This is Jeff Dickey's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jeff Dickey's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jeff Dickey
Writer, thinker and IT myriadist
Interests: people, travel, politics, history, science fiction, software, quality, sociology...
Recent Activity
That's where the "slippery slope" comes in. Historically, authoritarian governments have tried one small outrage "to see if anyone gets too upset". When not enough people do, they try another, slightly larger one. When THAT doesn't produce large-scale demonstrations, they continue ramping up. See, for example, 1920s USSR, 1930s Germany, 1940s USSR again, 1950s China, 1960s Indonesia, 1970s Cambodia, 1980s Yugoslavia… Do we really want to add "PAP Singapore" to that list? "It might come to this in the future" is, historically, a guarantee that a) it will and especially that b) by the time it does, any potential for peaceful resolution has been thwarted by the existing, usurping power structure and non-peaceful, non-evolutionary methods are the only thing that has been proven to work. They also do much more damage to the hapless subjects of the (former) totalitarian dictatorship than in countries whose transition is peaceful (see, for example, the former Czechoslovakia). If we want to be a functioning parliamentary republic in our lifetimes, it's up to us. Government should have higher priorities than the transfer of the nation's wealth and power to those already wealthy and powerful. It has been some time since this Government could claim to be such with a straight face. That MUST not stand.
1 reply
Lots of anger; certainly understandable to those who share it, or to those who develop products on short release cycles. (And by 'short release cycles', I mean anything under two years. I'm the lead developer AND support guy in a small company; getting out of the what-do-we-need-to-update-this-week? work-disruption sinkhole was a big part of the reason we left (native) Windows for Mac to begin with. Guys (and I mean all of you folk complaining about the update), remember: no matter how attractive Fusion is at first blush, it is NOT a core product for VMWare and they've simply lost interest in it. (I've seen half a dozen comparative reviews tonight that used words like "lazy", "half-finished", "absent-minded", and in no case were they talking about VMWare's competitors). We WILL be upgrading every Mac we have to Mountain Lion within the next few days; it solves too many pain points for us to keep our mixture of Snow Leopard and Lion Macs. I'm going to be proving that I can install 10.8 and then fall back to 10.7 or 10.6 via Time Machine and CarbonCopyCloner backups and then taking a good, hard look at our existing VMWare setup. We chose VMWare back in the 3.1 days when it appeared much more Linux-friendly than Parallels 6. If we continue to be almost explicitly told that VMWare doesn't want individual/small-company business, and if Parallels 7 runs our oddball Linuxes as well as VMWare 3.1 did, we're going to switch, and tell our investors and partners (several of whom have relatively large Mac fleets) exactly why. When WE get to the point where we have a "relatively large Mac fleet", we'll be sure to remember how we got there. If we decide then to leave Parallels for whatever reason, and if I'm still here to have any say in the decision, then it would be to a competitor OTHER THAN VMware. I guess nobody learned anything from Microsoft. Or Lotus, Ashton-Tate, Novell, or any of the many other companies that forgot that large companies start as small ones.
1 reply
For you folks with 2GB RAM (or even less): don't even bother with Win 7; stick with XP Pro. The performance difference (Fusion 2.0.4, 3.06 GHz, 2GB RAM,40 GB virtual disk) is just appalling; like watching Räikkönen drive a Yugo in an F1 race. Also, how come Win7 (and Vista) can see the network if I leave it in NAT mode, but changing it to pass-through means nothing works?
1 reply