Timesheet tracking
-
@dkf So at some point it gets falsified ...
-
@djls45 I would suggest using some kind of time tracking software that lets you switch which task is being tracked with one (double) click. I know there are a couple for Android. The last time I had to track billing time, I used KTimeTracker on my KDE desktop.
-
@Dragnslcr All of you are slaves to the man.
-
@izzion said in Timesheet tracking:
Right up until your boss man decides the simplest solution is to get rid of the guy who generates most of the customer billing complaints over inaccurate timesheet entries.
I have to admit that my experience is the same as @lucas1's. Most of the time, the timesheet was only used for internal accounting, and customers on hourly contract were always billed something less (since some arbitrary percentage of the work was counted as "internal product development") than the total amount of hours recorded on the time sheet anyway. Only asshole customers had to pay every single hour recorded on any timesheet.
-
@accalia said in Timesheet tracking:
those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Funny. The *nix community has been forgetting the lessons of 1984, and dooming themselves to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and over for more than 30 years now.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
@accalia said in Timesheet tracking:
those who forget the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them.
Funny.
The *nix communityhumanity has been forgetting the lessons of1984,The past and dooming themselves to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and overfor more than 30 years nowsince time immemorial.FTFY
-
-
@Jaloopa No, the new definition is "Time whereof the Memory of Man runneth not to the contrary.", so only from this morning for me.
-
@RaceProUK said in Timesheet tracking:
@accalia said in Timesheet tracking:
seventy two
That bit's fine
@accalia said in Timesheet tracking:
point three
That bit worries me: how did you end up with 0.3 of a kid on your lawn?
That's the part she threw off...the rest...
-
@Jaloopa said in Timesheet tracking:
@accalia said in Timesheet tracking:
nowsince time immemorial
Only since 6 July 1189?
no, since at least 6 July 1189?
the near end of a span of time is not the span of time itself.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
Funny. The *nix community has been forgetting the lessons of 1984, and dooming themselves to repeat the same mistakes, over and over and over for more than 30 years now.
Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo ???
Kirby Puckett?
The Guinea-Bissau Constitution?
Failed coup by cocaine growers in Bolivia?
-
War with Eastasia?
-
-
@boomzilla The introduction of a computer that proved CLI obsolete by managing to function perfectly well (and far more discoverably than a CLI system) even though it did not have a command line at all.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla The introduction of a computer that proved CLI obsolete by managing to function perfectly well (and far more discoverably than a CLI system) even though it did not have a command line at all.
I look forward to the time when someone comes up with such a system. Until then, μολὼν λαβέ.
-
@boomzilla ???
-
-
@djls45 said in Timesheet tracking:
@RaceProUK said in Timesheet tracking:
how did you end up with 0.3 of a kid on your lawn?
A not-quite-3-months-pregnant woman?
A FETUS IS A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING WITH DIGNITY YOU EVIL ABORTIONIST GAY LIBERAL FEMINIST COMMUNIST SCUM COMMUNIST
-
@marczellm said in Timesheet tracking:
@djls45 said in Timesheet tracking:
@RaceProUK said in Timesheet tracking:
how did you end up with 0.3 of a kid on your lawn?
A not-quite-3-months-pregnant woman?
A FETUS IS A COMPLETE HUMAN BEING WITH DIGNITY YOU EVIL ABORTIONIST GAY LIBERAL FEMINIST COMMUNIST SCUM COMMUNIST
I suppose I should have added a "", then, to make my intentions clear?
Also, you're being redundant. GAY and SCUM are redundant. So are ABORTIONIST and FEMINIST, as are LIBERAL and COMMUNIST, which you have twice. And those are all redundant with EVIL.
Furthermore, COMPLETE is an unnecessary word; BEING is slightly redundant with HUMAN, but I'll let that slide because it's a common phrasal combination; and HUMAN and DIGNITY are contradictory, except at the stage that one is a FETUS, so those three together are redundant.
Oh, and </> ;)
-
@djls45 said in Timesheet tracking:
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla ???
OK, this is seriously venturing into TDEMSYR territory. Does @boomzilla really believe in some sort of alternate-facts alternate reality in which the Macintosh was not introduced in 1984, proving that it's possible to run a computer with no command line, leading to the utter domination of the entirety of the computing industry, with the exception of one small niche (servers) by GUI-based systems and the almost complete stagnation (again, with the exception of the server niche) of the *nix ecosystem, due almost entirely to their persistent, willful failure to comprehend this, until systems like iOS and Android created *nix systems with decent GUIs (and no command lines!) which led to them finally gaining widespread adoption outside of the server world?
Because that's what happened in the real world. The coming and the taking happened 30 years ago!
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
Does @boomzilla really believe in some sort of alternate-facts alternate reality in which...
Does @masonwheeler really think that any of that actually made CLIs obsolete?
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
Because that's what happened in the real world. The coming and the taking happened 30 years ago!
I like how you make absurd claims about alternative facts and then say something as ignorant as this. CLIs ain't going anywhere.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
Macintosh was not introduced in 1984, proving that it's possible to run a computer with no command line
Yup, we're in TDEMSYR territory ;)
-
@izzion Mac OS classic had no command line. Mac OSX was released many years after 1984
-
@Jaloopa
Doesn't invalidate the point. If Mac OS had truly invalidated the command line, why did Apple waste development effort putting it back into OSX?
-
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
made CLIs obsolete?
Uh, that's not what he said though? He said you can run a computer without a CLI. He made no comments about whose computer, for what purposes. I suspect programmers will never get away from CLIs, but clearly there's classes of casual user who never wanted one in the first place (and who therefore buy things like chromebooks)
-
@izzion said in Timesheet tracking:
why did Apple waste development effort putting it back into OSX?
They didn't. The saved development effort by basing their new ground-up rewrite of the OS on another system that happened to have a command line.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Timesheet tracking:
Uh, that's not what he said though? He said you can run a computer without a CLI. He made no comments about whose computer, for what purposes.
I disagree. Here's what he said (emphasis added):
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla The introduction of a computer that proved CLI obsolete by managing to function perfectly well (and far more discoverably than a CLI system) even though it did not have a command line at all.
What you're saying is that they made a functioning system without a CLI, showing that there was a viable alternative to a CLI, and that's true. But it's not what @masonwheeler said.
-
@boomzilla Ah, fair enough, he did go that far. Objection retracted.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Timesheet tracking:
casual user
(and who therefore buy things like chromebooks)Ben L is a casual user?
-
@hungrier Well it's not like he's an industrious user. He is an admin here, after all.
-
@Yamikuronue said in Timesheet tracking:
I suspect programmers will never get away from CLIs
At least not as long as programming is done mostly through a text editor. This makes programmer acutely attuned to communicating with a computer through text that doesn't have any meaning except as orders to the computer (compiler etc.), which is what a CLI does.
On the other hand, a "normal" user on a modern computer will only ever type text that has a meaning to himself, not to the computer (i.e. you type an email or a letter or whatever, but any formatting or manipulation of the files/documents is done without typing text). There are arguably a few exceptions (such as typing an email/webpage address in a mailer/browser, you don't care that much about the exact characters but more about what they mean to the computer), but if you look at "basic" computer users, a lot of them actually do that without the keyboard (e.g. they click in their address book or whatever).
So yeah, CLI is about dead for end-users because many systems have shown that GUI allow them to do what they want, while programmers (and sysadmins etc.) still understand a computer as something than answers to text commands and thus will always use CLI, regardless of its actual efficiency.
-
First definition as an adjective:
no longer in general use; fallen into disuse:
First definition as a verb:
to make obsolete by replacing with something newer or better; antiquate:
CLIs are no longer in general use because they have been obsoleted by GUIs.
Even as a developer, I very, very rarely find anything I need to do on a command line; I just use an IDE.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
CLIs are no longer in general use because they have been obsoleted by GUIs.
Even as a developer, I very, very rarely find anything I need to do on a command line; I just use an IDE.Ah, then by your reasoning I declare Windows to be obsolete.
Whoa...the sun just came out from behind the clouds!
-
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
then by your reasoning I declare Windows to be obsolete
Because it's not in general use?
So what are all of those billions of desktop PCs running?
-
@Jaloopa said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
then by your reasoning I declare Windows to be obsolete
Because it's not in general use?
Not by me!
So what are all of those billions of desktop PCs running?
How should I know?
Look, go back and read my reply to Yami if you need to understand why @masonwheeler is wrong. Those points still apply, unless you are deluded like he is by thinking that CLIs have fallen into disuse or that they aren't still better than a GUI for certain things.
He gets close to correct here:
@remi said in Timesheet tracking:
So yeah, CLI is about dead for end-users because many systems have shown that GUI allow them to do what they want, while programmers (and sysadmins etc.) still understand a computer as something than answers to text commands and thus will always use CLI, regardless of its actual efficiency.
Because he's correct about most end-users not using CLIs, but then more people are using phones and tablets than full on computers any more, so we're back to fallacious "general use" arguments (like mine about Windows). But of course, his initial statement had no clarification.
-
@boomzilla I've never said I agreed or not with @masonwheeler. Please remove these aliens you just put on my shoulder.
-
@remi said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla I've never said I agreed or not with @masonwheeler. Please remove these aliens you just put on my shoulder.
Oops. It was right above his post and I must have assumed he made that and not even noticed the quote.
-
@boomzilla That's fine, reading back my post can certainly be seen as a continuation of his.
But my point was more about the fact that programmers and general users are two totally different populations (obviously in what they do with a computer, but also in the way they actually see and interact with a computer more generally) and there is little point in conflating the two.
<mandatory car analogy> Kind of like comparing commuters with lorry drivers. They both drive and on the same road, but that's about where the comparison ends. </mandatory car analogy, please start showing how it's wrong as any car analogy is>(hmmm.... is that a bug? newline inside <...> seems sometimes ignored?? and it's also eating my line break after the closing tag??)
-
@remi said in Timesheet tracking:
But my point was more about the fact that programmers and general users are two totally different populations (obviously in what they do with a computer, but also in the way they actually see and interact with a computer more generally) and there is little point in conflating the two.
I agree with your point.
-
-
@boomzilla "General use" means general use. The vast majority of the general computer-using public doesn't even know the command line exists, let alone how to use it.
To make an analogy to other areas of technology, it's still possible to obtain VCRs, typewriters, and horse-drawn carriages. There are still people around who use all these things. That doesn't mean they aren't obsolete.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
To make an analogy to other areas of technology, it's still possible to obtain VCRs, typewriters, and horse-drawn carriages. There are still people around who use all these things. That doesn't mean they aren't obsolete.
That's true, and that's why that's a horrible analogy. Because CLIs aren't obsolete, generally. But keep making this ridiculous and over broad argument.
-
@boomzilla OK, what is your personal finition of "obsolete" ? Because I've already shown that the dictionary definition fits.
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
Because I've already shown that the dictionary definition fits.
No, you have not, by any stretch. Like I've said several times, if you had qualified what it was obsolete for, you would have been correct. That's probably what you were thinking but it never made it into your post and we're not TELEPATHIC.
-
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
if you had qualified what it was obsolete for
What does that even mean? It's obsolete for a user interface. As I've said many times in the past, CLIs are a good mechanism for scripts and for programs to communicate with each other, but they're entirely unsuitable as a mechanism for a human being to interact with a computer (ie. a user interface.)
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
entirely unsuitable as a mechanism for a human being to interact with a computer (ie. a user interface.)
Really, entirely unsuitable?
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
What does that even mean?
Do you even English, bro?
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
It's obsolete for a user interface.
Any pangs of guilt about being a pendantic dickweed have evaporated.
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
As I've said many times in the past, CLIs are a good mechanism for scripts and for programs to communicate with each other, but they're entirely unsuitable as a mechanism for a human being to interact with a computer (ie. a user interface.)
LOLNOPE.
-
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
LOLNOPE
What an articulate, persuasive argument! I totally see the error of my ways now!
-
@masonwheeler said in Timesheet tracking:
@boomzilla said in Timesheet tracking:
LOLNOPE
What an articulate, persuasive argument! I totally see the error of my ways now!
What other response were you looking for? It's not as though you provided any such argument for your assertion which flies in the face of my daily experience.
-
@boomzilla Do you realize that your daily experience is highly non-representative of the computer-using population as a whole? As developers, we are the proverbial 1%, which gets back to the original root of my argument: the failure of Linux in the market can be traced in large part back to the persistent cultural refusal to acknowledge that the vast majority of users are not like us.
Pretending command lines are a user interface is a major symptom of this problem.