|
It was my understanding that FF has incorporated flash block[^] like functionality into the browser recently, you can also add the plug in. I block all flash and explicit enable it on site where you want the content. That combined with the Yes Script javascript blocker[^] which disables auto page refreshes that some sites like drudge and cbs local like to employ to boost hit numbers at your expense.
That poses a new paradigm to advertisers that use annoying gimmicks to get your attention, not sure what they will do to overcome. But I have found inline ads to be less invasive and even informational as long as they don't do flash.
modified 6-Sep-14 16:32pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
The Drudge Report has been irritating me lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Very nice 
According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Alviani wrote: According to my calculations, I should be able to retire about 5 years after I die.
Make sure you take into account the cost of your funeral and estate taxes.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Projects built internally and used for few years with my last employer were replaced by some vendor tool, and I didn't want to be in the shoes to 'config' 'support' and 'wait for another patch', so I joined a different firm, but after few months i was told that the project we've been working on is going to be replaced by some vendor tool...again!
Is this the trend? do you feel there are less home grown applications that could stick long enough and beat the 'vendor tool'??
|
|
|
|
|
It's certainly a trend - we're an expensive resource and re-using programming talent across multiple clients has some economic advantages.
However, custom applications are more targeted on individual needs, so they're not going to go away!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
The trend is to try to use the cheapest 3rd party software available, even if it doesn't match the requirements. Then complain loudly and blame your IT department which, since it was 3rd party software, can't do a damn thing about it.
The next step would be to try even cheaper 3rd party software.
|
|
|
|
|
So as developers who want to do development, what do we do? join the 'vendor' company? 
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know. Maybe a startup that's making something new.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes - join the vendor company.
How many hardware engineers does a typical company employ?
Not many - they buy from vendors. Similarly should be the case for software.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10815848 wrote: So as developers who want to do development, what do we do? join the 'vendor' company?
That won't do any good, because most vendor software now is just a bunch of cobbled-together frameworks.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It has been my experience that there ends up being insufficient time and hours to maintain home-grown apps. Usually, homegrown apps suck, whether we want to admit it or not and are in constant need of maintenance or fixing.
By having that functionality taken care of by a third party vendor, you can focus on the apps that bring money into your business.
We still have some utility apps, that their are no vendors for but that could change too.
|
|
|
|
|
The last company I worked in had a dedicated dev team to create and maintain their applications, which were written from scratch and went through a number of rewrites and releases and so on as normal, and did exactly what the company needed, and was a large part of what made the company number one in the country in its field. New features were delivered quickly, bugs were fixed very quickly, anything was possible if the business or their users could justify it. The devs were close to the business and its users, and understood them both.
The company I now work for also has a dedicated dev team to create and maintain applications. One monster that I worked on was written by a third party who then stopped maintaining and supporting it so we bought the source code and modified it ourselves over a number of years. It was a nightmare, but the bits we created ourselves worked extremely well and all the positives from above applied too.
A few years ago this was replaced with an application from a third party vendor. It has been a huge pain (still not over yet) trying to bend it to fit the business, changes are expensive, take many months, and have to be tempered with the core functionality, much of which is a poor fit. Bug fixes take even longer as they have to go off to the original software house and go into normal release cycles. Customisations have been biting us in the ass ever since go live, and are getting worse, part of the problem is that we have a faceless blob of resource to work on these things for us who neither know, nor understand the business we are in.
Generally speaking we try to use the systems we write in house that are around the new vendor supplied monster to fudge any problems before we resort to the vendor.
Of course many of the issues were caused by the business trying to choose the cheap option, although a cheap option that has probably already cost around the same as employing a hundred devs for a year.
And I'm not going to get onto the application that was purchased on the back of a bet made in a golf course clubhouse.
Everything written in house works, and it works as the business needs, it is responsive, and takes into account how our users work. Far, far more effort is put into just keeping the vendor bought systems up and available.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: It has been my experience that there ends up being insufficient time and hours to maintain home-grown apps. Usually, homegrown apps suck, whether we want to admit it or not and are in constant need of maintenance or fixing.
Aren't you basically buying a home grown app, somebody elses albeit. The only difference is that you are at their mercy if something needs fixed or it doesn't quite fir your needs.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Visual Studio is a home-grown app. The piece of crap file parser I wrote last month is a home-grown app. Which one do you think is going to get more attention and love. Probably the one that brings in the money versus the one that just makes my life a little easier.
Semantics. 
|
|
|
|
|
The difference is that uSoft had a team that worked on VS as opposed to a single person. Therefore they need to make a butt load of money on it to recoup.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
I hear you Mike. 
|
|
|
|
|
Homegrown software sucks and is in constant need of maintenance.
3rd party software sucks and constantly needs fixes from 3rd party.
Software sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: Software sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Third party applications that do exactly what you want, or close enough to it that they don't annoy you in their off-the-shelf state, are a good thing. They save time and effort and are generally properly tested. For example, who here is in a company that has its own browser, email client or word processor? None of us, because the standard offerings are good enough.
When an application is supporting business functions or processes which are unique to the company, then a third party solution will always be problematic, because even if you have a close working relationship with the provider, they're not going to understand your business and company culture well enough to get the software to do what you need. For example, timesheet recording, project management and auditing, collaboration between teams and accounting all need at least a lot of customisation, and either you'll have your own or your people in charge of it will be swearing at their third party package a lot.
And for systems that support your business purpose, your in-house development gives you your competitive advantage and flexibility. Oil companies write their own reservoir modelling systems, factories write their own plant and equipment management programs, satnav companies write their own mapping software, because if you buy that stuff in then you are just a front for someone else's innovation and there's no reason for clients to use you instead of the people you buy it from.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 10815848 wrote: Is this the trend?
I was a consultant at a large aerospace company that ended up going the same route. It was a weird experience -- the IT department originally had the full backing of the VP for that division to put together custom tools to integrate, streamline, and automate the work of several departments. All the departments were looking forward to the tools and had, in the past, done considerable due diligence researching commercial alternatives and none were happy with what was out there.
When the VP retired, a couple people came in, one in the VP position and one as a new high-level manager of the IT department. It was clear from the get-go that these two guys had their own agenda. Furthermore, they had no experience in aerospace (one came from Ford of all places.) What was really sick though was that while they verbally backed our project to the team, they were clearly working on their own agenda behind the scenes, eventually terminating the project.
Sadly as well, because we were bridging several departments, each was getting a better understanding of their respective issues and I felt we were facilitating communication and understanding between the departments, something that had nothing to do directly with writing the tools, this was a really neat side benefit that we were seeing. Of course, when the project was scrapped, that all essentially stopped.
I'm not even sure whether a third party tool was ultimately selected. There were complaints from each department as to the inadequacy of the 3rd party software, and it was the recommendation of all the other departments involved that we keep developing the in-house tools. Of course, the two goons that took over did not listen.
In the end, and this is pure conjecture, I think the whole reason for the change was even bigger -- the company was positioning itself to be bought out, which did actually happen, and I suspect that there were political and other influences in play that we also didn't know about, but as I said, that's pure conjecture, based on my years of experience as to how management (especially at the C-level) works and speaks with a forked tongue.
And yes, I'm biased -- there were good people motivated to save the company real money, reduce errors in manufacturing, and we had demonstrated that this would also allow the company to respond much faster to manufacturing changes, etc., giving the company a significant competitive edge. There were new channels of communication being opened and a sense of "finally, our voices are being heard." It's sad how management squashed all that, probably just to look better on paper for the closed-door posturing necessary to make the company look attractive for potential buyers.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Third party vendors provide the cheapest solution to their problem, and unless you happen to be making a tool that's bringing in money for the company, there really is little sense in internally developing something they can pay a lot less for.
At my last company, we were really small... anything that we could use open source software for, we did. Heck, you can even base projects on open source and just make minor adaptations to suit your needs.
|
|
|
|
|
Except for when it's one of the company's core competencies and they critically rely on it. Then it really needs to be homegrown. Companies do try to farm out their core competencies but this is a very bad strategy that never works properly. Image if Google tried farming out their data centers to IBM or EDS...How well would have that worked? Sending out your critical business to the current experts that really needed to be the next generational experts but weren't. Google spent a lot of time and effort perfecting their data centers into the next generation. All the other search providers that farmed out their data centers are where now? In the dust. This works the same for software. If your company/organization core competency is XYZ then unless there is a good 3rd party software tool that matches your process 75-90% that you can use then you really MUST do homegrown software else your efficiency will be severely negatively impacted as will your profitability. Few managers understand this.
|
|
|
|
|
C Grant Anderson wrote: Except for when it's one of the company's core competencies and they critically
rely on it.
Well, yeah... in your example, you use an example of a company that's making money off the data they hold. So, it doesn't change my statement. On the other hand, if a small webcrawler comes online, are they doing to recreate searching and data archiving or use existing tools? It makes no sense to reinvent the wheel unless yours truly is different and innovative. Anything less is a waste of resources.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
