"No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. "
I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....
What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?
I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?
Additionally, as long as you don't really lock yourself to a AWS-specific framework or architecture, like, say, AWS Lambda, you really have little lock in. Whether is is a JEE system or a Ruby system or whatever backed by any major data store (MySQL, Postgress, Cassandra, whatever), if you are deploying on an AWS instance, you very much can do the same with a local instance using the same OS.
OTH, and I known from experience, when you work with the Oracle stack, not just the database but also any or all products built on top of its database or WebLogic, you lock yourself in architecturally very easily. Oh shit, there you go, you are now tied to say, Oracle SOA or ADF, or IDM or with WebLogic JEE extensions.
I actually like Oracle products, and having access to their support network is awesome. But I recognize the significantly devious ways in which Oracle ties you in if you are not careful (and let's face it, most developers and architects aren't.) Ergo the lock-in.
You barely see that with AWS, or even Azure. So...
"No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. "
I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....
What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?
I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?
Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?
Because most likely AWS provides a level of redundancy and failure tolerance that you will never be able to achieve. If it works for you, good for you. Stick to it. But don't pretend your requirements match the ones found in general.
But the most important reason why, the real answer to you question lies in the following decision: your infrastructure costs, do you want them to be capex or opex? Which one do you really need in order to operate, or even to get off the ground?
If you don't understand this, fine, but that means you are not even prepared to understand why people would choose the cloud. For there are more reasons other than bandwidth and throughput that a business must consider in order to operate.
Body armor that may as well have been regular clothing for all the good it did? This was a frustrating movie.
I always wondered why they even bothered to wear the body armor when it couldn't even stop their own weapons, not to mention the bugs themselves. That and the fact that none of the rifles even had sights kind of blew my mind. When you are fighting as infantry against thousands and hundreds of thousands of enemies, spraying and praying is really not the best idea. And, for a semi-fascist, military-industrial complex led society, they surprisingly had no idea of combined arms tactics. No armored vehicles, no air support, no artillery. Just lots and lots of people. It was like the WWII-era Red Army in space. The closest thing they had was the bombing run on the one planet followed up by an infantry attack, but clearly the staff officer school for the Federation military doesn't go into much detail on WWI or WWII, otherwise they would have realized that pre-attack bombardments are pretty useless against enemy combatants that are entrenched or bunkered underground.
You'd think that by this time, they'd have thousand-gigaton nukes that could penetrate deep into the ground or even better/simpler, the means to rain 1-ton balls of tungsten accelerated at, say, 10K/sec.
If you think the story of Starship Troopers was how they fought the war then you missed the point of the movies. They were meant as social commentaries.
The point of the movies were not the same as the point of the original story. They weren't about commentary but about entertainment.
The paper -- titled "On the Unhappiness of Software Developers" -- found that the top cause of unhappiness was being stuck while solving a problem, followed by "time pressure," bad code quality/coding practices, and "under-performing colleague."
Isn't that the whole nature of software. Any challenging work worth doing is going to get you blocked at some point or another, and it is one of the reasons we get paid well (compared to other professions.) If shit were easy, we would never get blocked. And then it would be the type of work anyone could do it.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way.
No. You are not the only one who feels this way. The question is, are you the type that complains and complains and complains, but never ditches the bad job? Or are you the type who looks for what he wants in a job?
What about having to do tedious and redundant work because leadership refuses to prioritize internal tooling and environment upgrades,
What about it? Life sucks. Shit sucks. You either settle and collect your paycheck, or you go to another company. Not all companies are like what you describe, so why do stay where you don't like working? Stop being a bitch. Stop complaining and change to a company that you like working for.
Have non-technicians constantly reject good ideas because they can't understand them, and don't bother trying to,
Being asked to work extra to meet arbitrary deadlines that have absolutely nothing motivating them,
Re-doing the same task three times because the stakeholders cannot make up their minds,
having to work in an open office that is full of noise, socializing, and distracting all the goddamn time while leadership just closes their office doors?
I don't know whether or not you would call these "pressing issues," but they sure make MY job suck.
Same bitching. No one owns you a dream job. Go out and seek it. Life is too short to be bitching about bad employers.
Being blocked from doing small fixes by Sarbanes-Oxley and management. But really Sarbanes Oxley.
Prior to SOX, I could see a problem- fix it, refactor the code.. etc. or see a minor improvement- implement it, refactor the code, etc.
After SOX, I had to run everything thru the team lead who had to justify it to the manager who had to justify to the director who had to justify it to the senior director who had to justify it to the Department head, who had to justify it (in a group of other changes) to the CIO.
Just the overhead meant that something which would make the code 2% better was blocked many times per year. Not worth the ROI.
And the overhead meant that improvements to the code which would make future maintenance easier were never approved any more. So the code just got harder to maintain over time.
The time constraints would also be important. I didn't really care about co-workers performance. That was between them and management.
If SOX gets in your way to fix shit so much that makes you unhappy, there is something wrong with you, you wild cowboy you (or with the organization you work for, or both.) I've worked in SOX-bound companies, and that never really got in the way to get shit done. You simply become more organized. I mean gee, what's bad about firewalling root access to production and knowing what hands touches what (which is at the root of SOX in terms of IT.)?
SOX is there for a reason, and the ability to just "fix it" is not necessarily an indication of good software engineering practices.
I've got a long list but can't be arsed to find it. Off the top of my head:
-No out parameters for functions; you have to pass values you want to return or modify through the return value or through a struct ref in the parameter list.
-No unsigned integer types. (No, Integer.divideUnsigned() and the rest do not count.)
-Date/time libraries were complete garbage up until recently.
-No goto. (I can hear you getting ready to type "B-but Dijkstra said..." Fuck Dijkstra. There's a small but valid list of cases where goto is the right tool for the job (read the Wikipedia article if you are ignorant) but Java doesn't have it like every other civilized language does.)
Java is baby-proofed language because of the rather low quality of the programmers expected to use it.
All these amount to nothing more than dogmatic statements pretending to be axiomatic. I share some of these, but as pet-peeves, nothing more. Nothing in it impedes a competent worker from using it to create quality work (this also applies to Groovy, C#, C/C++, Python and several other languages I've worked with as well.)
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
So if a police officer orders you to kill yourself, or the person next to you... you comply and then argue that in a court of law?
^^^ This. I am troubled by the amount of people in/. (and real life) that seem hell bent in defining rights as the narrow subset defined by a law (Rosa Parks would disagree with them) and/or (in the case of airline tickets) adhesion contracts that enforce an inequality of bargaining power on consumers.
It was NOT over booked, they wanted seats to transports staff.
Yes. They could have acknowledged their screw-up and raised the sum they were offering (their last offer was, what, $800?), provided an alternative means of transportation, or whatever.
Yeah, that may have appeared expensive, but I hope that it will appear cheap compared to the costs of this case.
United ordering him to leave his seat may have been against their own, or FAA, regulations. He has a point there. He could argue to his hearts content to the attendant, pilot, boarding agent, whomever.
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
Yes, he would have since he would have "complied" with what is, in essence, an adhesion contract clause (that he can get bumped out if the airline overbooked.)
The greatest problem for UA in this case is that they decided to bump people already seated.
Airlines typically bump out people that aren't boarded yet, then by cheapest ticket fare, leaving disabled and people with children for last. Airlines would typically offer money upfront (not just a ticket) to get someone to volunteer. Keep rising the size of the carrot until someone willingly takes it (it is always cheaper than *this*.)
This both a moral and a financial fuck up by UA no matter how you cut it.
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Imagine if the car industry operated this way. You buy a car, but when you go to pick it up, eh sorry, we sold it to someone else. Whether it is is legal or not by the airline industry is irrelevant to the more profound and important question: is it right? A contract is a contract, and that the fact that airlines have the power to force an overbooking clause in a ticket sale contract turns it into an "addition contract" that enforces an inequality in bargaining power for the other party (the consumer base.)
Protesting and causing stocks to dive is the only way for the customer base to address that contract inequality in general, and this specific violation of human dignity in particular.
Java8 for Scala is like a needle compared to a sword. If you want a needle...
I've been using java this year, but it was C#/c++ mostly previously. The biggest things I want are:
1. pass by reference (yah, probably not happening, but if I can choose only one, I'd take it.)
WHAAAAAT? Except for primitive types, everything is a reference (not close, but quite comparable to a C++ reference type). In Java, yes, you pass by copy, but since most things are references, then you are in effect passing by reference (for everything but primitives, and you seldom pass primitives in quantities enough to experience problems for passing them by value.)
I love how You have to fight the language to make something half-usable, and even then You can only use this within the context of self-created functions.
Also, for complex types (You know, when it actually makes sense to pass by reference, and not copy), a java array of such elements is unlike a C array -- it's an array of references to objects, instead of an array of objects. This means that any access to the object requires a double dereference.
Just stop.
No. It's a reference to an array of references to objects. Except for primitive types, everything is a reference in Java.
That's really effing low for a metro area like SV.
There are level-entry tech jobs that start off at minimum wage ($10 per hour).
I cannot imagine anything less than $40 for IT (or less than $20/25 hour for office work.) That's just nuts!
For the nation wide project I'm working on, all the system admins are getting paid $25 per hour and computer engineers get $40 per hour. Doesn't matter where you live. So the people who telecommute from the hills are making out like bandits. However, I'm halfway through a five-year contract, I get full benefit package with month of PTO (Paid Time Off), and last year I got an extra month of pay as a Christmas bonus
Holy shit, that's bad. Honestly, I haven't see wages that bad in IT since the early 90's. And I thought we had it bad in South Florida.
Lack of privacy, having to pack up your things when you need to go to the bathroom or skip out for half an hour for lunch (and drag it all with you), not having your own peripherals (printer/scanner/large 2nd screen)... you might as well put the money towards a real home office.
What next - bean counters saying "You're all being moved to work bars and we'll save SOOO much money"?
It's call compromise. Some people need to make the compromise. Others do not. And no, sometimes you do not want to have a home office.
Say you are stuck with a 20-year lease on a big-box retail store for a commodity product that everyone just buys online now. You pay $1/square foot for the space. You realize that you could convert 10-20,000 square feet of non-performing space into something that has a value of $2.5-3.5/square foot, plus offers some follow-on benefit to the remaining store.
Do you like money?
This. This is similar to Walmart turning closed warehouses into data centers. People treat smart business like the work of the devil or some shit like that.
The studies focus on private offices vs open plan offices. The AC was talking about cubes vs open plan, and was saying that cubes are no substitute for a proper private office.
Nothing is a substitute for private offices, but in 23 years of doing this IT/software rodeo, I've never seen developers with private offices, just cubicles. Private offices are for leads, front-line managers and up (and for good reason because private offices are damn prohibitively expensive to give to every damned developer.)
Obviously you didn't RTFA or you would have seen the picture. It's exactly what they're talking about. Paying $130 a month as a "member" so you can sit at a table and work in the open.
Which is a good option if you are freelancing or telecommuting with remote employers/clients and do not want to work from home. Another alternative is to rent an office space (which in some areas it might be as cheap as this offering.)
The fact that it doesn't work for you does not make the notion idiotic (or that you are a genius for not liking it.)
This is in a Staples store. Do you really want to work on your stuff at an open table in a Staples store?
I would depending on the circumstances. I've done telecommuting/freelancing work, and with noisy kids at home, sometimes going to the library or renting a room at a dunking donuts is an option. A co-working space is a good option for many situations.
Slashdot Mirror
"No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. " I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....
What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?
I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?
Additionally, as long as you don't really lock yourself to a AWS-specific framework or architecture, like, say, AWS Lambda, you really have little lock in. Whether is is a JEE system or a Ruby system or whatever backed by any major data store (MySQL, Postgress, Cassandra, whatever), if you are deploying on an AWS instance, you very much can do the same with a local instance using the same OS.
OTH, and I known from experience, when you work with the Oracle stack, not just the database but also any or all products built on top of its database or WebLogic, you lock yourself in architecturally very easily. Oh shit, there you go, you are now tied to say, Oracle SOA or ADF, or IDM or with WebLogic JEE extensions.
I actually like Oracle products, and having access to their support network is awesome. But I recognize the significantly devious ways in which Oracle ties you in if you are not careful (and let's face it, most developers and architects aren't.) Ergo the lock-in.
You barely see that with AWS, or even Azure. So...
"No longer does the process involve the purchase of heavy proprietary software with multi-year contracts that include annual maintenance fees. " I guess the two sides really don't know how each other works....
What does AWS have to do with Prime? And what type of license lock-in do they have that compares to Oracle's? You can cancel anyone at any time almost without penalty (other than forfeiting a refund if you cancel before your contract), nor do you have a pervasive multi-thousand-dollar per-core license lock-in with either, do you?
I've worked in multiple Oracle shops, so I know what that lock-in entails. With that comparison of yours, I don't you know what you are talking about?
Me: I don't want your clouds, why should I waste my bandwidth and endure slow access times when I can store my files and my backups locally?
Because most likely AWS provides a level of redundancy and failure tolerance that you will never be able to achieve. If it works for you, good for you. Stick to it. But don't pretend your requirements match the ones found in general.
But the most important reason why, the real answer to you question lies in the following decision: your infrastructure costs, do you want them to be capex or opex? Which one do you really need in order to operate, or even to get off the ground?
If you don't understand this, fine, but that means you are not even prepared to understand why people would choose the cloud. For there are more reasons other than bandwidth and throughput that a business must consider in order to operate.
Body armor that may as well have been regular clothing for all the good it did? This was a frustrating movie.
I always wondered why they even bothered to wear the body armor when it couldn't even stop their own weapons, not to mention the bugs themselves. That and the fact that none of the rifles even had sights kind of blew my mind. When you are fighting as infantry against thousands and hundreds of thousands of enemies, spraying and praying is really not the best idea. And, for a semi-fascist, military-industrial complex led society, they surprisingly had no idea of combined arms tactics. No armored vehicles, no air support, no artillery. Just lots and lots of people. It was like the WWII-era Red Army in space. The closest thing they had was the bombing run on the one planet followed up by an infantry attack, but clearly the staff officer school for the Federation military doesn't go into much detail on WWI or WWII, otherwise they would have realized that pre-attack bombardments are pretty useless against enemy combatants that are entrenched or bunkered underground.
You'd think that by this time, they'd have thousand-gigaton nukes that could penetrate deep into the ground or even better/simpler, the means to rain 1-ton balls of tungsten accelerated at, say, 10K/sec.
If you think the story of Starship Troopers was how they fought the war then you missed the point of the movies. They were meant as social commentaries.
The point of the movies were not the same as the point of the original story. They weren't about commentary but about entertainment.
The paper -- titled "On the Unhappiness of Software Developers" -- found that the top cause of unhappiness was being stuck while solving a problem, followed by "time pressure," bad code quality/coding practices, and "under-performing colleague."
Isn't that the whole nature of software. Any challenging work worth doing is going to get you blocked at some point or another, and it is one of the reasons we get paid well (compared to other professions.) If shit were easy, we would never get blocked. And then it would be the type of work anyone could do it.
Honestly, me no get it.
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way.
No. You are not the only one who feels this way. The question is, are you the type that complains and complains and complains, but never ditches the bad job? Or are you the type who looks for what he wants in a job?
What about having to do tedious and redundant work because leadership refuses to prioritize internal tooling and environment upgrades,
What about it? Life sucks. Shit sucks. You either settle and collect your paycheck, or you go to another company. Not all companies are like what you describe, so why do stay where you don't like working? Stop being a bitch. Stop complaining and change to a company that you like working for.
Have non-technicians constantly reject good ideas because they can't understand them, and don't bother trying to,
Being asked to work extra to meet arbitrary deadlines that have absolutely nothing motivating them,
Re-doing the same task three times because the stakeholders cannot make up their minds,
having to work in an open office that is full of noise, socializing, and distracting all the goddamn time while leadership just closes their office doors?
I don't know whether or not you would call these "pressing issues," but they sure make MY job suck.
Same bitching. No one owns you a dream job. Go out and seek it. Life is too short to be bitching about bad employers.
Being blocked from doing small fixes by Sarbanes-Oxley and management. But really Sarbanes Oxley.
Prior to SOX, I could see a problem- fix it, refactor the code.. etc. or see a minor improvement- implement it, refactor the code, etc.
After SOX, I had to run everything thru the team lead who had to justify it to the manager who had to justify to the director who had to justify it to the senior director who had to justify it to the Department head, who had to justify it (in a group of other changes) to the CIO.
Just the overhead meant that something which would make the code 2% better was blocked many times per year. Not worth the ROI.
And the overhead meant that improvements to the code which would make future maintenance easier were never approved any more. So the code just got harder to maintain over time.
The time constraints would also be important. I didn't really care about co-workers performance. That was between them and management.
If SOX gets in your way to fix shit so much that makes you unhappy, there is something wrong with you, you wild cowboy you (or with the organization you work for, or both.) I've worked in SOX-bound companies, and that never really got in the way to get shit done. You simply become more organized. I mean gee, what's bad about firewalling root access to production and knowing what hands touches what (which is at the root of SOX in terms of IT.)?
SOX is there for a reason, and the ability to just "fix it" is not necessarily an indication of good software engineering practices.
I have a PhD in CS and have coded in many many languages.
In other words, "I have worked a lot in fake environments in many languages".
Your ego must be very fragile to be trigger like this.
You got a PhD in part because of a language that is controversial, and you consider that a win? The value of a CS PhD just dropped a few points.
That's not what he said, but obviously, it is your right to put words into his mouth. Keep banging that strawman, I don't judge.
I've got a long list but can't be arsed to find it. Off the top of my head:
-No out parameters for functions; you have to pass values you want to return or modify through the return value or through a struct ref in the parameter list. -No unsigned integer types. (No, Integer.divideUnsigned() and the rest do not count.) -Date/time libraries were complete garbage up until recently. -No goto. (I can hear you getting ready to type "B-but Dijkstra said..." Fuck Dijkstra. There's a small but valid list of cases where goto is the right tool for the job (read the Wikipedia article if you are ignorant) but Java doesn't have it like every other civilized language does.)
Java is baby-proofed language because of the rather low quality of the programmers expected to use it.
All these amount to nothing more than dogmatic statements pretending to be axiomatic. I share some of these, but as pet-peeves, nothing more. Nothing in it impedes a competent worker from using it to create quality work (this also applies to Groovy, C#, C/C++, Python and several other languages I've worked with as well.)
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
So if a police officer orders you to kill yourself, or the person next to you ... you comply and then argue that in a court of law?
^^^ This. I am troubled by the amount of people in /. (and real life) that seem hell bent in defining rights as the narrow subset defined by a law (Rosa Parks would disagree with them) and/or (in the case of airline tickets) adhesion contracts that enforce an inequality of bargaining power on consumers.
It was NOT over booked, they wanted seats to transports staff.
Yes. They could have acknowledged their screw-up and raised the sum they were offering (their last offer was, what, $800?), provided an alternative means of transportation, or whatever.
Yeah, that may have appeared expensive, but I hope that it will appear cheap compared to the costs of this case.
^^^ Finally a thread chain that gets it.
United ordering him to leave his seat may have been against their own, or FAA, regulations. He has a point there. He could argue to his hearts content to the attendant, pilot, boarding agent, whomever.
Not doing what a police officer orders? At that point it doesn't matter - you have to comply. The place to argue an unlawful police order is a court of law.
Rosa Parks disagree with you.
On what do you base the claim that, if he had cooperated with the demand he leave the plane, that he would have been incapable of filing a lawsuit later on?
Yes, he would have since he would have "complied" with what is, in essence, an adhesion contract clause (that he can get bumped out if the airline overbooked.)
The greatest problem for UA in this case is that they decided to bump people already seated.
Airlines typically bump out people that aren't boarded yet, then by cheapest ticket fare, leaving disabled and people with children for last. Airlines would typically offer money upfront (not just a ticket) to get someone to volunteer. Keep rising the size of the carrot until someone willingly takes it (it is always cheaper than *this*.)
This both a moral and a financial fuck up by UA no matter how you cut it.
I'm not sure about this. You seem to be suggesting that he should have yielded to authoritarianism without being able to state his case.
This isn't authoritarianism any more than having a post deleted on a web forum by a moderator is authoritarianism. Aircraft owned by airlines are in fact private property.
Are United assholes for doing this? Yep, but don't try to confuse the issue.
Imagine if the car industry operated this way. You buy a car, but when you go to pick it up, eh sorry, we sold it to someone else. Whether it is is legal or not by the airline industry is irrelevant to the more profound and important question: is it right? A contract is a contract, and that the fact that airlines have the power to force an overbooking clause in a ticket sale contract turns it into an "addition contract" that enforces an inequality in bargaining power for the other party (the consumer base.)
Protesting and causing stocks to dive is the only way for the customer base to address that contract inequality in general, and this specific violation of human dignity in particular.
The commission includes researchers, it doesn't do scientific research.
Because unless they are in a lab wearing white coats, they are not. Got it.
Java8 for Scala is like a needle compared to a sword. If you want a needle...
I've been using java this year, but it was C#/c++ mostly previously. The biggest things I want are:
1. pass by reference (yah, probably not happening, but if I can choose only one, I'd take it.)
WHAAAAAT? Except for primitive types, everything is a reference (not close, but quite comparable to a C++ reference type). In Java, yes, you pass by copy, but since most things are references, then you are in effect passing by reference (for everything but primitives, and you seldom pass primitives in quantities enough to experience problems for passing them by value.)
I love how You have to fight the language to make something half-usable, and even then You can only use this within the context of self-created functions. Also, for complex types (You know, when it actually makes sense to pass by reference, and not copy), a java array of such elements is unlike a C array -- it's an array of references to objects, instead of an array of objects. This means that any access to the object requires a double dereference. Just stop.
No. It's a reference to an array of references to objects. Except for primitive types, everything is a reference in Java.
That's really effing low for a metro area like SV.
There are level-entry tech jobs that start off at minimum wage ($10 per hour).
I cannot imagine anything less than $40 for IT (or less than $20/25 hour for office work.) That's just nuts!
For the nation wide project I'm working on, all the system admins are getting paid $25 per hour and computer engineers get $40 per hour. Doesn't matter where you live. So the people who telecommute from the hills are making out like bandits. However, I'm halfway through a five-year contract, I get full benefit package with month of PTO (Paid Time Off), and last year I got an extra month of pay as a Christmas bonus
Holy shit, that's bad. Honestly, I haven't see wages that bad in IT since the early 90's. And I thought we had it bad in South Florida.
Lack of privacy, having to pack up your things when you need to go to the bathroom or skip out for half an hour for lunch (and drag it all with you), not having your own peripherals (printer/scanner/large 2nd screen) ... you might as well put the money towards a real home office.
What next - bean counters saying "You're all being moved to work bars and we'll save SOOO much money"?
It's call compromise. Some people need to make the compromise. Others do not. And no, sometimes you do not want to have a home office.
Say you are stuck with a 20-year lease on a big-box retail store for a commodity product that everyone just buys online now. You pay $1/square foot for the space. You realize that you could convert 10-20,000 square feet of non-performing space into something that has a value of $2.5-3.5/square foot, plus offers some follow-on benefit to the remaining store. Do you like money?
This. This is similar to Walmart turning closed warehouses into data centers. People treat smart business like the work of the devil or some shit like that.
The studies focus on private offices vs open plan offices. The AC was talking about cubes vs open plan, and was saying that cubes are no substitute for a proper private office.
Nothing is a substitute for private offices, but in 23 years of doing this IT/software rodeo, I've never seen developers with private offices, just cubicles. Private offices are for leads, front-line managers and up (and for good reason because private offices are damn prohibitively expensive to give to every damned developer.)
Obviously you didn't RTFA or you would have seen the picture. It's exactly what they're talking about. Paying $130 a month as a "member" so you can sit at a table and work in the open.
Which is a good option if you are freelancing or telecommuting with remote employers/clients and do not want to work from home. Another alternative is to rent an office space (which in some areas it might be as cheap as this offering.)
The fact that it doesn't work for you does not make the notion idiotic (or that you are a genius for not liking it.)
This is in a Staples store. Do you really want to work on your stuff at an open table in a Staples store?
I would depending on the circumstances. I've done telecommuting/freelancing work, and with noisy kids at home, sometimes going to the library or renting a room at a dunking donuts is an option. A co-working space is a good option for many situations.
Shit ain't just black and white. News at 11.