161–170 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You think it's IT pushing this? They are just executing orders.
Yes and no. Businesses have cyber insurance policies. In a world of frequent ransomware attacks, many security policy changes have been mandated by insurance companies, and for legitimate reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're telling them that your convenience is worth more to the company than plugging a security hole. The company can live with your loss of productivity because it is living with the loss of everyone's productivity. The company cannot live without security. On top of that, if you are the only one making noise about slow computers and complaining about stuff and things then you eventually end up being the problem. I…
No the statement is "it's worth investing in making the UX less crap to increase productivity". Either improve SW (of it's in house crap scripts, as often), switch to more performant AV, etc. etc. It does not have to be crap actually, I have seen companies with usable machines. O365 on the other hand, I don't see a solution, it's horrible.
I guess this is the mantra they used to redesign the Windows UI. It didn't work (they stopped at 15%). Now all they do is to use the same mantra to start over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Users do care about speed. They complain about it all the time , you just have to listen to them. It's most of the "features" that users couldn't give a crap.
So why aren’t the users picking the software that’s faster instead of the ones with more features. Why does everyone use the “bloated” Gmail webui instead of some barebones desktop client that’s a few ms faster?
This software exists? When all your alternatives are bloated enshittificated crap, what exactly can I as a user chose?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're telling them that your convenience is worth more to the company than plugging a security hole. The company can live with your loss of productivity because it is living with the loss of everyone's productivity. The company cannot live without security. On top of that, if you are the only one making noise about slow computers and complaining about stuff and things then you eventually end up being the problem. I…
or just get rid of microsoft in the workplace and enjoy the absence of a terrible environment with the addition of fewer attack scenarios, better software and happier users but sad management people, but they don't do work on their machines anyway ;)
We tried. Managemen and sales _love_ Microsoft Office. Guess who has the money and makes purchasing decisions ? In the mean time we have to live with (the new and improved) PSpice forgetting its settings from one day to the other. Or with (rolls drum) Teams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, we won't make some special golden image for your machine. However we DONT want annoying "my computer slow" calls. So we can talk. But you need the antivirus and some kind of intune/rmm software, sorry.
How about this. I'll spend a hour writing a virus if your anti-virus picks it up, I'll keep it.
This has proven true for a while now. My favorite example is Slack. Slack is solid software, but why do we need upwards of 300MB of memory usage to send text and a couple images. I know why, but it does seem like an unreasonable usage. Here's the thing: I'd be okay with my "primary" software to be resource intensive. In my case, that's my IDE and the surrounding tools supporting it. I don't want my supporting softwar…
I think a lot of it is that Electron, as a technology, trades off cheaper developer expense (fewer devs needed to target more platforms) for much worse end user performance (slower, more ram).
Externalising the cost on users means the company doesn't have to pay it.
Developers are expensive after all, and there's no material loss for slack (except negative sentiment like this) - ultimately: you still use (and pay) for the software, so why should they care?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As long as devs spend their days with bugattis while writing software for corollas, this will continue to get worse. That's BS. Like there was no such things as featuritis and unreasonable schedules.
When performance is a non-issue enough that schedules and features are ALLOWED to be the priority, they will always win. When performance HURTS so much that they are forced to care about it ABOVE the pressure of features and schedules, then we get somewhere. Which is why browser emulation doesn't work -- it doesn't inflict enough pain. They wince through it, say "well that was awful, back to rushing more features out…
That won't happen because management people are the ones with Bugattis. You got the wrong target.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No the statement is "it's worth investing in making the UX less crap to increase productivity". Either improve SW (of it's in house crap scripts, as often), switch to more performant AV, etc. etc. It does not have to be crap actually, I have seen companies with usable machines. O365 on the other hand, I don't see a solution, it's horrible.
> "it's worth investing in making the UX less crap to increase productivity". I guess this is the mantra they used to redesign the Windows UI. It didn't work (they stopped at 15%). Now all they do is to use the same mantra to start over and over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s actually worse than you think. Functional programmers have been in a massive propaganda campaign to actively paint optimization not just as “usually not necessary”, but actually as a negative thing. Ask any developer what they think of optimization, and the vast majority will respond “optimization is the root of all evil” or some other nonsense variant. Now that they’ve successfully paint optimization as bad, th…
Functional programmers have been in a massive propaganda campaign to actively paint optimization not just as “usually not necessary”, but actually as a negative thing. Based on what? FP advocates like performance as much as anyone else. They need this because the performance characteristics of pure functional programming is pretty dogshit. Research languages like ATS show that functional programming doesn't come at t…
Nobody is going to use theorem proving languages for a lot of reasons, but actually, mostly cause functional programmers did themselves in with their other ridiculous propaganda campaign to declare that developer time is too expensive.
If ATS is a pure functional programming language, then it by definition of how cpus work cannot be performant, although there may be some things it can match other languages (usually reads are not noticeably slower)