I don't use MS Office unless I have to use a customer's desktop, but I found that customers stayed with the old MS Office as long as possible. I've never talked to anyone who thought the ribbon interface was a benefit. I haven't found any articles lauding its productivity.
I personally find it more confusing and obtuse. I generally stick with basic document features, but the ribbon UI really encourages that, because I can't find advanced features anyway.
I found Gnome 3 really dropped my productivity. I stayed with it a month or so just to try to find a way to make it work, rather than abandon it because its different. I tend to have many windows open at the same time and switch between them. The switch in Gnome3 took too many steps, I could never get to where it was intuitive. I kept having to think about the desktop and stop thinking about my task.
I've tried Gnome 3 and I chose XFCE. It's not great, but it's a heap better than Gnome3. I really hated that it got harder to switch between windows. Alt-Tab would switch between apps. Now all my terminal windows were on top. I eventually figured out how to select a specific terminal window, but then every time I switch, I have to think about what I want and how to get there.
Apparently it's good design for the masses, but it's really bad design for developers.
That makes sense as to why they would target her for questioning, but shooting her laptop was very ineffective. It looks like the actions of the TSA. Lots of show but not terribly effective.
I've been out of school for a long time, but my alma mater doesn't support linux. Most of the computer services on campus are supported through old Novell servers.
Agreed, If you've provided the link to your site in the released game with the information that the source is available, then you've complied with the GPL. If you're really bothered, then donate the profits to an Open Source game development. But personally, I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game. If I don't want to pay the fee, I can grab the source and compile it for myself.
There are lots of people who choose not to exercise self-restraint on the internet, but it has thrived as a medium for years because of the self-restraint of the users.
It's not perfect, but I think his problem is that internet users don't want to pay what he wants, for what he wants to sell when he wants to sell it, so he wants them restrained (forced to pay) his way.
Think about what you would want to know if you walked into your network cold. (don't document the passwords, but make a provision for passing them on).
Don't document every detail. Point to reference material, but you shouldn't be documenting theory, just your implementation.
Also, I hate to take the pessimistic view, but based on my experience, even if you do a stellar job, there's only a small percentage chance that anyone but you will read the document. But you can sleep well at night knowing that they can figure out your handiwork (network design) from your writting if they do decide to RTFM.
So will they construct their botnet by turning personal computers that have already been compromised by malware? If the PC's already been taken over they can claim salvage rights and take it for the military's purposes?
I have a friend who said he wanted to pay for software from a vendor who had a vested interest in whether the software works. i.e. he wanted to deal with someone who had "skin in the game".
My response was that while Microsoft isn't completely disinterested in whether their software works or not, they have demonstrated over and over that their primary interest is in separating people from their money.
On the other hand, the people who develop and provide open source software are people who are using it in their own organizations. If the software doesn't work, they have much more to loose, their personal reputations and perhaps their jobs. They hav much more skin in the game than any commercial developer.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't use MS Office unless I have to use a customer's desktop, but I found that customers stayed with the old MS Office as long as possible. I've never talked to anyone who thought the ribbon interface was a benefit. I haven't found any articles lauding its productivity.
I personally find it more confusing and obtuse. I generally stick with basic document features, but the ribbon UI really encourages that, because I can't find advanced features anyway.
I found Gnome 3 really dropped my productivity. I stayed with it a month or so just to try to find a way to make it work, rather than abandon it because its different. I tend to have many windows open at the same time and switch between them. The switch in Gnome3 took too many steps, I could never get to where it was intuitive. I kept having to think about the desktop and stop thinking about my task.
I've tried Gnome 3 and I chose XFCE. It's not great, but it's a heap better than Gnome3.
I really hated that it got harder to switch between windows. Alt-Tab would switch between apps. Now all my terminal windows were on top. I eventually figured out how to select a specific terminal window, but then every time I switch, I have to think about what I want and how to get there.
Apparently it's good design for the masses, but it's really bad design for developers.
That makes sense as to why they would target her for questioning, but shooting her laptop was very ineffective. It looks like the actions of the TSA. Lots of show but not terribly effective.
This is even stranger that awarding the prize to Yasser Arafat!
I've been out of school for a long time, but my alma mater doesn't support linux. Most of the computer services on campus are supported through old Novell servers.
Agreed, If you've provided the link to your site in the released game with the information that the source is available, then you've complied with the GPL. If you're really bothered, then donate the profits to an Open Source game development. But personally, I think $2 is a perfectly reasonable fee for a decent game. If I don't want to pay the fee, I can grab the source and compile it for myself.
There are lots of people who choose not to exercise self-restraint on the internet, but it has thrived as a medium for years because of the self-restraint of the users.
It's not perfect, but I think his problem is that internet users don't want to pay what he wants, for what he wants to sell when he wants to sell it, so he wants them restrained (forced to pay) his way.
Think about what you would want to know if you walked into your network cold. (don't document the passwords, but make a provision for passing them on).
Don't document every detail. Point to reference material, but you shouldn't be documenting theory, just your implementation.
Also, I hate to take the pessimistic view, but based on my experience, even if you do a stellar job, there's only a small percentage chance that anyone but you will read the document. But you can sleep well at night knowing that they can figure out your handiwork (network design) from your writting if they do decide to RTFM.
So will they construct their botnet by turning personal computers that have already been compromised by malware? If the PC's already been taken over they can claim salvage rights and take it for the military's purposes?
Does this mean that the border guards have the right to examine any paperwork I might be carrying?
Do they have the right to open a sealed envelope for example? I don't see much difference.
Based on the resumes that I get handed from HR, I firmly believe that there's no thinking going on.
I have a friend who said he wanted to pay for software from a vendor who had a vested interest in whether the software works. i.e. he wanted to deal with someone who had "skin in the game".
My response was that while Microsoft isn't completely disinterested in whether their software works or not, they have demonstrated over and over that their primary interest is in separating people from their money.
On the other hand, the people who develop and provide open source software are people who are using it in their own organizations. If the software doesn't work, they have much more to loose, their personal reputations and perhaps their jobs. They hav much more skin in the game than any commercial developer.
Reading this article reminded me of the Star Trek episode "The Most Toys"