Post #226,015
9/22/05 7:26:53 PM
|
A pretty comprehensive description of,
what's at stake.
Thank you for troubling to set out the major ramifications of a square peg, so clearly. I believe I had an inkling of the problem of training time (with a good choice) and the doubling-up which is entailed, for people already doing necessary tasks - but an inkling is not a lot.
Seeing the importance of choosing well, this Yes/No decision depends upon accurately (and fairly?) administering enough tests which you've found to go directly to the project aim, (presumably from the lore of past errors of omission? that cost !?) - while also assessing an entire new 'personality'.
It sounds as if it's far more important not to miss a 'negative', than to slightly exaggerate the positives (Hope can do that). So then - you need to be Good at devising tests that really do:
1) Comprehend and next, will exercise the skill sets you are sure you (this task) will require.
2) This also presumes that you really do see a clear outline of, not only why you 'need' this new piece of work, but you are capable of outlining a clear-enough er 'recipe' for getting there. From here.
And without missing an essential piece of the puzzle as may rear its ugly head, only after more [the lawyers would call it 'discovery'?] is done on the project. Right?
Given the first two requirements The Interviewer(s) must meet (actually; not imagined) - Now you have to administer these 'tests' in such a way that:
3A) The Applicant may be at her best = so as to minimize time wasting via excessive pickiness / freaking-out too many applicants who just might..
3B) Possess more smarts than you were patient enough to discover.
Is that a close-enough outline of what you want to accomplish in the 'interview' - and what you must know before you begin one? If I have that close:
Sounds reasonable to me. That is, the aims, and generaly methodology sure seem intelligently crafted (!)
But that brings us to Peter's link -
And if you read some of the replies below (which I did, but only after listening to my Own reactions to the scenarios described, and the actions of applicant and "management") -
I believe I observed more-than 'neurotic behaviour' as much? more? on the part of the people setting up this Encounter Group than - even a Smidgeon! of understanding of basic psychology (as cant-free as your mind can manage).
Worse, was the implicit arrogance, hubris! in the choreography:
Did Not these Firms understand that: it is a Two-Way interview? The applicant is Evaluating >you< precisely as much as you are (Think.. you are) her.
(And even a nebbish, or merely a standard '05, already-outsourced-Twice
person, who is somewhat fearful.. and seems not merely compliant but 'complaisant' -- Still has to decide IF she can possibly bear to work with such Management personalities as she has seen behaving crudely, also precipitately.)
Point: it is one thing for an applicant to make a faux pas, and to try to judge if it is a fatal one -all by itself- SILENTLY; quite another to (do some of the shit in that thread).
So thanks for helping me to see the Stakes better. But I sincerely hope that Your Group does not (often, anyway..) emulate the assholes depicted.
Y'know?
What have you to Lose by:
bending over backwards to (at least pretend..) an amiable, non concentration-camp-style Interview; allowing the applicant to deal with questions as best he can, then allowing her to Take your tests: unstared-at or otherwise intimidated by your choreography, subtle or overt?
And THEN: invite back the promising one, perhaps escalate the pressure Then, to simulate the actual working pressures - not in Minute One! Ask a few more questions of the -??- one. Civilly dismiss the unpromising.
Finally - if the link indeed represents a Typical atmosphere projected in IT "Interviews" du jour, I reiterate: Y.P.B.
(Because that method won't 'evaluate' skill sets nearly so well as it will exacerbate all neuroses: Management's and Applicant's. IMhO.)
moi
Of course! I don't imagine that I could construct a clever Interview to test competence in IT; all I claim to 'know' about the process depicted - is its obvious and counterproductive, stifling and insulting atmosphere - whatever the supposed 'intentions'.
It's worse than a Zoo, in the places depicted:
We don't allow people to tease the animals or SHOUT at them, in a Zoo.
|
Post #226,020
9/22/05 7:53:18 PM
|
I think Barry's perspective is not entirely typical of IT
He works with a very specific mission: "Do exactly this: better, faster, cheaper." Sure, there is room for creativity in how you get there. But I suspect Barry is entirely uninterested in trying out some cool new thing, or trying to revolutionize his company's core business model.
This is fairly different from other places I've worked, where those in IT think they have the Next Big ThingTM. Or at least think that IT is still an inherently creative discipline, not subject to the same rigid processes as boring things like logistics. Rational adults know that unless your business is software, business needs should dictate the direction of development, not the other way around.
Now take your average 40-something IT director with fond memories of writing BASIC on a Commodore 64. He may have been the first "computer guy" when his company started bringing in computers in the late 80s. His primary qualification is that he's been around longer that anyone else in the department and knows how it all (almost) works. Now he has a budget and hiring authority.
Barry's process works for him because he does know what he wants out of an employee. I haven't seen much evidence that that's a common trait.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #226,137
9/23/05 10:39:21 AM
|
I recently was able to hire someone...
I took him to lunch as the interview, part 1.
I then was able to question and test him on his knowledge, Part 2. (you know how fun that would be when I am asking the questions I already know the 16 possible answers too)
Part 3, allowed me to see how quickly he learned, if at all.
One note about Part 3, it was the really important part to me. If he can't learn, *I* don't want him.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #226,059
9/23/05 12:11:27 AM
|
Can't do it your way
While there may be tests for a lot of things, there
is no test in: WILL THEY FIT IN HERE?
It is subjective, but it must be considered the MAJOR
most pressing aspect of the interview. Given the right
skill base, most things can be taught. But not the ability
to meld with a team, at least not without risking your
current team.
3A) The Applicant may be at her best = so as to minimize time
wasting via excessive pickiness / freaking-out too many applicants
who just might..
3B) Possess more smarts than you were patient enough to discover.
You don't get it.
It does not matter how smart they are. If they can't handle the
interview pressure, then they can't be trusted to keep together
when the inevitable crisis hits.
And our interviews are not high pressure, many people ganging
up. We typcially have 2 techies or a techie and a manager.
But if you can't right a SIMPLE Perl script right in front of
me, you had no business answering the ad. No matter how much
pressure you think it is.
Done. End of store. No second chances.
Well not exactly. If they show up and say they had a traumatic
experience, then I'd tell them to setup another interview.
Nor would I treat them the way those assholes treated Lincoln.
But that's about it.
|
Post #226,066
9/23/05 12:43:43 AM
|
Seconded
Where I work, the rule is simple. Everyone who is interested interviews, and if we all like, maybe we'll extend an offer. That's not guaranteed, though it is likely. If anyone doesn't like, we don't hire.
Getting rid of the wrong person after you hire them costs a lot more (money, stress, etc) than not hiring in the first place. And there are enough people out there that will work out that it is OK if you pass up a few who might have been great.
Similarly, if you have the wrong person on board, you want to fire them early (before they've done full damage) rather than late. But that's a position that you want to avoid being in.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,075
9/23/05 1:35:00 AM
|
I get All that, and -
Done. End of store. No second chances.
Well not exactly. If they show up and say they had a traumatic
experience, then I'd tell them to setup another interview.
Nor would I treat them the way those assholes treated Lincoln.
But that's about it. That's plenty; (I'll take for granted that means you'd also eschew the tantrum assholery in the link.)
|
Post #226,094
9/23/05 7:09:58 AM
|
That may be most important, IMO
We have a new employee that is having trouble fitting in with us - not so much technically, but in the team. She's not getting along, she's paranoid, defensive, and out for herself. She's also instantly negative about everythng we've done that she's exposed to. She's competing with us, not cooperating.
The main strength about this place is the team; it really IS a team (as opposed to just being called one by management) - we work together and are more than just the sum of our parts.
It's becoming disruptive - and it's bad for her, too. She's looking bad and feeling bad, we're annoyed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #226,099
9/23/05 8:12:08 AM
|
Sounds like time for a "team building" retreat
It can be very daunting to be the only new person on the team. Everyone has a sense of comradery and she is on the outside looking in. She must be having a hard time connecting with someone that she feels she can trust.
I just completed conflict resolution training from the National PTA. They offered a free online course. Really made a lot of sense and helped to view the bigger picture.
My intuition tells me that they need some "bonding time" to really create a symbiotic environment.
Good luck!
Amy
Pray for surviving Rita.
|
Post #226,119
9/23/05 9:39:53 AM
|
You'd think so...
...but she actively avoids any kind of bonding activity. Hell, she avoided going out for a SMOKE with the other smokers in the dept.
I'm willing to give her time - I get the feeling (no evidence, she doesn't talk much to me much less confide) that her last job must have been an awful environment. I don't think she really believes that a team like ours is possible (and it IS rare) - I get the feeling (again, just a feeling) that she may have been competing with her last 'teammates' just for employment. God knows I've seen that enough in my time.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #226,213
9/23/05 3:53:52 PM
|
I disagree strongly
Good IT people have a sensitive nose for management BS, and a tendancy to see it where it might not be. "Team building" activities have a familiar whiff that triggers negative reactions.
My experience suggests that official team building activities range from unnecessary to harmful for a good team. The best case is that the team is working well together anyways, and the team building activity is superflous. The worst case is that the team gets the message that management thinks that this little trip (taken out of lives that have other things - like families - in them) is a replacement for actually addressing whatever problems may exist. In which case it cements communication barriers.
In a good team she should be getting plenty of offers to be part of the team. Good teams don't get and stay that way by accident. But it is up to her to take advantage of them.
A not entirely random book recommend on this topic: Peopleware. I've heard more than once that Microsoft made it their policy in the late 80s and early 90s to give every new manager a copy, and then to quiz them in the hallways enough that people were sure that the copy had been read. And this was one of the secrets to Microsoft's success.
I believe it.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,218
9/23/05 6:03:00 PM
|
Gee!
I didn't know Peopleware expoused monopolistic, predatory practices. I thought it was a management tome, not a blueprint for neocon/canabalcapitalistic marketsturm! But what do I know....
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,226
9/23/05 7:22:16 PM
|
It doesn't
What people lose sight of, though, is that Microsoft not only does the whole predatory monopoly, but they also did a lot of good programming. Their development goals do not match mine, but anyone who denies that they have a lot of smart, competent people has a severe case of head-up-ass syndrome.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,242
9/23/05 9:25:16 PM
|
Expand?
Really, I see I have little idea how 'smart' actually, Are the acolytes there ??
We hear about smart folk Hired-away, of course - and then assimilated (or not). But is there much indication that The Campus, in fact trains people who could do World-class work - elsewhere? (Not a rhetorical question, BTW.)
The SS was pretty efficient too, though I'm not sure which way an idea of, smart, competent people would fit within a comparison of those particular Germans of the '30s. (The Maya were efficient at heart surgery, etc. No an\ufffdsthesia, either! - it was said to be over ~before you noticed.)
But you re-raise here a certain wonderment about the birth-process of a new Softie:
how, when? is the Koolaid spiked, such that all those internal machinations for breaking others' apps (and similar Dirty-tricks) are seamlessly incorporated into the Plan for a new piece of s/ware: AND made to appear to be routine Bizness.
Is some of this work "great coding generally", or Great coding-to-a M$ recipe? Are these qualities the same, also interchangeable?
And while appreciating 'efficiency', I wonder then, how many millions M$ spent (on a patently M$-only 'Final Solution') - anticipating that W2K + AD would next take over the network world. Hmm maybe they did.. is AD now Popular? (I recall W2K sales as having been 'disappointing', but - HTF would I know what that meant.) Was that then, efficient planning?
And (way over My head, of course): what was it like re-engineering Kerberos for umm incompatibility: Nasty? Neutral? (hard.. or easy..)
Not rabid, just skeptical - insufficient knowledge, I expect.
Still, in the end.. maybe Efficiency isn't quite enough, to earn Admiration?
Now with new leadership - -
I can still recall the thread by one daleross, an M$ protege -
"if it's legal it's ethical".
But that's not about coding. Is it? Unless the code cripples the 'Partner's new OS/2 Offering or the DRDOS and then ... well, it does Do what you wanted it to do.
(I get so confused when trying to actually relate Can I? to Should I? - but I see that I don't really know how that relates to Great Coding, do I?)
|
Post #226,251
9/23/05 10:02:23 PM
|
Kerberos was easy
There was a field whose use was defined in the original specification as being optional. MS defined a non-optional use, then patented their implementation.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #226,266
9/24/05 1:10:59 AM
|
Put it this way
Many Microsoft applications were clearly best of breed. Yes, nasty, underhanded tricks were used to make those products dominant. But many Microsoft products from Excel to Internet Explorer really were superior to their direct competition at the time. Particularly when measured by the criteria that Microsoft was trying to win by - ease of development for third parties and ease of use.
That didn't happen by accident.
It didn't always happen either. For instance their operating systems often were not as good as the competition, but they weren't trying to be either. They already had a monopoly and their goal was to extend it, which gets in the way of a quality product.
But whatever their goals were, for a long time Microsoft hit them very reliably. That requires talent, discipline, and a solid organization. Never let your dislike blind you to their strengths.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,276
9/24/05 6:55:57 AM
|
OK I can appreciate certain aspects; always with reservation
Imagine though, if Billy&Bally/They'd possessed the integrity of say, a Tektronix
(Once - Standard of the World for, simply unarguably - the Best State/Art electronic equipment ever produced anywhere. Also started, run by an engineer. Successfully. Also pioneering in the s/ware as digital became both possible and then more refined; ie correlation applies. Just not mass-market - or that aim, either.)
Imagine!
..instead of a Me-Me-Me obsessed spoiled-brat-pair, whose largest talent was and remains: Marketing. Now that IS 'Something', even I concede - but is it ever a Something that isn't inherently tawdry, crass - and Mainly about hornswoggling the marks? 'Excellence' never rising beyond YAN lying-slogan, etc.
Power/Wealth like 'ol Chainsaw and the others - but tinhorns all the way.
(Digital Research, flawed by the usual Ego-problems as plague all 'quests'- at least never lost technical integrity.. however one picks a version.. of the means of their losing the IBM entr\ufffde to Billy's mom's lobbying of the IBM droids -- just after that Missed opportunity.)
Heh, all those opportunities .. when people Didn't assassinate Hitler, too - Cosmic Humor; it's Everywhere.
|
Post #226,533
9/26/05 12:34:34 PM
|
Better because of dirty tricks
Many Microsoft applications were clearly best of breed. Yes, nasty, underhanded tricks were used to make those products dominant. But many Microsoft products from Excel to Internet Explorer really were superior to their direct competition at the time. Particularly when measured by the criteria that Microsoft was trying to win by - ease of development for third parties and ease of use. It should also be kept in mind that Microsoft applications where better in part exactly becasue of underhanded tricks. Remember that the Microsoft anti-trust suits had as much to do with undocumented APIs as anything. When Excel first came out it was the fastest Windows spreadsheet because it used undocumented memory APIs to give it better memory access. Word made us of file access APIs that nobody else knew about so it could load files faster and easier. In the late Win 3.1 and early Win95 eras there was a whole genre of programming books that did nothing but cover undocumented and secret APIs. Microsoft abandoned that method only because the lawsuits made it too risky and better Windows programming tools made it too easy for outside developers to find the APIs. Jay
|
Post #226,569
9/26/05 3:17:56 PM
|
You need to remember
Excel and Word shipped first on the Mac and they were a couple of the best apps on the Mac at the time. Windows was born of Gates' frustration with Apple's low marketshare and refusal to license the OS externally. He wanted a more widely available platform on which to sell his warez.
It was never about building a great OS, it is about providing a compatibility layer for Word and Excel.
The original Word and Excel apps on the Mac really were great apps in a lot of ways (although they had an annoying habit of bypassing the Mac Toolbox to do things which resulted in compatibility problems for lots of people).
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #226,523
9/26/05 11:20:58 AM
|
Not since 1986 they havent!
What people lose sight of, though, is that Microsoft not only does the whole predatory monopoly, but they also did a lot of good programming. Oh, yeah? Really? You mean like, for example, QuickC? Or Microsoft C V6.0? Or Dos 4 (either version)? Or whatever they called their "Procomm Killer"? Or NT (which had to be rewritten from scratch twice, and not even Dave Cutler could rescue; can you say graphics engine in Ring 0? I knew you could)? Or Clippy? Or (I'm sorry, I just can't resist...) BOB?!? Puh-leeze! The last decent piece of work Microsoft ever did was Microsoft C V4.0. And that was in 1986! [...] but anyone who denies that they have a lot of smart, competent people has a severe case of head-up-ass syndrome. They may well have some smart people there (after, it takes quite a bit of brain-bending to keep their current warm, steaming heaps something resembling running). I'm still waiting for empirical evidence of same. But assuming you are, indeed, correct, it's just too bad those alleged smart competent people are not allowed to show themselves. jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,525
9/26/05 11:30:10 AM
|
You're judging them wrong
Their products are very good at doing what they want them to do. Whether they do what you want them to do is entirely incidental.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #226,542
9/26/05 1:01:58 PM
|
Amen.
There's a guy I knew there named [link|http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/|Raymond Chen]. Total and complete asshole. If he found a bug in your department's product, he'd check out the source, write up a fix, then send the fix, diffs, and an all staff e-mail indicating what a bunch of idiots everybody in your department was for missing something as simple as what he had fixed.
I actually worked IN his department for 4 months - not something I'd want to do again. OTOH, I watched this guy read a debug stream from Wordperfect in RAW HEX and figure out exactly where a nasty compatability issue with a prebuild of Win2k was cropping up. He was most definitely NOT stupid, and he definitely had some skills.
(He was also a completely amoral antisocial git, but that goes without saying at Microsoft.)
When somebody asks you to trade your security for freedom, it isn't your freedom they're talking about.
|
Post #226,544
9/26/05 1:09:54 PM
|
ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #226543 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=226543|ICLRPD]
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #227,262
9/30/05 7:25:38 AM
|
Re: Amen.
(He was also a completely amoral antisocial git, but that goes without saying at Microsoft.) Hey, you worked there. Oh, wait...
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #227,306
9/30/05 10:54:08 AM
|
He was an employee. I never was.
|
Post #226,563
9/26/05 3:00:01 PM
9/26/05 3:00:49 PM
|
Point taken! ;-)
Still, what did they want BOB to do?!? Enquiring minds want to know...
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
Edited by jb4
Sept. 26, 2005, 03:00:49 PM EDT
|
Post #226,567
9/26/05 3:09:45 PM
|
Get BillG laid, that's what.
|
Post #226,568
9/26/05 3:14:09 PM
|
Maybe they should have written Microsoft Babe
give him something to practice on.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #226,588
9/26/05 5:27:13 PM
|
Um, Inthane is right. And it worked.
If you don't have a clue what we're talking about, who was in charge of Microsoft Bob?
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,589
9/26/05 5:31:45 PM
|
Ohhhhhhhhhh.
I didn't realize that was the angle.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #226,797
9/27/05 6:10:41 PM
|
So lemme get this straight...
..BOB was the software equivalent of a blow-up doll?!?
Suh-weeet! Why am I not surprised? Screwed all of us, dinit?
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,601
9/26/05 7:03:20 PM
|
nt 3.5.1 dam fine OS, NT4 is where they screwed the pooch
and gave application access to ring 0.
thanx,
bill
"the reason people don't buy conspiracy theories is that they think conspiracy means everyone is on the same program. Thats not how it works. Everybody has a different program. They just all want the same guy dead. Socrates was a gadfly, but I bet he took time out to screw somebodies wife" Gus Vitelli
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #226,798
9/27/05 6:15:31 PM
|
Beg to differ!
NT 3.anything was the equivalent of my ex-girlfriend's Peugeot: It's ugly, but it sure is slow!
And what was the "new technology" that gave NT its "name"? Protected memory spaces...Something they had on 16-bit PDP-11's 20 years before, ferchrissakes! Big fuckin innovation there, all right! Finally using the feature (and poorly at that) that Intel had been puting into their processor chips for the preceeding 8 fuckin years! Right fine piece of "innovation", that...yeppir!
Who you crappin, box?!?
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #226,800
9/27/05 6:39:57 PM
|
Wasn't that the last NT to pass the Orange book (whatever)
'Certification' re security (the first they'd actually heard of that word..?) Or was that V3.50?
-- providing it was in a locked room with no floppy; nothing connected to it. ie Ed Curry redux. And they Imported, did they not? == Hired-away some mega-Honcho (was he ex-DEC?) to do it all: for the little drop-out preppie guys to attribute to M$ Innovation.
And: none of the above has occurred re Govmint 'Security' tests since?
(Yet all the Govmint folks buy the add-ons at $Bs - I'm pretty sure that part is true.)
(And.. I Loved the Ring-0 dissertations, first time around - why, even moi could grok what a lazy 'driver'-makin jockey might do.. right there in the hen house.)
What a joke, them 'Standards'. And 'Security Proofs' cha cha cha
|
Post #226,803
9/27/05 6:57:58 PM
|
Not by my recollection
NT 3.50, service pack 3.
Ed Curry claimed he could have had 3.51 certified fast. NT 4.0, no way.
Eventually, many service packs later (6?), NT 4.0 managed to pass a UK test which Microsoft claimed was "equivalent" to the US test. I've not seen proof of that equivalence, nor have I heard of any later version of Windows passing such a security audit.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,808
9/27/05 7:18:34 PM
|
Ah so - it remains ephemeral er, 'inferential'.
|
Post #226,961
9/28/05 2:57:48 PM
|
On only certain hardware.
With no Network Card, Modem, Floppy or CDROM.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #226,982
9/28/05 5:00:44 PM
|
Right
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #226,993
9/28/05 6:15:14 PM
|
Honcho == Dave Cutler (ex of DEC)
But, you see, it's OK for Micros~1 to raid and ravage its "competitors" for talent, but should a "competitor return the favor, it's greeted by lawsuits and flying furniture.
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #228,559
10/7/05 12:10:25 AM
|
Sounds like how Disney does business...
d-_-b
|
Post #228,574
10/7/05 2:50:14 AM
|
My theory, like the 'single electron' one
is that there's One talented person left - who time-shares like that One electron; the rest are all MBAs or wannabes.
|
Post #229,875
10/17/05 5:22:07 PM
|
The Heisenberg Talented Engineer theory...
jb4
shrub●bish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
