For me it was one of several things I miss from better window managers, others being generic "always on top" switch and Mod+drag to move/resize.
<sidetracked>"Always on top" can be easily solved with miscellaneous third-party soft, but is there a way to repurpose, say, right win key for moving/resizing windows on drag? I still haven't found one, sadly.</sidetracked>
a) "Bosses who screw over their employess", "Bosses who pirate software" and "Bosses reported to BSA" are three intersecting sets, not the same set.
b) It's not too difficult for a disgruntled ex-employee to put something unlicensed somewhere on company's system before going to BSA. Just gotta be careful not to get found out.
c) And even when there's no licensing problems, BSA audit is one hell of a hassle.
... Or just stick your portable device in a Thunderbolt-based dock station with powerful GPU on board connected to 23" monitor and an HDD.
Then you'll just need to solve the problem with people walking out with confidential information, overpricing (a desktop with computing power on par with $600 phone costs about $200-300 now) and, overarching these two, people accidentally dropping their phones.
No, I complain that my startup building them new-fangled internal combustion engine carriages ran out of money to finish the engine, because engineers had to invent square wheels and catenary roads to work around a patent on round wheel.
There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
Let's take that invalidated electronic sales catalog patent for example.
So you want build a retailer software suite, and then you suddenly find out that you can't implement obvious part of it in obvious way without either going to court or paying up for a license, or you have to swallow it and do meaningless modifications to already obvious process. Whichever way you choose, thanks to patent office misjudgement and patent law, you have to redirect resources that could have gone in other parts of system to fix things that weren't broken in the first place.
No, "they have to come up with something new" doesn't mean that if someone would patent the wheel we'd have antigrav chassis by now, we'd only have wheels of all the fun shapes for our horse carriages.
"Satisfies"? Responded to law enforcement requests != sold. Your trolling lacks quality, couldn't you google for some more matching headlines, at least?
The only place word "sells" is mentioned in that article is that sensationalist headline. It speaks about law enforcement related requests - surely only Google complies to those. Please do try harder next time.
Oops, I accidentally a word. But it's covered by claim c) from that patent that extends method from claim (b) to allow reconstruction of lacking information based on surrounding context.
Look, kid, it's nice to call other "kids", but when you're trying to discuss patents and can't even read patent description and claims to recognize an obvious hoax, you pretty much lose all credibility.
If you wish, I might license you my patent on a system comprising a network of electrically and chemically cells and method of compartmentalizing, connecting and exciting the network from claim (a) in ways facilitating cognitive processes. You really could use it.
Translation: "Oh, shiat, I didn't think you'd actually check on what I pulled from my ass."
Yes, I pulled a patent on any kinds of printed/displayed text out of my ass and you was sufficiently dumb to go and try searching for it in USPTO database. You'll make an excellent patent examiner.
Not really. It already expired. And it's also not "just an electronic sales catalog", since it can do part association, which a regular sales catalog can't.
Before it expired, it was used to try and sue a bunch of firms, until the judge said that it's obvious. But yes, since you don't see it as obvious, even it is, I can just repeat you'd make a great patent examiner.
...
Oh, dang it, it's all too stupid to quote it by parts. You fail not only basic logic, but also basic reading comprehension and basic literary devices.
No, I didn't claim existence of mythical patent on reading, it was a hyperbole of an obvious patent. No, I didn't claim patented technology is denied to the world, I claimed that allegedly using patented technology for _new_ products deny said new products, which you failed to read and comprehend (really, I should get a patent on that EMR thing and license it to patent examiner material like you). No, not all patent owner are producing the products, but they still sue alleged infringers allegedly using said alleged patents in their alleged new products. That's what we call "patent troll".
Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
You just missed that *whoosh* when packets of electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by your display device went over your head. Case in point, with sufficient obfuscation and sufficiently dumb patent examiners you can patent something like this (spoiler: it's just electronic sales catalog). Best part is that to make such patent void you need to have a lot of money and free time for courts.
The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it.
Err, no, you still fail basic logic. a) Producing already patented technology != advancement, b) When (claimed to be) patented technology is a part of new device, _whole_ new device gets locked away, if start-up doesn't have money and will to defend it in court, c) You might want to read on concept of patent troll.
[Basic logic needed] A tech start-up stopped by patent on "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation... claim x) wherein EMR is in 400-700 THz frequency range... claim x) wherein EMR is emitted by device... claim x) wherein EMR is reflected by device" == one less piece of technology in the world.
You seem to be mistaking stifle `(1) (transitive) To interrupt or cut off` with stifle `(2) (transitive) To repress, keep in or hold back.`
And no, nowhere in my post were words like "exponentially" or "absent". I'm pretty sure all the lawsuit frenzy shows that current patent laws do hold back (which is stifle(2)) the technology.
When you'll be able to run your own cloud, that will be a job opening for someone responsible for running that cloud.
Needs for most maintenance, tweaks and support come from user side, not server side. Moving things with stable requirements and no user interaction, like e-mail and storage, to the cloud is a no-brainer and can save a lot on set up and maintenance, moving user facing stuff up there can reduce costs on hardware and its upkeep, but not so much on support.
If "all their work" is testing software - yes, VM is a way to go. If there's some other often occuring scenario where they need admin on their box, then it's something that can be discussed by dev management with IT management to find a way, applying net restrictions to the unchecked machine and so on.
Saying "oh, screw y'all with your requests, do whatever" and firing up a GPO to add Developers to Local Administrators isn't a way to go.
Yes, because only people IT supports is devs, and that guy had "developer" written all over him. He asked a generic why, I gave a generic because, as it applies in most cases.
I'm aware Windows 7 is not just DWM and Aero, but generic "I want Windows 7" doesn't lead anywhere. "I want Windows 7 because..." might.
Let me clear that up a bit: the problem is you mistook this for "we won't do that", when it's usually "we don't have money to do that".
It is already "choose the most important two" usually, but departments get almost no control over which two and whose two will be done from the limited IT budget, it's mostly decided by who pleads to CxO's louder.
Your analogy is broken. You want _more and new_ service, but you want to pay _same_? Do you also tell cleaner "I want you to also clean windows and scrub walls from now on" and reception "You should not just forward those calls to me, you should get me some sales while you're at it"?
Sorry, but none of those things come for free, and money have to come from somewhere - it doesn't matter whether it's your dept budget or it's single IT budget per company. GP's option could even be better for you, as IT is usually underfunded and might run out of funds even before they get to "the most important two", and your section won't be able to do anything even when it has excess budget.
Well, "everything" which will have to pass through admin in this case probably should be just as I said: "We need a VM to test those nightlies without occasionally fucking up hardware, production servers and LAN in progress".
Original discussion was "why devs need elevated local privileges".
Rename yourself to "New and Better IT We Don't Hate", for a start, probably. I wish you luck.
Supporting IT in education is such a fun stuff I won't ever touch with a 12-feet pole anymore. While in any industry IT is a productivity tool, in education it still seems to be in "expensive toys" category. Trying to push any idea to the old geezers in charge of material things there is like trying to push a pin in a concrete wall.
Slashdot Mirror
For me it was one of several things I miss from better window managers, others being generic "always on top" switch and Mod+drag to move/resize.
<sidetracked>"Always on top" can be easily solved with miscellaneous third-party soft, but is there a way to repurpose, say, right win key for moving/resizing windows on drag? I still haven't found one, sadly.</sidetracked>
a) "Bosses who screw over their employess", "Bosses who pirate software" and "Bosses reported to BSA" are three intersecting sets, not the same set.
b) It's not too difficult for a disgruntled ex-employee to put something unlicensed somewhere on company's system before going to BSA. Just gotta be careful not to get found out.
c) And even when there's no licensing problems, BSA audit is one hell of a hassle.
... Or just stick your portable device in a Thunderbolt-based dock station with powerful GPU on board connected to 23" monitor and an HDD.
Then you'll just need to solve the problem with people walking out with confidential information, overpricing (a desktop with computing power on par with $600 phone costs about $200-300 now) and, overarching these two, people accidentally dropping their phones.
No, I complain that my startup building them new-fangled internal combustion engine carriages ran out of money to finish the engine, because engineers had to invent square wheels and catenary roads to work around a patent on round wheel.
And that's why startups shouldn't be forced to invent a hundred shapes of wheel.
Because it's not in source code releases by Google, it's a third party app installed by carriers.
There are finite resources that can be spared on R&D.
Let's take that invalidated electronic sales catalog patent for example.
So you want build a retailer software suite, and then you suddenly find out that you can't implement obvious part of it in obvious way without either going to court or paying up for a license, or you have to swallow it and do meaningless modifications to already obvious process. Whichever way you choose, thanks to patent office misjudgement and patent law, you have to redirect resources that could have gone in other parts of system to fix things that weren't broken in the first place.
No, "they have to come up with something new" doesn't mean that if someone would patent the wheel we'd have antigrav chassis by now, we'd only have wheels of all the fun shapes for our horse carriages.
"Satisfies"? Responded to law enforcement requests != sold. Your trolling lacks quality, couldn't you google for some more matching headlines, at least?
Depending on the device, it can be as simple as plugging in the USB and double-clicking the batch file.
The only place word "sells" is mentioned in that article is that sensationalist headline. It speaks about law enforcement related requests - surely only Google complies to those. Please do try harder next time.
Oops, I accidentally a word. But it's covered by claim c) from that patent that extends method from claim (b) to allow reconstruction of lacking information based on surrounding context.
Look, kid, it's nice to call other "kids", but when you're trying to discuss patents and can't even read patent description and claims to recognize an obvious hoax, you pretty much lose all credibility.
If you wish, I might license you my patent on a system comprising a network of electrically and chemically cells and method of compartmentalizing, connecting and exciting the network from claim (a) in ways facilitating cognitive processes. You really could use it.
Translation: "Oh, shiat, I didn't think you'd actually check on what I pulled from my ass."
Yes, I pulled a patent on any kinds of printed/displayed text out of my ass and you was sufficiently dumb to go and try searching for it in USPTO database. You'll make an excellent patent examiner.
Not really. It already expired. And it's also not "just an electronic sales catalog", since it can do part association, which a regular sales catalog can't.
Before it expired, it was used to try and sue a bunch of firms, until the judge said that it's obvious. But yes, since you don't see it as obvious, even it is, I can just repeat you'd make a great patent examiner.
...
Oh, dang it, it's all too stupid to quote it by parts. You fail not only basic logic, but also basic reading comprehension and basic literary devices.
No, I didn't claim existence of mythical patent on reading, it was a hyperbole of an obvious patent. No, I didn't claim patented technology is denied to the world, I claimed that allegedly using patented technology for _new_ products deny said new products, which you failed to read and comprehend (really, I should get a patent on that EMR thing and license it to patent examiner material like you). No, not all patent owner are producing the products, but they still sue alleged infringers allegedly using said alleged patents in their alleged new products. That's what we call "patent troll".
Google Patents says "No results found for "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation"." How about some real evidence rather than what you've made up?
You just missed that *whoosh* when packets of electromagnetic radiation emitted/reflected by your display device went over your head. Case in point, with sufficient obfuscation and sufficiently dumb patent examiners you can patent something like this (spoiler: it's just electronic sales catalog). Best part is that to make such patent void you need to have a lot of money and free time for courts.
The fact that a patent owned by a company stops an infringer doesn't mean that the patented techology doesn't exist in the world. In fact, it's highly likely that the patent owner or a licensee makes it.
Err, no, you still fail basic logic. a) Producing already patented technology != advancement, b) When (claimed to be) patented technology is a part of new device, _whole_ new device gets locked away, if start-up doesn't have money and will to defend it in court, c) You might want to read on concept of patent troll.
[Basic logic needed] A tech start-up stopped by patent on "method for conveying textual information using electromagnetic radiation ... claim x) wherein EMR is in 400-700 THz frequency range ... claim x) wherein EMR is emitted by device ... claim x) wherein EMR is reflected by device" == one less piece of technology in the world.
You seem to be mistaking stifle `(1) (transitive) To interrupt or cut off` with stifle `(2) (transitive) To repress, keep in or hold back.`
And no, nowhere in my post were words like "exponentially" or "absent". I'm pretty sure all the lawsuit frenzy shows that current patent laws do hold back (which is stifle(2)) the technology.
it seems to disregard the stunning advances we've had over the past two decades.
Are those stunning advances due to or in spite of patents?
When you'll be able to run your own cloud, that will be a job opening for someone responsible for running that cloud.
Needs for most maintenance, tweaks and support come from user side, not server side. Moving things with stable requirements and no user interaction, like e-mail and storage, to the cloud is a no-brainer and can save a lot on set up and maintenance, moving user facing stuff up there can reduce costs on hardware and its upkeep, but not so much on support.
If "all their work" is testing software - yes, VM is a way to go. If there's some other often occuring scenario where they need admin on their box, then it's something that can be discussed by dev management with IT management to find a way, applying net restrictions to the unchecked machine and so on.
Saying "oh, screw y'all with your requests, do whatever" and firing up a GPO to add Developers to Local Administrators isn't a way to go.
Yes, because only people IT supports is devs, and that guy had "developer" written all over him. He asked a generic why, I gave a generic because, as it applies in most cases.
I'm aware Windows 7 is not just DWM and Aero, but generic "I want Windows 7" doesn't lead anywhere. "I want Windows 7 because ..." might.
Let me clear that up a bit: the problem is you mistook this for "we won't do that", when it's usually "we don't have money to do that".
It is already "choose the most important two" usually, but departments get almost no control over which two and whose two will be done from the limited IT budget, it's mostly decided by who pleads to CxO's louder.
Your analogy is broken. You want _more and new_ service, but you want to pay _same_? Do you also tell cleaner "I want you to also clean windows and scrub walls from now on" and reception "You should not just forward those calls to me, you should get me some sales while you're at it"?
Sorry, but none of those things come for free, and money have to come from somewhere - it doesn't matter whether it's your dept budget or it's single IT budget per company. GP's option could even be better for you, as IT is usually underfunded and might run out of funds even before they get to "the most important two", and your section won't be able to do anything even when it has excess budget.
Well, "everything" which will have to pass through admin in this case probably should be just as I said: "We need a VM to test those nightlies without occasionally fucking up hardware, production servers and LAN in progress".
Original discussion was "why devs need elevated local privileges".
What do you propose I do? Wait for them?
Rename yourself to "New and Better IT We Don't Hate", for a start, probably. I wish you luck.
Supporting IT in education is such a fun stuff I won't ever touch with a 12-feet pole anymore. While in any industry IT is a productivity tool, in education it still seems to be in "expensive toys" category. Trying to push any idea to the old geezers in charge of material things there is like trying to push a pin in a concrete wall.
As his bosses deemed it plausible and agreed it's worth a try (unless they didn't), they'll get this question first.
As the proponent he'd still be responsible to some degree, but it's management's job to evaluate proposals like this and take/don't take the risks.