Re: Outsourcing only works...
"In the end, people spent more time arguing about the letter and spirit of the contract than anything else."
Well, there's the source of your problem: believing that a contract has spirit as well as letters.
42400 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Jun 2014
"management will always rather listen to what an external cunsultant says than to their own expert staff. Even if it's exactly the same."
That's because it costs them more. Price = value. The consultant can ask the expert and then pass the answer on along with a big bill. It's called adding value.
"I can't say I'll miss Unity."
Neither will I. It was designed on exactly the same desktop-to-mobile premise as the Windows 8 interface and misguided for the same reason - different use cases need different interfaces.
What I will miss is the effort to get a non-spying OS on a non-overpriced phone. One possible outcome might be that commercial investors restart the Ubuntu phone development going without the overhead of pretending that the same interface can work on a desktop with the downside that they'll insist on cloning the Google/Android business model.
"Linux on the desktop has always been marginal; it's really a server OS that works okay in embedded applications too, which is why Android could use it."
Think this through. Why can what you allege to be "really a server OS" work okay in embedded?
It's because any OS modelled on Unix is a portable and properly layered system. Portable means that any part of it can be compiled for different CPU architectures. Layered means that the kernel can carry a run-time appropriate to the use case: a cut down payload for embedded, a mobile-oriented* payload for Android or a standard set of Unix utilities with or without a choice of graphical interfaces for desktop or server.
No it's not "really a server OS". It's an OS. Just because you struggle with it doesn't mean that our elderly relatives can't manage it when we use it to rejuvenate their old PCs.
*The modular driver system helps here.
"there just aren't as many nutters out there as the security services would like us to think."
And rather more spontaneously combustible batteries than they've taken into account. It's more a matter of weighing up the risks of alternative courses of action than deciding to follow one on what are, in effect, PR grounds.
"No point fining the CEO or trustees - they are not paid very much (relative to FT350 companies with a similar turnover) and is would only prevent the charities being able to attract good talent."
If the trustees are allowing this sort of behaviour it throws the notion of "good talent" into question.
"But would someone giving to a charity like the fact that for every £1 they give 30% will go to pay (sometimes huge) wages, 20% to administration, 40% to marketing etc and only 5% to helping the cause itself?"
Sometimes this analysis can be misleading. You need to look at what the charity delivers and how.
I remember reading that the Samaritans had problems because of the amount that was spent on offices and phones which counted as administrative expenditure. But, of course, what Samaitans does is seat volunteers in offices at phones.
A charity that provides medical or social care might spend most of its income on wages because paying those professionals to deliver care is what it's about.
At the very least you'd have to separate out management expenditure.
"1) call MS and ask them for the enterprise version. tell them you are a company and need 250 + licences of Windows and Office"
1) Call MS and tell them that you're a large organisation with several thousand Microsoft users who you are about to move over to Linux.
2) Watch a CxO come running with amazing offers.
"You may think that's an odd requirement, but trust me, you don't want to argue the point."
I'll take your word for the last bit. But if I wanted to turn off the heating at some random time, after racking my brains for a while, I think I'd come up with the idea of just pushing the switch.
"But I don't believe the Police are in the habit of lurking outside your house hoping to catch you using a door app on your phone"
Prime example of missing the issue here. The reason the police could trap you is because it's illegal to do so whilst driving. The reason it's illegal is because it's dangerous. This is one instance where "think of the children" is relevant. They might even be the driver's own children.
"Ultimately, it spells out a warning for other companies – that one bad-tempered action can impact the entire business."
It should also spell out a warning for other customers and potential customers - if the server goes down for any reason, including the company going out of business, your toy stops working. That applies to any toy that depends on the availability of someone else's computer.
"ISP's profit on providing a hardware service is surprisingly slim, Big G & F buy servers, not laying cables in the ground everywhere"
I think you're confusing two separate activities here. Telecoms companies lay cables in the ground and/or sling them overhead. The ISP service is one of several that runs over the the telecom infrastructure and it may well be that your telecoms provider will sell you - or attempt to - such services over that provision; companies are apt to muscle into adjacent lines of business to add value profit. But your ISP doesn't have to be your telecoms provider.
So ISPs, like the social network companies, are buying servers and internet backbone access. It's true Google tried to get into the infrastructure business but seems to be back-pedalling from that. The difference between ISPs and free services is that the one sells you a service and the other sells you.
"It's why, for example, the UK has historically had very low gun crime; we used to punish it harshly."
I didn't notice that back in my time in N Ireland. That could have been to do with the fact that both sides had a well organised gun-running operation which got round the restrictions in supply.
@ MNGrrrl
Whilst I agree with your views on Facebook and wouldn't want an account on it the issue is broader.
I, in the UK, might do business with a company which uses, unbeknown to me, some US corporation as a service provider. Unless US law provides much better protection for user privacy then my data, along with others, is apt to be swept up by an over-braod warrant, as the dissenting judge pointed out.
The Privacy Figleaf withers a little more each time such a judgement comes up.
"French a bit at odds here earlier influenced from the south or there are synonyms."
Even French and other Latin derived languages aren't that much at odds. They're still derived from the same origins, the shifts in letters such as those which gave Latin pater and frater rather than father and brother are systematic and the remainder of the word is often the same.
"I have no doubt it will be renewed"
And I have no doubt about its following Safe Harbor once it hits the ECJ and for the same reason. Google, Facebook & the rest will eventually realise that they'll have to follow an arms-length model such as Microsoft are adopting in Germany.
The only question is how long do we have to go round this loop before that realisation dawns? Maybe GDPR-scale fines will hasten that along.
"That's why they normally wait until it is sold or transferred and tax it there, because the transaction attaches a value to the asset."
A few days ago my annual council tax bill landed on the doormat. It's based on some nominal valuation of the property. This may not be normal where you live but it's normal here.
"That's assuming everyone CAN make what they want or need. Trouble is, in the future, many will lack the skills, the rest will lack the resources."
And in the days when people had to make or grow what they used* their standard of living was limited by just that.
*Which more or less equates to wanted or needed. If they survived then arguably they got what they needed and they probably didn't want iPhones because they didn't know such things were possible.