Yammer is awesome at our company. Very much like twitter, but private to your organization. Everyone, young and old, sales development, support, etc.. uses it. I think it's exactly what you're looking for.
This is the smartest comment on this thread.
If I'm a billion dollar trade show, one thing that I'm going to do is tie all of my hospitality partners to a contract that forbids them from letting people set up mini trade shows in their suites that compete with my paying vendors.
What probably happened was that the management that was asked about policies regarding product demonstrations was either not aware of the CES contract or didn't know the dates of the demonstration. I would be pretty pissed off at the Venitian, and I guess I would try to extract some kind of damages to cover my expenses. I doubt I'd get anywhere, the world being as it is.
As far as CES being jerks or monopolistic or overbearing... I guess? I certainly see their side of it. The whole point of a trade show is to create value within the walls of the show. From where they are sitting, not paying them anything and setting up a suite in a hotel and showing product that would have otherwise been in the show is benefiting from their event without paying for it. They, of course, will hold their partners to rules that limit or eliminate this where they can. Seems like a reasonable position for them to take.
When you try to get away with not paying for something, often times it blows up in your face, whether or not you think you have a right to it or not.
I've been a LaTeX user for about 6 years. I've got a fair amount of self made packages/hacks and thousands of pages of company documentation, bid specs, specs, price sheets and reports to show for it.
Every time I dive into LaTeX, I love it, then hate it, then wonder out loud if anything has come along that is more modern, especially when it comes to floats and tables.
Prince XML looks nice. I'll have to check it out. It doesn't look like it has the cross referencing power of LaTeX (especially with add on packages like Fancyref), but it may be a small price to pay.
This doesn't have as much to do about IE 8 and Microsoft as it does about the nature of the evolution of ALL web browsers and the web pages that were made before their release. Even without IE 8, this tag is needed. Look, Firefox 1 and 2 don't render like each other and neither do different versions of Safari. Very few browsers in the wild today render CSS perfectly and without a mechanism like this tag, web developers are forced into a reactive mode as things change.
For those of you that develop web sites now, what do you do when ANY new browser is released? You react. What does the user experience in the early days of the browser's release? Who's fault is it? It's an unorganized, uncontrollable mess and the only good fix that I can see is what is being proposed here.
With this tag, it puts the burden on the browser maker to keep older rendering styles in play, which means stability for existing web pages no matter what happens with the next browser or CSS, for that matter. As it is, browser publishers (FF, Safari, Opera included) have to always keep their previous bugs and behaviors in mind when they make a new version. With the tag, they focus on compliance. Awesome.
If it wasn't Microsoft part of the story, half of the negative comments in this thread wouldn't be posted. It's a fantastic addition to the tools available to web designers, completely changes the work load required when a new browser is released and I welcome it with open arms. It's hell out here, as it is.
Yes, I was trying to be funny through contridiction.
For clarity, I should have said, "when volunteering or working on something that you're passionate about, people don't like to do tedious work," vs "when people sit down to use a computer, they don't want to putz with its installers and recompile the kernel, etc."
I've never posted before, so I didn't realize i needed p tags... Let me do this again, and I hope you don't mind....
Had to chime in on this one...
This seems to be a common problem amongst all competitive walks of life: business, sports... operating system holy wars.
The "Microsoft Two Step..." comment, as well as the whole attitude that the original article seems to subscribe to (people don't buy open source because their dumb or brainwashed) is unfortunate and short sighted.
I use Microsoft's products all of the time. Our company develops on Visual Studio, I play their games and, on balance, I expect a good product when it has their name on it (anything over 3.0, that is:).
But I'm typing this in a form presented to me by the fine folks at Mozilla because it's better than what Microsoft has.
If I may be so bold, most open source projects lack:
Packaging: People feel more comfortable being marketed to. They like to feel as though what they are buying comes from a plan and a vision. This holds true for open source, just like traditional business models. Why does Red Hat consistently out strip Debian? Is it better? For that matter, why does Linux get all of the attention in the server market when OpenBSD is arguably better suited? [I suggest that the Linux project's image better because of its story, and thus provides a better package in the minds of the consumer]
Hassle: The packages/installers for open source projects are very often broken, incomplete, incompatible or undocumented. When they are documented, often the text speaks to other programmers, and not to the likely user. ex: "If you have questions, read the man page for blablabla..." My mom would not know what a man page is.
Nobody likes to do real work: Most projects are organized by and developed by people who love what they are doing. Consequently, the real work rarely gets the attention it needs while the fun work gets over developed by 3 or four different forks (how many pretty window managers do we need again??). That's also why too often a good manual is replaced by 10 ham-fisted How-To's.
Applications are not stable: Say what you will about Microsoft, but they've had enough time, focused on the programming projects and problems at hand to make a reasonably stable system. I haven't seen a BSOD in well over a year. While it is undeniable true that a well maintained and administrated Red Hat distro will run stability-circles around Microsoft, not many people really understand how to administrate and maintain a system as complex and capable as Red Hat. For many, that flexibility is an asset. For non-computer nerds without Orange Crush stains on their t-shirt, we like s**t to work. Which brings me to my last point...
Most people like to do real work: We don't sit at the keyboard, glowing with self importance that we're not stupid enough to use inferior systems (I gave that up when I sold my Amiga 4000). We choose our systems because we're familiar with them, most people write software for them and we don't mind that we're supporting the soul crushing dark-force that is Microsoft.
Mozilla wins because it's a great product that's much better than the alternatives. For me, LaTeX wins over FrameMaker for the very same reason.
Open source projects will gain more ground when distro's hire people to do more packaging, marketing and documentation. People like to buy products. It's that simple. They feel like their getting value. Mozilla is a web browser, and the price for those is $0.00. Operating systems and major projects must be Whole Products with backers. Linux's recent headway in niche areas always bears this out. [IBM's successes, Red Hat, Evolution]
The whole point of my rambling is this: those who love Linux and the open source projects that it represents would do well to see Microsoft as a savvy and organized competitor and not as an evil foe who tells lies to get ahead.
Had to chime in on this one...
This seems to be a common problem amongst all competitive walks of life: business, sports... operating system holy wars.
The "Microsoft Two Step..." comment, as well as the whole attitude that the original article seems to subscribe to (people don't buy open source because their dumb or brainwashed) is unfortunate and short sighted.
I use Microsoft's products all of the time. Our company develops on Visual Studio, I play their games and, on balance, I expect a good product when it has their name on it (anything over 3.0, that is:).
But I'm typing this in a form presented to me by the fine folks at Mozilla because it's better than what Microsoft has.
If I may be so bold, most open source projects lack:
Packaging: People feel more comfortable being marketed to. They like to feel as though what they are buying comes from a plan and a vision. This holds true for open source, just like traditional business models. Why does Red Hat consistently out strip Debian? Is it better? For that matter, why does Linux get all of the attention in the server market when OpenBSD is arguably better suited? [I suggest that the Linux project's image better because of its story, and thus provides a better package in the minds of the consumer]
Hassle: The packages/installers for open source projects are very often broken, incomplete, incompatible or undocumented. When they are documented, often the text speaks to other programmers, and not to the likely user. ex: "If you have questions, read the man page for blablabla..." My mom would not know what a man page is.
Nobody likes to do real work: Most projects are organized by and developed by people who love what they are doing. Consequently, the real work rarely gets the attention it needs while the fun work gets over developed by 3 or four different forks (how many pretty window managers do we need again??). That's also why too often a good manual is replaced by 10 ham-fisted How-To's.
Applications are not stable: Say what you will about Microsoft, but they've had enough time, focused on the programming projects and problems at hand to make a reasonably stable system. I haven't seen a BSOD in well over a year. While it is undeniable true that a well maintained and administrated Red Hat distro will run stability-circles around Microsoft, not many people really understand how to administrate and maintain a system as complex and capable as Red Hat. For many, that flexibility is an asset. For non-computer nerds without Orange Crush stains on their t-shirt, we like s**t to work. Which brings me to my last point...
Most people like to do real work: We don't sit at the keyboard, glowing with self importance that we're not stupid enough to use inferior systems (I gave that up when I sold my Amiga 4000). We choose our systems because we're familiar with them, most people write software for them and we don't mind that we're supporting the soul crushing dark-force that is Microsoft.
Mozilla wins because it's a great product that's much better than the alternatives. For me, LaTeX wins over FrameMaker for the very same reason.
Open source projects will gain more ground when distro's hire people to do more packaging, marketing and documentation. People like to buy products. It's that simple. They feel like their getting value. Mozilla is a web browser, and the price for those is $0.00. Operating systems and major projects must be Whole Products with backers. Linux's recent headway in niche areas always bears this out. [IBM's successes, Red Hat, Evolution]
The whole point of my rambling is this: those who love Linux and the open source projects that it represents would do well to see Microsoft as a savvy and organized competitor and not as an evil foe who tells lies to get ahead.
Slashdot Mirror
Yammer is awesome at our company. Very much like twitter, but private to your organization. Everyone, young and old, sales development, support, etc.. uses it. I think it's exactly what you're looking for.
This is the smartest comment on this thread. If I'm a billion dollar trade show, one thing that I'm going to do is tie all of my hospitality partners to a contract that forbids them from letting people set up mini trade shows in their suites that compete with my paying vendors. What probably happened was that the management that was asked about policies regarding product demonstrations was either not aware of the CES contract or didn't know the dates of the demonstration. I would be pretty pissed off at the Venitian, and I guess I would try to extract some kind of damages to cover my expenses. I doubt I'd get anywhere, the world being as it is. As far as CES being jerks or monopolistic or overbearing... I guess? I certainly see their side of it. The whole point of a trade show is to create value within the walls of the show. From where they are sitting, not paying them anything and setting up a suite in a hotel and showing product that would have otherwise been in the show is benefiting from their event without paying for it. They, of course, will hold their partners to rules that limit or eliminate this where they can. Seems like a reasonable position for them to take. When you try to get away with not paying for something, often times it blows up in your face, whether or not you think you have a right to it or not.
I've been a LaTeX user for about 6 years. I've got a fair amount of self made packages/hacks and thousands of pages of company documentation, bid specs, specs, price sheets and reports to show for it. Every time I dive into LaTeX, I love it, then hate it, then wonder out loud if anything has come along that is more modern, especially when it comes to floats and tables. Prince XML looks nice. I'll have to check it out. It doesn't look like it has the cross referencing power of LaTeX (especially with add on packages like Fancyref), but it may be a small price to pay.
This doesn't have as much to do about IE 8 and Microsoft as it does about the nature of the evolution of ALL web browsers and the web pages that were made before their release. Even without IE 8, this tag is needed. Look, Firefox 1 and 2 don't render like each other and neither do different versions of Safari. Very few browsers in the wild today render CSS perfectly and without a mechanism like this tag, web developers are forced into a reactive mode as things change.
For those of you that develop web sites now, what do you do when ANY new browser is released? You react. What does the user experience in the early days of the browser's release? Who's fault is it? It's an unorganized, uncontrollable mess and the only good fix that I can see is what is being proposed here.
With this tag, it puts the burden on the browser maker to keep older rendering styles in play, which means stability for existing web pages no matter what happens with the next browser or CSS, for that matter. As it is, browser publishers (FF, Safari, Opera included) have to always keep their previous bugs and behaviors in mind when they make a new version. With the tag, they focus on compliance. Awesome.
If it wasn't Microsoft part of the story, half of the negative comments in this thread wouldn't be posted. It's a fantastic addition to the tools available to web designers, completely changes the work load required when a new browser is released and I welcome it with open arms. It's hell out here, as it is.
Yes, I was trying to be funny through contridiction.
:P
For clarity, I should have said, "when volunteering or working on something that you're passionate about, people don't like to do tedious work," vs "when people sit down to use a computer, they don't want to putz with its installers and recompile the kernel, etc."
Thank you for pointing this out to me.
Had to chime in on this one...
This seems to be a common problem amongst all competitive walks of life: business, sports... operating system holy wars.
The "Microsoft Two Step..." comment, as well as the whole attitude that the original article seems to subscribe to (people don't buy open source because their dumb or brainwashed) is unfortunate and short sighted.
I use Microsoft's products all of the time. Our company develops on Visual Studio, I play their games and, on balance, I expect a good product when it has their name on it (anything over 3.0, that is :).
But I'm typing this in a form presented to me by the fine folks at Mozilla because it's better than what Microsoft has.
If I may be so bold, most open source projects lack:
Packaging: People feel more comfortable being marketed to. They like to feel as though what they are buying comes from a plan and a vision. This holds true for open source, just like traditional business models. Why does Red Hat consistently out strip Debian? Is it better? For that matter, why does Linux get all of the attention in the server market when OpenBSD is arguably better suited? [I suggest that the Linux project's image better because of its story, and thus provides a better package in the minds of the consumer]
Hassle: The packages/installers for open source projects are very often broken, incomplete, incompatible or undocumented. When they are documented, often the text speaks to other programmers, and not to the likely user. ex: "If you have questions, read the man page for blablabla..." My mom would not know what a man page is.
Nobody likes to do real work: Most projects are organized by and developed by people who love what they are doing. Consequently, the real work rarely gets the attention it needs while the fun work gets over developed by 3 or four different forks (how many pretty window managers do we need again??). That's also why too often a good manual is replaced by 10 ham-fisted How-To's.
Applications are not stable: Say what you will about Microsoft, but they've had enough time, focused on the programming projects and problems at hand to make a reasonably stable system. I haven't seen a BSOD in well over a year. While it is undeniable true that a well maintained and administrated Red Hat distro will run stability-circles around Microsoft, not many people really understand how to administrate and maintain a system as complex and capable as Red Hat. For many, that flexibility is an asset. For non-computer nerds without Orange Crush stains on their t-shirt, we like s**t to work. Which brings me to my last point...
Most people like to do real work: We don't sit at the keyboard, glowing with self importance that we're not stupid enough to use inferior systems (I gave that up when I sold my Amiga 4000). We choose our systems because we're familiar with them, most people write software for them and we don't mind that we're supporting the soul crushing dark-force that is Microsoft.
Mozilla wins because it's a great product that's much better than the alternatives. For me, LaTeX wins over FrameMaker for the very same reason.
Open source projects will gain more ground when distro's hire people to do more packaging, marketing and documentation. People like to buy products. It's that simple. They feel like their getting value. Mozilla is a web browser, and the price for those is $0.00. Operating systems and major projects must be Whole Products with backers. Linux's recent headway in niche areas always bears this out. [IBM's successes, Red Hat, Evolution]
The whole point of my rambling is this: those who love Linux and the open source projects that it represents would do well to see Microsoft as a savvy and organized competitor and not as an evil foe who tells lies to get ahead.
Had to chime in on this one... This seems to be a common problem amongst all competitive walks of life: business, sports... operating system holy wars. The "Microsoft Two Step..." comment, as well as the whole attitude that the original article seems to subscribe to (people don't buy open source because their dumb or brainwashed) is unfortunate and short sighted. I use Microsoft's products all of the time. Our company develops on Visual Studio, I play their games and, on balance, I expect a good product when it has their name on it (anything over 3.0, that is :).
But I'm typing this in a form presented to me by the fine folks at Mozilla because it's better than what Microsoft has.
If I may be so bold, most open source projects lack:
Packaging: People feel more comfortable being marketed to. They like to feel as though what they are buying comes from a plan and a vision. This holds true for open source, just like traditional business models. Why does Red Hat consistently out strip Debian? Is it better? For that matter, why does Linux get all of the attention in the server market when OpenBSD is arguably better suited? [I suggest that the Linux project's image better because of its story, and thus provides a better package in the minds of the consumer]
Hassle: The packages/installers for open source projects are very often broken, incomplete, incompatible or undocumented. When they are documented, often the text speaks to other programmers, and not to the likely user. ex: "If you have questions, read the man page for blablabla..." My mom would not know what a man page is.
Nobody likes to do real work: Most projects are organized by and developed by people who love what they are doing. Consequently, the real work rarely gets the attention it needs while the fun work gets over developed by 3 or four different forks (how many pretty window managers do we need again??). That's also why too often a good manual is replaced by 10 ham-fisted How-To's.
Applications are not stable: Say what you will about Microsoft, but they've had enough time, focused on the programming projects and problems at hand to make a reasonably stable system. I haven't seen a BSOD in well over a year. While it is undeniable true that a well maintained and administrated Red Hat distro will run stability-circles around Microsoft, not many people really understand how to administrate and maintain a system as complex and capable as Red Hat. For many, that flexibility is an asset. For non-computer nerds without Orange Crush stains on their t-shirt, we like s**t to work. Which brings me to my last point...
Most people like to do real work: We don't sit at the keyboard, glowing with self importance that we're not stupid enough to use inferior systems (I gave that up when I sold my Amiga 4000). We choose our systems because we're familiar with them, most people write software for them and we don't mind that we're supporting the soul crushing dark-force that is Microsoft.
Mozilla wins because it's a great product that's much better than the alternatives. For me, LaTeX wins over FrameMaker for the very same reason.
Open source projects will gain more ground when distro's hire people to do more packaging, marketing and documentation. People like to buy products. It's that simple. They feel like their getting value. Mozilla is a web browser, and the price for those is $0.00. Operating systems and major projects must be Whole Products with backers. Linux's recent headway in niche areas always bears this out. [IBM's successes, Red Hat, Evolution]
The whole point of my rambling is this: those who love Linux and the open source projects that it represents would do well to see Microsoft as a savvy and organized competitor and not as an evil foe who tells lies to get ahead.