I still play Asheron's Call casually and like it, especially with the new low level experience. AC is the only MMO world that feels like a real world to me, not just a bunch of different theme park zones put together. That said, I'm no fanboy; it has had (and I'm sure still has) a number of flaws. I hope that it sticks around, or that someday another MMO will come close to the experience of the AC world but with a modernized client.
I've played other games like WoW and LoTRO, and enjoyed them for different reasons (mostly the experience of group questing with friends, etc.) But they leave me feeling like I'm on some kind of guided tour. Even the class-based system feels far too rigid to me. I miss skill points. I'm not saying that AC did this perfectly either--far from it--but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done better in another game.
"Then again, I've met quite a few other programmers that really just had nothing better to do with their spare time."
I agree with most of what you said, but this is the main attitude I find distasteful in many people taking your position. You're making a judgment about what someone else chooses to do in their free time, in effect asserting that your likes and dislikes are more worthwhile than someone else's.
Usually it boils down to someone (not trying to put words into your mouth specifically here) implying that if you don't have family, kids, or hobbies that they deem worthy, then you must be some kind of retarded geek. Balance is doing what you enjoy and what makes you happy. That's not always family/kids/hiking/whatever the fuck you like. Sometimes it's programming.
Complete and utter bullshit. I can't even list the number of movies, shows, etc. that I've downloaded from usenet. I haven't needed a torrent or any of those other gimped/slow services in years. What you mean by "elitist" is "I'm too lazy to learn how to use/search it properly." Well, your loss.
I don't understand why people balk at paying for usenet. It's cheap as hell, and if you weigh the costs vs. the benefits, it basically approaches free because the numerator becomes so large and the denominator stays small.
Being able to actually saturate my bandwidth is a huge plus, vs. waiting on slow torrents and overloaded file sharing sites.
But you didn't read any of this. The first rule of usenet is not to talk about usenet.
I agree 100%. I am overweight, and i definitely don't live the healthiest lifestyle (although I have been changing that recently). However, I do not feel that you should have to pay my medical bills. Therefore, I should pay more than you until I get into shape. Anybody who disagrees with this stance is a whiny fatass.
I wouldn't want to pay for others' bad choices, so I don't think anyone should have to pay for mine.
Uh.....it's called short-selling. You know, selling a stock short. Buy high, sell low (although technically I suppose it's really mre like borrow high, return low). No reason to use anything as complicated as puts.
I agree wholeheartedly. In particular, the support and deployment aspects of desktop applications can be a complete pain - so much so that web applications begin to seem much more attractive by contrast.
After all, when boiled down, web applications are basically just text output to a web browser, whether that text is HTML or script. It's much easier to understand what's going on in that environment. GUI applications (at least on Windows) are made up of hideously ugly code that is afflicted by years of crappy Win32 API changes that amount to hackish workarounds and spending most of your time on dealing with compatibility issues.
Sorry, I assumed that it was clear enough that I was referring to Windows programming (or at least.NET Windows Forms programming). There are some situations in which COM or Win32 API Interop is simply required because they left out some key functionality in the Windows Forms controls or libraries.
Also, most shrinkwrap software is going to require an installer, and it's not always as simple as just copying files and executing. You also have to deal with registry entries (if there are any), licensing/key validation, user preferences for which modules get installed, customized paths, detecting prerequisites, etc. You have thousands of different system configurations with dozens of different platforms (if you factor in culture-specific versions of Windows) and your program has to work flawlessly on all of them. Ideally it should be fine, but we're talking about the Microsoft world here, and some scary-ass shit can happen.
I suppose if you're referring to Java development, or some other technology, then I can't really form an opinion as I don't have much experience. I can only speak to my experience from C++ (Win32 API and MFC) and Windows Forms (.NET) development, and I find it a headache compared to web development.
On the other hand, I think I'd prefer to USE desktop applications. But I'd certainly rather DEVELOP web applications.
For two primary reasons:
1) Installers. Writing installers sucks. The MSI "standard" is a bloated piece of crap, Installshield and Wise are ridiculously hard to get along with, and NSIS is a little too primitive (although by far the best installer platform I've found). You have to test the installer on every platform, ending up with stupid little quirks on Vista and x64 platforms. It's a nightmare, and patching/updating is a whole different nightmare. In the real world, there's no such thing as simple XCOPY deployment. At least for shrinkwrapped apps.
2) COM Interop. The Win32 API and COM combined is the crappiest piece of crap that ever crapped. I have nightmares about being forced to use Interop because they left out some trivial and silly thing from a WinForms control. I am speaking quite literally in saying that I have had nightmares. Seriously.
I know, I know, working in Linux probably makes both of these problems more tolerable, if not completely invisible. But some of us must work in Windows. C'est la vie.
I would take ASP.NET, or PHP, or Ruby, or Python, or any of those over crappy desktop Windows programming any day of the week. I'll even accept multiple-obscure-browser testing over COM Interop and installers.
Oddly, many of the IT folks I talk to (and I work with them regularly) are just as frustrated--if not more. Obviously there are exceptions, but I hear the same complains from within. It's not the IT workers that I blame, they're just following orders.
For many applications - particularly those which are customer-facing or critical to maintaining core processes, the higher level of bureaucracy makes sense to prevent disaster. I'm definitely no stranger to this concept.
But for things like internal support for strategic decision-making and other functions that have long-term impact on the bottom line (as opposed to immediate impact) the criticality is nowhere as high and therefore a different standard should be applied. This is primarily what we are missing in our organiztion. There is only one way to do things, regardless of the criticality of the impacted systems.
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's somewhat dangerous to tie someone's qualifications to who they report to, rather than - you guessed it - their actual qualifications.
Our organization has a very well documented set of standards for all hardware and software - something which we've always been willing to follow. The problem is getting anybody to follow the standard and DO something.
I like to think I'm a little more advanced than someone who would buy memory at CompUSA. This, and millions of Access databases that spring up all over the place, are clearly enough justification not to hand out root access to everybody and their uncle.
In most cases all we're asking for is that they work with us to get it done (the right way) rather than ignoring us.
Thanks for your comments, I agree totally. The interesting thing is that everything we want to do is FULLY funded! Meaning, budget is not at all the concern, it's the ability to USE that budget. That's the ironic part. Even with full support of the bosses (and believe me, there's a lot of escalation going on) it's very difficult to get anything moving whatsoever.
I guess there isn't a real solution, but it's oddly comforting to know it's not like that just where I am.
Thanks for your comment - I agree completely in the sense that it's not right for us to break stuff and just shove responsibility onto them. If we dig our own grave, it's up to us to lie in it - the problem is we just can't get the shovel!
Absolutely agreed. I wouldn't want to be responsible for something that I had no say in creating (or selecting) unless that was clearly part of my job responsibilities. So I understand that attitude from IT completely. The ironic thing is that we're really not asking them to support much at all - and what they DO support usually is just outsourced to our systems vendor.
Great points. It's difficult sometimes to just "not care" - not only because it means you miss opportunities but because it's difficult to take pride in your work. I think I'd rather continue to struggle against the situation, as you say, rather than give up and play solitaire all day.
Fair enough - keep in mind that my story was written for Slashdot and it wasn't something I plan to use to support my case within the organization.
In almost all cases, we try to work WITH them instead of AGAINST them, because as you said, they hold the keys to the kingdom in many ways. My point wasn't that IT is useless and we should get rid of them. Clearly they have many critical functions. But one of those critical functions is to enable the use of technology for the purpose of doing business - not just for the sake of having technology around. In many ways, they succeed in this, but in many other ways, they fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I still play Asheron's Call casually and like it, especially with the new low level experience. AC is the only MMO world that feels like a real world to me, not just a bunch of different theme park zones put together. That said, I'm no fanboy; it has had (and I'm sure still has) a number of flaws. I hope that it sticks around, or that someday another MMO will come close to the experience of the AC world but with a modernized client.
I've played other games like WoW and LoTRO, and enjoyed them for different reasons (mostly the experience of group questing with friends, etc.) But they leave me feeling like I'm on some kind of guided tour. Even the class-based system feels far too rigid to me. I miss skill points. I'm not saying that AC did this perfectly either--far from it--but that doesn't mean it couldn't be done better in another game.
The Vulcan Science Directorate has concluded that time travel is impossible.
"Then again, I've met quite a few other programmers that really just had nothing better to do with their spare time." I agree with most of what you said, but this is the main attitude I find distasteful in many people taking your position. You're making a judgment about what someone else chooses to do in their free time, in effect asserting that your likes and dislikes are more worthwhile than someone else's. Usually it boils down to someone (not trying to put words into your mouth specifically here) implying that if you don't have family, kids, or hobbies that they deem worthy, then you must be some kind of retarded geek. Balance is doing what you enjoy and what makes you happy. That's not always family/kids/hiking/whatever the fuck you like. Sometimes it's programming.
I, of course, meant that the numerator stays small and the denominator grows large. Math bad, MATH BAD!!!
Complete and utter bullshit. I can't even list the number of movies, shows, etc. that I've downloaded from usenet. I haven't needed a torrent or any of those other gimped/slow services in years. What you mean by "elitist" is "I'm too lazy to learn how to use/search it properly." Well, your loss.
I have to assume that you are being modded down by people who use usenet and want to keep it quiet. There's no other rational reason. =]
I don't understand why people balk at paying for usenet. It's cheap as hell, and if you weigh the costs vs. the benefits, it basically approaches free because the numerator becomes so large and the denominator stays small. Being able to actually saturate my bandwidth is a huge plus, vs. waiting on slow torrents and overloaded file sharing sites. But you didn't read any of this. The first rule of usenet is not to talk about usenet.
I agree 100%. I am overweight, and i definitely don't live the healthiest lifestyle (although I have been changing that recently). However, I do not feel that you should have to pay my medical bills. Therefore, I should pay more than you until I get into shape. Anybody who disagrees with this stance is a whiny fatass.
I wouldn't want to pay for others' bad choices, so I don't think anyone should have to pay for mine.
Probably for the same reason that toad William Hung is popular. People love perfection in awfulness.
I can't believe nobody has brought this one up. It made me laugh so hard I could barely breathe.
v iew.html
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/re
Uh.....it's called short-selling. You know, selling a stock short. Buy high, sell low (although technically I suppose it's really mre like borrow high, return low). No reason to use anything as complicated as puts.
I agree wholeheartedly. In particular, the support and deployment aspects of desktop applications can be a complete pain - so much so that web applications begin to seem much more attractive by contrast.
After all, when boiled down, web applications are basically just text output to a web browser, whether that text is HTML or script. It's much easier to understand what's going on in that environment. GUI applications (at least on Windows) are made up of hideously ugly code that is afflicted by years of crappy Win32 API changes that amount to hackish workarounds and spending most of your time on dealing with compatibility issues.
Sorry, I assumed that it was clear enough that I was referring to Windows programming (or at least .NET Windows Forms programming). There are some situations in which COM or Win32 API Interop is simply required because they left out some key functionality in the Windows Forms controls or libraries.
Also, most shrinkwrap software is going to require an installer, and it's not always as simple as just copying files and executing. You also have to deal with registry entries (if there are any), licensing/key validation, user preferences for which modules get installed, customized paths, detecting prerequisites, etc. You have thousands of different system configurations with dozens of different platforms (if you factor in culture-specific versions of Windows) and your program has to work flawlessly on all of them. Ideally it should be fine, but we're talking about the Microsoft world here, and some scary-ass shit can happen.
I suppose if you're referring to Java development, or some other technology, then I can't really form an opinion as I don't have much experience. I can only speak to my experience from C++ (Win32 API and MFC) and Windows Forms (.NET) development, and I find it a headache compared to web development.
On the other hand, I think I'd prefer to USE desktop applications. But I'd certainly rather DEVELOP web applications.
For two primary reasons: 1) Installers. Writing installers sucks. The MSI "standard" is a bloated piece of crap, Installshield and Wise are ridiculously hard to get along with, and NSIS is a little too primitive (although by far the best installer platform I've found). You have to test the installer on every platform, ending up with stupid little quirks on Vista and x64 platforms. It's a nightmare, and patching/updating is a whole different nightmare. In the real world, there's no such thing as simple XCOPY deployment. At least for shrinkwrapped apps. 2) COM Interop. The Win32 API and COM combined is the crappiest piece of crap that ever crapped. I have nightmares about being forced to use Interop because they left out some trivial and silly thing from a WinForms control. I am speaking quite literally in saying that I have had nightmares. Seriously. I know, I know, working in Linux probably makes both of these problems more tolerable, if not completely invisible. But some of us must work in Windows. C'est la vie. I would take ASP.NET, or PHP, or Ruby, or Python, or any of those over crappy desktop Windows programming any day of the week. I'll even accept multiple-obscure-browser testing over COM Interop and installers.
Oddly, many of the IT folks I talk to (and I work with them regularly) are just as frustrated--if not more. Obviously there are exceptions, but I hear the same complains from within. It's not the IT workers that I blame, they're just following orders. For many applications - particularly those which are customer-facing or critical to maintaining core processes, the higher level of bureaucracy makes sense to prevent disaster. I'm definitely no stranger to this concept. But for things like internal support for strategic decision-making and other functions that have long-term impact on the bottom line (as opposed to immediate impact) the criticality is nowhere as high and therefore a different standard should be applied. This is primarily what we are missing in our organiztion. There is only one way to do things, regardless of the criticality of the impacted systems.
I hear what you're saying, but I think it's somewhat dangerous to tie someone's qualifications to who they report to, rather than - you guessed it - their actual qualifications. Our organization has a very well documented set of standards for all hardware and software - something which we've always been willing to follow. The problem is getting anybody to follow the standard and DO something. I like to think I'm a little more advanced than someone who would buy memory at CompUSA. This, and millions of Access databases that spring up all over the place, are clearly enough justification not to hand out root access to everybody and their uncle. In most cases all we're asking for is that they work with us to get it done (the right way) rather than ignoring us.
Thanks for your comments, I agree totally. The interesting thing is that everything we want to do is FULLY funded! Meaning, budget is not at all the concern, it's the ability to USE that budget. That's the ironic part. Even with full support of the bosses (and believe me, there's a lot of escalation going on) it's very difficult to get anything moving whatsoever. I guess there isn't a real solution, but it's oddly comforting to know it's not like that just where I am.
We used to be able to do this - it was AWESOME!
Thanks for your comment - I agree completely in the sense that it's not right for us to break stuff and just shove responsibility onto them. If we dig our own grave, it's up to us to lie in it - the problem is we just can't get the shovel!
Absolutely agreed. I wouldn't want to be responsible for something that I had no say in creating (or selecting) unless that was clearly part of my job responsibilities. So I understand that attitude from IT completely. The ironic thing is that we're really not asking them to support much at all - and what they DO support usually is just outsourced to our systems vendor.
Great points. It's difficult sometimes to just "not care" - not only because it means you miss opportunities but because it's difficult to take pride in your work. I think I'd rather continue to struggle against the situation, as you say, rather than give up and play solitaire all day.
Fair enough - keep in mind that my story was written for Slashdot and it wasn't something I plan to use to support my case within the organization. In almost all cases, we try to work WITH them instead of AGAINST them, because as you said, they hold the keys to the kingdom in many ways. My point wasn't that IT is useless and we should get rid of them. Clearly they have many critical functions. But one of those critical functions is to enable the use of technology for the purpose of doing business - not just for the sake of having technology around. In many ways, they succeed in this, but in many other ways, they fail.