The real idiocy here was the fact that there was some idiot executive that insisted that the wheel be reinvented. They let hatered of Google get in the way of day-to-day business here. They could of made sure the google maps were easy to use on their devices and spent the effort coming up with something that Android doesn't do instead.
They had no control over the maps app from google, nor on google's terms for use of google's maps API. There was no way to get key features (turn-by-turn directions) without meeting google's demands (for more user data).
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
Whoooosh...
That was the sound of sarcasm flying by your head;-)
Okay.. but an installer that says, select the components to install... (oh crap, the RDBMS runs on Linux)... Oh noes, the Front end runs in Windows... Now you need to interface with AD... Creating installers for all these pieces for a system that only gets installed for a hundred or fewer instances or upgraded less than that a year is a waste of energy vs. using a fraction of that time to simple document well. The more pieces that are running on different servers/systems the more complex the install... Also, if you're using 3rd party software, be it Oracle, MS-SQL, or Postgres, automating the settings needed for said install are problematic.
The solution I am working on right now involves connecting to MS-SQL, RabbitMQ, and MongoDB. It's utilizing IIS, Node.js, as well as.Net... you're suggesting I should go back and create installers for this system that is only running in one production environment, and a handful of stage/dev environments? Really? Even if it were installed a few dozen times a year, it wouldn't justify the cost of automating that process, vs. a checklist.
1) How good is your checklist? If it actually works, you're already not on my shit list;-) The article referenced involved multiple steps that were documented that did not work.
2) You're not denying that an installer could be built. You're saying that you understand what it would take, and that it would likely be more effort than just going through the manual process. (And you don't even mention estimation risk--you really know how long it takes to do the manual install, but you can only estimate the project of building the installer.) The post to which I responded claimed it couldn't be done.
3) You seem to be talking about an in-house system, since you talk about running in one environment. The post to which I responded seemed to be talking about a commercial product ("...I manage a product line..."), which is an altogether different story. Not only do developers of expensive products owe decent installers to their paying customers, but in your case the people responsible for the manual installation were involved in the development of the solution and so start with a much greater understanding of the pieces than the poor customers of that poster's company.
I would assume that the database itself probably does have its own installer. I think the issue is that it needs to be configured, probably based off the clients need and their existing systems.
Sure, and installer builders allow you to insert an existing installer into the installer you're building.
I think what the person was trying to get at is that installers make sense for individual tools and applications, but once you start getting into entire systems or stacks the idea of having an 'installer' increasingly becomes nonsensical since there is less and less generalizable behavior.
He seemed to be justifying having large sections without an installer at all. Having more than one installer is not outrageous, though likely unnecessary. Having to fill in some info during install is not outrageous, though easy to overdo. But the whole language ("not packaged at all", "cannot be distributed", "XML files edited") of that original post seems to scream: LAZY BASTARD JUST DOES NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED!
What installer can set up databases on other machines?
They can all run scripts. Just because there's not a checkbox labeled "set up our database on the other machine" doesn't mean it can't be done--at least if you're not a lazy bastard.
Or, the easier approach, an installer for each part on each machine. There's really not an excuse for not considering that.
I agree. By thinking about installation when creating complex enterprise software, you end up making better quality software. When you're forced to handle the inter-dependencies of complex systems in an installation process, you end up having a better handle on how everything interacts. This has been my experience at least.
Absolutely true. I didn't even bother going there in my response, because I figured it was pointless when someone was actually claiming "enterprizey software is simply too complex for installers". Sigh. As usual, the creators of the problems are blind to the problems...
Bullshit. There's not one thing in your list that cannot be handled with an installer. You just don't care to automate the process, and are making up excuses to justify that after the fact.
That reminds me a recent exchange I had with Google...
My experience was the opposite. I was contacted by someone who had definitely read my resume, and was asking for someone with (some of) my skills to work on the kind of stuff that I like. (I wasn't in a situation where I could actually consider working for them--but it was refreshing anyway to get a cold contact that was so appropriate.)
...here's their problem: there has been a breakdown of communication, and their formalized hiring processes, excessive HR, and outsourced employee sourcing (you know, headhunters) are at the root of the problem.
I've often suggested home folder only encryption... but the higher ups want it all encrypted...
And they're absolutely correct. A laptop gets stolen that contains information which you are legally obligated to keep confidential, and you are threatened with a lawsuit over the breach of confidentiality, do you prefer:
A) being able to say "the entire disk was encrypted"
B) having to argue that having the user's home folder encrypted was sufficient, and potentially having to prove that no confidential data was stored outside the home folder, but having to prove that without the actual disk in your possession as evidence
The lack of opposition, that is. Most police departments are mostly filled with officers who work hard to do the right thing every day. But they are not newsworthy, so it's the corrupt officers, and especially the departments built on (or tolerant of) a corrupted culture that fill the news. In a normal department, 99.9% of the time when there's any complaint against the officer, having video of the incident will be good for the officer.
Now, just try getting this accepted in LA, or New Orleans, or Denver. Haha.
Secession is an economically unviable option. If you want copious analyses ask the Quebec'ers.
Who needs such a sophisticated analysis. It's obvious these people are morons, because they don't understand that if you want your state to secede, you need to petition your state representatives;-)
So, please quit your whining and next time pick an actuall conservative. Pick someone with a tax plan that adds up, low spending, little war-lust, and who understands what a disaster the "personhood" amendment would be, and then you'll have a race.
Well said, but I fear that Romney's loss was not by a wide enough margin to get this message across. I think in four years, we'll get more of the same, same muddled up nonsensical message with more money and more attack ads supporting it. (I say this as a conservative who has now voted for Obama twice. Sigh.)
No, some British organizations sought an alliance with Hitler BEFORE the war. And by some I mean SOME, a FEW. Remember the world was just coming out of a massive recession and some people in the Anglo world looked at Germany's recovery and Hitler's leadership as a miracle. Some people before the war thought Nazism might be the answer to their problems. After the war started, however...
Sure, but that wasn't the point I was responding to. OP was about Hitler's admiration for the British and seeking of an alliance, not the other way around, and hypothesizing that the British could have obtained an alliance had they so wished and thus avoided involvement in WWII.
Also, I question the argument that "emotional gestures" aren't "useful". Sometimes a dramatic gesture is what it takes to draw attention to a worthy cause. For example, Suffragettes chaining themselves to railings.
A single poor fruit vendor committing suicide in a very public manner...
Non-useful speech is karma-whoring, drama queening, and other forms of non-productive activity. It's not difficult to see the difference, which was clearly anticipated by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Which part of the constitution outlines the categorization of speech into useful vs non-useful???
Hitler was in admiration of the British and sought an aliance prior to WWII. Our (at least) freedom could've easily be secured without a fight.
Uhm, perhaps you should look at certain other countries and how their agreements with Hitler worked out for them, before you decide that it would have been such a grand idea to trust him;-)
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Expressing discontent is a perfectly legitimate commentary on policy.
Every once in a while I see a post here that makes me think "stupidest comment ever?" But there is no need to think or question this one, this is the stupidest and most offensive comment I have ever read here. Your argument is exactly the claim that dictators use when imprisoning (torturing, killing) their critics, slightly disguised by a pathetic attempt to make it look like reasonable opinion.
5) It's copyright, not trademark--by allowing continued infringement they would give up no rights against other infringers, nor other uses of the manuals, nor even against this guy if in the future they changes their mind or he does something that offends them more.
Slashdot Mirror
uh, no. the sticking point was that apple didn't want any google branding on the app.
That was a sticking point, not the only one.
The real idiocy here was the fact that there was some idiot executive that insisted that the wheel be reinvented. They let hatered of Google get in the way of day-to-day business here. They could of made sure the google maps were easy to use on their devices and spent the effort coming up with something that Android doesn't do instead.
They had no control over the maps app from google, nor on google's terms for use of google's maps API. There was no way to get key features (turn-by-turn directions) without meeting google's demands (for more user data).
I'm sure the first time a police officer asks for a bribe to let you out of a traffic ticket or slams you against the ground because he did not like the bumber stickers on your car, you will wish that the whole episode was being recorded. We have seen a few officers caught on tape being mean violent bullies have to pay the piper. Without those pieces of video it is the revered representative of the law's word against yours. The court usually favors its own and they know it.
That is not to say that more than a small percentage of law officers are bad seed, but this they are paid by the public to do the publics work in law enforcement and they are and should be beholding to us as their bosses and be held to a very high standard of conduct. Most law officers do their duty honorably but those that don't should be held account or we drop into a police state.
Whoooosh...
That was the sound of sarcasm flying by your head ;-)
They will still arrest you for, among other things, creating a disturbance, interfering with an officer, resisting arrest, mopery and dopery. ;)
And well they should--this country is being overrun with mopery & dopery. The more mopes & dopes we can get off the streets, the better!
Okay.. but an installer that says, select the components to install... (oh crap, the RDBMS runs on Linux)... Oh noes, the Front end runs in Windows... Now you need to interface with AD... Creating installers for all these pieces for a system that only gets installed for a hundred or fewer instances or upgraded less than that a year is a waste of energy vs. using a fraction of that time to simple document well. The more pieces that are running on different servers/systems the more complex the install... Also, if you're using 3rd party software, be it Oracle, MS-SQL, or Postgres, automating the settings needed for said install are problematic.
The solution I am working on right now involves connecting to MS-SQL, RabbitMQ, and MongoDB. It's utilizing IIS, Node.js, as well as .Net ... you're suggesting I should go back and create installers for this system that is only running in one production environment, and a handful of stage/dev environments? Really? Even if it were installed a few dozen times a year, it wouldn't justify the cost of automating that process, vs. a checklist.
1) How good is your checklist? If it actually works, you're already not on my shit list ;-) The article referenced involved multiple steps that were documented that did not work.
2) You're not denying that an installer could be built. You're saying that you understand what it would take, and that it would likely be more effort than just going through the manual process. (And you don't even mention estimation risk--you really know how long it takes to do the manual install, but you can only estimate the project of building the installer.) The post to which I responded claimed it couldn't be done.
3) You seem to be talking about an in-house system, since you talk about running in one environment. The post to which I responded seemed to be talking about a commercial product ("...I manage a product line..."), which is an altogether different story. Not only do developers of expensive products owe decent installers to their paying customers, but in your case the people responsible for the manual installation were involved in the development of the solution and so start with a much greater understanding of the pieces than the poor customers of that poster's company.
I would assume that the database itself probably does have its own installer. I think the issue is that it needs to be configured, probably based off the clients need and their existing systems.
Sure, and installer builders allow you to insert an existing installer into the installer you're building.
I think what the person was trying to get at is that installers make sense for individual tools and applications, but once you start getting into entire systems or stacks the idea of having an 'installer' increasingly becomes nonsensical since there is less and less generalizable behavior.
He seemed to be justifying having large sections without an installer at all. Having more than one installer is not outrageous, though likely unnecessary. Having to fill in some info during install is not outrageous, though easy to overdo. But the whole language ("not packaged at all", "cannot be distributed", "XML files edited") of that original post seems to scream: LAZY BASTARD JUST DOES NOT WANT TO BE BOTHERED!
What installer can set up databases on other machines?
They can all run scripts. Just because there's not a checkbox labeled "set up our database on the other machine" doesn't mean it can't be done--at least if you're not a lazy bastard.
Or, the easier approach, an installer for each part on each machine. There's really not an excuse for not considering that.
I agree. By thinking about installation when creating complex enterprise software, you end up making better quality software. When you're forced to handle the inter-dependencies of complex systems in an installation process, you end up having a better handle on how everything interacts. This has been my experience at least.
Absolutely true. I didn't even bother going there in my response, because I figured it was pointless when someone was actually claiming "enterprizey software is simply too complex for installers". Sigh. As usual, the creators of the problems are blind to the problems...
Bullshit. There's not one thing in your list that cannot be handled with an installer. You just don't care to automate the process, and are making up excuses to justify that after the fact.
Because maybe when Sprint gets it's 12th LTE tower up and running everyone else will be doing quantum teleportation.
Not all of us. My AT&T tower doesn't even do 3G yet. But since all other carriers provide only 0G at my house, I'm stuck with AT&T...
That reminds me a recent exchange I had with Google...
My experience was the opposite. I was contacted by someone who had definitely read my resume, and was asking for someone with (some of) my skills to work on the kind of stuff that I like. (I wasn't in a situation where I could actually consider working for them--but it was refreshing anyway to get a cold contact that was so appropriate.)
Just as important is that you can provide that product or service at a price they're willing to pay for it without taking a loss.
The ability to do that depends directly on the employees you hire.
...here's their problem: there has been a breakdown of communication, and their formalized hiring processes, excessive HR, and outsourced employee sourcing (you know, headhunters) are at the root of the problem.
Yes, exactly!
That SAP produces software with such a horrible reputation--idiots running the show!
The people who are still around after 20 years of coding are binary: they're either wizards or burnouts.
Good point; I've seen this over and over, yet somehow it did not occur to me. Maybe because I try hard to never be involved with burnouts.
Personally, I'd prefer... to shift the burnouts into doing something they might enjoy more...
Yeah, like working for somebody else who won't be so demanding? ;-)
I've often suggested home folder only encryption... but the higher ups want it all encrypted...
And they're absolutely correct. A laptop gets stolen that contains information which you are legally obligated to keep confidential, and you are threatened with a lawsuit over the breach of confidentiality, do you prefer:
A) being able to say "the entire disk was encrypted"
B) having to argue that having the user's home folder encrypted was sufficient, and potentially having to prove that no confidential data was stored outside the home folder, but having to prove that without the actual disk in your possession as evidence
The lack of opposition, that is. Most police departments are mostly filled with officers who work hard to do the right thing every day. But they are not newsworthy, so it's the corrupt officers, and especially the departments built on (or tolerant of) a corrupted culture that fill the news. In a normal department, 99.9% of the time when there's any complaint against the officer, having video of the incident will be good for the officer.
Now, just try getting this accepted in LA, or New Orleans, or Denver. Haha.
Do you know anyone these days who doesn't have IMAP accounts with 6+-month-old mail on them?"
Hell yes. Me. POP. Nothing stays on my ISP's server for more than a few days.
Secession is an economically unviable option. If you want copious analyses ask the Quebec'ers.
Who needs such a sophisticated analysis. It's obvious these people are morons, because they don't understand that if you want your state to secede, you need to petition your state representatives ;-)
So, please quit your whining and next time pick an actuall conservative. Pick someone with a tax plan that adds up, low spending, little war-lust, and who understands what a disaster the "personhood" amendment would be, and then you'll have a race.
Well said, but I fear that Romney's loss was not by a wide enough margin to get this message across. I think in four years, we'll get more of the same, same muddled up nonsensical message with more money and more attack ads supporting it. (I say this as a conservative who has now voted for Obama twice. Sigh.)
No, some British organizations sought an alliance with Hitler BEFORE the war. And by some I mean SOME, a FEW. Remember the world was just coming out of a massive recession and some people in the Anglo world looked at Germany's recovery and Hitler's leadership as a miracle. Some people before the war thought Nazism might be the answer to their problems. After the war started, however...
Sure, but that wasn't the point I was responding to. OP was about Hitler's admiration for the British and seeking of an alliance, not the other way around, and hypothesizing that the British could have obtained an alliance had they so wished and thus avoided involvement in WWII.
Also, I question the argument that "emotional gestures" aren't "useful". Sometimes a dramatic gesture is what it takes to draw attention to a worthy cause. For example, Suffragettes chaining themselves to railings.
A single poor fruit vendor committing suicide in a very public manner...
Non-useful speech is karma-whoring, drama queening, and other forms of non-productive activity. It's not difficult to see the difference, which was clearly anticipated by the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.
Which part of the constitution outlines the categorization of speech into useful vs non-useful???
Hitler was in admiration of the British and sought an aliance prior to WWII. Our (at least) freedom could've easily be secured without a fight.
Uhm, perhaps you should look at certain other countries and how their agreements with Hitler worked out for them, before you decide that it would have been such a grand idea to trust him ;-)
The point of free speech is to protect informative discussion and analysis of policy.
Emotional gestures don't actually do that.
Burning flags, burning poppies, etc. express discontent but not much else. In fact, it seems to me that these events get in the way of actually having a discussion on the issue and getting closer to resolution.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. Expressing discontent is a perfectly legitimate commentary on policy.
Every once in a while I see a post here that makes me think "stupidest comment ever?" But there is no need to think or question this one, this is the stupidest and most offensive comment I have ever read here. Your argument is exactly the claim that dictators use when imprisoning (torturing, killing) their critics, slightly disguised by a pathetic attempt to make it look like reasonable opinion.
5) It's copyright, not trademark--by allowing continued infringement they would give up no rights against other infringers, nor other uses of the manuals, nor even against this guy if in the future they changes their mind or he does something that offends them more.