Not OP, but it probably is meant one or two meat patties of code between two buns of code, as opposed to a meatball of code with many spaghetti pf code.
What it is with computery terminology being almost 100% allegorical?
Most other trades I know have their own words for their things. Computer people seem to stand out this way
We were all impressed with google docs, but office.com is way more impressive.
Collaborative editing between a web app, two mobile anpps and a desktop app with 30 years of backwards compatibility and it pretty much just works. No wonder that took a lot of JavaScript!
We use MS Teams at my company. The Word and Excel in the Windows Teams app are so buggy that I can almost never successfully open a file. It just times out and eventually shows a "please try again later" message nearly every time. I've uninstalled and reinstalled the Teams app four or five times trying to fix this.
We've totally given up any kind of collaborative document editing because it's too frustrating, or we use Notion instead, which for all it's fault, at least the basic stuff like loading a bloody file works...
I'm the one who set it up. It's a small team of 20 people. I've done basically no setup beyond the minimum of following docs to get things running. We've had nonstop problems like this since the very start. Files don't upload, anytime I try to fix it I'm confronted with confusing error messages and cryptic things like people telling me "something related to EDR". What the hell is EDR? I just want to view a Word doc.
I've come to realize that Teams should only be used in large companies who can afford dedicated staff to manage it. But it was certainly sold to us as being easy to use and suitable for a small company.
I mentioned that because security software blocking things locally or at the network level is such a common source of friction. I don’t think Teams is perfect by any means but the core functionality has been quite stable in personal use, both of my wife’s schools, and my professional use so I wouldn’t conclude that it’s hopeless and always like that.
Thank you, I appreciate the support. But this doesn't explain the intermittent nature of the issues. For example, just now I tried to open a word file. I got the error message. But then I tried several times and restarted the app twice, and eventually the file did load. It just took five+ minutes of trying over and over.
I also had to add a new user yesterday, so I went to admin.microsoft.com in Edge. 403 error. Tried Chrome and Firefox. Same. Went back to Edge and suddenly it loaded. The like an idiot I refreshed, 403 error again. Another 5 or six refreshes and it finally loaded again and I was able to add the new user. There's never any real error messages that would help me debug anything, it's just endless frustration and slowness.
So you’ve tested this with clean installs on unfiltered networks? Just how old is your hardware? It works well on, say, the devices they issue students here so I’m guessing it’d have to be extremely old.
I beg to differ. Last time I had to use PowerPoint (granted, that was ~3 years ago), math on the slides broke when you touched it with a client that wasn't of the same type as the one that initially put it there. So you would need to use either the web app or the desktop app to edit it, but you couldn't switch between them. Since we were working on the slides with multiple people you also never knew what you had to use if someone else wrote that part initially.
If I remember correctly I had created the math parts with the windows PowerPoint app and it was shown more or less correctly in the web app, until I double clicked on it and it completely broke; something like it being a singular element that wasn't editable at all when it should have been a longer expression, I don't remember the details. But I am pretty sure it wasn't just a font issue.
That's the thing, though, the compat story is terrible. I can't say much about the backwards one, but Microsoft has started the process of removing features from the native versions just to lower the bar for the web one catching up. Even my most Microsoft-enamoured colleagues are getting annoyed by this (and the state of all-MS things going downhill, but that's another story)
> That's the thing, though, the compat story is terrible.
It really is. With shared documents you just have to give up. If someone edits them on the web, in Teams, in the actual app or some other way like on iOS, it all goes to hell.
Pages get added or removed, images jump about, fonts change and various other horrors occur.
To be fair, we were impressed with Google Docs 15 years ago. Not saying office.com isn't impressive, but Google Docs certainly isn't impressive today. My company still uses GSuite, as I don't like being in Microsoft's ecosystem and we don't need any advanced features of our office suite but Google Docs and the rest of the GSuite seem to be intentionally held back to technology of the early 2010's.
Google docs certainly haven't changed much the last 5-10 years. I wonder if that's an intentional choice, or if it is because those that built it and understand how it works are long gone to work on other things.
What's impressive is that MS has such well trained customers that it can get away with extremely buggy and broken web apps. Fundamental brokenness like collaborative editing frequently losing data and thousand cuts of the more mundane bugs.
You must be kidding about "just works". There are so many bugs in word and excel that you could spend the rest of your life fixing. And the performance is disastrous.
To the point where they quickly found the flaws in JS for large codebases and came up with Typescript. I think. It makes sense that TS came out of the office for web project.
The point of a monorepo is that all the dependencies for a suite of related products are all in a single repo, not that everything your company produces is in a single repo.
Most people use the "suite of related products" definition of monorepo, but some companies like Google and Meta have a single company-wide repository. It's unfortunate that the two distinct strategies have the same name.
Improving documentation is an often underrated contribution.
Have you read man pages by the same author as the program itself? When you can tell before looking up the name, there's a needed and worthy contribution waiting to happen.
No need to tell me, whenever I'm working with Common Lisp I usually have the GNU Common Lisp documentation open to the side (it's in Info format, which Emacs has pretty good support for). I also really appreciate Perl for the `perldoc' command, which works well with the Perl community's penchant for well-written documentation (e.g. the documentation for List::Util https://metacpan.org/pod/List::Util).
Although I will admit that I was poking fun at the 'improve docs: @@ an awesome project' shenanigans from the T-shirt days.
Do you think, if open source never existed, if there were only free software and non-free software, we wouldn't be arguing about whether AI corporations can truly call their free models free?
Companies always seemed much more weary of "free software" as compared to open source. Probably because of the ambiguous meaning of free in English, honestly that is one of the reason we have open source as a concept.
Companies like the flexibility in "open source", even companies who release code as GPL rarely talk about "free software", they are open source companies.
How could we? Free Software makes it clear that when you modify the Free thing and productize it, you have to share the modifications with the public under the same licensing. What's there to argue about? You're either doing that or you're not. If you find a loophole in the text, then the license gets updated, the loophole explicitly closed, and everybody who agrees moves to the new version.
> Free Software licenses and Open source licenses are essentially the same (apart a few odd examples).
Apart from every example of GPL software, which can't be used under the permissive terms of Open Source. The last person I replied to about this used the word "essentially" here, also. Is there a common source slogan for this belief?
Also, somebody should tell all of the people who keep rewriting GPL stuff in order to have an MIT version.
This is a technicality. Non-copyleft licenses can qualify as Free Software because they can be easily relicensed into Free Software (as well as into proprietary software.)
They qualify as Free Software simply because they meet (though do not protect like copyleft) all 4 freedoms. The relicensing is more of a secondary point.
Free is ambiguous term. It might be free in code and price. Or it might be free in price, but closed source. It could be free for me as private person, but not for business.
Is freeware free software? It is rather murky term for me.
That's entirely the fault of the English language. The same term when translated into many other languages (including my first language) creates no such confusion - because they have different words for free as in free beer and free as in free speech.
The point here is that that linguistic peculiarity in just one language doesn't make the word 'free software' invalid or unsuitable, as long as 'free software' is a recognizable term (which it is). This is why FSF makes this explicitly clear with an entire article.
in English, the word "free" has not served well.. suggested alternative "libre" ... oh, except LOSS does not sound great! seems challenging right now.. "free" has failed IMHO .. it is literally mocked by finance people no? every adult in the US and elsewhere must pay bills.. "free" is failing as a label
The concept that there is a root/superuser account that can do anything they like is quite a common one, but it is an OS design choice. Any user account is just an object in the operating system and one can as well design an OS that enforces certain rules against all user accounts, even if that means limiting superuser accounts.
Legitimate reasons I can think of would be for example to protect certain secrets even in the event of an administrator compromise (like a TPM) or just to prevent administrators from accidentally messing up their systems to an extent that they wouldn't boot. Another (more controversial) goal is to enforce DRM.
Anyways, that's exactly what Microsoft is attempting to do with Windows: the OS tries to prevent administrative accounts from interfering with the kernel/installing rootkits (for whatever reason).
Also note that it's always important in this discussion to differentiate between administrative user accounts (in the OS) and "administrators" (people) with physical/hardware access.
Writing '15' would have been easier here. Nothing wrong with writing 0xF but it's a weird choice that irked my curiosity. You just did it for style reasons?
I will start lists and notes from 0, and have dropped a few hex expressions in my time. Sometimes I am in an odd frame of mind and maybe am just signaling that to see what others may do or say.
See https://gitlab.com/android_translation_layer/android_transla...