steeeeeve

To everyone who wants a better alternative to IA, who thinks they have a different solution, who thinks it should be run by a different organization, etc.

Nobody has ever stopped a competitive alternative from existing. Feel free to give it a shot. You have a head start with all the work that they've done and shared.

Once in a long while, people start looking into things and wanting them to make sense.

Like hey - why don't we start using the field separator and record separator characters when exporting/importing data.

But then you end up realizing that even when you are right, the energy it would take to push a change like that is astounding.

Those who successfully create an RFC and find a way push it through all the way to it becoming a standard are admirable people.

arsonist-firefighter engineers

Never heard that term. Love it. Definitely has described me on a few occasions.

> People don't really use them to jump to "find all references to X" as that's perfectly well solved.

Clearly not a software engineer.

This isn't the first time it happened. It won't be the last. Heck, it's not even the first time Altman pulled it off.

To resolve the issue of Python not having enough parentheses.

All project management is terrible when you are following it blindly and have no understanding of what it takes to succeed.

Waterfall works when it's done right in the right environment. It's a nightmare when it's not. Agile works when it's done right in the right environment. It's a nightmare when it's not.

Having a good project manager who understands what it takes to succeed from a management/executive perspective and who understands how to keep engineers both productive and happy is priceless.

During the waterfall days, you would run into managers who would gannt everything and harass people into meeting deadlines for whatever would solve the 8 word description of the item on the chart. These days, you run into managers who are happy to distribute a jira ticket to resolve anyones gripe.

And then there are the thoughtful ones who understand priorities, factors for success, and how to set reasonable expectations on both sides of the table (for the techies and non-techies)

In the end, it's not the process you follow, it's the results that matter.

I remember talking to an IBM rep when he came to CompUSA to demo OS/2.

I asked him why I should pick OS/2 over NT and his response was "honestly, if you can afford it, NT is better"

At the time, we were selling OS/2 for $99 and NT for $499 IIRC. (And I was able to use a store copy of both to take home and use, which was awesome)

OS/2s interface was better IMO.

This appeal will further be appealed. There are logical contradictions within the decision. Further, the judges have come to a conclusion at the summary judgement phase that does not meet the basic criteria of looking at things in the light that best favors the defendant.

1. You can enable SELinux on debian if you want to. 2. I've never had a conversation with anyone who is enthusiastic about SELinux. 3. I've never run into someone who was good at explaining SELinux policies, how to create them, update them, or explain their decision process other than "well... the app seems to need to do x, so we should let it." 4. I have run into plenty of people that disable SELinux out of the gate to avoid the headache of it. 5. I have run into plenty of people that avoid Redhat distros.

This is akin to someone writing an article about how Oracle and Microsoft got databases wrong because they didn't embrace some security feature that only DB2 has and that more than half of DB2 users out there think is a giant pain in the neck.

This should be happening right now.

I remember something similar back in ~2000 - made out of a directv satellite dish.

It was dead simple. Mirror the parabolic surface of a satellite dish, put a hole in the dish, and use an optical sensor to track the beam of light that shone through that hole on the rooftop. Use a couple of motors and an IC to move the dish according to the suns' position.

This is a solution for a problem that does not exist. It's just unnecessary bloat. If you need to store the time zone specifically, do that. Use a library or create an child object with an extra field. There are very few use cases where you need to know specifically what time zone a given DateTimeStamp was originally stored in.

That's pretty far from the full story. It's missing giant swaths.

I'm really not a big fan of holding backups and DR behind licensing. That's base level functionality. That and row level security, but at least with row level, I get that there has been a lot of time and energy expended on that feature.

Cluster optimization, and enhanced security sure. And responsive support, absolutely.

I can't even imagine how awesome that would have been. Honestly.

This is the coolest thing I've seen in a very long time.

It's crazy to me that the most updated file in your repository is the license - pushing back the open source date by a day every day.