|
To me, being a good manager is a lot like being a good parent, and honestly I think most people are really lovely parents. We oftentimes try to manage differently from those that managed us and we had negative experiences with, and some techniques won’t work with certain kinds of children in certain cultures. I got good reviews from my reports and my superiors as a manager by delegating what my team was capable of, giving them credit to feel pride and recognition, and making sure that our team’s KPIs met up with our capabilities. They escalated to me when they were overwhelmed and confused (and they often were due to the horrible systems and maniacal bureaucracy), so they had a safety net. I had few resources and our jobs were poo poo, but we delivered top 10% results with near bottom 30% resourcing so other managers were trying to figure out what we were doing differently (my rule was to not hire the low skilled folks that were typical in the company due to so much cost cutting and stereotypically bad MBA-driven IT mentality common in the Fortune 500). Also, you’ll possibly need to set some very clear priorities to distill down whatever corporate BS comes down from your superiors into something actionable and to keep morale reasonable for your reports. This was something I couldn’t do because I loving hated being a cheerleader for managers I despised or couldn’t ever help me achieve my goals because the managerial culture in most corporations favors emotion and sentiment of managers over measurable results from even entire multi billion dollar business units. I mean look at IBM’s results - they’re still on that train and the CEO is living in a fantasy world rivaled only by classic Steve Jobs. I could be a manager at a company I liked, but honestly I haven’t liked 90% of the companies I’ve been at by now besides my immediate coworkers.
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Good Will Hrunting posted:Agreed, but I feel like a big issue with executing on that is higher level execs breathing down the lead's neck. A lot of managers at team lead level (versus VP, branch lead, etc) get more pull from their superiors that might cause them to overwork and under-delegate. It's not a black or white thing, but unless you're likely to lose your job entirely or it's a screamingly high profile issue, it's usually better to set your team up for being amazing in the long term, even if that means you have to eat a few poo poo sandwiches in the short term. Nobody is going to remember that your team was a week late six months ago if they are hitting their marks consistently today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Our Operations people had us install JAMF on our machines last week. Exempting the C-levels of course (kept secret from the rest of the company, which given our company's mission and values is highly hypocritical). First email this week: "Please respond if you must use firefox and why or else it will be removed from your machine." I'm one of the few trusted with access to production machines but apparently not my own imac. Amazing. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
geeves posted:Our Operations people had us install JAMF on our machines last week. Exempting the C-levels of course (kept secret from the rest of the company, which given our company's mission and values is highly hypocritical). They would remove firefox from my machine over my dead or fired body. Hahaha, if they'd think i'd use the other lovely browsers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Is this "We want you to only use $other_browser" or "we don't want you on the internet while at work"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Is this "We want you to only use $other_browser" or "we don't want you on the internet while at work"? Head of operations using a steamroller to kill some ants. It’s we just wasted 25k on something not needed instead of something useful like licenses for things that could be actually helpful for the company. I already have to hard refresh every page to get the JS and CSS to load now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:Is this "We want you to only use $other_browser" or "we don't want you on the internet while at work"? Presumably they're not removing Safari. It sounds like locking a fleet down with group policy on Windows where you can whitelist approved executables. That lets you do stuff like tell the machines' firewalls to blanket block anything outgoing from an exe that's not on the list, so if someone runs eg. some malware dropper, it's hopefully unable to call home for a payload. Of course then you can't run FF portable off your USB stick or whatever but then your security people don't want you running anything off a USB stick and they're correct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Presumably they're not removing Safari. As long as "the apps that I use" make it on the list I'd be cool with it. Otherwise, hell no. And if they try and pull the old "but then everyone ..." i'd tell them to go gently caress themselves and put my poo poo on that list and shut the hell up. If the CEO needs to hear about it then he/she will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Volguus posted:As long as "the apps that I use" make it on the list I'd be cool with it. Otherwise, hell no. And if they try and pull the old "but then everyone ..." i'd tell them to go gently caress themselves and put my poo poo on that list and shut the hell up. If the CEO needs to hear about it then he/she will. Ah yes, but now you're locked into using only those apps. Good luck trying to get anything new approved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
redleader posted:Ah yes, but now you're locked into using only those apps. Good luck trying to get anything new approved. True. At which point it comes down to simple math: do you want/need me working on poo poo for this company or not? Because if it comes down to a dick size contest every time I want to install/do something it will get old fast and the people who do not depend on those jobs will be the first to leave that ship. Unfortunately (for the ship) those are also the people who it needs the most. IT can monitor things without disrupting people's ability to use the computers. It can keep a tight and secure ship without interfering with people's work. When something like whitelist-ing programs come along, you can bet your rear end is just some over controlling and incompetent freak. The company as a whole would be much better off without him/her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
redleader posted:Ah yes, but now you're locked into using only those apps. Good luck trying to get anything new approved. Not if one of the apps is VirtualBox/VMWare 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
I just clear the JAMF plist settings when they show up on new machines. Locking things down for developers is so frustratingly difficult. One of my coworker machines can't change the screen saver time on his 2nd development box and so it's constantly locking when he's working on his main machine. I also hate 802.11X and think it's hysterical that the machines powering monitors around the office stop working every few weeks waiting for an IT guy to login so they can hit the network again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
Volguus posted:True. At which point it comes down to simple math: do you want/need me working on poo poo for this company or not? Because if it comes down to a dick size contest every time I want to install/do something it will get old fast and the people who do not depend on those jobs will be the first to leave that ship. Unfortunately (for the ship) those are also the people who it needs the most. It makes total sense for the majority of the workforce since the rank-and-file has no business running anything but the Office suite and whichever browser your SalesFarce version is least broken in, modulo a few internal tools and the Adobe suite* for the creative types. Devs can have access to a VM container and do ~whatever~ in there and, as long as they don't get hit with something that can escape the container, the damage should be limited to ~a day's work for one person because automated nightly snapshot backups are a thing. The bullshit giveaway is that the C suite gets a pass when they're the least likely to need/deserve it because they can loving well afford a personal machine and cellular hotspot if they want to piss around with anything unrelated to work. *which is a huge attack surface, of course, so maybe saddle them with some aggressive AV and monitoring, just in case
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:Devs can have access to a VM container This thing would give me nightmares. I mean, there are very many valid reasons to run VMs on my development machine, there are development workflows that require one (more or less. Writing a kernel driver is a bit easier with a VM to test things on) but if I don't have to, why the hell would I run a rocket at walking speed? If I have a powerful machine, I wanna use it drat it, not gently caress around with crap like that. And if I don't have a powerful machine, well then that's even more of a reason to not run VMs. Or, even worse, you were thinking to remotely develop on VMs that run on some ultra-mega-powerful server? Holy poo poo that's awful as well. Depending on what needs to be done, of course, but loving hell... I know is Halloween and all but man, don't scare me like this. I am 100% sure that I would not work on such a setup. gently caress that noise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Volguus posted:This thing would give me nightmares. I mean, there are very many valid reasons to run VMs on my development machine, there are development workflows that require one (more or less. Writing a kernel driver is a bit easier with a VM to test things on) but if I don't have to, why the hell would I run a rocket at walking speed? If I have a powerful machine, I wanna use it drat it, not gently caress around with crap like that. And if I don't have a powerful machine, well then that's even more of a reason to not run VMs. You sound very angry about this
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Volguus posted:This thing would give me nightmares. I mean, there are very many valid reasons to run VMs on my development machine, there are development workflows that require one (more or less. Writing a kernel driver is a bit easier with a VM to test things on) but if I don't have to, why the hell would I run a rocket at walking speed? If I have a powerful machine, I wanna use it drat it, not gently caress around with crap like that. And if I don't have a powerful machine, well then that's even more of a reason to not run VMs. A local VM with device passthrough isn't going to be noticeably slower unless you're running on some really crappy hardware or have hosed up your VM/container settings. I think FamDav was saying most devs at Amazon use AWS instances as their dev environments and I've been hearing about people doing that without much issue since around 2009, I want to say. Performance and latency can be perfectly acceptable as long as your company isn't penny wise and pound foolish in that area, but that applies equally to hardware. Yes, I've heard horror stories about VM dev environments being done Very Badly, too, but I've also been handed lovely, barely-capable hardware to do work on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:A local VM with device passthrough isn't going to be noticeably slower unless you're running on some really crappy hardware or have hosed up your VM/container settings. Jose Valasquez posted:You sound very angry about this
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Ahh yes. The external struggle between two-bit sysadmins living out their strong daddy fascism fantasies, and the smartest guy power users installing Ad0B€_reader_~~craked~~_v1.57.exe, bash|curl'ing installs of the latest and greatest JavaScript frameworks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Ahh yes. The external struggle between two-bit sysadmins living out their strong daddy fascism fantasies, and the smartest guy power users installing Ad0B€_reader_~~craked~~_v1.57.exe, bash|curl'ing installs of the latest and greatest JavaScript frameworks. um excuse me there is only one framework and it's called picklerick.js  In other news, folks, my new team lead kicks rear end and even though my manager is still really difficult to deal with my new team lead is not only helpful but already addressing many of the team's concerns around tech debt, specs, product interactions, flow, and everything of the like. Whether he clashes with Goober remains to be seen but he is not afraid to stand up for us and is extremely good at code reviews, design chat, etc. Things are looking up and I can comfortably say I can relax a bit for 2-3 months and just soak up all I can from him while he tries to fix the team.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I am not saying is not possible. I am saying that it is definitely not desirable, nor efficient. Do people do this and live? Certainly. Then again, there are a lot of idiotic things that people do and make do with. If there's a choice between developing on my local machine vs a VM (local or on a server even if is local lan) I would 100% choose the local machine. No contest. For what reason? What makes the local machine so significantly more desirable that you feel so strongly about this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Ahh yes. The external struggle between two-bit sysadmins living out their strong daddy fascism fantasies, and the smartest guy power users installing Ad0B€_reader_~~craked~~_v1.57.exe, bash|curl'ing installs of the latest and greatest JavaScript frameworks. Please don't mock my ITSec slashfics I have a very fragile ego
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Hot take: Developers are just as dumb about installing stuff as everyone else and shouldn't be able to just install whatever they want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Since I’m gonna be remote for my next job, I’m thinking I should get a monitor/keyboard/mouse setup for my desk, and my new employer is willing to expense it. Any suggestions for a home setup, within reason?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Since I’m gonna be remote for my next job, I’m thinking I should get a monitor/keyboard/mouse setup for my desk, and my new employer is willing to expense it. Any suggestions for a home setup, within reason? Dell xps 16 32 gigs 2 24” monitors, good mechanical keyboard and whatever mouse feels good. Head to Best Buy and rrry typing on a bunch of keyboards and move mice around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:Dell xps 16 32 gigs 2 24” monitors, good mechanical keyboard and whatever mouse feels good. Head to Best Buy and rrry typing on a bunch of keyboards and move mice around. Machine’s already being provided, but the rest sounds good. Any recs for the brand/model of monitors, or is it all the same?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Ahh yes. The external struggle between two-bit sysadmins living out their strong daddy fascism fantasies, and the smartest guy power users installing Ad0B€_reader_~~craked~~_v1.57.exe, bash|curl'ing installs of the latest and greatest JavaScript frameworks. Indeed. The sysadmin can have monitoring tools, can't he? Shouldn't he? I mean, he needs those tools anyway, since even with VMs since Ad0B€_reader_~~craked~~_v1.57.exe can still get out. Therefore, nothing is gained. TooMuchAbstraction posted:For what reason? What makes the local machine so significantly more desirable that you feel so strongly about this? Primarily, convenience. Secondarily, performance: there is still a significant performance difference between a VM (passthrough or not) and the real hardware. There's a reason things like docker exist and not everyone is just running VMs everywhere (vms in vms). And no, I'm not willing to trade either for the nazi sysadmin.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
Volguus posted:I am not saying is not possible. I am saying that it is definitely not desirable, nor efficient. Do people do this and live? Certainly. Then again, there are a lot of idiotic things that people do and make do with. If there's a choice between developing on my local machine vs a VM (local or on a server even if is local lan) I would 100% choose the local machine. No contest. I used to think like this, but I've been in corpo-land where we only get admin rights to a VM, and it actually works fine. The VM is hosted on a beast of a server with fast SAN, and I haven't noticed any real performance issues using the heavy Microsoft stack tools (Visual Studio/SQL Server Management Studio/VS Code.) Though the .NET tooling has gotten much better about this lately, it's pretty drat nice to be able to take snapshots/rollback or easily spin up new instances when it gets bogged down with too much installed junk. I also don't have to worry about my physical laptop; if I lose it or it crashes, just grab a new one to RDP back in. Even for my personal development environment I use Hyper-V VMs to keep my 'host' OS clean.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:Hot take: Developers are just as dumb about installing stuff as everyone else and shouldn't be able to just install whatever they want. "We use Eclipse here"
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:39
|
|
|
Volguus posted:Primarily, convenience. Secondarily, performance: there is still a significant performance difference between a VM (passthrough or not) and the real hardware. There's a reason things like docker exist and not everyone is just running VMs everywhere (vms in vms). RDPing onto a VM is only marginally less convenient than working directly on native hardware. As for performance, I'm not convinced this is still a serious issue for the majority of developers. If you're hitting the GPU hard or something along those lines, then sure, but most devs I'd wager are constrained more by CPU or disk access, and AIUI the performance penalty for being in a VM for things like that is not significant. Sure, real hardware is nicer than a VM, if you don't need to take advantage of the ephemerality of the VM (e.g. the ability to easily create/destroy/reset it). But it's not that much nicer that I'd get up in arms about it. Frankly you sound like someone in the late 2000's decrying Java's performance; sure, the JVM was substantially slower than native code in the 90's, but times have changed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Machine’s already being provided, but the rest sounds good. Any recs for the brand/model of monitors, or is it all the same? I prefer Dell ultrawide. It’s worth it IMO. No need for double monitors unless you really want it. Dell in general have good quality panels.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
rt4 posted:"We use Eclipse here" If that's a deal breaker maybe ask about it in the interview. We only used Eclipse at my last job and it was fine, I adjusted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:RDPing onto a VM is only marginally less convenient than working directly on native hardware. As for performance, I'm not convinced this is still a serious issue for the majority of developers. If you're hitting the GPU hard or something along those lines, then sure, but most devs I'd wager are constrained more by CPU or disk access, and AIUI the performance penalty for being in a VM for things like that is not significant. The conveniences aside, there is no upside for me in the VM ecosystem. I mean, why would I give up my nice environment and go on a lovely one? I guess that when people do gently caress up their machine very often the "ephemerality" of the VM becomes something desirable, but otherwise ... what's my advantage? Keep the VMs for build system, test machines, servers, etc. why do i need to go there? Oh, the advantage that B-Nasty is saying that then the corporation doesn't have to provide me with a workstation, but instead a laptop only? And the laptop, due to its mobility, can not have source code on it? Again, that's the corporation saving a buck and passing the inconvenience onto me, nothing for me in here (unless they compensate that with an increase in my paycheck, which i doubt). Times have changed sure, but this isn't rocket science: one way is better than the other. Coming and saying "But is not that much nicer" is irrelevant since there aren't any advantages for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
Doctor w-rw-rw- posted:I prefer Dell ultrawide. It’s worth it IMO. No need for double monitors unless you really want it. I’ve had mixed success with dual-monitor setups. It’s more strain for what I feel is a marginal to moderate improvement in efficiency, which can be accomplished with Corners and multi-screens on OSX anyway. Maybe I’ll figure out a good tmux setup...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Machine’s already being provided, but the rest sounds good. Any recs for the brand/model of monitors, or is it all the same? IPS monitors are nice for color representation. I have an Asus ROG pg348q and while yes it's mainly for gaming, the ultra-wide resolution allows you to easily have 2 full IDE windows open side by side in a single monitor. But I doubt they'll expense that...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
I dunno, I’m not really feeling the ultrawides. Seems like overkill to me, even with gaming in mind. One or two 24” seems fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
The second monitor is absolutely worth it, you just need to position them well. I generally have one display for browser/docs/IRC and one for code. Sure, in principle I use them modally and could use workspace switching to accomplish something similar, but it's a lot less mental work to just look at a different display depending on what I want to do. I had a choice between dual 24s or a single 30" display; at that level it might be worth going for the 30", but the choice between 1 or 2 24" displays is a no-brainer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I’ve had mixed success with dual-monitor setups. It’s more strain for what I feel is a marginal to moderate improvement in efficiency, which can be accomplished with Corners and multi-screens on OSX anyway. I'm not familiar with OSX at all, but on Linux and windows a second monitor is (in my own personal opinion) invaluable. It beats the hell out of any "ultra-mega-super-wide" monitors. I'd rather have 2 smaller monitors than 1 larger one. One monitor with IDE another with browser, email client, whatever is amazing. And the 2 monitors separation allows for a better management of desktop space. An ultrawide would only be better if it would have a "split" feature (maybe some do?) where it would appear to the computer/OS as two monitors. Again, personal opinion that surely will find many detractors, because why not? I mean there are people who like those VMs ... shudder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
TooMuchAbstraction posted:The second monitor is absolutely worth it, you just need to position them well. I generally have one display for browser/docs/IRC and one for code. Sure, in principle I use them modally and could use workspace switching to accomplish something similar, but it's a lot less mental work to just look at a different display depending on what I want to do. Why not 1x34" AND 2x24"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Skandranon posted:Why not 1x34" AND 2x24"? Work wouldn't pay for that. I have a coworker with three displays, but I'm pretty sure they paid for one of 'em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:47 |
|
|
Volguus posted:The conveniences aside, there is no upside for me in the VM ecosystem. I mean, why would I give up my nice environment and go on a lovely one? I guess that when people do gently caress up their machine very often the "ephemerality" of the VM becomes something desirable, but otherwise ... what's my advantage? Keep the VMs for build system, test machines, servers, etc. why do i need to go there? There may be no value-add for you, but it can be huge for others. For example: - IT dept refuse to manage anything other than Windows-for-non-devs, despite all the devs programming to a Linux platform. - Ops don't want to manage provisioning a pool of remote dev machines (a significant drain on their time, and on limited HW resources) - Devs want to be able to work on the go, and/or demo software without requiring a remote connection. - Devs want to be able to experiment with new packages / tools without polluting or conflicting with a pristine dev environment. - Devs want to manage their own dev environments when IT don't have the resource to support their favorite IDE. - Devs may need to spin up many different environments and/or multiple VMs simultaneously. - DevOps want the dev environments to be as similar as possible to production. All of these are good reasons to program on a local VM for many. And as already said, the performance difference with modern VMs is negligible for most people. If that's not the case for you, then I'd be keen to know why, and seeing some recent perf data to support the claim. Regarding your comment about Docker/containers, I think the primary reason people are moving in that direction vs VMs is that containers provide similar & more flexible isolation w.r.t. a VM, but are also far more lightweight in terms of size, CPU/disc/memory resource requirements, configuration mgmt, and spin-up speed. Packaging a service onto a VM was mostly a stop-gap technology until containerization came along. Which is why at my last shop, everyone used their Windows box to spin up a Linux VM and then proceeded to develop software in containers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2017 18:37
|
|