It's management grasping at straws because they don't understand the work well enough to know what needs done.
If you don't understand the job well enough to know what needs done how can you check to see if people are making progress? You can't. So the only thing you can do is run around and make sure everyone's "busy." The trouble is it's easy to look busy in front of some outsider that doesn't understand the work.
If you don't understand the work you won't know if it is taking to long to do. People will exploit that and you will look like an ass to them.
If you do know the work your workers will pick up on it rather quickly and won't try to scam you (not as much anyway). Instead of trying to figure out if people are busy you can move on to finding out what their excuse is for not getting the work done. If the excuse is valid, find out what you can do to help and do it. If the excuse isn't valid, you start using all the dick head moves that a manager has to offer (or at least threaten them with it) until results are seen.
When the work load is light and you are ahead of schedule... let your workers fuck off a bit as a reward. Let them know that you know their fucking off and you're letting them for the moment. When the work starts flowing in again, they'll be ready to kick back into gear for you.
SEO's, if anything, should be regulated. By very definition they aim to circumvent "search neutrality" by artificially inflating the relevance of a result.
There's a difference between putting the news that you've launched a website and trying to make sure that it's the only destination people end up at.
SEO's are a cancer on "Web 2.0". Forcing users to clean their spam and type in barely legible captchas... all so our search results can less useful?
Google is fine. Fix SEOs by making their scams a crime.
How is it any different then letting Doom 3 run on Linux? Would you rather the Licensing be so restrictive that Doom never happened on Linux?
Add-ins are evil but whole applications aren't? Seriously. I didn't see revolts in the streets of FLOSS Land when Doom was released for Linux but when Mono opens the door for the same possibility of running closed source programs that a Linux system already has... all hell breaks loose.
How does software running on BOTH Windows and Linux create a lock-in?
Seems to me that the lock-in is a world without Mono. Then if you.NET you are locked in to a Windows only world. They are going to.NET regardless of Mono's existence. At least with Mono users aren't locked into Windows only.
Would you rather have something like where Flash comes from? A binary that runs on both but is closed up tight? Would you rather have Microsoft implement a closed.NET runtime blob that runs on Linux instead of an open source Mono?
I don't see Mono as any more evil than Wine, Cygwin, Samba, FreeDOS, or the plethora of open source programs that run on both Windows and Linux. The logical extension of "hate Mono because it provides compatibility with a Microsoft frame work" is to hate all software compatible with any Microsoft framework. You should hate Firefox, Open Office, Apache, QT, and on and on. If it runs on a MS platform it must be supporting the lock-in right?
The big picture is that Linux only is no better than Microsoft only. Interoperability between the two platforms helps both sides.
If your AV software is killing your Exchange database then you should be fired for running it. All the relevant AV vendors provide Exchange integration. I've seen NT 4 boxes with it (it's not new).
Home editions are for home computers not for your business' servers. Get the AV package that says "server" on it.
I agree, the problem with Windows is not so much the OS itself but poorly written applications.
You can call a virus a poorly written 3rd party application all you want. I'll still insist that the OS shouldn't let viruses walk all over the system even when ran as an underprivileged user.
How is it still possible to write past the end of a buffer and over the top of executable code? These poorly written applications should crash because the OS tells them no. The NX bit is going on what now? 10 years?
I'm sorry but if your application shits all over the place and the OS doesn't stop it then it is a poorly written application running on a poorly written OS. Also applications would have a tenancy to applications fix themselves at development time if the operating environment expected more of them.
For those who think that these additional checks by the OS would show things down, is it any worse than what Norton does? Maybe AV scanning wouldn't be such a hog if there were fewer viruses because they were harder to develop. If that hole in the networking stack wasn't there 5+ years ago we wouldn't still be scanning for the malware years after the the hole was plugged. Yep, AVs will still scan for viruses the system is now immune to. An ounce of prevention goes a long way.
I know MS has gotten a lot better in recent history and that's great. Still, it will be awhile before they'll earn my trust back especially since we're still suffering from the negligence of the past.
Marketing's job is to make you want to be fucked in the ass. It's not their job to actually fuck you in the ass, but you should want to be fucked in the ass by the time their done with you.
Why are we wasting so much money trying to find planets we can't get to? We should be looking for the Stargate instead. Sure we might get targeted by the snake heads but you'd be amazed what you can do with a little C4, a P90, and the occasional nuke. Throw in a language nerd and a hot chick... This at least is doable.
The point is that if you become involved enough in a project, it will come out one way or another and I'd say that the bulk of people involved in FOSS development don't care about their anonymity when it comes to being part of the team. Being part of a successful project is probably something they would like to claim their being to.
This is in stark contrast with the behavior of a typical forum or chat room where people just sit around and talk shit about other people, political crap, technology they really have no clue about, and etc. Hell no one wants to lay claim to that crap. That's where anonymous Internet handles get most of their use and abuse.
Yes people can hide behind handles. That doesn't mean that people must or do in all situations. I don't see FOSS developers hiding much when it comes to being involved in a project.
Click help->about in a few of your favorite open source programs and tell me what percentage of those first name-last name pairs are fictitious fabrications.
So the answer to
aren't a lot of FOSS activities typically conducted by your handle (i.e. not your name)?
is: Yes Internet handles may be used by FOSS developers, but typically not for the express purpose of anonymity from others involved in the project. Sometimes to hide from overly critical, ignorant, and abusive end users maybe but we're talking about the interaction between team players. Again, click help->about and tell me how likely it is that contributers are actively hiding their identities from each other.
The handle that counts is an e-mail address. It's very likely what you'll use to submit patches to a FOSS project. An e-mail address may or may not contain your name depending on if it was issued by an employer which may require you to use it to submit patches that were developed on company time. So sometimes anonymity can't be afforded. Mostly, however, if you want anonymity you can get it. Sure.
However, in my experience, programmers are often a bit more egotistical than shy and want credit to their name to some extent. Reasons may vary but when it comes down to actually contributing to the project (by submitting code) they don't seem to put extra effort into hiding their identity.
Beyond that, there's a tendency for FOSS developers to meet up in real life for conferences and such. I'm sure you could skip them too if you're really hiding. I just don't see anyone not involved in development of malware, botnets, or other illegal activity actually trying to hide their identity when it comes to actually contributing to a project.
Also you can't copyright via Internet handle. You can't license something or enter a legal agreement under the name of FluffyBunnies29 without that being your real name. (At least as far as I know--I'm not a lawyer.)
Click help, about, and you'll likely see real names. Check the change log you'll likely see real names.
Yes, handles and anonymity are part of the Internet and FOSS developers also use the Internet. That doesn't mean they are hiding.
If Chrome ever gets the necessary add-ons, it's performance will be on par with FF.
What do you base that assumption on? I haven't seen any benchmarks that compare the difference between Firefox without and without add-ons running.
In fact it's standard practice to benchmark products "out of the box" and note any changes from the out-of-box state (i.e. anything you've done to it beyond the install process from the manufacture). A Firefox vs Chrome (or whatever) benchmark wouldn't have a Firefox loaded with add-ons. So how can you conclude that Firefox's benchmark performance is suffering from add-ons? Do you mean something else by "performance"?
Even if add-ons slow Firefox to some extent, if Firefox still gets its ass handed to it without extra add-ons installed... what the hell is the point in bringing them up?
Ok but why piss off the rest of us? If AC above is right shouldn't the absence of the titlebar, menubar, extra buttons, etc be a design choice made when porting to a [mobile] platform? Shouldn't we conform to the UI "standards" of the targeted platform to some extent?
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php puts the percentage of browsers reporting >= 768 vertical pixels at around 85% making the 600 a minority. I don't know what real demand there is for vertical friendly applications, but I do know that developers sometimes optimize the trivial. Also, as others have pointed out, what about full screen mode?
In the end it'll likely just be another setting for me me to change from it's presumptuous default (I'm doing that a lot anyway).
I think canned cat food is to blame. Unlike dry cat food from the bag, it must be prepared by a human (removed from the can) and it's best when fresh from the can (it can't sit out as long as dry food can). This leads to the cats eating on a schedule convenient for humans.
Also, by feeding them canned food, the human is often paying attention to the cat while it is eating. If the cat doesn't immediately start eating and "pigging out," the owner assumes the cat "doesn't like that kind" and finds a different kind that makes the cat exhibit the behavior the human expects. This is not always beneficial to the cat's health either.
I don't know about that. Even if they were only 64MB, the fact that they are not read-only makes them much more interesting than their coaster counterparts. If they were just as prolific as the CDs were... I could see many interesting if not amusing projects springing up to make use of them. Sure they may not be turned into a solar arrays but I could still see them being used in other arrays.
I don't know what the practical limits are to chaining USB hubs and devices. I don't really care enough to find out. On the other hand, if AOL started popping out millions of USB devices it would probably be a much more interesting piece of information.
The ad campaign is against Microsoft's competitors not previous MS browsers. For those who didn't RTFA there's a table with IE8, Firefox, and Google Chrome. IE6 is not being targeted by the campaign. I don't see how this is getting misconstrued into MS campaigning for users to upgrade from IE6 to IE8 for the altruistic good of humanity.
However, marking IE8 as a "High Priority" or "Critical" update is another story. Putting "Download IE8" in prominent locations on msn.com could be seen as encouraging people to upgrade, yes. TFA no.
Slashdot Mirror
It's management grasping at straws because they don't understand the work well enough to know what needs done.
If you don't understand the job well enough to know what needs done how can you check to see if people are making progress? You can't. So the only thing you can do is run around and make sure everyone's "busy." The trouble is it's easy to look busy in front of some outsider that doesn't understand the work.
If you don't understand the work you won't know if it is taking to long to do. People will exploit that and you will look like an ass to them.
If you do know the work your workers will pick up on it rather quickly and won't try to scam you (not as much anyway). Instead of trying to figure out if people are busy you can move on to finding out what their excuse is for not getting the work done. If the excuse is valid, find out what you can do to help and do it. If the excuse isn't valid, you start using all the dick head moves that a manager has to offer (or at least threaten them with it) until results are seen.
When the work load is light and you are ahead of schedule... let your workers fuck off a bit as a reward. Let them know that you know their fucking off and you're letting them for the moment. When the work starts flowing in again, they'll be ready to kick back into gear for you.
Can't lock in the customer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H frequency that way.
So they go from stuck to stuck. What's the difference?
SEO's, if anything, should be regulated. By very definition they aim to circumvent "search neutrality" by artificially inflating the relevance of a result.
There's a difference between putting the news that you've launched a website and trying to make sure that it's the only destination people end up at.
SEO's are a cancer on "Web 2.0". Forcing users to clean their spam and type in barely legible captchas... all so our search results can less useful?
Google is fine. Fix SEOs by making their scams a crime.
How is it any different then letting Doom 3 run on Linux? Would you rather the Licensing be so restrictive that Doom never happened on Linux?
Add-ins are evil but whole applications aren't? Seriously. I didn't see revolts in the streets of FLOSS Land when Doom was released for Linux but when Mono opens the door for the same possibility of running closed source programs that a Linux system already has... all hell breaks loose.
What the hell is the difference?
How does software running on BOTH Windows and Linux create a lock-in?
Seems to me that the lock-in is a world without Mono. Then if you .NET you are locked in to a Windows only world. They are going to .NET regardless of Mono's existence. At least with Mono users aren't locked into Windows only.
Would you rather have something like where Flash comes from? A binary that runs on both but is closed up tight? Would you rather have Microsoft implement a closed .NET runtime blob that runs on Linux instead of an open source Mono?
I don't see Mono as any more evil than Wine, Cygwin, Samba, FreeDOS, or the plethora of open source programs that run on both Windows and Linux. The logical extension of "hate Mono because it provides compatibility with a Microsoft frame work" is to hate all software compatible with any Microsoft framework. You should hate Firefox, Open Office, Apache, QT, and on and on. If it runs on a MS platform it must be supporting the lock-in right?
The big picture is that Linux only is no better than Microsoft only. Interoperability between the two platforms helps both sides.
If your AV software is killing your Exchange database then you should be fired for running it. All the relevant AV vendors provide Exchange integration. I've seen NT 4 boxes with it (it's not new).
Home editions are for home computers not for your business' servers. Get the AV package that says "server" on it.
You can call a virus a poorly written 3rd party application all you want. I'll still insist that the OS shouldn't let viruses walk all over the system even when ran as an underprivileged user.
How is it still possible to write past the end of a buffer and over the top of executable code? These poorly written applications should crash because the OS tells them no. The NX bit is going on what now? 10 years?
I'm sorry but if your application shits all over the place and the OS doesn't stop it then it is a poorly written application running on a poorly written OS. Also applications would have a tenancy to applications fix themselves at development time if the operating environment expected more of them.
For those who think that these additional checks by the OS would show things down, is it any worse than what Norton does? Maybe AV scanning wouldn't be such a hog if there were fewer viruses because they were harder to develop. If that hole in the networking stack wasn't there 5+ years ago we wouldn't still be scanning for the malware years after the the hole was plugged. Yep, AVs will still scan for viruses the system is now immune to. An ounce of prevention goes a long way.
I know MS has gotten a lot better in recent history and that's great. Still, it will be awhile before they'll earn my trust back especially since we're still suffering from the negligence of the past.
To make it painfully clear...
Marketing's job is to make you want to be fucked in the ass. It's not their job to actually fuck you in the ass, but you should want to be fucked in the ass by the time their done with you.
So do you want your ass Googled or Binged?
I'm sorry. I can't resist. I simply must put a /. spin on this. Lets see...
MICROSOFT AND SONY ARE HOLDING THE WORLD BACK AGAIN! AHHHHHH!H!H!!!!! They are teh evils! Innovation stiflers!
(Note to moderators: I expect nothing less than a +5 Insightful. There I saved you time you won't have to post that "Undoing moderation" crap.)
WRONG!!!
Leptons go PEW PEW not woosh!
Fixed.
You can stop laughing at my shiny hat now.
Yeh see matey, if yeh leave out the R no one be respecting.
Yarrrrrrr!
But there's not much wrong with PDF, if it's done right.
I'm sure they won't fuck this up, after all it is the US government.
Why are we wasting so much money trying to find planets we can't get to? We should be looking for the Stargate instead. Sure we might get targeted by the snake heads but you'd be amazed what you can do with a little C4, a P90, and the occasional nuke. Throw in a language nerd and a hot chick... This at least is doable.
The point is that if you become involved enough in a project, it will come out one way or another and I'd say that the bulk of people involved in FOSS development don't care about their anonymity when it comes to being part of the team. Being part of a successful project is probably something they would like to claim their being to.
This is in stark contrast with the behavior of a typical forum or chat room where people just sit around and talk shit about other people, political crap, technology they really have no clue about, and etc. Hell no one wants to lay claim to that crap. That's where anonymous Internet handles get most of their use and abuse.
Yes people can hide behind handles. That doesn't mean that people must or do in all situations. I don't see FOSS developers hiding much when it comes to being involved in a project.
Click help->about in a few of your favorite open source programs and tell me what percentage of those first name-last name pairs are fictitious fabrications.
So the answer to
is: Yes Internet handles may be used by FOSS developers, but typically not for the express purpose of anonymity from others involved in the project. Sometimes to hide from overly critical, ignorant, and abusive end users maybe but we're talking about the interaction between team players. Again, click help->about and tell me how likely it is that contributers are actively hiding their identities from each other.
The handle that counts is an e-mail address. It's very likely what you'll use to submit patches to a FOSS project. An e-mail address may or may not contain your name depending on if it was issued by an employer which may require you to use it to submit patches that were developed on company time. So sometimes anonymity can't be afforded. Mostly, however, if you want anonymity you can get it. Sure.
However, in my experience, programmers are often a bit more egotistical than shy and want credit to their name to some extent. Reasons may vary but when it comes down to actually contributing to the project (by submitting code) they don't seem to put extra effort into hiding their identity.
Beyond that, there's a tendency for FOSS developers to meet up in real life for conferences and such. I'm sure you could skip them too if you're really hiding. I just don't see anyone not involved in development of malware, botnets, or other illegal activity actually trying to hide their identity when it comes to actually contributing to a project.
Also you can't copyright via Internet handle. You can't license something or enter a legal agreement under the name of FluffyBunnies29 without that being your real name. (At least as far as I know--I'm not a lawyer.)
Click help, about, and you'll likely see real names. Check the change log you'll likely see real names.
Yes, handles and anonymity are part of the Internet and FOSS developers also use the Internet. That doesn't mean they are hiding.
* Drink every time the "estimated time left" goes up instead of down or is otherwise shown to be inaccurate.
What do you base that assumption on? I haven't seen any benchmarks that compare the difference between Firefox without and without add-ons running.
In fact it's standard practice to benchmark products "out of the box" and note any changes from the out-of-box state (i.e. anything you've done to it beyond the install process from the manufacture). A Firefox vs Chrome (or whatever) benchmark wouldn't have a Firefox loaded with add-ons. So how can you conclude that Firefox's benchmark performance is suffering from add-ons? Do you mean something else by "performance"?
Even if add-ons slow Firefox to some extent, if Firefox still gets its ass handed to it without extra add-ons installed... what the hell is the point in bringing them up?
Ok but why piss off the rest of us? If AC above is right shouldn't the absence of the titlebar, menubar, extra buttons, etc be a design choice made when porting to a [mobile] platform? Shouldn't we conform to the UI "standards" of the targeted platform to some extent?
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php puts the percentage of browsers reporting >= 768 vertical pixels at around 85% making the 600 a minority. I don't know what real demand there is for vertical friendly applications, but I do know that developers sometimes optimize the trivial. Also, as others have pointed out, what about full screen mode?
In the end it'll likely just be another setting for me me to change from it's presumptuous default (I'm doing that a lot anyway).
I'm glad he cleared that up for me.
I think canned cat food is to blame. Unlike dry cat food from the bag, it must be prepared by a human (removed from the can) and it's best when fresh from the can (it can't sit out as long as dry food can). This leads to the cats eating on a schedule convenient for humans.
Also, by feeding them canned food, the human is often paying attention to the cat while it is eating. If the cat doesn't immediately start eating and "pigging out," the owner assumes the cat "doesn't like that kind" and finds a different kind that makes the cat exhibit the behavior the human expects. This is not always beneficial to the cat's health either.
And... who says 64MB isn't enough to be interesting? ----> http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/
I don't know about that. Even if they were only 64MB, the fact that they are not read-only makes them much more interesting than their coaster counterparts. If they were just as prolific as the CDs were... I could see many interesting if not amusing projects springing up to make use of them. Sure they may not be turned into a solar arrays but I could still see them being used in other arrays.
I don't know what the practical limits are to chaining USB hubs and devices. I don't really care enough to find out. On the other hand, if AOL started popping out millions of USB devices it would probably be a much more interesting piece of information.
The ad campaign is against Microsoft's competitors not previous MS browsers. For those who didn't RTFA there's a table with IE8, Firefox, and Google Chrome. IE6 is not being targeted by the campaign. I don't see how this is getting misconstrued into MS campaigning for users to upgrade from IE6 to IE8 for the altruistic good of humanity.
However, marking IE8 as a "High Priority" or "Critical" update is another story. Putting "Download IE8" in prominent locations on msn.com could be seen as encouraging people to upgrade, yes. TFA no.