|
A Frosty Witch posted:I saw a memory stick Christmas wreath today and I can't believe it's been 11 years, y'all Lol, that post history was a trip! And I'm only up to mid-2016. I hope things got better for you!
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
A Frosty Witch posted:Oh. I might have missed a post here and there, but I'm up to 2021 now. Data Graham posted:The IT -> witchcraft pipeline The Iron Rose posted:enchant, transfigure, levitate lol
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 00:34
|
|
|
A Frosty Witch posted:Buzzing away in my skull, my Buffalo MyThoughts Brain Implant suddenly grinds to a halt. Its internal storage has hit 98%. hearty lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 21:19
|
|
|
I was once in a bathroom with Jeff Raikes and Bill Gates. Bill was asking Jeff what the 'RT' in windows RT stood for. Jeff didn't know.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2024 20:16
|
|
|
Hotel Kpro posted:That is ringing a ton of bullshit alarms in my head. I’ve never heard of the government mandating a cap like that because I don’t think that’s how that works at all unless the salary exceeds $180k or something. Generally the government will say hey we need someone to fill these rolls, contract companies will bid on it, and whoever wins has determined that they can make a profit if they pay X number of people Y amount. It is entirely up to the contract company to determine how much everyone gets paid and they can dish out raises whenever. This is also my experience. I worked for a company that was doing almost exactly this - they bid on an IT contract on an on-site IT support at a base, and ended up overbidding, as the people they hired (and the government really liked) were too expensive for the low-multiplier job roles the contract required. It was 100% on the contractor though, as the government doesn't care. This just means that your employer doesn't want to take less profit, or a small loss by offering the $60k - they are probably still making profit on the total contract.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2024 17:44
|
|
|
hope you sprung for the overnight shipping on that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2024 19:14
|
|
|
Post your favorite (derogatory) Microsoft product names (current or old) : Mine is 'Lync for Business'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 23:56
|
|
|
Renegret posted:Groupwise lmao. Sigh nexxai posted:Bob Classic
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 01:03
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:How about lol, this kind of ambiguity was the issue I had with Wiki: quote:The software was previously named Lync before rebranding to Skype for Business in 2015, co-branding it with the Microsoft-owned consumer messaging platform Skype (which had begun to integrate with Lync in 2013). Despite the same branding, Skype for Business and Skype have almost nothing in common and function as separate platforms.[1] I had to use it at work, and despite the name, Skype and Skype for Business didn't interoperate(!), and we couldn't have Skype on our machines (not sure if it was a Microsoft issue or a local admin issue). We had lots of international calls, and the Outlook invite would include the word 'Skype', so normal people would try to use 'Skype' (which most people had) and not 'Skype for Business'. It caused no end of wasted time and screwups.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2024 02:58
|
|
|
I hesitate to ask this, but what was the problem with .pst files? I ask because I was probably one of the bad users in the mid-2000s who used them a lot. As a user, my problem was 1. incredibly small exchange server provision 2. Requirement that I save lots of emails, and have a structure to do so (this was government procurement stuff and contractor management, so stuff went to congress sometimes, even years later) 3. have the ability to search these emails with lots of options (i.e. by sender, recipient, subject, time period, etc.) other than having a .pst, there was (and with those stipulations above, there still isn't) a good solution for this. IIRC, they recommended that we save emails individually into a file in a folder, but lol at that. Also that doesn't help with problem #3. Now this issue is not a problem, as we no longer have problem #1, but still, it seems odd that we can't have a structured way to deal with locally-saved emails.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 18:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:The problem was that the PST file existed because people had small mailboxes, so hoarders would fill them up with mail, they'd get huge and corrupt because they were being accessed from a network share and Windows/Outlook was terrible at caching them. Everybody above a certain age has worked with the cranky Exchange admin who would set 200MB quotas on everyone's inbox and give zero options for archiving. Yeah, we didn't have a CRM system, so we just had to invent a solution. Also I've never really understood the difference between email and files when it came to retention, users could save a ton of files forever locally with no controls, but not email? That's also difficult to do 'discovery' on. I've also always felt that these retention policies were too short and defined by lawyers with a liability lens, and a lot of stuff that companies need to keep just gets flushed after 2 or 3 years with no consideration, cause who's really going to click on every email that maybe/should be retained extra long (if you even have the option). Also, there was a ton of stuff that was CYA for me, but not CYA for my company that I wanted to retain, so there will always be secret retention. I'm reminded of the stories I heard about Contracting Officers in the government where they were legally required to keep certain documents 'within arms reach' but they didn't want them to be visible to auditors looking over their shoulder, so they would hide the binders/files in the ceiling tiles, as they were 'still within arms reach'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 20:03
|
|