This 'fashion designer' is just trying to pedal garbage clothing. I'm in IT, have been for just over 10 years now. I've worked every shift in existence, have done the standard odd hour maintenance windows etc.....all the normal stuff for someone in IT that maintains production hardware, databases, etc. We HAVE to do this so that everything is ready for users during normal business hours. What burns me is to have just finished a midnight to 5:00am service window(if you have problems) only to have someone come in and mention something about your dress?! Com'on, give me a break!
Oh, my favorite, watching 300 coworkers get canned then have the management staff say that we're going to increase moral by stepping up the dress code to hard bottom shoes and dress slacks. Talk about passive agressive.
It is really sad when people spend more time worrying about the dress code of people in their non-customer contact departments than they do moving the company forward. It sucks to have busted your ass and then have someone make a side comment about seeing you in jeans...."oh my, see, that is why the company is failing".
I've worn suit and tie, chinos, and finally the 'starndard jeans/shorts' in IT...ya know what, I feel better doing my work in more comfortable clothes.....oh, by the way, tell the dumbass who is more concerned about dress code than making the company profitable to crawl around in a suit while doing fiber drops. See how (s)he likes the bill for ruined dress clothes that are worthless for anything other than meetings and sitting on ones ass!
PC, passive agressive BS.
Nuff said.
Wow, are you really that angry of a person? There is some very valid points for a government agency to move on an open standard. The least of which is government doesn't change that often, so when it does the changes are more painful, especially in IT. By working with an open format things get easier. That piece alone makes this article valuable, not an exercise in ignorance.
Had to respond to this post. I do see a LOT of geeky BS on slashdot, but the pure anger over something so simple as this article is amazing. Chill out, go outside for a bit. Ignore your computer for a day or something. geez:-)
I agree with the original post above about Steam. It is the bane of gaming existance. The entire implementation and subsequent publisher / game company battle of who distributes did nothing but hurt legit purchasers of game.
I bought HL2 in store and was one who didn't get connected(yes, I have cable modem) for hours. Updates were slow and the game verifies disk as well. What the hell! I bought the F$%king game already.
Meanwhile, the 'steam version' allowed users to play game w/o a disk check and had source support. Come on already. Tell me you've gotta dedicate your life to knowing all the ins and outs just to play the damn game. There are many Half Life 1 people out there who expected a MUCH different experience. After all, it is the single player, mods, CS, and LAN capabilities that sold(and is still selling) HL1.
I too was pretty much forced into getting a 'hack' going to play on LAN with friends. It is ridiculous to have to put so much effort into getting an off the shelf puchase going.
Oh, the discussion about hardware....I've got a 6800 with 128mb RAM, 1gb RAM and a 3ghz proc. The game still bogged down initially. Lousy testing I'd add to the complaints with game.
I'll be voting with my wallet as well. Somebody really screwed up at both Valve and Vivendi; I hope others ban any future games that come from these two as well.
I read articles like this and I think how it will affect legit users more than hackers/pirates/'thieves of IP'.
Almost every time a large corporation puts out some blanket policy to 'stop theft' or 'create security' it hits the average user hardest. Most average users don't worry about patches that much to begin with...why? In the case of MS who tells them just turn on Automatic Updates and forget about it....then their machine crashes due to some update. Now they call the vendor for help(Dell, Gateway, etc). The technically challenged(or even sometimes somewhat technical user) is dragged through support calls for just following procedure.
Now, bulk licensed copies, like those at the University I work...how do those get validated? There is no doubt that employees take home copies of slipstreamed WinXpSp2 and the University bulk license and use it. So, this is a legit license. The user may be using it improperly, but it is a legit key.
What about the 'hardware checking' in XP? For example: A user changes out video card because they like to game, could take advantage of upgrade, but are not really that technical. Changing hardware like a video is rather simple these days...go to Best Buy or some store, buy the card, install the drivers...bing...done! Right? No. With the introduction of XP a user can in cases have their license questioned by MS for simply changing hardware in their machine; this can cause support calls, down times, and general headaches for something that is a users right to do. Continuing on with example... A message comes up after driver install to reboot. Being the 'good user' the installer follows directions. Machine comes back up. Hardware is all valid, the O/S license is valid...but....XP won't let user continue...call MS...get new key....your system has changed......geez! This simple example isn't anything that unusual. I've seen it happen multiple times.
Just off the cuff....If Windows were to cost $50 for annual subscription(in America or any country where that price is 'fair') an an individual wasn't going to have their key revolked for hardware changes, didn't have to keep proving to the company they have a legit key, and could generally DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR STUFF I'd say discrete license checks would be fair. As it is, users seem to feel the need to update their ENTIRE machine every 2 years due to a sort of odd marketing training by hardware vendors and MS that their machine no longer cuts it....very flawed...and possibly expensive for many average users or even corporations.
Other posts have already said this but....I too can do EVERYTHING I need on a Linux, Mac, or maybe even the new Amiga machines soon....except Gaming. If gaming ever moves to another platform with the support level that exists on Windows, I'm gone. That said, the average user doesn't use their machine beyond say 10% percent of its potential, yet continually upgrade to better hardware to support new O/S every two years(Longhorn delays are the exception). Why? I have a computer to run apps, video/audio editing, gaming, word processing, email, chat, etc. Why should the O/S get in my way? The purpose of ANY O/S is to shut up and let users get whatever it is they need done.
To wrap up, I see this as desperation by MS. It is alarming to see the U.S. stuck with lousy licensing models while other countries wise up and demand better. I really don't care who does it at this point....Linux, Apple, Be O/S, Amiga4.x, SUN, etc. There really needs to be the competition in O/S realm to accomplish for users in software that AMD did for hardware. When Corporations are FORCED to compete, everybody wins. Nuff said.
I'd gladly pay for a game on Linux. The importance here is having the Open Source base for Open Standards in graphics design. With true portability these games can be sold on multiple platforms as well. Linux is a great O/S for business, web, DB, and scientific applications. It has not shown itself to be a very good graphical environment for desktop users.
Sure the movie studios use it to creat good movies but that is with propriety engines. Linux needs solid support behind graphics developement and some mechanism for getting developers to use it more. OpenGL has been around for a while and is used by some developers like ID but in general most have gone the easy route of DirectX....why? The obvious answer is the Windows desktop market share.
The Linux community needs some mechanism for generating enthusiasm for commercial gaming on its desktop. Games will sell Linux to the average person WAY more than a Word clone.
Hope it happens someday as the only reason I have a Windows box around anymore is for gaming:-)
Yes, people expect things to work when they PAY for something. To charge the same price for Linux as Windows then not provide at least as good of support(install in this case) is just bad business. The idea that sound and other components are not necessary might have been a valid argument in the late 90's but now, now way! This becomes even more important at the desktop level. The 'average user': mom, dad, even gamers, don't necessarily want to learn everything that Sys Admins. know in order to use their machine. For Linux to succeed on a wider scale more effort needs to be put into the details. Windows kicks butt in the desktop, standardized interface for users. Windows falls flat on its face in the server realm many times because of its feature heavy stance while having lack of security and unwillingness to 'play nice' with vendors. Linux has already succeeded in the hard part. There needs to be a different view when trying put Linux into the desktop. Things like driver support, font support, GAMING support, and portals for updating are a must. Don't expect everyone to compile all their own apps and just 'like it or lump it'; that attitude combined with current Major Linux vendors charging too much will keep linux 'in the dark' for most users.
Not only is is DivX 'like' it is also years too late. With the prices of DVD dropping(Ex. $15.99 - $19.99 at Best Buy) this technology would have to be less than $3.00 per movie. The chain rental places(Hollywood Video, Blockbuster) already have that price range sown up. Lets hope commonsense prevails here and consumers have gotten wiser since DivX.
Slashdot Mirror
This 'fashion designer' is just trying to pedal garbage clothing. I'm in IT, have been for just over 10 years now. I've worked every shift in existence, have done the standard odd hour maintenance windows etc.....all the normal stuff for someone in IT that maintains production hardware, databases, etc. We HAVE to do this so that everything is ready for users during normal business hours. What burns me is to have just finished a midnight to 5:00am service window(if you have problems) only to have someone come in and mention something about your dress?! Com'on, give me a break! Oh, my favorite, watching 300 coworkers get canned then have the management staff say that we're going to increase moral by stepping up the dress code to hard bottom shoes and dress slacks. Talk about passive agressive. It is really sad when people spend more time worrying about the dress code of people in their non-customer contact departments than they do moving the company forward. It sucks to have busted your ass and then have someone make a side comment about seeing you in jeans...."oh my, see, that is why the company is failing". I've worn suit and tie, chinos, and finally the 'starndard jeans/shorts' in IT...ya know what, I feel better doing my work in more comfortable clothes.....oh, by the way, tell the dumbass who is more concerned about dress code than making the company profitable to crawl around in a suit while doing fiber drops. See how (s)he likes the bill for ruined dress clothes that are worthless for anything other than meetings and sitting on ones ass! PC, passive agressive BS. Nuff said.
Wow, are you really that angry of a person? There is some very valid points for a government agency to move on an open standard. The least of which is government doesn't change that often, so when it does the changes are more painful, especially in IT. By working with an open format things get easier. That piece alone makes this article valuable, not an exercise in ignorance.
Had to respond to this post. I do see a LOT of geeky BS on slashdot, but the pure anger over something so simple as this article is amazing. Chill out, go outside for a bit. Ignore your computer for a day or something. geez:-)
I agree with the original post above about Steam. It is the bane of gaming existance. The entire implementation and subsequent publisher / game company battle of who distributes did nothing but hurt legit purchasers of game.
I bought HL2 in store and was one who didn't get connected(yes, I have cable modem) for hours. Updates were slow and the game verifies disk as well. What the hell! I bought the F$%king game already.
Meanwhile, the 'steam version' allowed users to play game w/o a disk check and had source support. Come on already. Tell me you've gotta dedicate your life to knowing all the ins and outs just to play the damn game. There are many Half Life 1 people out there who expected a MUCH different experience. After all, it is the single player, mods, CS, and LAN capabilities that sold(and is still selling) HL1.
I too was pretty much forced into getting a 'hack' going to play on LAN with friends. It is ridiculous to have to put so much effort into getting an off the shelf puchase going.
Oh, the discussion about hardware....I've got a 6800 with 128mb RAM, 1gb RAM and a 3ghz proc. The game still bogged down initially. Lousy testing I'd add to the complaints with game.
I'll be voting with my wallet as well. Somebody really screwed up at both Valve and Vivendi; I hope others ban any future games that come from these two as well.
I read articles like this and I think how it will affect legit users more than hackers/pirates/'thieves of IP'. Almost every time a large corporation puts out some blanket policy to 'stop theft' or 'create security' it hits the average user hardest. Most average users don't worry about patches that much to begin with...why? In the case of MS who tells them just turn on Automatic Updates and forget about it....then their machine crashes due to some update. Now they call the vendor for help(Dell, Gateway, etc). The technically challenged(or even sometimes somewhat technical user) is dragged through support calls for just following procedure. Now, bulk licensed copies, like those at the University I work...how do those get validated? There is no doubt that employees take home copies of slipstreamed WinXpSp2 and the University bulk license and use it. So, this is a legit license. The user may be using it improperly, but it is a legit key. What about the 'hardware checking' in XP? For example: A user changes out video card because they like to game, could take advantage of upgrade, but are not really that technical. Changing hardware like a video is rather simple these days...go to Best Buy or some store, buy the card, install the drivers...bing...done! Right? No. With the introduction of XP a user can in cases have their license questioned by MS for simply changing hardware in their machine; this can cause support calls, down times, and general headaches for something that is a users right to do. Continuing on with example... A message comes up after driver install to reboot. Being the 'good user' the installer follows directions. Machine comes back up. Hardware is all valid, the O/S license is valid...but....XP won't let user continue...call MS...get new key....your system has changed......geez! This simple example isn't anything that unusual. I've seen it happen multiple times. Just off the cuff....If Windows were to cost $50 for annual subscription(in America or any country where that price is 'fair') an an individual wasn't going to have their key revolked for hardware changes, didn't have to keep proving to the company they have a legit key, and could generally DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR STUFF I'd say discrete license checks would be fair. As it is, users seem to feel the need to update their ENTIRE machine every 2 years due to a sort of odd marketing training by hardware vendors and MS that their machine no longer cuts it....very flawed...and possibly expensive for many average users or even corporations. Other posts have already said this but....I too can do EVERYTHING I need on a Linux, Mac, or maybe even the new Amiga machines soon....except Gaming. If gaming ever moves to another platform with the support level that exists on Windows, I'm gone. That said, the average user doesn't use their machine beyond say 10% percent of its potential, yet continually upgrade to better hardware to support new O/S every two years(Longhorn delays are the exception). Why? I have a computer to run apps, video/audio editing, gaming, word processing, email, chat, etc. Why should the O/S get in my way? The purpose of ANY O/S is to shut up and let users get whatever it is they need done. To wrap up, I see this as desperation by MS. It is alarming to see the U.S. stuck with lousy licensing models while other countries wise up and demand better. I really don't care who does it at this point....Linux, Apple, Be O/S, Amiga4.x, SUN, etc. There really needs to be the competition in O/S realm to accomplish for users in software that AMD did for hardware. When Corporations are FORCED to compete, everybody wins. Nuff said.
I'd gladly pay for a game on Linux. The importance here is having the Open Source base for Open Standards in graphics design. With true portability these games can be sold on multiple platforms as well. Linux is a great O/S for business, web, DB, and scientific applications. It has not shown itself to be a very good graphical environment for desktop users. Sure the movie studios use it to creat good movies but that is with propriety engines. Linux needs solid support behind graphics developement and some mechanism for getting developers to use it more. OpenGL has been around for a while and is used by some developers like ID but in general most have gone the easy route of DirectX....why? The obvious answer is the Windows desktop market share. The Linux community needs some mechanism for generating enthusiasm for commercial gaming on its desktop. Games will sell Linux to the average person WAY more than a Word clone. Hope it happens someday as the only reason I have a Windows box around anymore is for gaming:-)
Yes, people expect things to work when they PAY for something. To charge the same price for Linux as Windows then not provide at least as good of support(install in this case) is just bad business. The idea that sound and other components are not necessary might have been a valid argument in the late 90's but now, now way! This becomes even more important at the desktop level. The 'average user': mom, dad, even gamers, don't necessarily want to learn everything that Sys Admins. know in order to use their machine. For Linux to succeed on a wider scale more effort needs to be put into the details. Windows kicks butt in the desktop, standardized interface for users. Windows falls flat on its face in the server realm many times because of its feature heavy stance while having lack of security and unwillingness to 'play nice' with vendors. Linux has already succeeded in the hard part. There needs to be a different view when trying put Linux into the desktop. Things like driver support, font support, GAMING support, and portals for updating are a must. Don't expect everyone to compile all their own apps and just 'like it or lump it'; that attitude combined with current Major Linux vendors charging too much will keep linux 'in the dark' for most users.
Not only is is DivX 'like' it is also years too late. With the prices of DVD dropping(Ex. $15.99 - $19.99 at Best Buy) this technology would have to be less than $3.00 per movie. The chain rental places(Hollywood Video, Blockbuster) already have that price range sown up. Lets hope commonsense prevails here and consumers have gotten wiser since DivX.