Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> So we're _not_ going to use this feature. Why? Because the people at HQ 
> don't use this feature.

  What happens if you use it anyways?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> > So we're _not_ going to use this feature. Why? Because the people at HQ
> > don't use this feature.
>
>   What happens if you use it anyways?

HQ gets upset because you don't follow protocol.  You get upset because they
require an unreasonable solution.  They get more upset because you are now
deliberately disobeying orders.  You get more upset they don't listen to
reason.  They get upset because they can't simply apply one rule to all groups
and create a nice, perfect world.  Meanwhile, both groups think the other is a
collection of complete idiots, too stubborn to just do the reasonable thing,
solve the problem, and move on.

At least, that's how it works around here.  Now, it's an external contract so
it's a little different, but really it's basically the same.  They used
incorrect physics to redesign the prototype so it can use a little less power.
We know it won't work and don't want to go down that road.  We try to explain it
to them, but they just get upset that we refuse to help them.  And it goes back
and forth.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

On 11-8-2009 18:38, Warp wrote:
> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> So we're _not_ going to use this feature. Why? Because the people at HQ 
>> don't use this feature.
> 
>   What happens if you use it anyways?
> 
Indeed, my advise would be to find an (obscure) british rule about 
quality control that could be interpreted to the effect that the HQ 
solution being illegal. There may be a rule about using an OS that is 
unsupported and therefore vulnerable to any new virus that comes out. 
OSLT. Andy, use your knowledge, you know more about legal requirements 
than HQ.

Post a reply to this message

In article <4A8### [at] hotmailcom>,
andrel wrote:

> On 11-8-2009 18:38, Warp wrote:
>> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>> So we're _not_ going to use this feature. Why? Because the people at HQ 
>>> don't use this feature.
>> 
>>   What happens if you use it anyways?
>> 
> Indeed, my advise would be to find an (obscure) british rule about 
> quality control that could be interpreted to the effect that the HQ 
> solution being illegal. There may be a rule about using an OS that is 
> unsupported and therefore vulnerable to any new virus that comes out. 
> OSLT. Andy, use your knowledge, you know more about legal requirements 
> than HQ.

That's good thinking. One could actually find in the law the support
needed to defend oneself from corporative despotism. I just hope you
can find something in the law... :-)

Also notice this can always get one fired. Disobedience is not at all
praised out there.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 18:00:09 -0400, Daniel Bastos wrote:

> Disobedience is not at all
> praised out there.

Depends on the job and the company, and the reason why.  If a company is 
making you do something that could get you put in jail, disobedience is 
the right course of action.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> So we're _not_ going to use this feature. Why? Because the people at HQ 
>> don't use this feature.
> 
>   What happens if you use it anyways?

The MHRA gets upset with us for using a software feature which we 
haven't performed extensive formal testing on.

Now, we *could* devise and execute a test plan... but nobody here really 
has the necessary expertise. HQ does. And they can't be bothered to go 
down this route.

Post a reply to this message

What OS can the software run in? You might make use of virtualization 
(VMWare, VirtualPC, etc.) to solve your problem.

You should be able to control the properties of the virtual machine and 
tell it it has a serial port even if it doesn't. Running an old OS 
within a virtual machine on a modern laptop should still be faster than 
running the same OS on its native hardware.

-Mike

Post a reply to this message

SharkD wrote:
> What OS can the software run in? You might make use of virtualization 
> (VMWare, VirtualPC, etc.) to solve your problem.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that.

I have a laptop with a USB to serial adaptor, but the software 
stubbornly *refuses* to use it. If I were to set up a virtual machine, 
then the software would be unable to tell it's accessing a USB device; 
it would look like a native serial port.

OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days 
just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite 
absurdly slow...

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:17:10 +0100, Invisible wrote:

> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days
> just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite
> absurdly slow...

You need better hardware.  It should never take that much time to install 
an OS - in my VMs, it never took that long....

What specs on the machine (including host OS)?

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> OTOH, last time I tried to set up a virtual machine, it took two days
> just to install Windows XP and update to service pack 3. That's quite
> absurdly slow...

Was it VirtualBox 3.0 with multi-core (SMP) enabled?

When I tried that, it took several hours for Windows XP to install, on an
AMD 4200+ CPU. VBox SMP support still sucks.

Post a reply to this message