Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If they allow you to share salaries, people who just aren't very in demand think they "should" earn more. Why, Larry who is the go-to programmer on our team "only" has a bachelor's degree and Sally (who can more or less do her job, often with Larry's help) has a master's and has been here 2 more years. By golly, Sally is being discriminated against! She won't stand for that, no-sir-ee!
So really what you need is a system where you're free to share salaries, but you can't sue because of "discrimination". If you feel you're being underpaid for _any_ reason, demand more money or leave. It's a zero sum game anyway, only so many jobs to go around so _someone_ will benefit from that job and I don't give a fuck who it is.
What the fuck do you think a Union is, moron? If they didn't have some sort of control over supply of labor, they wouldn't have a whole lot of power now would they?
False. Free speech is a right with respect to the government, not with respect to your employer.
If you have a job, you can prove this by going on facebook (or the local news) and telling everyone you hate your company, your job, your boss and that everyone should buy a competitor's products. Good luck with that, there, Johnny Free Speech.
Workers are entirely free to speak. But if they signed a contract they can be fired. Go online and tell the world what a horrible company you work for and that you hate your boss, see how long you keep your boss with your silly "free speech" argument.
Wait.. so you've described a zero sum game. I get fired (my boss doesn't like my hair), but someone else gets that job. What possible difference is there to "society" barring made-up corner cases like I'm dirt poor and the guy who takes my job is a billionaire?
Bullshit. At will is also called "freedom", we try to espouse freedom as a value in this country.
Who the fuck are you to tell me who I can and can't pay money to?
Employers should be free to hire and fire at will in any free country. It's a zero sum game anyway, X amount of work needs to be done and Y amount of people will have jobs doing it.
Exactly. This is the more common situation. Bad employee who does "same work" (lol) should get "same pay". Only, well, she doesn't do the same fucking work she has the same _job description_.
No, you are paid based on how many people can do your job. Lots of people can clean up shit, so it doesn't usually pay all that much unless there's union action going on.
Hubris. Laughable hubris. You sound like ARM, and the field of corpses behind Intel.
They aren't very relevant now, but what if they have a 14nm, 2 core Atom chip running at less power and with twice the performance than a 4 core 22nm ARM chip in a few years?
AMD, among others. Intel wrote a compiler that heavily optimized for Intel's products. They spent a lot of money on this work. It also helped their competitors. So they disabled it on competitors. Then they got in trouble for that because AMD whined that the money and time Intel spent developing something should also help them.
So it makes total sense. Why would you spend your money on something that ends up not being a fucking competitive advantage because your competitors will get the same benefit?
Shit like the GPL makes it a zero sum game in scenarios like this (but not all scenarios). Sure, it helps me but it equally helps my competitors so why even spend the money - I won't get any additional sales. In fact if my competitor sells a cheaper, shittier product it might make theirs "good enough" now, thanks to _MY_ work, that they sell more.
You're doing dinosaur development, and your opinion is invalid for other types of software such as anything written in Java, C#, most script languages, etc...
1995 called, and the System Admins who write scripts in Bash and Perl called. They indicate they want their outdated complaint back.
This "debate" was settled long ago, in most cases for any serious software you are officially a clueless dinosaur if you don't use an IDE if one is available.
What's funny is you have no idea how ridiculous you sound to most professional software developers (except crusty old farts writing device drivers and a few other valid exceptions).
Rubbish. Uninformed rubbish. Microsoft is _incredibly_ open with developers about changes, and seeks a ton of feedback. That's why VS11 has been out for a while, so they could get feedback.
In fact, they already made changes based on developer feedback to add more colors back.
Lolwut? If you're doing.NET that would be ridiculous. If you're doing C++ then go for it, though moving to an inferior interface from a superior one due to cosmetic changes you don't like at first blush seems a little overblown. If you're doing cross platform C++ or Java or something else, why are you using VS?
Oh listen to the Johnny Trustbuster, Neckbeard esquire. I'm only surprised you didn't use the risible term "convicted monopolist".
You ignore the fact that they had already been overwhelmingly chosen by users at that point, and in addition they only did that for a very short period of time.
They are the standard because it was natural that there be one dominant OS due to applications being tied to platform.
Let's see if they falter in the next decade, because you whiners can't even use that excuse now. You can run all sorts of apps online, or on various platforms so the only reason now to choose Windows is you prefer it.
They've already put up. You seem to be taking the side that opposes history. They've put up enough times that history is littered with people who said they wouldn't be able to do something.
Shut up. You can turn off secure boot, you can use an existing trusted key, or you can install your own keys. This is much hand-wringing and FUD by a bunch of angry dweebs.
Secure boot is a desirable feature and mandates a signature system like this. If you don't like it, turn it the fuck off.
Slashdot Mirror
It did work on all x86 processors. What now?
Employers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.
If they allow you to share salaries, people who just aren't very in demand think they "should" earn more. Why, Larry who is the go-to programmer on our team "only" has a bachelor's degree and Sally (who can more or less do her job, often with Larry's help) has a master's and has been here 2 more years. By golly, Sally is being discriminated against! She won't stand for that, no-sir-ee!
So really what you need is a system where you're free to share salaries, but you can't sue because of "discrimination". If you feel you're being underpaid for _any_ reason, demand more money or leave. It's a zero sum game anyway, only so many jobs to go around so _someone_ will benefit from that job and I don't give a fuck who it is.
Right, but when times are good and you're Captain In Demand, it's cool to be a primma donna and demand 5X your previous salary, right?
What the fuck do you think a Union is, moron? If they didn't have some sort of control over supply of labor, they wouldn't have a whole lot of power now would they?
False. Free speech is a right with respect to the government, not with respect to your employer.
If you have a job, you can prove this by going on facebook (or the local news) and telling everyone you hate your company, your job, your boss and that everyone should buy a competitor's products. Good luck with that, there, Johnny Free Speech.
Workers are entirely free to speak. But if they signed a contract they can be fired. Go online and tell the world what a horrible company you work for and that you hate your boss, see how long you keep your boss with your silly "free speech" argument.
Wait.. so you've described a zero sum game. I get fired (my boss doesn't like my hair), but someone else gets that job. What possible difference is there to "society" barring made-up corner cases like I'm dirt poor and the guy who takes my job is a billionaire?
Bullshit. At will is also called "freedom", we try to espouse freedom as a value in this country.
Who the fuck are you to tell me who I can and can't pay money to?
Employers should be free to hire and fire at will in any free country. It's a zero sum game anyway, X amount of work needs to be done and Y amount of people will have jobs doing it.
Nobody has a fucking "value!". Jesus christ, what's wrong with people?
You are paid based on a formula. You get Max(What You Say You Require, What Your Boss Thinks You're Worth). Fucking _period_.
Any argument that depends on your labor having some intrinsic "value" outside of that is flawed and worthy of being ignored.
Exactly. This is the more common situation. Bad employee who does "same work" (lol) should get "same pay". Only, well, she doesn't do the same fucking work she has the same _job description_.
No, you are paid based on how many people can do your job. Lots of people can clean up shit, so it doesn't usually pay all that much unless there's union action going on.
Hubris. Laughable hubris. You sound like ARM, and the field of corpses behind Intel.
They aren't very relevant now, but what if they have a 14nm, 2 core Atom chip running at less power and with twice the performance than a 4 core 22nm ARM chip in a few years?
AMD, among others. Intel wrote a compiler that heavily optimized for Intel's products. They spent a lot of money on this work. It also helped their competitors. So they disabled it on competitors. Then they got in trouble for that because AMD whined that the money and time Intel spent developing something should also help them.
So it makes total sense. Why would you spend your money on something that ends up not being a fucking competitive advantage because your competitors will get the same benefit?
Shit like the GPL makes it a zero sum game in scenarios like this (but not all scenarios). Sure, it helps me but it equally helps my competitors so why even spend the money - I won't get any additional sales. In fact if my competitor sells a cheaper, shittier product it might make theirs "good enough" now, thanks to _MY_ work, that they sell more.
fuck that.
You're doing dinosaur development, and your opinion is invalid for other types of software such as anything written in Java, C#, most script languages, etc...
1995 called, and the System Admins who write scripts in Bash and Perl called. They indicate they want their outdated complaint back.
This "debate" was settled long ago, in most cases for any serious software you are officially a clueless dinosaur if you don't use an IDE if one is available.
What's funny is you have no idea how ridiculous you sound to most professional software developers (except crusty old farts writing device drivers and a few other valid exceptions).
Either you have literally no idea what you're talking about or you are an incredibly sarcastic person. Take your pick.
Rubbish. Uninformed rubbish. Microsoft is _incredibly_ open with developers about changes, and seeks a ton of feedback. That's why VS11 has been out for a while, so they could get feedback.
In fact, they already made changes based on developer feedback to add more colors back.
One lone blogger does not an outcry make.
Lolwut? If you're doing .NET that would be ridiculous. If you're doing C++ then go for it, though moving to an inferior interface from a superior one due to cosmetic changes you don't like at first blush seems a little overblown. If you're doing cross platform C++ or Java or something else, why are you using VS?
Oh listen to the Johnny Trustbuster, Neckbeard esquire. I'm only surprised you didn't use the risible term "convicted monopolist".
You ignore the fact that they had already been overwhelmingly chosen by users at that point, and in addition they only did that for a very short period of time.
They are the standard because it was natural that there be one dominant OS due to applications being tied to platform.
Let's see if they falter in the next decade, because you whiners can't even use that excuse now. You can run all sorts of apps online, or on various platforms so the only reason now to choose Windows is you prefer it.
They've already put up. You seem to be taking the side that opposes history. They've put up enough times that history is littered with people who said they wouldn't be able to do something.
And they've contributed immensely to the open source community. What's your point?
Jesus tapdancing Christ, you sure are an idiot aren't you? You literally know _nothing_ and are just blathering a bunch of paranoiac gibberish.
You started out with lies and FUD, and got called on it. So then you proceeded to just make up a bunch of scary nonsense.
And the road to nowhere is paved with FUD. This article and 90% of the replies are laughable FUD.
You can turn it off or you can get your own keys. "Problem" solved.
Shut up. You can turn off secure boot, you can use an existing trusted key, or you can install your own keys. This is much hand-wringing and FUD by a bunch of angry dweebs.
Secure boot is a desirable feature and mandates a signature system like this. If you don't like it, turn it the fuck off.
So don't fucking by an ARM device. How hard is this? There are already lots of ARM devices with forced secure boot.