How To Demoralize Employees: A DIY Guide for Terrible Companies
-
it can't handle multi-monitor correct
Whenever I've done any remote stuff (with any client) I just stretch it across both monitors. I generally like to keep that stuff in a window so it's easy to get to other stuff, as opposed to full screen. Do you know of a remote client that handles multi-monitor the way you ike it? What does it do?
I may get real familiar soon with using Citrix Receiver to connect to customer VMs in a datacenter. Initial testing was pretty positive, though I really didn't do much.
-
Chrome remote desktop does multimonitors in a weird way. it shows them all, in their layout, in your browser window. it works okay if you have the same number of monitors on both ends, and they are in a rectilinear layout.
it also bypasses most NAT firewalls because it uses a passive connection. both computers connect to a google server that proxies the connection between the two computers so the connection is outbound from both computers perspectives.
it's free and both mac and PC are supported as the "host", Linux support comes and goes. any computer that runs chrome can use the client to connect to another computer. might be worth a look, unless you consider google to have crossed the evil line.
-
it also bypasses most NAT firewalls because it uses a passive connection. both computers connect to a google server that proxies the connection between the two computers so the connection is outbound from both computers perspectives.
it's free and both mac and PC are supported as the "host", Linux support comes and goes. any computer that runs chrome can use the client to connect to another computer. might be worth a look, unless you consider google to have crossed the evil line.
There's 0% chance this would be considered kosher / secure for my current purposes. Which I don't really have any control over to begin with.
-
this thread is now about remote desktop options.
Steam has in home streaming, which works pretty well for me. Is there anything in the remote desktop space that would allow the same thing over the internet? I would assume that chrome remote desktop, like most remote desktops including windows (although it may no longer be the case) doesn't support demanding 3d applications like games, but I would love to find a (free?) way to achieve the same result as in home streaming outside
-
assuming your host computer is beefy enough and your internet pipe is big enough, with a low enough latency. VNC may work for that purpose.
I wouldn't play an FPS over that kind of connection, but YMMV
-
Whenever I've done any remote stuff (with any client) I just stretch it across both monitors.
Exactly what I mean ... retarded
. I even came across a client where the citrix spanned both my screens and was locked in full screen, no possibility to get to a windowed mode.
Do you know of a remote client that handles multi-monitor the way you ike it?
default RDP at least doesn't pull that shit. I have yet to come across a remote windows tool I really like and that really supports dual monitors in both host and client setup without additional tricks.
Are on my shitlist for various reasons: VNC, PCAnywhere (even on a lan it's shit), TeamViewer, DameWare, ...
Yes I've used PCAnywhere to actually dial in through an analog modem with callback. Kicker is that is was used until 2008 for this big institutional client until they screwed them selfs over by going all VoIP.
I used quite some hosts with logmein.com. It really had some nice features. Certainly back in the day when there was a free tier.
-
Exactly what I mean ... retarded .
Yeah...I don't get why that's retarded at all. Is there a reason, or is this just a matter of taste?
I even came across a client where the citrix spanned both my screens and was locked in full screen, no possibility to get to a windowed mode.
Now that is retarded.
I have yet to come across a remote windows tool I really like and that really supports dual monitors in both host and client setup without additional tricks.
You still haven't defined what you mean by "supports dual monitors in both host and client setup without additional tricks." What, exactly, would it do, please?
-
Yeah...I don't get why that's retarded at all. Is there a reason, or is this just a matter of taste?
Because it starts by spanning the logon window across two monitors. Like it is one big screen. This is not the default behavior of windows with 2 monitors.What, exactly, would it do, please?
Well mostly I use 1 screen as remote and my second to display info on the client side. For me current use I almost have no problem. But in the past I also remotely connected back to my 2 monitor desktop and then I got either one jumbled up desktop where everything from the second display was dumped on the 1st. Or you had to switch using some key combo or a button like it where two different desktops.
-
Because it starts by spanning the logon window across two monitors. Like it is one big screen. This is not the default behavior of windows with 2 monitors.
OK. I prefer this, because it's a sensible way of having both a windowed remote session and being able to use two monitors.
-
assuming your host computer is beefy enough and your internet pipe is big enough, with a low enough latency. VNC may work for that purpose.
Does VNC does audio yet?
That used to piss me off sooooo much. "Yes you can remotely use your computer, but you can't hear anything. Also your keyboard is probably mapped wrong."
-
OK. I prefer this, because it's a sensible way of having both a windowed remote session and being able to use two monitors.
I've never in my life had a 2-monitor setup that was rectangular. They're always L-shaped.
-
I've never in my life had a 2-monitor setup that was rectangular. They're always L-shaped.
I'm looking forward to when we get curved monitors. There are curved TVs now, but they're very expensive…
-
I've never in my life had a 2-monitor setup that was rectangular. They're always L-shaped.
That hurts my neck just thinking about it.
-
I've never in my life had a 2-monitor setup that was rectangular. They're always L-shaped.
One monitor in landscape and the other in portrait?
-
I've never in my life had a 2-monitor setup that was rectangular. They're always L-shaped.
I used to have a dual monitor setup at my old job, both monitors were the same so I did have the rectangular thing going on, quite pleasant to work with.
-
standards, no. but a lot of the proprietary implementations added it.
-
@Intercourse said:
One monitor in landscape and the other in portrait?
Once I had it set up like that.
Usually it's just monitors of different resolutions.
-
standards, no. but a lot of the proprietary implementations added it.
If the answer's no, say no.
-
-
Once I had it set up like that.
Usually it's just monitors of different resolutions.
That would annoy me as I spend a lot of time working over RDP which has never been able to resize when moving from monitor to monitor of differing resolutions. I once tried a triple monitor setup with 4:3 monitor in the middle and 16:9 monitors on either side where all three had the same vertical height and vertical resolution. I forgot about RDP though and could not move windows around easily without getting scrolls bars.
-
That's the only thing that irritates me with RDP - moving it to a display with a different resolution involves killing it and launching it again for it to change to the new resolution.
It's only a few seconds to do it, but it seems like something it should be able to cope with.
-
Usually it's just monitors of different resolutions.
Ah. Mine are different, but only slightly. 1680x1050 and 1920x1080, so I "lose" a bit of the status bar on the taller monitor, because I also have a taskbar at the bottom, and put the bottom of the window under that. I've had setups where I lost ~100 pixels of vertical space on one monitor. A little annoying, but a good tradeoff (for me).
-
sure, but if the answer is more complicated would you rather i map it to 'yes' because it is possible or 'no' because it doesn't "Just WorkTM"
-
Hamachi and family sharing / streaming has interesting results.
-
I stopped using hamachi years ago when it started having interesting results with everything.
It worked seemlessly for WC3FT dota for a long time, and then one day just randomly broke.
-
I even came across a client where the citrix spanned both my screens and was locked in full screen, no possibility to get to a windowed mode.
This is literally how every agent in my company is set up for the call center. They join a farm from a thin client that launches citrix server full screen, locked window. They all have two monitors and it works exactly like a normal desktop. I think we typically assign 10..15 users per server, with it load balancing agents automatically
Resources are as good or bad as the network on any given day.
-
It's not broken interesting, it's more.. huh, that can enable local coop or do crazy interactions that aren't normally possible.
-
i tried hamachi for a while and i could never get it to work right. invariably it would spontaneously disconnect at some random point, but leave the "connection" live. i had no indication from hamachi that the connection was broke, in fact the only clue i had was the internet was broke.
the only solution was a cold boot of the computer. they messed up something so bad a simple reboot wasn't enough to clear it.
how the [expletive deleted; category blasphemy] did it manage that?!
-
for a while it still worked but we had to disable the hamachi network adapter when we werent playing together, but then it just wouldnt connect us to each other anymore.
-
I'm looking forward to when we get curved monitors. There are curved TVs now, but they're very expensive…
From what I've read, the curvature is pointless.
-
-
I just had an interesting conversation here. Not going to try and transcribe it, but to paraphrase:
I have a task that, to dev test, requires running a batch job on a dev server. This is done by creating a ticket to the server maintenance team to run the batch job. No problem. I did that about 6 times last week during the course of developing this feature. Each time the ticket was responded to in less than 2 hours, it's inconvenient but it's not a huge deal.
Friday morning, I put in a ticket to do the final dev test before I move this to QA. It doesn't get answered on Friday-- well, ok, it's a holiday weekend, people take off early, no big deal. So Tuesday comes along and... still no answer to the ticket. So today comes along and I finally decide to ask someone about it.
She says, "oh, you have it assigned to the wrong group, it's assigned to Service Desk and should be assigned to Server Maintenance." Oh. We change the assignment, it gets run pretty much instantly by someone who must have just been sitting on their hands waiting for tickets.
But wait. I did this many times last week, and each time I put in this ticket I copied the previous ticket and just changed the servername/batch job name around. And I got the template I copied from from the tester who helped QA the last feature I did. And... let's do a quick check... and every single one of the successful tickets was assigned to Service Desk!
So I ask my co-worker what's the deal.
"Oh, sometimes a person at Service Desk who knows what's going on will just forward the tickets to someone in Server Maintenance. Sometimes that won't happen and they'll just go unanswered."
"But nobody sent me an email or IM telling me the group on the ticket was wrong. And it's worked 100% of the time until the ticket I put in Friday morning."
"Well it all depends on who's in the office that day."
"Don't they realize they're doing much more harm than good by being so 'helpful'?"
"I agree."
BTW this is my second WTF-y conversation of the day. The first was about their TFS customizations that magically make the possible settings for a Select widget change based on what the ticket was last saved as. People acted like I was strange for not getting the concept. So to get the ticket from, say, "Open" to "Ready to Test" first requires setting the Select to "Committed" and hitting Save. Only then will "Ready to Test" become an option.
That is not how Selects work, people!
BONUS DISCOURSE BUG: horizontal rules are styled so that they're invisible. There's one above this line. Do you see it? Liar.
-
BTW this is my second WTF-y conversation of the day. The first was about their TFS customizations that magically make the possible settings for a Select widget change based on what the ticket was last saved as. People acted like I was strange for not getting the concept. So to get the ticket from, say, "Open" to "Ready to Test" first requires setting the Select to "Committed" and hitting Save. Only then will "Ready to Test" become an option.
That is not how Selects work, people!
Would you prefer they list options and then complain when you select that option? It sounds like there are limits to what can go there and they are just enforcing said limits (granted in this case the limit sounds dumb, but overall not listing things due to limits makes sense).
BONUS DISCOURSE BUG: horizontal rules are styled so that they're invisible. There's one above this line. Do you see it? Liar.
Some of us can see the color variation just fine. Sounds more like a bug with your display settings if you can't make it out.
-
Would you prefer they list options and then complain when you select that option?
The problem is that the Save button should never alter the UI.
So currently, ticket is Open -> change to Committed -> hit Save -> Select options are completely different.
You don't find this behavior confusing at all? We had a long discussion where one person was telling me "just set it to Ready to Test" and I was saying, "I can't set it to Ready to Test" and until they came over and looked at my screen they didn't know what I was talking about. It was because I hadn't hit the Save button after setting it to Committed.
-
I have a task that, to dev test, requires running a batch job on a dev server. This is done by creating a ticket to the server maintenance team to run the batch job. No problem.
Lucky you. For development servers, the infrastructure and config guys tell us (software dev) that we're responsible for deployment and configuration on them, but don't give us the permissions to do what we need to.
It kinda works for me half the time, since if I have something assigned to me that this WTF-ery prevents, I just assign it to someone else, and say, "not my problem."
-
BONUS DISCOURSE BUG: horizontal rules are styled so that they're invisible. There's one above this line. Do you see it? Liar.
Weren't you just talking in another thread about how people have the brightness on their monitor set too high?
Also, the styling of the one in user's comments is a match for the one between posts. Prepare yourselves for abuse.
-
If I move my nose about 3" from the screen, I can see a single-pixel line of extremely light grey.
-
BTW this is my second WTF-y conversation of the day. The first was about their TFS customizations that magically make the possible settings for a Select widget change based on what the ticket was last saved as. People acted like I was strange for not getting the concept. So to get the ticket from, say, "Open" to "Ready to Test" first requires setting the Select to "Committed" and hitting Save. Only then will "Ready to Test" become an option.
Oh geez... we're just starting to use TFS for bug reporting stuff and I just naively marked as bug as Done, but it's really only ready to test. Bleah, off to go change its state to Committed to see if that unlocks Ready to Test here, too.
-
So currently, ticket is Open -> change to Committed -> hit Save -> Select options are completely different.
Sounds like it's using a select as a replacement for workflow buttons. It would make sense if it were labeled "Action" and the save button "Go". Or something similar.
-
Sounds like you have a problem
-
...no, but the previous state changes the Reason field below the State field. wtf.
-
As I've talked about high up in this thread, the TFS here is highly customized. By morons.
-
CANTREPRODUCE
-
Sounds like it's using a select as a replacement for workflow buttons. It would make sense if it were labeled "Action" and the save button "Go". Or something similar.
I could see like a timeline view, where you clicked which step you are in the timeline, and each timeline step has particular requirements. (i.e. you can't advance to Committed until it has a sprint number, you cant' advance to Ready To Test until it has at least one successful Release and Deploy, etc.)
But I'm guessing TFS doesn't let you customize to that extent. So they just did this half-assed bullshit.
The point is, clicking Save should never change the thing you're saving.
-
I just got an invite to a 2-day meeting at a yacht club. No kidding.
I can't get the wall separating my cube from the empty one next to it, but we can rent a room from a yacht club for 2 days.
-
FWIW, Server 2012 R2 (and thus, presumably, Win 8.1, though I have not field tested with that) fixes the resize when you switch resolutions issue quite well.
-
<a href="http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/how-to-demoralize-employees-a-diy-guide-for-terrible-companies/2662/232?preview-style=4b418f90-300d-440f-a2b0-1308cf0c6cfd">http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/how-to-demoralize-employees-a-diy-guide-for-terrible-companies/2662/232?preview-style=4b418f90-300d-440f-a2b0-1308cf0c6cfd</a> to see it IRL.
Hideous. No doubt Jeff would approve.
-
I can't get the wall separating my cube from the empty one next to it, but we can rent a room from a yacht club for 2 days.
Priorities.
-
I'm assuming you mean connecting to Win 8.1 or Server 2012 R2 as Win 8.1 client connecting to Win 7 or Win XP desktops doesn't handle it.
-
Yeah. More specifically, my use case is a Win 8.1 client with RDP 8.1 (I'd assume that any client running RDP 8.1) connecting to a Server 2012 R2 Session Host. If my monitor changes resolution (b/c I took my laptop out of the docking cradle, or whatever), I can restore, then re-maximize, and the full screen resolution on the RDP session adjusts as necessary, no scroll bars.
