I love it when a firm says something this vague and contradictory when they basically realise that a thing that got people to use them is costing them too much money. I mean, if they really meant they were improving their service, then I'm fairly certain they'd say why.
I don't think that games are main drivers of computing. I think that business apps are. nVidia might think that they are going to rule computing, but they won't. They'll be a dominant player, but they should remember S3 graphics and Vesa. You're only as good as your last product, and given that they aren't particularly open they might lose their market at any time.
It's not really a problem with malicious damage to IT systems, I believe that it's more a problem of valuable and time-sensitive information walking out the door. At the end of the day, it's really a method of risk management. If you are moving to another company, then they don't want you to screw the company. I feel that it's really a responsible way of dealing with business risk.
I'm not sure I see much of a problem with this. If they make their ODF documents in such a manner that they are similar to OOXML, then basically they have show OpenOffice a great way of keeping compatible with OOXML with a minimum of fuss and effort!
While it is fine to disable the compatibility checking, my concern is that if enough people disable it they might start expecting the Mozilla devs to actually implement workarounds to 2.0 compat problems in v3. That way leads to many, many problems. Just ask Microsoft.
I think that this seems a somewhat reasonable response, but slightly flawed.
The problem was not that they said that "Here is a list of reasons why you shouldn't do it.", the problem is that they said that "Don't do that. Your idea is stupid/doomed to fail/a waste of time."
I would have just said "I see what you are trying to do, but this is a bad idea because of x, y and z".
The problem wasn't that they were providing "stop energy", the problem was that they got personal.
Wow... if by "Stop Energy" we mean "don't point out flaws" then this seems a fairly bad approach to things. Or perhaps this is my bad behaviour in causing stop energy for Stop Energy. Yet the concept has flaws - big ones!
The parent poster made some reasonable comments. It would take a lot of effort to terraform a planet. He also made the point that we really should be looking after our own planet before we consider looking for life on Mars - let alone colonize the planet.
Really? Are you saying that the following comment has no validity whatsoever?
"Terraform a planet? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi -- just try playing around with high school physics for about five minutes on exactly how much work would be required to lower an entire atmosphere one stinking degree, and then compare that to the power consumption of the human race."
Probably not couched in very gentle terms, but seems a reasonable position to hold!
Perhaps you don't like dissenting comments? Just because you don't like the comment does not make it invalid you know.
I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.
I smell bullshit. How would they be getting viruses just by inserting a DVD? Were they running the executable? And what does it mean by "my memory stick would be filthy with viruses every time I had to go and get documents from my counterpart or his section NCOs."
This seems to be one almighty bad joke. I mean, watching porn... memory "stick" filthy with viruses?
Yes well, be sure you have enough diskspace. I remember compiling early versions of the software and it gobbled greater than 800MB of the my disk in temp storage.
One wonders why they have so much code in OOo when the Linux kernel takes up only a fraction of the space, and arguably does a whole lot more.
OK, if the debugging led to nothing then I agree that you should feel shitty. It's always bad when bugs for things get released into code - I work for a software company and always cringe when I see this - what was their time to fix?
With regards to complex errors: so long as you get good support, who can interpret the errors, it shouldn't be too bad. You may feel differently, don't blame you if you do.
I would also agree that if they can reproduce the problem on their end, that is what they should be doing, not get you to test on your environment.
If I'm getting free support from mailing lists or forums or what have you, then I'm happy to go through all the debugging shit -- installing minimal clean environments to see if the problem is reproducible there, etcetera. It annoys me having to spend my time doing this if I'm paying for support from someone else, though. Isn't that what they're being paid to do?!
Let me get this straight. You've deployed a multi-tier, complex product designed around IIS,.NET and SQL Server 2005. It runs under many different combinations and is infinitely configurable. Much of the coding and portal technology involves some sort of development work in-house. You have experienced issues, but you can't work out what they are. It could be one of many issues. Yet you are complaining about a bit of directed debugging?
... that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more they annoy the Universities, the more likely they'll believe the effort and cost is too great. Hopefully they will then be forced to defend themselves.
I do hope they call the RIAA's bluff. What's happening now is modern-day extortion!
Slashdot Mirror
Someone mod the parent up will they? And if they could mod down the parent's parent, all the better.
Hey - just improving the service you know!
I love it when a firm says something this vague and contradictory when they basically realise that a thing that got people to use them is costing them too much money. I mean, if they really meant they were improving their service, then I'm fairly certain they'd say why.
Yeah, this isn't really news. This was announced months ago!
Is slashdot losing it's way on cutting edge stuff?
I think they just hate security.
If you browse to https://opensource.scouting.org/docs/ then Firefox 3 tells you they are using an invalid certificate.
I do.
Maybe the Red Cross could donate them a bottle of "no more tears". Seriously, sucked in J&J. What were you thinking???
I don't think that games are main drivers of computing. I think that business apps are. nVidia might think that they are going to rule computing, but they won't. They'll be a dominant player, but they should remember S3 graphics and Vesa. You're only as good as your last product, and given that they aren't particularly open they might lose their market at any time.
That joke has integrate-ty.
"Force the royal family to submit to regular body cavity searches". You say that is if it's a bad thing.
Yeah. Instead they'll prosecute and you'll have a criminal record. Great plan.
It's not really a problem with malicious damage to IT systems, I believe that it's more a problem of valuable and time-sensitive information walking out the door. At the end of the day, it's really a method of risk management. If you are moving to another company, then they don't want you to screw the company. I feel that it's really a responsible way of dealing with business risk.
I'm not sure I see much of a problem with this. If they make their ODF documents in such a manner that they are similar to OOXML, then basically they have show OpenOffice a great way of keeping compatible with OOXML with a minimum of fuss and effort!
While it is fine to disable the compatibility checking, my concern is that if enough people disable it they might start expecting the Mozilla devs to actually implement workarounds to 2.0 compat problems in v3. That way leads to many, many problems. Just ask Microsoft.
And you know this how?
I think that this seems a somewhat reasonable response, but slightly flawed.
The problem was not that they said that "Here is a list of reasons why you shouldn't do it.", the problem is that they said that "Don't do that. Your idea is stupid/doomed to fail/a waste of time."
I would have just said "I see what you are trying to do, but this is a bad idea because of x, y and z".
The problem wasn't that they were providing "stop energy", the problem was that they got personal.
Wow... if by "Stop Energy" we mean "don't point out flaws" then this seems a fairly bad approach to things. Or perhaps this is my bad behaviour in causing stop energy for Stop Energy. Yet the concept has flaws - big ones!
The parent poster made some reasonable comments. It would take a lot of effort to terraform a planet. He also made the point that we really should be looking after our own planet before we consider looking for life on Mars - let alone colonize the planet.
Really? Are you saying that the following comment has no validity whatsoever?
"Terraform a planet? Someone has been reading too much sci-fi -- just try playing around with high school physics for about five minutes on exactly how much work would be required to lower an entire atmosphere one stinking degree, and then compare that to the power consumption of the human race."
Probably not couched in very gentle terms, but seems a reasonable position to hold!
Perhaps you don't like dissenting comments? Just because you don't like the comment does not make it invalid you know.
I find it very interesting that all negative comments to finding life on Mars have been modded down. Seems to me that certain people don't like criticism or contrary opinions.
I smell bullshit. How would they be getting viruses just by inserting a DVD? Were they running the executable? And what does it mean by "my memory stick would be filthy with viruses every time I had to go and get documents from my counterpart or his section NCOs."
This seems to be one almighty bad joke. I mean, watching porn... memory "stick" filthy with viruses?
I don't think you need to duck from return fire... more skulk away as you serious asked for vi keybindings. Do you know what you are asking?!?
Yes well, be sure you have enough diskspace. I remember compiling early versions of the software and it gobbled greater than 800MB of the my disk in temp storage.
One wonders why they have so much code in OOo when the Linux kernel takes up only a fraction of the space, and arguably does a whole lot more.
Oh come on! That wasn't a troll.
OK, if the debugging led to nothing then I agree that you should feel shitty. It's always bad when bugs for things get released into code - I work for a software company and always cringe when I see this - what was their time to fix?
With regards to complex errors: so long as you get good support, who can interpret the errors, it shouldn't be too bad. You may feel differently, don't blame you if you do.
I would also agree that if they can reproduce the problem on their end, that is what they should be doing, not get you to test on your environment.
Let me get this straight. You've deployed a multi-tier, complex product designed around IIS,
Seriously, are you for real?
... that they are shooting themselves in the foot. The more they annoy the Universities, the more likely they'll believe the effort and cost is too great. Hopefully they will then be forced to defend themselves.
I do hope they call the RIAA's bluff. What's happening now is modern-day extortion!