Re: The sad part...
If a thing's worth doing, it's worth doing again.
40471 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"How much time did you spend, dear reader, learning an IT skill that lost its market value sooner and faster than you expected?"
A fair amount here and there. Ditto for skills that paid off. As a freelancer making speculative (to some degree) investments like that is part of the business - not that HMRC understand that.
The offers are coming thick and fast, the urgency likely being driven by the desire to make a sale before there's any real indication about what an AI PC actually is.
... when I rage about it later.
Vendors trying to make an urgent sale? I'm surprised the BOFH would rage about an opportunity like that.
"Please review this document and highlight any problems"
Does the document have any intrinsic value or does it just exist to be passed round for comment and to give management something to do reading it (or to give its original author something to do writing it).
Quite frankly, we're still not sure what Jedi-mind trick Smith thought he was pulling with that statement.
Why the surprise? Surely you read your own articles as much as I do and even as a non-Microsoft user I've read enough to realise that this is the Microsoft approach to QA. He just let it slip out.
The sequence was probably something like this:
1: Testin/QA miss the occasional corner case that slips out into the wild.
2. Users find the bug with sufficient publicity the Microsoft notice it.
3. Microsoft decides that users are more effective at catching bugs than Testing/QA
4. Microsoft realises that users are actually paying them rather then being paid
5. Microsoft acts accordingly
As we don't know the underlying situation I'd be reluctant to accept some of the assumptions here. As a student the case notes might be part of an exercise taken home to work write up there. Cross cut shreds wouldn't be much use there and suitable shredders aren't going to be part of student digs furnishings. It's the thought that they should be disposed on in this way that's worrying.
TFA did specifically say training was given. Experience is a dear teacher but there are those who will learn at no other. I hope we can take it that this student has finally learned.
"and customers don't take their custom somewhere else"
This is something that the deployers of this crap almost certainly don't measure.
"and soon there'll be nowhere else to go"
This is worrying. However sooner or later somebody might decide that winning the race to the bottom hasn't brought competitive advantage and start a race to the top. Imagine, for instance, how quickly a bank might conquer the banking marke by starting to open branches in towns and villages, staffed by helpful and empowered staff.
"and/or the lack of imagination"
A long time ago, back in the days when S/W was written without the assistance of CoPilot or ever StackOverflow we used to do this thing called error handling. Very old-fashioned, I know, but it involved thinking "what errors might be thrown up by this piece of code hitting a problem". It required using a degree of imagination and then adding code to handle the errors we could imagine happening. Those of us old enough to have done that are actually using that imagination and what we can see are a huge stack of likely bad consequences arising from nobody responsible (responsible? Ha!) for this idea having stopped to do that old-fashioned thing.
Those consequences include all manner of complications relating to legislation such as GDPR and also the neat packaging of all sorts of information for exfiltration by the bad guys.
To put it simply, this has FAIL written all over it.
Without knowing the "why" it would be difficult to correctly automate the process. Take, for instance, a situation where the business is down to the last few items of some product. Orders come in from two customers. Whoever's doing the stock allocation chooses one customer rather than the other.
Why? Is it random? Is it based on knowledge that one might have a more urgent need? Is it that one is a faster payer than the other? Does the business have more sales to one rather than the other. Is one customer a good mate?
Without knowing why the system has gained no information to enable it to make a similar trade-off in the future in the way the business might approve.
A more useful approach would be software that analyses demand and lead times to avoid that stock level issue entirely but that would be ordinary statistical analysis that needs no fancy clothes.
Yes, I'm a curmudgeon and refute your comparison.
Maybe there is a better solution than Sys V but I found Upstart already a step in the wrong direction because it made a start-up problem impossible to diagnose. Possibly there was somewhere where some debugging could have been inserted but if so it was sufficiently obfuscated that I never found it. Clarity is a virtue to be valued.
With sudo you don't need to give anyone root password because their own password suffices if they're in the sudoers file. That means hat if their password has been obtained by somebody else - possibly because they reused it elsewhere - then there's no additional layer of protection. None. Whatever access they have through sudo is now open to that third person.
The only reason you should have to give out the root password is that you need to give someone access that can only be done by root. The original solution was that if someone's job was printer administration that was done by user lpadmin and they'd su to lpadmin using lpadmin's password, not root's. And you still needed a separate password to become root.
It was a poor solution to an already solved problem.