Re: Devops is not about Development personnel!
Who do you think administers/develops your CI/CD function?
684 posts • joined 4 May 2011
Who do you think administers/develops your CI/CD function?
Didnt KFC already do this with the Double Down Dog?
has Apple patented this yet?
who is going to pay for the upkeep of all these coin operated train toilets?
who is going to administer the systems that give people on ESA free train tickets - to where ever they want to go?
why should these people get free tickets like this when I have to spend thousands a year to do the same journey, day in day out? If you have an interview that needs a £20 train ticket that you cannot afford, then you need to ask yourself, can I afford the commute to this job?
why should the BBC be forced into becoming a subscription TV company?
why should the BBC be forced into giving up a lucrative show such as Top Gear?
whats up with all the AC's on this one?
bit torrent has always offered an interesting solution for getting large amounts of data across poor networks spread across geographically distant locations.
I have floated it a number of times for potential solutions, but it has always had a bad press for the piracy thing.
Whats wrong with you?
I am guessing the beer he consumed with his food was enough vegetation to keep him regular.
Nae need for this vegetable pish.
This is the sort of article that made me visit The Register in the first place.
Would be nice to see more articles like this make a come back.
I am surprised that Google hasn't tried to do something in this area before now to be honest.
Dont know if it will be a Skype killer, as much as people hate Microsoft they do like Skype and the thing is damn near ubiquitous these days. Either way, I would be interested to see where this ends up, especially the knock knock feature.
AC the article mentions using different frequencies. Having the window open may not help, unless the noise leaking through that open window happened to be on the same frequency being recorded.
So, you think that people should be responsible for carrying out unspecified testing on software they have either just purchased or agreed to use? Are you for real?
And for those people paying for an enterprise support package - they are also supposed to carryout some unspecified testing on whatever software they are using as well whilst paying for their enterprise support?
This has nothing to do with Linux, so not sure why you felt the need to pick that one out, maybe because it satisfies an argument you are having with yourself?
I think it is pretty clear you dont work at the enterprise level, so maybe you should keep your opinions to your self on these matters? At least until you know what you are talking about?
Oh, and I dont give a monkeys about what is in the Linux kernel.
why should users of this free software be responsible for testing it? Shouldnt the maintainers of the free software carry out the testing for it instead?
Consumers of the software just need to make sure it does what they want it to do, not that it does what everyone wants it to do.
Also, why should these "beelions" made by large Internet companies who use this free software pay for that testing? Especially when they need to pay people to support the free software they just decided to use?
Proprietary software for companies as large as you are alluding to normally comes with Enterprise support to provide 24/4 help to anyone using that software. Other companies pushing open source and free software also sell Enterprise support plans for this software. So when exactly does it become as free as you mention?
"...We could stop spending stupid amounts of money on sending toy trucks to Mars, in search for life that never existed. And then, we could spend that money on something more useful, here on Earth..."
Just did a massive poo
Down with this sort of thing
No one finds you funny
I looked very hard, but couldnt find any mention of this being pushed out to the Current Branch, or to the LTSB in this article. Perhaps this is still in the Insider Branch, as would be expected, until it is ready for release?
The guy is a try hard Eadon wannabe
@bob, do you ever read any of the utter shite you post?
or are you some sort of weird bot?
Totally off the mark, but I have been using a Priv for about 6 months now. it has the Blackberry look and feel as well as the construction you would expect from them, but runs Android and has a slide out keyboard.
For me, its been a pretty solid phone, if lacking things like the fingerprint scanner. I wonder if Blackberry will continue to make devices like this in the future.
It's a silly trend that has been following the Windows 10 articles here.
"Rant, rant, rant. Windows 10 installed itself without my permission or knowledge! I didn't give it permission to install, I just clicked some buttons that asked me if I wanted it, now it's installed! This is unacceptable, my next purchase will be an Apple!"
You are correct. Funny how some people always get similar amounts of upvotes, regardless of the topic.
Quite sad really.
Condolences to his family and friends.
I will definitely miss his writing here.
This has nothing to do with Microsoft and everything to do with smartphones and tablets.
People want their social media fix and these devices deliver it.
Someone doesn't know that Gtk# was the gui layer for mono at the time then, regardless of c# or not....
I doubt the commentards will even let this get through, but I will try anyway.
Does it really take a year to get drivers working with a laptop like this? I mean pretty much everyone else has, even Sony was able to get their drivers sorted by December last year.
Also, this was a free upgrade offered by MS. Now Samsung has popped up after a year and said, sorry you can't have that upgrade because we couldn't get it working, just before the deadline looms. Are they going to offer their customers a free version, should they want it, after the MS offer has expired?
If it helps, replace MS and Windows 10 with whatever you like.
but this list isnt really the same as the UN list, is it?
the SDN list is something that was issued to warn US business about who they were potentially doing business with and allows the US treasury to fine them (or worse) if they are caught to be knowingly working with them. Outside the US, its just a list of names, organisations and vehicles that may or may not be of use to people.
The list used by the UN is made by UN member states adding to and removing from it on a regular basis, it is not governed by one US agency who has no oversight.
As you pointed out, the SDN list is considered unconstitutional in the US by many people and the US Treasury appears to be loathe to remove anything from it, making it rather unwieldy.
Either way, its perfect fodder for Internet conspiracy theory nuts.
So you didn't read all the information that was on the page that the link takes you to?
You know, the page that answers your questions on how things are submitted to the list? And how things are shortlisted for addition?
For example, your point about big pharma and tobacco, well I say point but I will go with it anyway. These clearly are not terrorist groups, even the most ardent of social justice warrior would have a hard time trying to prove that they were, so they wouldn't get in.
And people being labeled a terrorist when they are not? Well, I would much rather the plod pick me up for terrorism and make the mistake instead of agonising over if I am a terrorist or not. It wouldn't take a great deal of time for them to realise that no, I am not a terrorist. And lets face it, they wouldnt just read the list then pop round in a panda car to pick me up, would they?
As for the individuals with no comments listed next to them, well they all share one similar piece of info - they were added on the 27th of June 2003 in Iraq. What could that mean I wonder, instead of me thinking about it for, ooh 30 seconds, lets come up with some silly little points that might help back me up.
Or... how about they were all arrested, or whatever, 4 months after the start of the Iraq War and their details were added en masse to the list because they were part of the Iraqi government or some such other apparatus connected to the regime there.. What a massive leap of faith that takes.
As for scope creep, you are obviously trying to say that people or groups will be added to the list when they are not terrorists. This of course, is nonsense. If you had read the page you will have seen the links related to de-listing, i.e. how people are taken off the list and the reasons why this could happen. Above that, you would also see a link that takes to you the reasons why people and groups are added to the list in the first place.
Stick to Microsoft bashing.
I think the point I failed to make is this: whilst we are all whizzing away with our fancy new wundermachinen, what is the third world using, if anything at all?
A lot of UK business has been donating old computing equipment for almost a decade to organisations like UNICEF and Save the Children. What has happened to that equipment? Who uses it? Does it even get on the Internet? What software does it run?
There must be a whole demographic out there that we simply don't see because we are arguing the toss over which version of which operating system is more superior etc. And, from a distinctively tacky point of view, is there an untapped market out there?
I know Microsoft tried to pedal a basic version of Windows XP or 7 a few years back, a Starter edition or something, for developing countries (quite why they would want a hobbled version of an older Windows when they could get a fully featured Linux distro was beyond my capacity to reason at the time).
These must be places where Internet availability will be patchy at best, so offering Stuff as a Service wouldn't really work that well, if people even wanted it.
I guess that's why Zuckerberg and Co are trying to give Africa free Internet, because Stuff as a Service is what they really, really need right now.
Personally, I would be interested to see how many "old" PM'S that have been shipped over to impoverished countries are in use.
Years back, I worked in a school during the switch from Acorn machines to Windows based machines. We boxed up all the Acorn stuff and donated it to a charity collecting working computers for poor countries who wanted to provide at least some basic IT education.
Granted, the comparison between Acorn and Windows is beyond the point now, but I do know quite a few schools donated old machines and equipment to similar charities during the first few years of the new century. I wonder who uses them now, if at all.
It will be interesting to see where c# will go over the next few years, specifically with regards to the cloud and Azure etc.
Pure Windows apps have been dead/dying for quite some time now and the uptake of Linux on Azure is probably making MS think quite carefully about what it wants to do next and with which tools..
You don't actually know what an sme is, do you?
An sme isn't a business that happens to have a couple of laptops or desktops that are used by staff for sending emails and invoices, even at the s end of the of the sme spectrum.
SME's don't go shopping on the hight street for their IT needs, they rarely have in the past and they certainly cannot/don't now. Same goes for their IT function, they don't just pop down to PC World to pick up a copy of MS Office and a new coffee machine.
An sme is an organisation that literally has millions of pounds to call on for immediate investment, even if you use the varying definitions of the term that are used across the world. They are not organisations that are too stretched to buy the next months worth of printer toner etc.
These are organisations that will have a dedicated IT function of some description, one that will be providing the guidance needed for the whole organisation, regardless of what ever software, hardware or other fad they might be running.
You are confusing the the term 'sme', which is small to medium enterprise by the way, with a small business - the two things couldn't be more different.
If I own a small business, for example a roofing company, and perhaps I have four machines and some smartphones, that doesn't make me an enterprise at all. I might have a guy in the business that 'knows' PC's, but he will in no way be an IT specialist and he might have upgraded all my machines to Windows 10 for no other reason to get rid of the nag screen. The chances are that they don't even use software that is installed on any of those machines anymore, instead relying on web based alternatives - I don't know if it was your good self who mentioned this or not, but unless the business has an IT focus, then all they really need is an invoicing platform and an email provider, both of which can be done without any software being installed on the premises .
If a forced Windows 10 update makes all the machines go wonky, it doesn't matter as the business can just turn on another machine, that doesn't run the terrible Windows 10 and pick up where it left off.
This is essentially the state of play that the small business has been moving towards for what, the last decade?
Being an sme and having adequate IT support in your organisation has nothing to do with the nature of that sme's business. Things maybe trickier for the smb area, sure, but not for the sme. The solutions for purchasing these licenses have been discussed before over and over again - even on this comment section, again.
If I were running an sme and wanted to understand the implications of Windows 10 for my organisation with regards to the updates I would do one or both of the following : contact Microsoft to see what the situation mean for me and my business and see what I can do as an sme to control updates within my own infrastructure and/or make sure I am employing someone who understands the above.
So far the argument is "Microsoft is going to destroy business with forced updates". It really isn't. Microsoft may kill the consumer market for desktop operating systems, but if it does someone else will step into that gap - if there is still any money to be made there.
And what do high street retailers have to do with any of this?
I am sorry, I assumed that the individual would be able to make their own minds up as to whether or not the T&C's for the action pack are suitable for them or not.
Or would you also like to tell the world + dog that this is also as evil as Windows 10? I mean, why let people make their own minds up when you can tell them what to think with only half the story?
Even though Windows 10 Enterprise does give you full control....
You mean the same smb's who could buy the MS action pack, which comes with 10 Windows Enterprise licenses as well as office etc, for less than the cost of 10 Windows Pro licenses together?
We have already been through this numerous times, and on each occasion you have been shown how each example can get an Enterprise license.
I get that you want to keep up the anti Microsoft narrative, but repeating the same things over and over again even when it's been explained to you that your understanding of the situation is incorrect?
What's the point?
Hm yes, terrible Microsoft forcing business users to accept updates.
Are we going to have the same bullshit trotted out each time the Reg needs to get some traffic through the site? We already know that SME's are be able to purchase Windows Enterprise licences. Which means they would be in charge of updating their own installations. Which means no automated updates.
But isn't the whole point of this particular whinge that there is no "latest" build to work against?
far from it.
Windows 10 is an astonishingly good OS.
I was completely agreeing with you until you started on about what gets sent back to MS. You can on almost complete privacy with Windows 10. The same data slurp is present in windows 8 and 7.
Given that you use a SRE, have you considered using Vinux? I had to look into accessibility a few years back and this OS really impressed me. It can be ran from a USB stick, so you could have whatever OS installed in your box and just boot from Vinux.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here.. How can you know if it is a stealth update if you have never carried out the upgrade?
it isn't a case of clicking a button and then bam, you have Windows 10, it asks you quite a lot if you want to install it in the first place. And if you don't have it downloaded already, it schedules the upgrade for you.
So, with the facts in mind, how its it a stealth upgrade?
Also, how are MS turning their backs on you? One of the biggest complaints about Windows 10 is that it will update, whether you want it to or not, so that's hardly being left high and dry is it?
Even the Android update process you allude to isn't as simple as one button press.
I upgraded three machines, one was a Windows 7 era machine, with Windows 7 Pro installed. Upgrade went fine, no problems to report. The only problem I had with this machine was after it had upgraded, the old Windows image previewer that came with Windows 7 was still listed as available under the "open with..." context menu. When I tried to use it, Windows 10 ground to a halt. For this particular machine, I ended up just reinstalling Windows 10 from scratch using a USB stick, after that, no problems and no legacy applications either.
The other two machines came with Windows 8/8.1 installed. The only issues I have had with these machines have been to do with video, sometimes watching stuff on YouTube is a bit hit and miss. One of these machines is now on build 14332, and everything seems to be fixed.
None of my machines came with Windows 10 pre-installed.
As for the stealth upgrade, that just isn't the case. People are complaining that its nagware - yes it does download a whole bunch of files to your machine and that's not on, to pre-empt you wanting to install it, but it doesn't install itself and it certainly takes well more than one mouse click to start the process.
no one is forcing you to upgrade.
its been a choice to upgrade.
yes, but dont point out the obvious - it takes far more than one careless click to start the upgrade to Windows 10.
Hmm, I wonder.
Out of all the people who claim to hate Windows 10, what is the basis for this?
As a user experience, its quite good. Its stable, runs very quickly on an SSD and is stable.
If the only gripe is the forced updates my question would be this; why wouldnt you want to have the latest updates on your machine? I mean honestly, how many people didnt set Windows update to auto check, download and install updates on previous versions of Windows?
Is it just because you dont get the choice to turn off a feature that you would otherwise have turned on anyway?
Dont question, this is an MS hate article.
Just accept, nod politely and move on.