|
I switched to using linux years ago for all personal machines.
Too many pushes of marketing-driven updates (like "Use Edge!" updates you describe, but in my case it was "Use IE"), other unwanted pushes.
Why did I keep needing to buy brand-new hardware because the new-and-improved version of their lates OS needed special care?
The last straw was a snafu at their end where they sent me veiled threats about using "unlicensed MS applications". They had been licensed and I had uninstalled them long prior.
True, there was a learning curve to get familiar with the variety of Linux OSs and Desktops. I keep my machine updated on my schedule.
The pain was worth the gain.
There was the joy of learning. It paid off in knowledge gained that - fun - and benefited my career as well!
Nevertheless, my spouse still uses M$, and I serve as tech support for that.
She sometimes uses my Linbox when her fairly new Win10 machine decides it wants to run updates unexpectedly, and more updates.
At work I use a Windows box, but everything** I use has a suitable Linux equivalent. I think the biggest reason I use Windows there is due to our heavy investment in Windows products/security/networking. I can't fault that at all.
But for development Linux (Or Macs, 'nixes, etc.) are just fine.
***I happen to have (properly licensed) Excel and some other products like that only to serve and test the requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Kelley 2021 wrote:
The last straw was a snafu at their end where they sent me veiled threats about using "unlicensed MS applications". They had been licensed and I had uninstalled them long prior.
Were these from Microsoft or someone claiming to be from Microsoft? There are a lot of shady companies that claim to represent Microsoft for licensing and they will always find you need to purchase more licenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent point - the incident in question was the mid 'noughts, and it had some very specific stuff about my installation and license info. I've always been skeptical(paranoid?) about some of these kinds of emails, but this stuff seemed authentic and was referencing actual MS sites, no funky or similar URL's.
My belief is that after I left my prior job and I had deleted my Office installation that some telemetry was alerting them. I think it was authentic, and my employer had warned me that MS would put in stuff to track these installs when I put it in.
So it's not absolute evidence, but I think it points to a heavy-handed reaction to a false indicator. After clearing my drive and installing another OS I didn't hear from them again about it. I imagine that they would have revamped their approach and culture many times over in the ~15 years since, but I've had no need to give Windows a try again.
Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
Which desktop window system do you prefer, KDE or Gnome?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
KDE or Gnome? I use another option - xfce - usually. As for KDE vs. Gnome - I don't have a strong preference between them. I try them out occasionally. That's another nice thing about most distros : how they often have a default setup that you can change/tinker with, and it's often a gentle introduction to new featurers - or you can use the setup that you like!
For me an example of a negative : I never liked the Unity desktop. It just seemed to make everything a chore for me to get at. Others found it a really useful layout. It's up to you.
On another choice with plenty of good options is file managers. I happen to use Thunar of late.
|
|
|
|
|
FWIIW: I don't run W10/11 that much but everything seems to have kept working in the W11 Insider version when I changed msedge.exe to msedge.exe.hide. It just opens stuff in Chrome. One of the updates did install a new version, so I renamed it. I only run Windows (here in my HO) in a VM. Normally, I am a Linux puke  .
YMMV.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that Edge is using Chromium for its innards, I prefer it.
The one thing that I hate is when I launch a new tab, it pops a msnbc headline page with so much tempting click bait!
|
|
|
|
|
It used to be that in a dev team you would have a project manager. If you had a good PM, he would handle all the process issues, interact with business users, manage requirements, etc. Basically get all the development roadblocks out of the way so that the developers in the team could work unimpeded or delayed waiting on other groups.
Now we have scrum masters, whose only concern seems to be that I's are dotted and T's crossed with respect to stories and tasks, but then offload all of the PM work on the developers.
I just spent 2 1/2 hours talking to business owners for an app that needed upgrading, just to get concensus on a design change. I have asking the scrum master for the last two weeks to see that this gets done. His latest response was to call a meeting with everyone involved to do a "demo" - even though everyone has already seen the updated app and have been playing with it. We just needed a go/no go on the design. And of course there was no agenda, no explicit purpose stated for this meeting and what needed to be achieved.
Are PMs extinct now that the work has gone "agile"? Is no one responsible now to get this administrative work out of the developers way?
|
|
|
|
|
"If you had a good PM..."
That's key - I've had way too many worthless PM's -- former programmers who were not good at programming, so took the PM classes to stay employed. Just called meetings recurring weekly and did nothing else. Had very little clue as to what the project needed to accomplish. In my view it's the person, not their job title.
|
|
|
|
|
I have had both good and bad PM's. The good ones were priceless....
|
|
|
|
|
<i>"I've had way too many worthless PM's -- former programmers who were not good at programming, so took the PM classes to stay employed. Just called meetings recurring weekly and did nothing else"</i>
Same here. They are more than useless, and they make significant more money. They stop work for meetings several times a day. When you stop 6 Developers from working that's a ton of lost man hours.
I have never seen any value in the PM position. Essentially, if they are not conducting a meeting, they have very little else to do. My best jobs have been the ones that had no PM.
Keep It Simple, keep it moving.
|
|
|
|
|
in my experience.
Scrum masters make more money and do less work.
A good PM is worth their weight in gold.
I have yet to encounter even one Scrum Master who is worth their own salt.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
Andreas Mertens wrote: one responsible now to get this administrative work out of the developers way
Maybe you're looking for the Product Owner?
Andreas Mertens wrote: scrum masters, whose only concern seems to be that I's are dotted and T's crossed
Correct. Maybe you need to revisit the definition of a Scrum Master -- it does not involve project management.
Andreas Mertens wrote: spent 2 1/2 hours talking to business owners
Definitely not what a developer should be doing. Don't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
I am aware that scrum masters and PM's are different roles. And their are no "Product Owners" just the business owners and they do not interact directly with the dev teams.
It is a big government installation, so I do expect a lot less from them. But the disappearance a proper PM (and dev managers too for that matter) is a disturbing trend.
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure who got the idea the scrum master has to do product owner stuff.... But can as well be a developer as the scrum master, because it should be neither.
|
|
|
|
|
If there are no Product Owners you are not doing 'Agile' right...?
|
|
|
|
|
No ownership. Doesn't appear you have anyone on the team that actually cares if the thing is done. Taking ownership usually means annoying someone (like going over their heads or around them). No honors at the end; even after you get it done.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
We retired. Corporate management has always looked down at software development. Those "marketing types" that fill most of the C-level seats think that product development is something that can be done to a time-line and on demand. Project managers buffered their development teams from the ridiculous "product windows" demands and temper tantrums of those morons. Then they started demanding that they control how we do our jobs as development strategies began to proliferate - continuous development, agile, etc. Do they pay for training? Hell, no. Project managers were just supposed to know how to implement these new strategies, teach it to our teams and implement each. Of course, halfway through a project, some C-level moron read about another new strategy and demanded its implementation. It got to the point where the pressures and hassles of the job just were not worth the pay. I quit and found a position in which I was the sole developer, but even there financial and regulatory pressures started to mount. I retired and became a rancher. I work harder and longer in all kinds of weather and continue to program as a hobby - I am much happier!!
__________________
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept that there are some things I just can’t keep up with, the determination to keep up with the things I must keep up with, and the wisdom to find a good RSS feed from someone who keeps up with what I’d like to, but just don’t have the damn bandwidth to handle right now.
© 2009, Rex Hammock
|
|
|
|
|
"We retired." Nailed it in 2 words.
Good PMs make it look easy and at the end of a successful program get little to no credit. Because there was no drama and the deadlines and budgets were met everyone (management AND the devs) assume that it was easy.
No one sees that the PM was the human shield protecting the developers from the bull-ship tornado swirling about them. And the management team is oblivious to the agony of a million decisions the development team has to make every day.
The good PM knows "who knows what" and connects the right people at the right times so that developers can get the right answers quickly without unnecessary meetings and distractions.
The good PM knows the business top to bottom, or is willing to learn, and has the experience (and scars) to anticipate the impending wreck and make small adjustments early to avoid them.
These folks get passed over for the Drama Queens that let the crap seep through in both directions and "Save the program", putting in heroic effort that could have been avoided.
You can only do this so long before you get tired and hang it all up.
|
|
|
|
|
Fortunately for me, our engineering management has been streamlined over the last few years. My current manager and his predecessor have both been great. They both view their role as managing priorities for us and expectations for those outside our organization. Neither one gets too involved in technical decisions, except in how they affect meeting those priorities.
This is good for me, as I've reached an age where my tolerance for corporate structure cow patties is minimal.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone seemed to think Agile and Scrum was the way to go and it would solve all problems.
I have the impression that this is fading a bit, so my guess is soon you'll start seeing more hybrid models.
There are good things about agile, but I feel the same thing can be said about other methodologies. You only need to do it right 
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of 2 1/2 hours talking to business owners, I know everybody does agile differently, but my interpretation is that having devs interacting with business users is central to agile processes.
From the 'Manifesto':
Quote: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Quote: Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
From the 'Principles':
Quote: Business people and developers must work together daily throughout the project
Quote: The most efficient and effective method of conveying information to and within a development team is face-to-face conversation
My personal experience in development is that the worst problems come from a lack of understanding of requirements, and that the more you have people as conduits for requirements between the business and devs, the more likely misunderstandings will arise. So, as painful as 2 1/2 hours away from the lovely code may be, in my view it's time well spent.
That's not to say that I don't think PMs are useful; I just don't think they should be a buffer between devs and the business.
|
|
|
|
|
Carl_Sharman wrote: having devs interacting with business users is central to agile processes.
It's simply to let the product owner know that someone is working on their project.
The product owner generally only cares about deliverables, and they continually conflate sprints with deployments.
The whole agile/scrum process is a pain in your typical developer's ass.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
OK, if it's 2 1/2 hours to deliver a statement update, then you have my deepest sympathy 
|
|
|
|
|
I totally understand your point. But there are a lot of levels of bureaucracy here, and who can talk to whom.
In this one particular case I had already been working with some of the business users as to requirements, and had provided them with a proof of concept to play with and get feedback. But now, for the last two weeks I had been requesting a signoff on the POC so we could proceed with the final product. And this was the scrum master's responsibility. Just a simple Yes or No, and if no I would have worked further with the business users to revise the design.
For the last two weeks I would be asked at our virtual standup what the status was for this project. I would reply each time that I was awaiting signoff. The scrumaster said he would take care of this. Finally after two week of this he said he would set up a meeting. Of course he set up a demo of the app - despite the fact that the usershad all been playing with this for some time. And no word on getting a signoff. That is when I took over with this 2 1/2 hour meeti g to get this all done.
I don't mind working with the users, getting requirements, etc. I've been working as a contractor/consultant for 15+ years, and I understand the need to wear many hats. But now I am working as a contractor within a team and you expect everyone to do their part.
At least I got the job done, got the final signoff and was able to move this to forward. Still lots of testing to do, and a few functional tweaks.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
