals.
I'll have to check, but I swear that I gave an example -- somewhere -- that covered all this. Hmmmm...I wonder where I put it?:)
Just be yourself. I'll figure out for myself an appropriate level of trust and respect.
What he's looking for is how to establish and maintain ethics...not to just wing it.
I might trust you, and trust is based on individuals, though organizations can (if they have people with ethics) make the whole group more trustworthy.
One policy I heard of that worked for a 2,000 person company covered internal politics. Basically, the policy was 'muck around in internal politics and you will be fired'. The important part of this is that it was consistant and covered EVERYONE. From CEO to green entry position, and it was inforced.
The bad thing is that the company thrived because of these types of policies and was bought up by a bigger company that did not have the same concerns. A few years later, the 2,000 person division collapsed under the weight of problems such as internal politics.
Here's the catch, open source development models work because they are informal,...
LOL! Most OSS projects I've seen are very formal and well organized when compared to closed corporate ones. (Corporate meaning mostly built for internal use or for specific tasks, I take it?) This is not always the case since some closed ones are run with a high degree of riggor while some OSS is sloppy. Overall, I typically like the results -- including documentation -- that come out of OSS while I'm usually disapointed by the
In either case OSS or closed both have to deal with people and how to motivate them. OSS methods can work within a company, and I've found that if you just do something, people will use it if it suits them while if you do nothing, the status quo will not change.
...
because their is no pressure other than that of your respected peers.
This applies to both OSS and closed software. Some people thrive on appreciation, while others really don't care.
There's nothing like money to motivate people to work on a project for which people aren't willing to donate their time.
The 'scratch an itch' motivation of OSS can also motivate people, though not always to the levels that you'd expect. One project I am astounded has not gotten more help is vb2Py. Vb2Py converts Visual Basic applications into Python programs, meaning you can move your VB and Access users over to any platform Python supports -- and change out the database back end in the process. The main developer even has a web based converter to demo the program so you don't even have to set it up!
Vb2Py is something that has both geek apeal and corporate snaz, though the forums have petered out. I'd desperately like to get folks away from monolythic MS Access MDB files and toward a more reliable environment...yet, there is little real traffic on the well designed and well thought out web site. Why????
While I'm at it, also take a look at InstallBase, a very nice cross-platform GUI installation program. I'm using it now to automate a network and to slowly introduce OSS to the others on the contract.
By similar reasoning, we should attach GPS trackers to each of our elected representatives, to ensure that we get what we pay for, and that they're doing the work they claim to be doing.
GPS wouldn't interest me. Cameras and microphones, though, might.
The employer (which happens to be the state) wants to know if the employee is really doing the work (or as much of the work as) the employee claims.
Agreed. Hell, even I have my work tracked and audited regularly -- not by GPS but by memos, work performed, and errors and mistakes not found.
I don't fight it, I don't pass the blaim, though I do some CYA if the customers look hostile.
In the case of the truck drivers, they look to be happy with the current round of finger pointing and do not want the truth to come out; that some specific drivers screw up on occasion and sometimes maybe more often. I wouldn't doubt that both city and private contractors really think that they as a group would look bad if the details were known. Right now, the city doesn't know so they can't accuse individuals or groups.
What is stopping an individual without morals from claiming hit-and-run dammage and sending in a bill?
This GPS system would enforce this possibility since the city would be able to say a specific plow was near the 'accident' at the 'time it occured'.
The customer(s) I work for now aren't too hostile. The final customer in the food chain is unfortunately doing a poor job of auditing, so audits are both superficial, easy to pass, and at the same time pitiful and very very annoying.
In general, the auditing the final customer performs targets the wrong thing to audit. The audits are driven by whim and politics (politics with a big and a small "P").
They do emphasise procedures and the big picture (good), though they miss the details where the big picture really is enforced.
Often, this end customer shifts focus to what the latest shiny moving object is. If I were a deceptive person, it would be simple to distract them from real problems.
Point: On many contracts, the technical details are not examined and the results are taken on faith. The customers don't know where to look to dryly verify what they are being told.
They can't audit what they don't look at or know!
The GPS tracking is one way to know these types of details, though it is only one tool of many. It should be used though it will likely be abused, like any information. The lack of information now is leading to abuses now, so the trade off is probably worth it.
Tons of gamecube games are $19-$39. Even new releases. Sure some of the biggest games are $50, but so are the biggest PC games.
Point taken, though you probably remember the bargain bin PC games and budget titles at $5-15. Unless a console borks or if you buy used, it's unlikely that you can get games for it in that price range. Sure, the games are often poor or simply old-tech, but they are cheap and some are quite good if not brand-spankin' new.
Are the games in the $19-25 region for a console any good? (I don't know; last console I had was an Atari!)
One benifit for consoles is that the titles released are controlled; not just anyone can whip up a CD and a box and start selling. PC game companies though can attempt to sell even if they do a horrid job, plus you have the trend of direct-to-customer sales over the net.
Personally i prefer KDE for business reasons, but hey, if a better GNOME helps the cause.. why not..
For personal use, KDE is quite nice. Bring on the extras and add-ons. Integrated K3B and I/O slaves for just about anything...very nice!
For business, Gnome has the edge. Commercial development licences are cheaper, desktop is simplified, more polish and fewer features (we're talking business use here). Mono (as a bonus) leans more toward Gnome.
That said, here's a link you Bash lovers must take a look at;
Programmable Completion. In short, it extends normal tab completion and adds context sensitivity. Sweet!
(My karma is excellent, so don't waste mod points either way.)
Re:My hopes for 2004 - some realisation please
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
A unified help system - one that offers one stop access to all man pages, info, html, READMEs, GNOME / KDE / dist help, all ordered in a task centric way with full search facilities.
Good point, though I'd prefer that in an app, pressing F1 brings up the appropriate help. Having a central repository would be nice, though most searches would be useless or cluttered (search on "preview" and get back 87 responses for 45 apps).
Interesting post up to that point. The main reason being that you can't view community as a single entity.... That everyone had a single voice? Only one type of opinion on everything? That's not only unrealistic, it's outright bad.
Agreed, though much of the public perception is that these people speak for everyone. Unfortunately, this comes from the new users who get a rush of excitement when they see what OSS can do, and are still angry at Microsoft for one reason or another. I do get frustrated when I have to deal with Microsoft products or Windows in general, though it lessens when I don't use Microsoft's products.
In the meantime, since Windows is in heavy use where I am now, I'm attempting to bring what is good with the Unix way of doing things to Windows and there are quite a few tools that patch up some of the differences. Unfortunately, you have to really dig to get anything moderately close to the tools that are as capable as what ships with most Linux distributions.
It's exactly the same as in every other "community" of sufficient size, Mac, Linux, Windows, or anything else.
True, though Windows and Mac people don't see it much.
I predict...some of *you* will start using Linux
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Right now, some people here are actively using OSS and/or Linux all the time...as the normal and most reasonable choice.
In 2004, that trend will increase. If you've got a laptop, why not put Linux on it all by itself?
OK, some of you have your reasons, though making the jump and dealing with the problems (if any) is one way to get the ball rolling. Here are two resources to help out;
Re:What will drive Linux adoption
on
Linux in 2004?
·
· Score: 1
It's about having feature-for-feature replacements that are open and secure.
I used to think that too. I've had a rude awakening over the past couple years. The issue that defines the difference between excitement and apathy for mid-to-upper management? It's the same one that your mother used when picking out drapes or a new dress;
It's all about "pretty".
Well, pretty vs. the unspoken alternative "ugly". A close second is 'can this give me bragging rights about using "the best" most professionally accepted choice?'. Think binary; it's either yes or no, with no middle ground. Managers make decisions or they are ineffective.
It's not what we want or even see is necessary...it's what management (in a 15 minute or shorter meeting) can be convinced of. In that time, they can spot UGLY a mile away, though ugly is often confused with "unfamiliar". Keep in mind that they see "pretty" as "polished and complete" so anything that isn't pretty is not ready...and bosses don't want to mess with something that isn't ready to go. Case in point, Gnome gets quite a bit of corporate backing...because it is pretty (polished consistant from desktop to desktop and app to app) while KDE looks like an errector set. This isn't a flame, the truth is much more complex, though if you have 30 seconds to show someone both...Gnome looks more pretty.
15 - or 5 - minutes of rational talk about pros and cons will not change *anyone's mind*. Habbits and superficial issues will swamp all concerns. Even what is pretty or ugly will change from person to person, but typically not by much.
If you want people to start using OSS, use it yourself and deploy it everywhere. Are you using it for your desktop? I am. Are you using it for corporate servers? I am; ugly Bugzilla, and pretty DCL. Bugzilla serves a necessary function of a project, so it actually gets used more. I've also made a point that there is a migration path to pretty in the form of Scarab. In the meantime, I've modified Bugzilla to make it a little more pretty.
Make sure it looks normal and nice; that it looks pretty and isn't awkward. Costs less is a motivator, though pretty really does matter most. The cost and savings -- both up front savings and in the lower costs for maintenance and lost data -- are the mass of the avalanche, not the pebbles that get it moving.
Along the same lines, you might find this mildly interesting.
I did a quick calculation of the OS cost using the MicroTel laptops on the WalMart site as a guide.
Microtel offers laptops with and without an OS. WalMart was careful not to have identical machines listed. They were very similar, though, differing mainly in the display size (14 or 15 inch) and the CPU speed (look at the ones with 1.4 and 1.5 G).
Still, there wasn't one set of laptops that were the same minus the OS difference.
Comparing the laptops that have and don't have an OS on those points (CPU and display), it turns out that the Windows XP Home option is $100. Just the OS, no apps, no extras. (It's likely an OEM version only works on specific machines and may not have a resore CD, though the WalMart site doesn't say either way. No real resale value.)
WalMart doesn't have low-low prices everyday because they like you. They've got these prices because they can pressure businesses into cutting their prices so low they barely make anything.
Both WalMart and the companies supplying them will make a profit, or they won't continue with the arrangement. If WalMart laptops get returned because they break or are faulty -- at least during the return period -- WalMart will loose money and the supplier will likely loose money as well.
I think you both have it right...it's a management -- and as you pointed out -- an accounting problem, with tech that can (mostly) solve it.
I'm a big proponent of *not* having computers doing thinking for people, though if upper management used the tech properly and added direct feedback to the local managers, the local managers would eventually do the right thing.
It might not lead to zero appologies for missing beer or bread, though it would push the manager to deal with the true needs of his immediate customers.
That said, I'm working on small shell scripts to replace someone...so, maybe I'm just a hypocryt and an asshole.:)
We make a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
So who'd bother writing for OS/2 when I can just write for Win or DOS?
I hear this a lot, though the two aren't even similar.
OS/2's main problem was IBM. Rarely did it look like IBM was serious about pushing the product and they didn't have a long term plan for it.
With Linux, there are companies falling over themselves daily to say that they are the biggest supporter. Quite a few back those words with effort and code (open or not), and a smaller set have made whole businesses based on doing something with Linux.
Then, there are people who constantly want to make Linux (or more approprately open source systems and applications) a little better.
With OS/2, IBM was the whole source of effort. Everyone else was a spectator. OS/2's whole existance depended on the strength of IBM's commitment to push it. No push, why bother getting off the sidelines?
There is no apathy surrounding Linux.
IT disasters: Product before process
on
Does IT Matter?
·
· Score: 1
I've found most disasters with IT spending occur because some manager is sold on a good product that is supposed to do something for them (*COUGH* Rational *COUGH*), and then they put no effort into training and configuration. They are looking for a magic wand, and not looking out over the span of years to be happy with gradual and consistant improvements.
In sum, they are putting the product before the process, thinking that the process will handled automatically by using a tool.
Tools do not matter.
Products do not matter.
Features do not matter.
Vendors do not matter.
Contractors do not matter.
Hardware does not matter.
Process, process matters.
Once you have a goal, and work toward that goal, there is no "investment" (aka ego saving) in using one tool, product, or vendor over another. When something stops working for you, the choice is obvious; use it right, fix it, or replace it.
Individuals should be able to pick tools that they want, but only if the tools improve the process -- and they have to understand what that that process is!
SEI CMM, for example, is one good process that is often complained about and sometimes used as if it were a magic wand. It's not.
Like any defined process, it takes effort and consistancy. It should be held as if violating the process is a moral, ethical, failure -- kind of like lying.
One manager or even a CEO should not drop the process the moment it becomes uncomfortable or gets in the way of some agenda. Even when the process is skirted, it should be clear that doing so is the wrong thing to do, even though there are momentary benifits. The reasons for skirting the process should be clear and reasonable to everyone. Do it too much, or BS the reasons why the process was dumped, and people will see that what applies to front-line IT does not apply to management, and the front-line folks will drop the process also.
Hold people accountable, but do not use the process as a political tool. It doesn't work that way, and doing so will be seen as a cheap abusive ploy anyway.
I'm taking to mean that you would dual-boot to play CivIII.
No, it's just a game. I'd just play another if that one wasn't available.
Well if you have spent thousands of dollars over the years, why not put some of the spare parts together and make a windows only box? Seems like the most logical move. It doesn't even need to be connected to the internet to play CivIII. Winex just doesnt make sense.
I have a half dozen working machines and a barrels worth of parts -- what self-respecing geek doesn't?:-}
That said, installing Windows on any of them is not interesting since the lesser machines just aren't as nice as my main system. There are plenty of other games to play, even without WineX. Savage is my current favorite, though Neverwinter Nights is also up there.
Wait wait wait. Let me get this straight. People pay $60 per year to get Windows games to work under linux?
Yes, though it's $5/month, so if you want to pay for part of a year WineX won't all the sudden stop working. You just don't get updates forever for $0.
One can purchase a completely legit copy of Windows 98 (mine has served me well over the last 4 odd years) for less than that. Turns out, Windows games run natively under Windows AND they work on day 0, not when some third party decides to make them work. Rad indeed! Logical...not so much.
After spending thousands over years on computer equipment, why reset a perfectly functioning machine each and every time I want to play a quick game of CivIII? That's a waste of time and a unnecessary hassle. Besides, it would take the web servervices down.
Amplitude of wing stroke times frequency of wing stroke is (half) the vertical speed of the wing tip. Forward speed is obviously the horizontal speed. Hence the ratio is dimensionless, and measures how steep (on average) the strokes are. It's not too surprising that these ratios should fall in a relatively narrow range, and the authors of the Nature article say as much. Concretely, if the ratio were, say, 100, the wing would be flapping up and down furiously without advancing much -- if the ratio were 1/100, the wing would hardly be moving.
Umm... Exchange versions since 5.5 have all supported POP3 and IMAP. Wonder why they won't turn it on for you?
"Corporate policy"; no explanation why, just that you use Outlook or nothing at all. OWA was a grudging compromise, though they didn't even have it set up to allow you to change your password. That's right, you have to use Outlook on the desktop to even change your password!
Hell, all I want is corporate email. I'm considering switching to my private domain and use that exclusively. Hmmmm...
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed.
Certainly not within the framework of a for-profit company. Maybe if you went non-profit you could do it, but for-profit company's exist to make money. That doesn't exclude ethical behavior, but it makes it very difficult to enforce it. Winging it is about all you can do.
Didn't I give an example that would contradict this statement? :)
Trust is not always based on individuals. A well established company with a long history of trustworthiness and the ability to protect itself from hostile takeovers can be trustworthy. Maybe that trust eminated from the individuals, but it's become part of the company culture itself.
That's what he's trying to establish, though it can be fragile because we are dealing with people who make choices not ideals.
I'll have to check, but I swear that I gave an example -- somewhere -- that covered all this. Hmmmm...I wonder where I put it? :)
What he's looking for is how to establish and maintain ethics...not to just wing it.
I might trust you, and trust is based on individuals, though organizations can (if they have people with ethics) make the whole group more trustworthy.
One policy I heard of that worked for a 2,000 person company covered internal politics. Basically, the policy was 'muck around in internal politics and you will be fired'. The important part of this is that it was consistant and covered EVERYONE. From CEO to green entry position, and it was inforced.
The bad thing is that the company thrived because of these types of policies and was bought up by a bigger company that did not have the same concerns. A few years later, the 2,000 person division collapsed under the weight of problems such as internal politics.
LOL! Most OSS projects I've seen are very formal and well organized when compared to closed corporate ones. (Corporate meaning mostly built for internal use or for specific tasks, I take it?) This is not always the case since some closed ones are run with a high degree of riggor while some OSS is sloppy. Overall, I typically like the results -- including documentation -- that come out of OSS while I'm usually disapointed by the
In either case OSS or closed both have to deal with people and how to motivate them. OSS methods can work within a company, and I've found that if you just do something, people will use it if it suits them while if you do nothing, the status quo will not change.
This applies to both OSS and closed software. Some people thrive on appreciation, while others really don't care.
The 'scratch an itch' motivation of OSS can also motivate people, though not always to the levels that you'd expect. One project I am astounded has not gotten more help is vb2Py. Vb2Py converts Visual Basic applications into Python programs, meaning you can move your VB and Access users over to any platform Python supports -- and change out the database back end in the process. The main developer even has a web based converter to demo the program so you don't even have to set it up!
Vb2Py is something that has both geek apeal and corporate snaz, though the forums have petered out. I'd desperately like to get folks away from monolythic MS Access MDB files and toward a more reliable environment...yet, there is little real traffic on the well designed and well thought out web site. Why????
While I'm at it, also take a look at InstallBase, a very nice cross-platform GUI installation program. I'm using it now to automate a network and to slowly introduce OSS to the others on the contract.
GPS wouldn't interest me. Cameras and microphones, though, might.
Agreed. Hell, even I have my work tracked and audited regularly -- not by GPS but by memos, work performed, and errors and mistakes not found.
I don't fight it, I don't pass the blaim, though I do some CYA if the customers look hostile.
In the case of the truck drivers, they look to be happy with the current round of finger pointing and do not want the truth to come out; that some specific drivers screw up on occasion and sometimes maybe more often. I wouldn't doubt that both city and private contractors really think that they as a group would look bad if the details were known. Right now, the city doesn't know so they can't accuse individuals or groups.
This GPS system would enforce this possibility since the city would be able to say a specific plow was near the 'accident' at the 'time it occured'.
The customer(s) I work for now aren't too hostile. The final customer in the food chain is unfortunately doing a poor job of auditing, so audits are both superficial, easy to pass, and at the same time pitiful and very very annoying.
In general, the auditing the final customer performs targets the wrong thing to audit. The audits are driven by whim and politics (politics with a big and a small "P").
They do emphasise procedures and the big picture (good), though they miss the details where the big picture really is enforced.
Often, this end customer shifts focus to what the latest shiny moving object is. If I were a deceptive person, it would be simple to distract them from real problems.
They can't audit what they don't look at or know!
The GPS tracking is one way to know these types of details, though it is only one tool of many. It should be used though it will likely be abused, like any information. The lack of information now is leading to abuses now, so the trade off is probably worth it.
Thanks for the feedback. I just got back from T-day festivties, so haven't checked for responses till now.
Point taken, though you probably remember the bargain bin PC games and budget titles at $5-15. Unless a console borks or if you buy used, it's unlikely that you can get games for it in that price range. Sure, the games are often poor or simply old-tech, but they are cheap and some are quite good if not brand-spankin' new.
Are the games in the $19-25 region for a console any good? (I don't know; last console I had was an Atari!)
One benifit for consoles is that the titles released are controlled; not just anyone can whip up a CD and a box and start selling. PC game companies though can attempt to sell even if they do a horrid job, plus you have the trend of direct-to-customer sales over the net.
For personal use, KDE is quite nice. Bring on the extras and add-ons. Integrated K3B and I/O slaves for just about anything...very nice!
For business, Gnome has the edge. Commercial development licences are cheaper, desktop is simplified, more polish and fewer features (we're talking business use here). Mono (as a bonus) leans more toward Gnome.
That said, here's a link you Bash lovers must take a look at; Programmable Completion. In short, it extends normal tab completion and adds context sensitivity. Sweet!
(My karma is excellent, so don't waste mod points either way.)
Good point, though I'd prefer that in an app, pressing F1 brings up the appropriate help. Having a central repository would be nice, though most searches would be useless or cluttered (search on "preview" and get back 87 responses for 45 apps).
Agreed, though much of the public perception is that these people speak for everyone. Unfortunately, this comes from the new users who get a rush of excitement when they see what OSS can do, and are still angry at Microsoft for one reason or another. I do get frustrated when I have to deal with Microsoft products or Windows in general, though it lessens when I don't use Microsoft's products.
In the meantime, since Windows is in heavy use where I am now, I'm attempting to bring what is good with the Unix way of doing things to Windows and there are quite a few tools that patch up some of the differences. Unfortunately, you have to really dig to get anything moderately close to the tools that are as capable as what ships with most Linux distributions.
It's exactly the same as in every other "community" of sufficient size, Mac, Linux, Windows, or anything else.
True, though Windows and Mac people don't see it much.
In 2004, that trend will increase. If you've got a laptop, why not put Linux on it all by itself?
OK, some of you have your reasons, though making the jump and dealing with the problems (if any) is one way to get the ball rolling. Here are two resources to help out;
I used to think that too. I've had a rude awakening over the past couple years. The issue that defines the difference between excitement and apathy for mid-to-upper management? It's the same one that your mother used when picking out drapes or a new dress;
It's all about "pretty".
Well, pretty vs. the unspoken alternative "ugly". A close second is 'can this give me bragging rights about using "the best" most professionally accepted choice?'. Think binary; it's either yes or no, with no middle ground. Managers make decisions or they are ineffective.
It's not what we want or even see is necessary...it's what management (in a 15 minute or shorter meeting) can be convinced of. In that time, they can spot UGLY a mile away, though ugly is often confused with "unfamiliar". Keep in mind that they see "pretty" as "polished and complete" so anything that isn't pretty is not ready...and bosses don't want to mess with something that isn't ready to go. Case in point, Gnome gets quite a bit of corporate backing...because it is pretty (polished consistant from desktop to desktop and app to app) while KDE looks like an errector set. This isn't a flame, the truth is much more complex, though if you have 30 seconds to show someone both...Gnome looks more pretty.
15 - or 5 - minutes of rational talk about pros and cons will not change *anyone's mind*. Habbits and superficial issues will swamp all concerns. Even what is pretty or ugly will change from person to person, but typically not by much.
If you want people to start using OSS, use it yourself and deploy it everywhere. Are you using it for your desktop? I am. Are you using it for corporate servers? I am; ugly Bugzilla, and pretty DCL. Bugzilla serves a necessary function of a project, so it actually gets used more. I've also made a point that there is a migration path to pretty in the form of Scarab. In the meantime, I've modified Bugzilla to make it a little more pretty.
Make sure it looks normal and nice; that it looks pretty and isn't awkward. Costs less is a motivator, though pretty really does matter most. The cost and savings -- both up front savings and in the lower costs for maintenance and lost data -- are the mass of the avalanche, not the pebbles that get it moving.
Yes, and a quick search of "nsa linux" shows this, so I'm not sure how effective that anti-GPL and anti-Linux lobbying campaign was.
Wow. Even if there wasn't a no-OS option, why bother with Lindows?
I did a quick calculation of the OS cost using the MicroTel laptops on the WalMart site as a guide.
Microtel offers laptops with and without an OS. WalMart was careful not to have identical machines listed. They were very similar, though, differing mainly in the display size (14 or 15 inch) and the CPU speed (look at the ones with 1.4 and 1.5 G).
Still, there wasn't one set of laptops that were the same minus the OS difference.
Comparing the laptops that have and don't have an OS on those points (CPU and display), it turns out that the Windows XP Home option is $100. Just the OS, no apps, no extras. (It's likely an OEM version only works on specific machines and may not have a resore CD, though the WalMart site doesn't say either way. No real resale value.)
$100 is quite a bit on a sub-$1,000 laptop.
Both WalMart and the companies supplying them will make a profit, or they won't continue with the arrangement. If WalMart laptops get returned because they break or are faulty -- at least during the return period -- WalMart will loose money and the supplier will likely loose money as well.
I'm a big proponent of *not* having computers doing thinking for people, though if upper management used the tech properly and added direct feedback to the local managers, the local managers would eventually do the right thing.
It might not lead to zero appologies for missing beer or bread, though it would push the manager to deal with the true needs of his immediate customers.
That said, I'm working on small shell scripts to replace someone...so, maybe I'm just a hypocryt and an asshole. :)
We make a better DOS than DOS, and a better Windows than Windows!
So who'd bother writing for OS/2 when I can just write for Win or DOS?
I hear this a lot, though the two aren't even similar.
OS/2's main problem was IBM. Rarely did it look like IBM was serious about pushing the product and they didn't have a long term plan for it.
With Linux, there are companies falling over themselves daily to say that they are the biggest supporter. Quite a few back those words with effort and code (open or not), and a smaller set have made whole businesses based on doing something with Linux.
Then, there are people who constantly want to make Linux (or more approprately open source systems and applications) a little better.
With OS/2, IBM was the whole source of effort. Everyone else was a spectator. OS/2's whole existance depended on the strength of IBM's commitment to push it. No push, why bother getting off the sidelines?
There is no apathy surrounding Linux.
Once you have a goal, and work toward that goal, there is no "investment" (aka ego saving) in using one tool, product, or vendor over another. When something stops working for you, the choice is obvious; use it right, fix it, or replace it.
Individuals should be able to pick tools that they want, but only if the tools improve the process -- and they have to understand what that that process is!
SEI CMM, for example, is one good process that is often complained about and sometimes used as if it were a magic wand. It's not.
Like any defined process, it takes effort and consistancy. It should be held as if violating the process is a moral, ethical, failure -- kind of like lying.
One manager or even a CEO should not drop the process the moment it becomes uncomfortable or gets in the way of some agenda. Even when the process is skirted, it should be clear that doing so is the wrong thing to do, even though there are momentary benifits. The reasons for skirting the process should be clear and reasonable to everyone. Do it too much, or BS the reasons why the process was dumped, and people will see that what applies to front-line IT does not apply to management, and the front-line folks will drop the process also.
Hold people accountable, but do not use the process as a political tool. It doesn't work that way, and doing so will be seen as a cheap abusive ploy anyway.
No, it's just a game. I'd just play another if that one wasn't available.
I have a half dozen working machines and a barrels worth of parts -- what self-respecing geek doesn't? :-}
That said, installing Windows on any of them is not interesting since the lesser machines just aren't as nice as my main system. There are plenty of other games to play, even without WineX. Savage is my current favorite, though Neverwinter Nights is also up there.
Yes, though it's $5/month, so if you want to pay for part of a year WineX won't all the sudden stop working. You just don't get updates forever for $0.
One can purchase a completely legit copy of Windows 98 (mine has served me well over the last 4 odd years) for less than that. Turns out, Windows games run natively under Windows AND they work on day 0, not when some third party decides to make them work. Rad indeed! Logical...not so much.
After spending thousands over years on computer equipment, why reset a perfectly functioning machine each and every time I want to play a quick game of CivIII? That's a waste of time and a unnecessary hassle. Besides, it would take the web servervices down.
Well, of course, if you say it like that.
"Corporate policy"; no explanation why, just that you use Outlook or nothing at all. OWA was a grudging compromise, though they didn't even have it set up to allow you to change your password. That's right, you have to use Outlook on the desktop to even change your password!
Hell, all I want is corporate email. I'm considering switching to my private domain and use that exclusively. Hmmmm...