|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Re: Twitter Isn't that how we end up with issues like Heartbleed though?
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:Yes, and? It wasn't any company's responsibility to keep OpenSSL secure, it was their responsibility to keep their own products secure. The industry in general failed at that because we failed to recognize the connection between collectively paying attention and money to OpenSSL and securing ourselves. I think that if we treat the open-source world as a communal toolbox that we take from without any responsibility to improve/maintain/secure, the likes of Heartbleed are inevitable. This is ultimately a detriment to both the industry and consumers. Sure, as a consumer you initially benefited from a cheaper license cost for IBM Sametime Server Community Edition since they just popped in OpenSSL and didn't worry about it, but in the aftermath of heartbleed, was that actually a net benefit versus a higher initial cost to help pay for some development time spent securing OpenSSL (or whatever)? I guess I'm just not sure that a 'gently caress you, I got mine' mentality is a good direction for the industry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
kitten smoothie posted:Also I always can't help but I was at a con once where one of the talks was about taint analysis and taint propagation, taint was also the speaker's drinking word. Hilarity ensued.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 09:11
|
|
at "taint tracking."
|
Cheekio posted:I have a relative who apparently wrote a bunch of systems in COBOL back when it was still considered a good idea. She's looking at changing careers, and has been out of the industry for literally a decade and a half. Bank mainframes are still all written in COBOL, maintained by 50+ year old programmers making beaucoup dollars (I have friends who work at banks and they think it's hilarious) so I imagine there's still a demand for her skillset. Similarly, Nuclear plants are all still running software written in FORTRAN. Some systems are critical enough that their owners are too scared to update/modify them, hence all the unpatched XP systems running in manufacturing plants and critical infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:And then it becomes the new normal. If you're default stance isn't to distrust your corporate structure and be wary of any and all management decisions, then shake my goddamn head at you. Some of us find places to work where paranoia isn't the only sane default.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Believe it or not, there are companies who do not subscribe to the notion that they exist solely to create profit. And as it happens, those companies tend to make more money than those who see profit as the ends rather than a means to fulfill a mission/vision. There's a fair bit of scholarship in this area. Some good books to check out that may help you break out of this pseudo-capitalist cynicism/paranoia and better distinguish between the companies you would and wouldn't want to work for: Conscious Capitalism by John Mackey and Leaders Eat Last by Simon Sinak. But I imagine the whole 'us vs. them' class warfare mentality is a lot more popular these days.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:lol you can't be serious Why not? I actually have peer-reviewed data supporting my argument. You have anecdotal evidence. Seems that at the very least it's worth considering what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
sarehu posted:Those peer reviewers were, what, people in the social sciences? That's not exactly reality-based thinking going on there. Well, dismissing social sciences right off the bat doesn't strike me as particularly reality-based, but that's your opinion. Obviously we're talking about social science here since Physicist and Chemists don't have a lot of interest in conducting experiments on corporate attitudes and economics. And I disagree with the assertion that I'm arguing against a 'strawman'. People are actively stating that companies are out to screw you and that you're an idiot if you're not suspicious of all management decisions. Anyway, sorry I brought it up. gently caress the man and all that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:It's not even "gently caress the man." Companies want to pay you the minimum amount possible to keep you there. That's a point of fact. Arguing against it is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist. Even taking this as true, that allows for a huge amount of diversity in how companies approach this. Some companies will try to pay you the minimum amount possible and expect constant turnover/churn. These are typically lovely companies with lovely products made by people who didn't give a poo poo about the work they were doing. You also you have companies that will pay you well above market value so that they have enough of a 'buffer' that you're not constantly looking for a better opportunity and will actually care about the work you're doing. My point is that not all companies are the same and that companies that focus more on their mission and creating cool products/services, tend to have better employees and make more money than companies that are wholly profit-driven.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:I think we're talking past each other. Okay, I can agree with that. I wouldn't work for anyone that saw me caring about work/life balance as a negative. That said, I also don't work in an area where there are fires to put out and being 'on call' would ever be justified.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
At my current job, my boss asked me what kind of computer I wanted and then ordered the top of the line Mac Book Pro from the Apple store and had it shipped directly to my house. Having a dedicated work computer without any IT bloat ware is awesome. I definitely think that working from home is a huge perk. That said, I have a nice home office space. I really leverage being remote though, last year I worked from Rome for a week, Cancun for a week and this year I'm gonna spend some time in France and Switzerland. It's amazing to have that kind of flexibility and to get to travel so much without having to take vacation days. At my last job, our entire team was remote except for one guy who insisted on working at HQ in person. Ironically, he was the only person on the team who felt lonely and isolated because his work environment differed so much from everyone else's.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Milotic posted:Double post, but company policy where I work is just to say "Yep, he worked here", and given my previous job was back in 2011, is it weird to put a personal referee as a second one? Or just put one? There's no reason to put references in your resume. Honestly, I don't even know the last time I was asked for references during a hiring process.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:I get direct recruiter emails constantly, around 2-3/week. It's very flattering, but so far I've just been ignoring them since I'm not currently planning to move for the next couple years or so. However I wouldn't mind keeping an open channel for later by responding to some of them and declining "for now", at least for the ones from in-house recruiters. Has anyone tried this? I respond to almost all recruiters this way, with a polite e-mail thanking them for thinking of me, explaining that I'm not currently looking but if I were what my requirements are and that I hope they'll think of me in the future. And then I wish them luck. This is assuming the recruiter seemed like they'd actually looked at my profile/resume rather than just blanket-messaging every LinkedIn member in existence.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:I'm in a market for a new job. So two things I love working remotely. My schedule is incredibly flexible (spent last week in Europe and worked from Paris and London without taking any days off), my office is set up optimally for me without any distractions, and coworkers are always a phone call away via PBX or on IRC. I would say that you should only work in a fully or mostly remote team so that everyone's in the same boat. Also, unless your team uses some creepy collaboration software where you all have cameras and mics trained on you all day, your level of social interaction with coworkers will necessarily be less than if you worked in an office. You'll possibly need to seek out social outlets outside of work more so than you would have before. Personally, I'm never going back to an office.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2015 13:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 14:45 |
|
|
Che Delilas posted:If all the team members are developers, I'd call this probably my ideal situation (also, non-click keyboards and headphones required, for gently caress's sake). That's another advantage of remote I forgot to mention. I have a nice mechanical keyboard and don't ever bother anyone with it unless I accidentally forget to mute myself while typing during a conference call. Mechanical keyboards rule. But yes, I'd do go insane if I worked in an office where people had them.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2015 15:45
|
|