I think this is a difference in how we define QA. QA in my mind is the testing process itself, but you're right that there is a "greater QA" that encompasses the entire process.
Pardon me for asking, but in what universe is "the game update made my computer unbootable" an excuse for being absent from work? And does this universe happen to have any open positions?
Things like this can easily happen when your patch doesn't have any CHANGE CONTROL. Imagine this - the patch is ready to go, everyone agrees on it, and then a small group of developers (or maybe even a single developer) decides to make a modification...and implements it badly. It doesn't even go through QA because QA isn't invoked ("oh, that would just delay the release, I'm sure I have it right anyway"). And now you have this.
I know it drives us crazy, I know not every organization implements change control that's sane and logical. But there's a reason it exists!
All you have to do is take your low-current, low-voltage illuminated toggle switch and use it to operate a relay. Assuming your relay is rated for the right conditions, you can use that switch to open and close any circuit you want.
Oh, I see. From now on, we will never judge the actual content of what a person says, but whether or not we think he is contradicting his own actions at some point in the past.
Grow up. You're not 14 years old anymore, raging against every authority figure you can find. There are worse things in the world than being a hypocrite. There's a reason you're not supposed to engage in ad hominem attacks in debates, and that reason is that whether or not someone is correct in what they are saying is more important than whether or not we think they're jerks. That's what intellectual honesty is all about - if that kind of thing is important to you, which I see it's not.
It's actually a pretty common thing within some networks to create some classes of TCP traffic and cause them to drop a packet. It causes the TCP session window to shrink by half, so now each side has to tighten up their acknowledgment window. It's called Random Early Detection. TCP is very resilient traffic, so this has very little impact on most networks (although I'd be very careful about using it within an ISP network).
However, this seems to be clearly stepping above that, and performing what is essentially source address spoofing, regardless of the whether or not there is congestion on the network. I don't know if you can really classify this as a QoS technique.
In 10 years, every IT department is going to say "Why buy Windows servers, when I can get a free or nearly free server OS that's more stable, run it on cheaper hardware with half the horsepower, and hire a Nigerian immigrant who knows it inside and out to administer it?"
For my own purposes:.odf To send important documents to the government:.pdf For people who insist on it (job recruiters, etc):.doc For friends and family:.odf and OpenOffice URL.
That's not true. The others you mention aren't actually "machines" at all. A machine's true purpose is to transfer work from a high-distance, low-force form into a high-force, low-distance form, or vice versa. The six simple machines are somewhat fundamental, although it could be argued that the wheel & axle are a continuous form of the lever, or that the screw is a particular 3-dimensional use of the wedge.
I've been messing with 2.3 for a while now and I've noticed that the display of fonts and line work in Writer, and fields in Calc, continue to have odd quirks in Windows that require you to minimize/restore if you want to see them displayed correctly. Most often, this manifests in situations where text or tables seem to disappear and you need to perform the minimize/restore trick to get them to come back. I realize this is a fairly minor complaint, seeing as how easily it's worked around. But this has been a problem from day 1 with OO and if you're using OO in Windows, hoping that it's fixed in this version, you're going to be let down.
In addition, fonts still look like hell on your monitor in the Windows version and that has not changed either.
"Film" eh? I'll just ask you what other movie you recently saw that was filmed entirely in front of a blue screen and features minimal human acting, and you'll get the point.
Of course, because you're a nerd, you're going to hate it, and you know already you're going to hate it, but you're going to shell out your rent money to see it anyway. Make a night of it. Bring your girlfoh who am I kidding here.
This whole thing about "services" and "didn't pay" with regard to security patches is a model I simply don't agree with. As a perfectly legal Windows user (yes, there are a few of us), my experience is enhanced when ALL users of the product are provided with security updates. I "paid" for my product, so Microsoft can "service" me by keeping illegal copies of their product from turning into germ farms.
Meanwhile, YOU can service me by...wink wink sailor!
...When you won't allow people to update invalid copies of your software with security fixes. Quite honestly, Microsoft has to bear its share of blame in this. If they would simply make ALL security fixes available to all users no matter whether their copy is legal or not, we might be able to mitigate this problem to some extent.
I'm perfectly willing to admit, however, that you can't make people patch their OS if they don't want to do it.
First of all, there are lots of reasons people like Ubuntu. It's based on Debian, which you'll note was Slashdot's Favorite Linux-based OS v1.0. Therefore it solves a lot of the problems people have with Linux software installation, such as package-dependency hell and app-version mismatches. But it's also geared toward the average Linux desktop user, which makes it cohesive and focused on desktop stability.
Secondly, Ubuntu does not "use" gnome. It uses whatever desktop environment you wish to have. It just happens to come with gnome by default. And if you're like Linus and you see no reason anyone should not use KDE, there are two ways to get it:
1. apt-get it
2. Download Kubuntu instead, which is just Ubuntu with KDE.
Oh, and also: most internal company websites are not standards-compliant and therefore require IE to display information correctly. Shit, I'm a VOIP guy and even Cisco's web applets don't work correctly unless you use IE.
"I went to see a very cool speech recently. I recorded the entire speech, and then encoded it into a language only I understand. I hope you all enjoy it."
You're missing the point entirely -- I'm agreeing with you.
I hear frequently that open-source products involve support difficulties. Development isn't centralized; development is perpetual; real expertise is rare. But the thing is, all of these things are true of Oracle as well.
Supporting a substantial database application requires certain constants, no matter which database you go with. Picture a 400-pound greasy, rude, smelly monstrosity with a goatee, who tells you he's going on a smoke break in fake-medieval English. You're going to have to hire that nasty sonofabitch either way. So why spend the money for the Oracle license?
Well, you could switch to an open source database, and then hire all kinds of brainpower to understand how it works, keep updated on the development, institute updates constantly, search high and low to find someone who can solve the problem that apparently only your company is having......or, you could do the exact same thing with Oracle, plus forty large per processor.
This decision isn't that hard to make.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this is a difference in how we define QA. QA in my mind is the testing process itself, but you're right that there is a "greater QA" that encompasses the entire process.
Pardon me for asking, but in what universe is "the game update made my computer unbootable" an excuse for being absent from work? And does this universe happen to have any open positions?
I think we're talking about as close to your definition of "bricking" as a game patch could possibly deliver.
Things like this can easily happen when your patch doesn't have any CHANGE CONTROL. Imagine this - the patch is ready to go, everyone agrees on it, and then a small group of developers (or maybe even a single developer) decides to make a modification...and implements it badly. It doesn't even go through QA because QA isn't invoked ("oh, that would just delay the release, I'm sure I have it right anyway"). And now you have this.
I know it drives us crazy, I know not every organization implements change control that's sane and logical. But there's a reason it exists!
All you have to do is take your low-current, low-voltage illuminated toggle switch and use it to operate a relay. Assuming your relay is rated for the right conditions, you can use that switch to open and close any circuit you want.
Oh, I see. From now on, we will never judge the actual content of what a person says, but whether or not we think he is contradicting his own actions at some point in the past.
Grow up. You're not 14 years old anymore, raging against every authority figure you can find. There are worse things in the world than being a hypocrite. There's a reason you're not supposed to engage in ad hominem attacks in debates, and that reason is that whether or not someone is correct in what they are saying is more important than whether or not we think they're jerks. That's what intellectual honesty is all about - if that kind of thing is important to you, which I see it's not.
It's actually a pretty common thing within some networks to create some classes of TCP traffic and cause them to drop a packet. It causes the TCP session window to shrink by half, so now each side has to tighten up their acknowledgment window. It's called Random Early Detection. TCP is very resilient traffic, so this has very little impact on most networks (although I'd be very careful about using it within an ISP network).
However, this seems to be clearly stepping above that, and performing what is essentially source address spoofing, regardless of the whether or not there is congestion on the network. I don't know if you can really classify this as a QoS technique.
In 10 years, every IT department is going to say "Why buy Windows servers, when I can get a free or nearly free server OS that's more stable, run it on cheaper hardware with half the horsepower, and hire a Nigerian immigrant who knows it inside and out to administer it?"
For my own purposes: .odf .pdf .doc .odf and OpenOffice URL.
To send important documents to the government:
For people who insist on it (job recruiters, etc):
For friends and family:
That's not true. The others you mention aren't actually "machines" at all. A machine's true purpose is to transfer work from a high-distance, low-force form into a high-force, low-distance form, or vice versa. The six simple machines are somewhat fundamental, although it could be argued that the wheel & axle are a continuous form of the lever, or that the screw is a particular 3-dimensional use of the wedge.
You can never expect someone to learn something if their paycheck depends on not learning it.
I've been messing with 2.3 for a while now and I've noticed that the display of fonts and line work in Writer, and fields in Calc, continue to have odd quirks in Windows that require you to minimize/restore if you want to see them displayed correctly. Most often, this manifests in situations where text or tables seem to disappear and you need to perform the minimize/restore trick to get them to come back. I realize this is a fairly minor complaint, seeing as how easily it's worked around. But this has been a problem from day 1 with OO and if you're using OO in Windows, hoping that it's fixed in this version, you're going to be let down.
In addition, fonts still look like hell on your monitor in the Windows version and that has not changed either.
Bob wasn't an OS, it was just a GUI.
"Film" eh? I'll just ask you what other movie you recently saw that was filmed entirely in front of a blue screen and features minimal human acting, and you'll get the point.
Of course, because you're a nerd, you're going to hate it, and you know already you're going to hate it, but you're going to shell out your rent money to see it anyway. Make a night of it. Bring your girlfoh who am I kidding here.
This whole thing about "services" and "didn't pay" with regard to security patches is a model I simply don't agree with. As a perfectly legal Windows user (yes, there are a few of us), my experience is enhanced when ALL users of the product are provided with security updates. I "paid" for my product, so Microsoft can "service" me by keeping illegal copies of their product from turning into germ farms.
Meanwhile, YOU can service me by...wink wink sailor!
...When you won't allow people to update invalid copies of your software with security fixes. Quite honestly, Microsoft has to bear its share of blame in this. If they would simply make ALL security fixes available to all users no matter whether their copy is legal or not, we might be able to mitigate this problem to some extent.
I'm perfectly willing to admit, however, that you can't make people patch their OS if they don't want to do it.
Another important percentage of which you should take note:
The percentage of developers who make their living developing for Linux holds steady at 0%.
Nothing at all, if you job doesn't ask you do do these things:
1. Be in the presence of people
2. Communicate with others
3. Be trusted with / near property which does not belong to you
4. Provide products or services to customers
5. Exist in the physical world of things and people
Secondly, Ubuntu does not "use" gnome. It uses whatever desktop environment you wish to have. It just happens to come with gnome by default. And if you're like Linus and you see no reason anyone should not use KDE, there are two ways to get it:
1. apt-get it
2. Download Kubuntu instead, which is just Ubuntu with KDE.
Oh, and also: most internal company websites are not standards-compliant and therefore require IE to display information correctly. Shit, I'm a VOIP guy and even Cisco's web applets don't work correctly unless you use IE.
Rare geek expedition into the real world confirms: xbox is hueg lol
"I went to see a very cool speech recently. I recorded the entire speech, and then encoded it into a language only I understand. I hope you all enjoy it."
You're missing the point entirely -- I'm agreeing with you. I hear frequently that open-source products involve support difficulties. Development isn't centralized; development is perpetual; real expertise is rare. But the thing is, all of these things are true of Oracle as well. Supporting a substantial database application requires certain constants, no matter which database you go with. Picture a 400-pound greasy, rude, smelly monstrosity with a goatee, who tells you he's going on a smoke break in fake-medieval English. You're going to have to hire that nasty sonofabitch either way. So why spend the money for the Oracle license?
Well, you could switch to an open source database, and then hire all kinds of brainpower to understand how it works, keep updated on the development, institute updates constantly, search high and low to find someone who can solve the problem that apparently only your company is having... ...or, you could do the exact same thing with Oracle, plus forty large per processor.
This decision isn't that hard to make.