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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:So much for LTS releases (Score 1) 338 338

I tested HWE on a few test systems before rolling it out across the rest of my systems. Long story short, several of the test systems had intermittent networking problems after the upgrade, which caused the systems to hang until power-cycled.

In my environment, stability is more important than having the latest gee-whiz features, and due to slashed budgets, supporting new hardware is a problem I don't have, so it's not worth the trouble to try to use the Trusty kernel right now.

Comment I hope Tor runs away as fast as it can (Score 3, Insightful) 123 123

I've worked with the IETF on several RFCs. I'm also familiar with the challenges that the Tor project faces daily, and what they have to do to stay ahead of the entities trying to break Tor. I think for Tor to even stop to talk to the IETF would be an waste of their time; Tor needs to be nimble, and the IETF standards process is painfully, horribly slow and unable to move quickly on anything. Given that Tor releases updates on a cycle that is shorter than the normal time a draft spends in the AD review queue, by the time an RFC got to the standards track it would already be out-of-date.

Comment Re:Adverts (Score 2) 43 43

Exactly my thought. The profit margins for Google are never going to be higher than they are right now -- the next billion people aren't going to be able to afford the $150 jeans Google is showing me ads for... and the billion after that are going to be even poorer. When you're wondering where your next meal is coming from, you probably aren't going to spend a lot of time on Google+.

The idea that Google is going to make money on subscription services is dubious. It's a business model (hello, AOL!) that doesn't work, even in markets that actually have money to spend on such things.

Businesses

Ask Slashdot: How Does Your Company Evaluate Your Performance? 525 525

jmcbain writes "I'm a former Microsoftie, and one thing I really despised about the company is the 'stack ranking' employee evaluation system that was succinctly captured in a recent Vanity Fair article on the company. Stack ranking is basically applying a forced curve distribution on all employees at the same level, so management must place some percentage of employees into categories of overperforming, performing on average, and underperforming. Even if it's an all-star team doing great work, some folks will be marked as underperforming. Frankly, this really sucked. I know this practice gained popularity with GE in the 1980s and is being used by some (many?) Fortune 500 companies. Does your company do this? What's the best way to survive this type of system?"

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...