Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:freedom (but only for those we like) (Score 1) 99

Indeed, competition would have such a high burden... they might have to ssh into a server and enter some cryptic command like "dnf install ejabberd" and hire a sysadmin for at least 4 hours to set it up. They would also have to create a website.

A more pressing problem is that you might be targeting people unwilling to pay anything, and they might be willing to consume whatever level of services you are capable of providing.

And you kids should be advised of the existence of email, email lists, and online communities using HTTP-based services. It may be that there are a whole bunch of options in active use, some of which are transmitted entirely across open channels and that have no proprietary components.

It may be that the primary distinguishing characteristic of twitter and facebook, the reason they are so popular, is that they are proprietary and therefore somehow elite! Officialish-looking. Be less credulous.

Comment Re:freedom (but only for those we like) (Score 1) 99

I'm still using ICQ. Maybe there isn't actually a shortage of services? What then? What if XMPP services can be installed out of the box on any cheap VPS? What then?

There is no need to create fake freedoms, like the right to speak for twitter because you don't have your own platform to kick people out of.

Comment Re:Lessons unlearned (Score 1) 265

No, more like: People with a religious objection to managing encounter problems that require managing. Some of them then resort to secular knowledge of management techniques, which causes a revolt by a faction insisting on faith-healing, which is not granted. Some of them then quit, while others lament that the pay is too good to quit. The quitting of some is seen as by external communities with a shared religion as proof that their concerns were well-founded. After all, if managing isn't evil, why are these people out of work?

Remember, the story is that github made these changes, and they're working out well. There are dissenters, but things have improved business-wise since they started making the changes.

Comment Re:cracking down on remote work?! (Score 2) 265

Not the best selling point for at a company where THE MAIN FEATURE is remote distributed development.

No, the main feature is enterprise integration of git with a zillion other tools, and running git as a service with all the hooks and everything exposed.

Git's main feature is remote distributed development. That is not a value-add by github.

And companies buying the paid services don't usually have telecommuting executives, even if they have remote developers. This about getting the leaders into the office where people have access to them. That isn't guaranteed to be bad.

Comment Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score 1) 265

You're doing the exact things you're complaining about others doing. If it is so small... you won't mind the change. Oh, it isn't so small then? Well which is it? At least they're intellectually honest about the change they want. It is unlikely they'll get it, because digital slaves are just electronics, not people. They have very few supporters. ;) But the idea that it is OK to complain about people complaining, but not OK to complain in the first place? That is just pathetic. If they don't like the word and prefer a different word, so what? Why is that bad? If you disagree about what word to use, disagree about what word to use. In the Ruby community we had a multi-year debate about if we should say "eigenclass" or "metaclass." Few ever proposed that it is wrong to decide what word we want to use, or wrong to question the old word. What kind of idiot claims to support freedom of speech by demanding that people not speak the wrong complaints?

Did you actually check the eggplant thread? You're claiming not to know penis jokes? OK, you didn't get the troll's joke, that doesn't mean that there is some right or good in making off topic comments in people's dev threads, or some problem in project managers managing that. You claim you can't tell the difference between a penis joke and a vegetable, even when there isn't any cooking or farming context, maybe you should just agree to leave it to the people who do know?

Comment Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score 1) 265

Except, if you read it it isn't a case of a user banned over using an eggplant emoji, it is a troll making no other contribution who was making a bunch of penis jokes.

Are you really claiming not to know what penis jokes are, or if they're OK in a professional discussion?

Also, it is their own project they are managing there. They have every right to ban penis jokes, or people telling them. What is weird about the people insisting that being an asshole should never be punished is that they don't seem to want to extend that right to anybody who looks different than them, is triggered by something other than "SJWs," or who doesn't have a penis.

Comment Re: Management structure and meritocracy (Score 1) 265

Yeah, but in this story it is the managers that need to be in the office. Which is true. If you're a worker and you often work from home, but you need to see your manager, having that at an office makes them better able to support your activities.

They had executives who simply aren't doing their whole job unless they are in the office, because part of their job involves other employees having access to them.

According to pretty much everybody, they were responding to real problems. Most of the people leaving didn't want those problems to be solved, or wanted to wish them away.

Comment Re: Management structure and meritocracy (Score 1) 265

Their management structure is still "flat," using business terms. Before it was "completely flat without supervisors," but companies don't grow and not add supervisors. I hate to say it, but employees just aren't that awesome, even at a hip startup.

If you limit "successful companies with a flat org chart" to ones without supervisors, there are no names on the list with even as many employees as github.

Comment Re:fast growth (Score 1) 265

The story is that they can grow from 300 to 500, and aside from some whiners they're making a great success at it, have maintained positive cash flow the whole time, and are meeting the challenges.

You missed the whole story of this company. They had 0 supervisors. Now they have a few. They didn't have the management systems in place to continue growing, so they added them before anything bad happened, before they got to 800. They didn't need to do something that they didn't do, they did the thing. And they're not making excuses, they're celebrating their success.

As noted, they have 1 "complaint" on a popular job complaint site, and that complaint also claims that the pay is 95th percentile and the employees love their pay too much to leave. Doesn't mention that if they leave, the new job will also have a supervisor. ;)

Comment Re:fast growth (Score 1) 265

As a practical heuristic: when the ratio of managers to programmers starts increasing, the quality of the product starts decreasing.

It isn't practical or reasonable if you extend it all the way out to the extremes, such as here where there was no managers at all, and then they added some non-zero number.

The reason your heuristic is usually true is that there are usually already some number of managers chosen according to mainstream business practices. It is foolish to presume that whatever is true in the middle of the curve remains true even at the theoretical extreme value.

Comment Re:the point (Score 1) 130

Right, instead of updating the OS packages when a major security 0-day arrives, you need to turn off all your app containers, forward to a parking page, and start recompiling images.

But, your dev teams don't have to agree on compatible sets of libraries to use on projects that will be deployed together on the same cloud instances.

This trades the ability to deal with those types of problems, for being able to do stuff you couldn't do because your company didn't have anybody that can do that stuff. So without this, their website would be slashdotted anyways, and with it, they can function until bad things happen, then they can scream and wave their hands in the air like everybody else. Does it matter? That is for each company to decide... ;)

Comment Re:the point (Score 1) 130

...that container will Just Work everywhere, and updating packages on the host won't break it.

I love this stuff... updating packages on the host won't break "it," even where "it" is some sort of malware bug.

It doesn't seem to so much solve a problem as offer a new way to create a compromise between security and convenience. Here, it mostly trades the convenience of security updates at the OS level away for convenience of deploying minimally-maintained packages.

If I wanted this, I would just switch to static linking. But I can see how, for development teams that don't have anybody on them that knows how to compile software, this would be a major time-saver.

Slashdot Top Deals

[We] use bad software and bad machines for the wrong things. -- R.W. Hamming

Working...