Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Bootstrap problem (Score 1) 60

by Balial (#49613363) Attached to: Accessibility In Linux Is Good (But Could Be Much Better)

How accessible is the best open source dev suite?

"All the accessibility tools included in Linux are open source, meaning their code is readily available if you want to examine or improve it"

This "it's better because you can fix it yourself" is usually pretty dubious. In this case, it's worthless unless the folks who need the accessibility can work on it. What's the most accessible dev environment? Are its accessibility features usable? Does it support all developing all the tools that need improvement?

Comment: The article is full of crap (Score 1) 271

by Balial (#48867949) Attached to: The Tech Industry's Legacy: Creating Disposable Employees

Article says "These companies are making a choice. They're deciding that it's faster and cheaper to chuck people overboard and find new ones than it is to retrain them." ... but i don't see where the companies are re-hiring instead of re-training? They cite HP and say they're still letting people go, not hiring.

Gotta back these claims up with numbers, or it's all BS.

Comment: Never hire the wrong person (Score 1) 574

by Balial (#48307499) Attached to: The Great IT Hiring He-Said / She-Said

Meanwhile, hiring managers feel the pressure to fill openings instantly with exactly the right person, and when they can't, the team and the company suffer.

The team and company suffer if you hire "because we need someone" and end up with the wrong person. It sucks as an applicant, no denying it, but a bad hire can be toxic to a team or project. They can end up making more work for everyone else.

Complaints about buzzword filtering and what not might be very true, but you have to understand that the hiring manager must never hire just because they need someone.

Comment: This is only half a question (Score 1) 591

by Balial (#43375669) Attached to: If I could change what's "typical" about typical laptops ...

Everyone has their opinion about what their laptop should be 10x better at. Few people stop to think about what they'd have to give up to get it. Laptops are the very essence of compromise in computing, a more interesting question is what can you throw out to get what you want.

Want better battery life? I hope you like carrying giant sacks of bricks.

Oh, so you actually want it more efficient? OK, stick in a crappy CPU and a ton less memory. And get rid of any radios for WiFi or 3G/LTE.

Want a bigger screen and/or higher pixel density? Hope you like halving your battery life, or just cutting the back-light to "barely readable".

Want a ton more fast storage? How much money are you willing to pony up for flash?

Of course, if your answer is "I want it bigger/faster/better without the compromise"... well then just wait. In case you haven't noticed, it's exactly what the industry has been doing. It's not like they're sitting on their hands.

Comment: The elephant in the room (Score 2) 505

by Balial (#41196415) Attached to: The True Challenges of Desktop Linux

Why does it have to be someone else's fault? Why's it Mac OS X's fault? Or Microsoft's monopoly? Or even ABI compatibility? Where's the analysis of whether the bulk of average-joe users actually like using Linux desktops?

Seriously, it's the first explanation that needs to be looked it. Yes, many of people love their Linux desktops, and they're very vocal here on slashdot. But is there any Linux desktop that is there today, or has been, that could be loved by the masses?

I switched from Linux desktops about years ago and there's nothing about it I miss.

"Pascal is Pascal is Pascal is dog meat." -- M. Devine and P. Larson, Computer Science 340

Working...