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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Practically speaking (Score 1) 480

Just contact your old client and ask if they'll write up a letter for you, affirming that you wrote the code for them, for you to use for job search purposes only. There's no reason to assume there was any particular malice in them putting their company headers on the code, so there's no reason to go down an adversarial path immediately. You've got nothing to lose by just asking them politely to acknowledge you as the author of the code for this specific scenario, and doing so establishes that you're acting in good faith, so why not do it?

Comment Re:"Impossible to conduct a reasonable discussion. (Score 1) 385

Good point, but in my head it was even simpler: the implication of her statement is that we could have conducted a reasonable discussion of the merits of the programs just so long as we knew nothing at all about them. Which pretty much sums up the absurdity of the position the NSA is currently occupying.

Comment Get a lawyer, not a switch (Score 5, Interesting) 284

The supplier, with no notice, remotely connected to the process control system and completely botched an update to their system. We are down and the vendor is inept and not likely to have us back to 100% for a few days.

This isn't a technology problem.

Through their incompetence, they caused damages. Collect your evidence, hire a lawyer, and make demands. If they refuse to pay, sue them.

Watch how fast they start caring about doing remote upgrades more carefully, competently, and with customer involvement. The only thing companies collectively care about is making money. At the very least, you'll cause their liability insurance rates to go up.

Comment Re:Well sure, I mean he works for Red Hat (Score 3) 169

Erm, I work for Red Hat too. I know there's this meme that Red Hat cares a lot about GNOME for some reason, but we really really don't.

RH sponsors GNOME development because it's one of the major F/OSS desktops, and someone has to. We used to be just one out of many companies who did; most of them have now fallen by the wayside and it's mostly us.

There is no 'implicit pressure' at RH for engineers to use any desktop whatsoever. No-one cares. There are people at RH using GNOME, KDE, Xfce, LXDE, MATE, blackbox, fluxbox, openbox, any other box you care to name, Windows, and OS X, and any other desktop or WM I forgot to put in that list. The RH 'standard desktop distro' for use by non-engineering staff uses GNOME (2) because it's basically RHEL 6 and we have to standardize on something. But if you're in engineering you can use whatever the hell you like as long as your job gets done.

Red Hat pays several people who work on KDE as well as people who work on GNOME, and the Fedora Xfce spin is maintained by a Red Hat employee (Kevin Fenzi). In Fedora, KDE and GNOME have equal support status: both are required to meet the same quality requirements as part of release validation.

Comment Re:Gnome3 (Score 1) 171

You never needed to append 'init=/sbin/init', just '3' was enough. And just '3' still works with systemd: it translates single numerals to the corresponding systemd target, so passing '3' boots multi-user.target, which is the same as 'runlevel 3' (multi-user, non-graphical).

Comment Re:As Linus Said...... (Score 1) 169

Yes. This.

I do QA for Fedora, so I spend quite a bit of time poking all the major desktops.

I spent a bit of time last week poking around with how GNOME and KDE handle keyboard configuration. It's a *classic* example of the philosophical difference between them.

GNOME 3 has spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to get it right for most people, most of the time, with the absolute minimum possible amount of options. How GNOME does it is that it queries xkb for the valid layouts, and gives you a very very simple configuration dialog which shows you the few most common layouts (and iBus IMEs), progressively revealing more and more obscure ones till you have most of the full set. It does not provide any method for configuring XkbOptions (there is one in gnome-tweak-tool) and it overrides xkb's layout switching config (though this is slated to change for 3.10, I think).

This is good for maybe 90-95% of users; they can pick their keyboard layout with zero fuss. If you're someone who needs to tweak an XkbOption, though, it's kind of a pain in the ass, and GNOME basically forks the systemwide xkb configuration for each new user account, so after your user account is created and initially configured, changes to the systemwide config will not be reflected in any way in your user config.

Contrast KDE. Now, KDE can do *everything*. It can do everything because its keyboard configuration tool is a very thin GUI around xkb configuration: it literally just gives you every possible thing you can set in xkb as a drop-down, radio button, checkbox or text entry. Every. Single. Damn. Thing. Including one option which will do absolutely nothing for 99.99% of PC users these days, the XkbModel option (which mostly just sets the 'geometry' of the keyboard, which is used for one thing - rendering keyboard layout previews - and KDE's preview layout widget doesn't even *use* it). And it has a checkbox (of course! a checkbox!) for whether your user should just use the system-wide xkb settings, or have its own KDE settings that override those.

This makes the people who like to call themselves 'power users' happy because OOH LOOK LOTS OF OPTIONS. It is genuinely useful for the minority of people who actually need to set some XkbOption *and know what it is*. But it's tiresome and confusing and potentially dangerous for the majority of people who don't totally understand how Xkb works (which is, like, just about everyone). And KDE does this for *every damn thing*. I would love it if someone went and counted every damn checkbox in the KDE control center, and I defy a single person to know what every one of the bloody things does.

I dunno, especially as a QA guy, I get mental fatigue just looking at the KDE control center. It's overwhelming. Exposing every possible setting certainly innoculates you against the problem that someone somewhere can't set the options they need, but it sure confuses the hell out of people. Personally I find the GNOME approach more elegant - even though sometimes they make mistakes and go too far in simplification, the goal they're aiming for is a worthy one and they're iterating towards it, _generally_ getting better over time. The KDE approach seems almost like a cop-out, to me.

Comment Re:As Linus Said...... (Score 1) 169

You have to read the whole series of articles, not just the first one.

Notably, the final paragraph of the concluding article:

"When I started this experiment, I was expecting that it would be an interesting foray and that I’d most likely end up switching back to KDE when it was all over. I’m no longer certain that I will be doing that.

I’ve been fairly comfortable operating in GNOME Classic, once I figured out the few tweaks I needed to perform. I think I’m probably going to continue using GNOME Classic for a while (at least until after next week’s Red Hat Summit)."

Comment Re:tl;dr (Score 1) 169

Er. No. He didn't.

"When I started this experiment, I was expecting that it would be an interesting foray and that I’d most likely end up switching back to KDE when it was all over. I’m no longer certain that I will be doing that.

I’ve been fairly comfortable operating in GNOME Classic, once I figured out the few tweaks I needed to perform. I think I’m probably going to continue using GNOME Classic for a while (at least until after next week’s Red Hat Summit)."

Slashdot Top Deals

All I ask is a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.

Working...