Change is always going to occur, and how you manage the change will have a direct correlation upon the success of your projects.
.
Some development tools are more stable than others from one version to the next, others are less stable. Managing the change then requires the developer to put into place the process for determining how to upgrade software tools in a manner consistent with the best outcome for the project.
Clearly, given the number and frequency of serious bugs coming out of Redmond of late, it is beginning to look as if Microsoft's QA team is either out to lunch, or has been laid off.
So any change mitigation strategy involving Microsoft products would probably have as it's #1 item: let new software from Microsoft settle down before using.
...but an issue with NVidia drivers shows that there is potential for things to go wrong....
Given Microsoft's history of buggy Windows Update patches these past few months, I'd proffer that there is more than just a potential for things to go wrong. There is a likelihood that things will go wrong.
.
Microsoft really needs to up its game regarding the quality of the patches it is foisting upon the world.
You already pay the AG's salary as well as his business expenses and his medical/dental/vision through your taxes. You shouldn't have to illegally bribe him extra to have him do what's best for the general public that he's being legally paid to serve.
Unfortunately for the general public, the items you list do not engender loyalty to the general public.
.
The MPAA knows how to buy the loyalty of politicians, and it is done via campaign contributions. If you do what the MPAA wants you to do, then they will help your campaign. If you do otherwise, you may find a well-funded candidate running against you.
...it wants to "ensure that users experience autocomplete as it was designed to be used,...
That is, solely and exclusively for the profit of google. I suspect too many others were making a profit on the API, pulling those dollars away from google.
.
At the rate that google pulls working software out of production and mothballs it, I am surprised that anyone relies on any product that google has.
There does not appear to be any such thing as a long-term supported google product.
I would have also liked to have seen the differences in how each group does what they do.
.
For example --- software updates:
- do the experts use "custom" installs to avoid the installation of unwanted browser toolbars and adware, and that is why they are more likely to install updates?
- do the non-experts use the "default" installs, which pull in toolbars and crap adware, leading the non-experts to avoid updates?
I think the article is a good one, but there should be some more depth to it.
People who don't use your code will not share their experiences with your, will never tell you about problems that could arise, about simple changes that might improve runtime performances, will not develop new uses for your code.
If they want to do all that, then they can choose to use my code with the license I put on it. Again, it is really simple. It is their choice whether or not to use my code. I am not forcing anyone to do so.
It's everybody else who has an interest in what license you pick.
If they don't like the license I pick, then I'm not forcing them to use my code. It's a simple concept, really.
.
So I repeat, why all the angst and false drama?
How useful open source is to you is directly proportional to how many developers are using a license aligned with your interests.
How useful open source is to me is how useful an open source program is available that fits my needs. I really could not care less how many other developers are using a license that is "aligned with my interests". I've got better things to worry about.
Why pro-this or pro-that?
on
On Being Pro-GPL
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Let the person writing the code decide how she or he wants to license it.
It's about time driverless vehicle testing has moved away from the snow-less climes and into an area that presents some actual challenges to the driverless vehicles.
I agree that would be nice. But what good is a self-driving vehicle if the security of the vehicle's systems were so poor that the vehicle is no longer self-driving, but driven by a hacker.
.
That would definitely harsh your mellow as you view the country in your "self-driving" RV...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, the drone pilot was probably being a douche. Does this give people free reign to go randomly shooting at things?
Yes.
.
An anonymous Microsoft PR person writes.
Just another phase of a Microsoft grassroots campaign.
.
An anonymous Microsoft PR person writes
Maybe the next company will have more of a clue in managing the /. asset.
.
Some development tools are more stable than others from one version to the next, others are less stable. Managing the change then requires the developer to put into place the process for determining how to upgrade software tools in a manner consistent with the best outcome for the project.
Clearly, given the number and frequency of serious bugs coming out of Redmond of late, it is beginning to look as if Microsoft's QA team is either out to lunch, or has been laid off.
So any change mitigation strategy involving Microsoft products would probably have as it's #1 item: let new software from Microsoft settle down before using.
.
Kudos to Newegg.
...the safe's exposed USB port....
Why not just paint a large target on the front of the safe?
Thank-you.
...but an issue with NVidia drivers shows that there is potential for things to go wrong....
Given Microsoft's history of buggy Windows Update patches these past few months, I'd proffer that there is more than just a potential for things to go wrong. There is a likelihood that things will go wrong.
.
Microsoft really needs to up its game regarding the quality of the patches it is foisting upon the world.
You already pay the AG's salary as well as his business expenses and his medical/dental/vision through your taxes. You shouldn't have to illegally bribe him extra to have him do what's best for the general public that he's being legally paid to serve.
Unfortunately for the general public, the items you list do not engender loyalty to the general public.
.
The MPAA knows how to buy the loyalty of politicians, and it is done via campaign contributions. If you do what the MPAA wants you to do, then they will help your campaign. If you do otherwise, you may find a well-funded candidate running against you.
.
As we are beginning to see, once the codecs become an essential facility, patent fees will start to be extracted from the users.
.
The divisions that were left behind when Agilent was spun off were Just Another Company, with nothing special to speak of.
Looks like I hit a nerve....
...it wants to "ensure that users experience autocomplete as it was designed to be used,... That is, solely and exclusively for the profit of google. I suspect too many others were making a profit on the API, pulling those dollars away from google.
.
At the rate that google pulls working software out of production and mothballs it, I am surprised that anyone relies on any product that google has.
There does not appear to be any such thing as a long-term supported google product.
...In the final analysis, if Comcast’s 25 Mbps internet costs $50 per month ...
Around here, since Comcast has little competition, Comcast's 25mbps internet costs well over $50 per month.
.
Hopes of seeing anything approaching gigabit speeds this decade are quite low.
scientists say it should be called oleogustus
Yeah, that rolls right off the tongue, just like "sweet" or "sour".
Had the review been unfavorable, who would you claim is the conspirator?
Silly goose, Microsoft would not pay to have a bad review published.
.
For example --- software updates:
- do the experts use "custom" installs to avoid the installation of unwanted browser toolbars and adware, and that is why they are more likely to install updates?
- do the non-experts use the "default" installs, which pull in toolbars and crap adware, leading the non-experts to avoid updates?
I think the article is a good one, but there should be some more depth to it.
I guess MS still strongly feels this site gets so many eyeballs so it is worth relentless ads brazenly disguised as stories or Experiments...
It reminds me of Microsoft grass-roots astroturfing campaigns of yore.
I wonder how much Microsoft paid to Dice in order to get this article placed here?
People who don't use your code will not share their experiences with your, will never tell you about problems that could arise, about simple changes that might improve runtime performances, will not develop new uses for your code.
If they want to do all that, then they can choose to use my code with the license I put on it. Again, it is really simple. It is their choice whether or not to use my code. I am not forcing anyone to do so.
It's everybody else who has an interest in what license you pick.
If they don't like the license I pick, then I'm not forcing them to use my code. It's a simple concept, really.
.
So I repeat, why all the angst and false drama?
How useful open source is to you is directly proportional to how many developers are using a license aligned with your interests.
How useful open source is to me is how useful an open source program is available that fits my needs. I really could not care less how many other developers are using a license that is "aligned with my interests". I've got better things to worry about.
.
Why all the angst and false drama?
It's about time driverless vehicle testing has moved away from the snow-less climes and into an area that presents some actual challenges to the driverless vehicles.
.
That would definitely harsh your mellow as you view the country in your "self-driving" RV...