Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Trust the World's Fastest VPN with Your Internet Security & Freedom - A Lifetime Subscription of PureVPN at 88% off. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 120

It's a bit harsh to call the conclusion of a study "absolute bullshit" solely on the strength of your personal experience. Maybe you're god and you only need 1 minute to recover from an interruption, but most people need more time. 10-15 Minutes sounds about right for me.

Your remark about team productivity is spot on. However I strongly disagree that most interruptions during the day are team members getting stuck and needing help. In my experience it's often pointless crap, or stuff that can easily wait until the end of the day. If a team member does need help on something, does that really drop their productivity to 0? Perhaps they have other stuff to work on (though I do understand that such a context switch is a thief of productivity as well).

I've actually heard managers use that argument of team productivity to justify pointless interruptions.

Comment Re:Are local managers more destructive ? (Score 2) 120

Not the manager, but perhaps the environment or the office culture. I've had times where I wasn't getting much done working from home, and I have had great runs of banging out code at the office (sometimes in a cube farm no less). Some people can't stand distracting noises but I have no problem with them. I do have a problem with interruptions. As the articles states: a programmer needs 15 minutes to resume work after an interruption, which is true in my case. On top of that, after a day full of interruptions I am exhausted, both physically and mentally. But: getting up for a coffee is not an interruption. "Are you coming to Lisa's barbeque later?" is not an interruption. An interruption is when you have to engage your brain on another task: a phone call, someone asking a technical question, your manager asking for some document, etc.

A good manager understands this, and is able to create a work environment for differing work styles, or work out reasonable compromises (keeping in mind the consequences). Such a manager will also make sure to create a culture where these work styles can thrive. It's ok to ignore your email for most of the day, as long as you make that clear in an out of office reply. Don't disturb coworkers with headsets on, or those working in isolation pods. Do disturb others in case of emergencies, as long as you understand what those are. Seat the more chatty people together. It works, but it isn't always easy to create such an environment, and it does cost money.

I've had a rare few managers who understood this, and who created a work environment suitable both for solitary coding as well as collaboration. And in my experience, in such an environment the coders are just as productive as they are at home, but the collaborative parts like design meetings, brainstorming sessions or daily standups were vastly more productive compared to conference calls. In contrast I've worked in toxic environments where productivity was low. But it wasn't a case of toxic management, just poor management. And they might do as poorly when managing their teams remotely.

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 211

>Doesn't a fast browser with fewer addons basically describe Google Chrome?

Browsers are all the "same", with little different details. Those details are the key
firefox is the open standard champion , flexible, open and protects your privacy. Sync is also a killer feature for many people
chrome is big, open, but tracks you and is not as flexible as firefox (google totally controls it)
chromium track you less, but still tracks you, or will be several missing features. It is open, but google still mostly controls it
edge is closed, tracks you, is little flexible and tries to pull a new IE (lock you up in closed standards, hidden agenda). It also miss some w3c features. It is not cross-platform
safari is closed, not flexible at all, miss many w3c features (simply because they refuse to do it, hidden agenda) and tried to push their closed and patented formats, it is also not really cross-platform (no one really use it in windows)

>Why don't you just switch to that if speed trumps customization for you?

Please notice that firefox is not killing add-on or customization, most of the currently working add-ons will be redone. Most add-on are not happy mostly because they will need to redo it and the more limited API (but needed for security reasons)

>I haven't seen a lot of people complaining about speed for any browser.

firefox single process was "slow", but not in the sense of page load speed, but in small hiccups and lack of smooth operation in certain areas... one heavy tab
affects the all browser, locks and crashes in one tab lock and crash all tabs. Multi-process was set to solve most of this, with rust/servo being the final fix.
Most people report that chrome is faster because it starts fast and each tab (mostly) is a different process, so switching tab is always smooth and heavy tabs do not really lock the other ones in different process. Firefox single process design with javascript heavy pages do not scale and with time, with more javascript, this is getting worse...all the small problems make user prefer webkit browsers

Comment TOR: not only for illegal stuff. (Score 1) 59

It's like holding up a sign that says "Totally nothing illegal here investigate the hell out of me!"

The Pirate Bay it self doesn't hold any copyrighted item. It just lists torrent hashes, and comments and metadata about the content associated with those hashes
(again, the content isn't hosted there. Only the comments and the hashes).
In several jurisdiction, that's not even considered illegal.

You're not using Tor to access illegal material (say non consensual porn, like child porn ; or to access a platform to buy banned goods like weapons and drugs)
You're using tor to get around a blockade.

That's completely fine and that's what Tor was designed for (getting around blockade, as much anonymously as possible. E.g.: to circumvent censorship like China's great firewall).

The more people use tor for anything, the better the chance that tor will be considered normal traffic on the internet, instead of the tell-tale sign of a criminal sharing child abuse.

Comment Re:Great. (Score 1) 211

Also, chrome for a couple of tabs is ok, but eats lot of cpu, uses lot of ram with many tabs. Firefox in the past was the worst in resource usage, but now is chrome!
Firefox can scale to many tab without using so much resources. Multi-process is helping more in that too.

Firefox also do not track you, quite the opposite, they are adding several tracking protection to the browser

Comment Here's my suggestion, if YT happens to see it (Score 2) 148

1: Never, ever, allow or in any way provide for "autoplay" on any individual youtube video, embedded or on-site. It's 100% user-hostile. No youtube video should ever, ever play in any wise unless the user actively clicks that triangle icon. No autostart, no hover-start, no timing start. Only if the user specifically says start, or, in the case of a playlist, if the user clearly and unequivocally and in a fully informed manner says to play the playlist.

2: If the user hits that "play" icon, put up a yes / no dialog that says "Would you like to view an ad on [insert concise description of ad's nature here]

3a: If user indicates yes, play the ad, still allowing for cancel, then play the video

3b: If user indicates no, just play the video.

4: Never EVER cover any part of the actual video with advertising interference such as banners, pop-ups, and so on.

I give Google / Youtube my permission to describe my plan, which I gift to them without reservation of any rights to income, as both "theirs" and "not being evil."

Thank you.

Comment Re:Great. (Score 5, Informative) 211

Because current add-on design do not work with multi-process!!

They are not ending the add-on, they must be migrated to the new API. Sadly many add-on are abandoned and will not be migrated. Others will not be allowed to do some functions, almost all of then must be rewritten. But the current add-on have fatal flaws and are doomed sooner or later.

There are several problems with the current^WOLD add-on layer
1- Old add-on have too much access to the firefox internals (security, memory leaks and performance problems)
2- Old add-ons do not know how to work with multi-process and mozilla had to simulate a pool+lock for then to work (big lock, performance problems)
3- Migrating code from Servo to Geko would break many add-on unless there are many compatibility layers (performance and code maintenance problems)

1-They could swap unsafe parts slowly and break many add-on on each release, forcing a slow and never ending add-on update cycle. It is much easier to just swap the API and warn that everyone must rewrite.
2-Add-ons need to be fixed or else the browser will not really use the multi-process well and worse, may be even slower because of the big lock. If they remove the compatilbity layer, add-on stop working, but postponing the removal will keep the browser slower too and the add-on may never be updated (multi-process is already a several years project and all add-ons where flagged to be updated, but many are just abandoned). So wait more is not a solution, they need to be rewrite
3-No one wants layers over layers, it is a maintenance hell, specially because the add-on have access to almost everything. Migrating to a simpler API make mozilla job much easier, firefox safer. Add-on will have to be rebuild and developers need to learn a new API. They will also be unable to do some things they can right now, but on the good side, it will much easier to port add-on between chrome and firefox and the add-on can be run in separated process, so bad add-on will be easier to stop and control.

Yes, i too would like to keep all the add-ons, but between a fast browser with fewer add-ons and a slow one with many outdated add-ons, i prefer the first one. You can not complain about firefox being slow and also complain about keeping old add-ons. To fix one, you need to fix the other too! and you can not delay this, market share is shrinking due firefox being slower.

They were making changes slowly, as they were mostly doing the last few years, and try to not break the add-ons, but you can not postpone a big internal change forever and now it is time to drop some old features, like NPAPI plugins and the old add-on interface

What i hope is that mozilla is now more open to some features, as some features will be blocked to add-ons, mozilla need to be more flexible on certain features. The google design model ("only allow features that at least 80% of people use") is bad for firefox, as many of the users of firefox are the 20% of excluded people in chrome

Comment Re:Shade, eh? (Score 2) 115

I assume that you think OS X is somehow superior to other OSs.

No.OS X plus the applications I am using form a computing ecosystem that is superior to anything I might plop down on my desk that would be fundamentally unable to perform the same tasks unless I put out a great deal of money, time and energy that is absolutely not necessary in any way, shape or form. Adding extra pixels won't do any of that.

I never could get used to its special keys (especially command and option) as well as the odd keyboard layout (no backspace???).

My keyboard has dedicated backspace and delete, which OS X understands perfectly well. Among many other amenities. I have no idea what you're talking about. Is this some kind of historical reference? As for not being able to get used to command and option... not relevant to me in any way. I have no problem with them. Or with switching back and forth when I'm working with Windows and Linux keyboards.

I'm much more comfortable with Linux and its applications. I gave up on Apple hardware and have now adopted Chromebooks (with Crouton Linux) for all my work. Much nicer user experience and better software options.


Slashdot Top Deals

"There are some good people in it, but the orchestra as a whole is equivalent to a gang bent on destruction." -- John Cage, composer