In our French Overlord's IT group, it's still 1998



  • Came into the office to see this lovely notice:

    I forwarded it to our IT ticketing system and added "Seriously?"



  • Almost had a seizure going to #redacted#.com. Excellent troll, filled with real-life consequences. 8.5/10



  • That wasn't a response to this thread.  It might be a response to some other thread, but it wasn't a response to this one.



  • @DaveK said:

    That wasn't a response to this thread.  It might be a response to some other thread, but it wasn't a response to this one.

    Noooo, it has escaped! Contain it!


    Phew.




  • Sorry, I'm missing TRWTF here. Looks like they have it set to notify you when you get to about 90% full, which seems pretty reasonable. You've got a pretty decent quota there, too.

    Is it the way the Exchange Server identifies itself?



  • @boomzilla said:

    Sorry, I'm missing TRWTF here. Looks like they have it set to notify you when you get to about 90% full, which seems pretty reasonable. You've got a pretty decent quota there, too.

    The cost of me having to deal with cleaning out my email is about 1/10th the cost of them adding storage to the server. Is the WTF. It's also turning IT's problem (running low on diskspace) into the user's problem, which is a pretty shitty thing for an IT group to do.

    This kind of shit is one of those false economies that still linger in companies because once upon a time, storage actually was expensive. Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.



  • @DaveK said:

    That wasn't a response to this thread.  It might be a response to some other thread, but it wasn't a response to this one.

    There goes any chance of me having a productive day. It might end up being a fun day, but it won't be a productive one.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    This kind of shit is one of those false economies that still linger in companies because once upon a time, storage actually was expensive. Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.

    BYOHD. Not a bad idea, really.



  • @blakeyrat said:


    The cost of me having to deal with cleaning out my email is about 1/10th the cost of them adding storage to the server. Is the WTF. It's also turning IT's problem (running low on diskspace) into the user's problem, which is a pretty shitty thing for an IT group to do.

    This kind of shit is one of those false economies that still linger in companies because once upon a time, storage actually was expensive. Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.

    Sure, if it's just you and a handful of people, this makes sense, buy a few extra harddrives. This is really bullshit, at least for a company of any size. It might be OK if no one ever abused it, but when is that ever the case? I know you like to wish away the real world, but it doesn't work that way.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Sorry, I'm missing TRWTF here. Looks like they have it set to notify you when you get to about 90% full, which seems pretty reasonable. You've got a pretty decent quota there, too.

    The cost of me having to deal with cleaning out my email is about 1/10th the cost of them adding storage to the server. Is the WTF. It's also turning IT's problem (running low on diskspace) into the user's problem, which is a pretty shitty thing for an IT group to do.

    This kind of shit is one of those false economies that still linger in companies because once upon a time, storage actually was expensive. Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.

    You, sir, are TRWTF. There is this nifty little feature called mail archiving that you can set up a filter for, and move all of your old e-mail to your hard drive, thus removing it from the server, and solving both problems. If you have the time to come to this website and post threads like this, you have the time to archive your e-mail.

    @Xyro said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    This kind of shit is one of those false economies that still linger in companies because once upon a time, storage actually was expensive. Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.

    BYOHD. Not a bad idea, really.

    See above; this feature already exists. 🙂



  • @boomzilla said:

    Sure, if it's just you and a handful of people, this makes sense, buy a few extra harddrives. This is really bullshit, at least for a company of any size. It might be OK if no one ever abused it, but when is that ever the case? I know you like to wish away the real world, but it doesn't work that way.

    Serious question: what do you think the average employee's cost-per-hour is? Let's say every employee in the company spends 2 hours a year dealing with this stupidity. Do you believe that cost is less than the cost of IT increasing/removing the quota?

    BTW, Gmail's current quota is about 7.5 GB.

    @dohpaz42 said:

    You, sir, are TRWTF. There is this nifty little feature called mail archiving that you can set up a filter for, and move all of your old e-mail to your hard drive, thus removing it from the server, and solving both problems. If you have the time to come to this website and post threads like this, you have the time to archive your e-mail.

    Yeah, but this new French Overlord network puts your "home" folder on a network drive, and Outlook crashes if you try to mount a .pst stored on a network drive. (Seriously. Try it. That's a huge, huge WTF right there.) Now I could put the mail archive on the C: drive and then make a quick VBScript to back it up each day or something goofy like that, but again, that's me wasting my time to solve IT's problem. Fuck that.

    @dohpaz42 said:

    See above; this feature already exists. 🙂

    It helps to assume when reading my posts that I'm not a fucking idiot, and if I'm not doing Obvious Solution X, there's probably some reason I'm not doing Obvious Solution X.



  •  Dude, stfu.  We get 100 MB of Exchange space here.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It helps to assume when reading my posts that I'm not a fucking idiot, and if I'm not doing Obvious Solution X, there's probably some reason I'm not doing Obvious Solution X.

    And this is just one reason why you're TRWTF here: you assume that I know you well enough to know what you do and do not know. Idiocy aside, not everybody knows everything - I'm sure you've admitted to that somewhere at sometime, and I just cannot be bothered to look it up. And yes, I know you'll come back and argue some-such about how I should have had the telepathic capability to know your set up, and that you knew about archiving e-mail, etc and so forth, but facts are facts. 🙂



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Sure, if it's just you and a handful of people, this makes sense, buy a few extra harddrives. This is really bullshit, at least for a company of any size. It might be OK if no one ever abused it, but when is that ever the case? I know you like to wish away the real world, but it doesn't work that way.

    Serious question: what do you think the average employee's cost-per-hour is? Let's say every employee in the company spends 2 hours a year dealing with this stupidity. Do you believe that cost is less than the cost of IT increasing/removing the quota?

    I'm sure you all spend more time getting coffee or going to the restroom than it would take to periodically archive stuff. A whole lot more if you set Outlook up to autoarchive, as was suggested. I'm not a TCO expert, but you have to figure in the extra drives, the power to run them, back them up and replace them. And again, when people start abusing this, how many is too many?

    @blakeyrat said:

    BTW, Gmail's current quota is about 7.5 GB.

    Yes, and when your email is a profit center for your company, this will make a lot of sense for them to do, too.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Yeah, but this new French Overlord network puts your "home" folder on a network drive, and Outlook crashes if you try to mount a .pst stored on a network drive. (Seriously. Try it. That's a huge, huge WTF right there.) Now I could put the mail archive on the C: drive and then make a quick VBScript to back it up each day or something goofy like that, but again, that's me wasting my time to solve IT's problem. Fuck that.

    The home drive stuff is perhaps TRWTF. I do remember you talking about this before. Well, IT could solve their problem just by deleting old mail until you get down to your quota. But go ahead and resist until all of your problems are solved for you.



  •  My only question is what is that newfangled ribbon at the top of Outlook? 🙂



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    And this is just one reason why you're TRWTF here: you assume that I know you well enough to know what you do and do not know. Idiocy aside, not everybody knows everything

    The problem is people phrase it as "you're an idiot for not doing X", when they could type, "well I'm sure you've looked into X and rejected it, care to share why?" See how the second option doesn't assume I'm an idiot? That's really what I'm complaining about.

    @boomzilla said:

    I'm sure you all spend more time getting coffee or going to the restroom than it would take to periodically archive stuff. A whole lot more if you set Outlook up to autoarchive, as was suggested.

    Auto-archive in Outlook on our network environment just causes Outlook to crash-- the default auto-archive location is in Documents, which, as I've previously stated, is a network drive. Since Outlook can't open .pst files on network drives without locking up, about the only thing our French Overlords did correctly here is disable auto-archive.

    Now yes, the real WTF here is that Outlook crashes when reading .pst files stored on network drives.

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, and when your email is a profit center for your company, this will make a lot of sense for them to do, too.

    I don't make my problems their problems. They could reciprocate by not making their problems my problems.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Sure, if it's just you and a handful of people, this makes sense, buy a few extra harddrives. This is really bullshit, at least for a company of any size. It might be OK if no one ever abused it, but when is that ever the case? I know you like to wish away the real world, but it doesn't work that way.

    Serious question: what do you think the average employee's cost-per-hour is? Let's say every employee in the company spends 2 hours a year dealing with this stupidity. Do you believe that cost is less than the cost of IT increasing/removing the quota?

    Blakey, here's a MS whitepaper on large mailboxes in exchange 2007: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc671168(EXCHG.80).aspx. Basically, big mailboxes slow down exchange for everyone ....



  • @jamesn said:

     Dude, stfu.  We get 100 MB of Exchange space here.


    I had 50MB at a gov agency.

    That fills up really quickly when you get all employee emails with attachments like:

    • 10MB photos of the new employees (scaling != resizing)
    • 5MB PPT of flyer for bake sale (single slide with info that could have been copy/pasted into a richtext email)
    • Important notices as word doc (again could have been pasted into email)


  • @rad131304 said:

    Blakey, here's a MS whitepaper on large mailboxes in exchange 2007: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc671168(EXCHG.80).aspx. Basically, big mailboxes slow down exchange for everyone ....

    1. That says the problems only occur if the email files exceed 2 GB, my quota is 750 MB

      2) It's still IT's problem, not mine


  • @blakeyrat said:

    @rad131304 said:
    Blakey, here's a MS whitepaper on large mailboxes in exchange 2007: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc671168(EXCHG.80).aspx. Basically, big mailboxes slow down exchange for everyone ....

    1. That says the problems only occur if the email files exceed 2 GB, my quota is 750 MB

      2) It's still IT's problem, not mine

    There's all sorts of interesting things in there, such as:

    Running Outlook 2007 in cached mode can help reduce server I/O. The initial mailbox sync is an expensive operation from a performance perspective, but over time, as the mailbox size grows, the disk subsystem burden is shifted from the Exchange server to the Outlook client. This means that having a large number of items in a user's Inbox will have little effect on the performance of the server. However, this also means that cached mode users with large mailboxes may need faster computers than those with small mailboxes (depending on the individual user perception of acceptable performance).

    ...

    Both Outlook Web Access and Outlook in online mode store indexes on, and search against, the server's copy of the data. For moderate size mailboxes, this results in approximately double the IOPS per mailbox of a comparably sized cached mode client. The IOPS per mailbox for very large mailboxes is even higher. The first time you sort in a new way, such as by size, an index is created, causing many read I/Os to the database disk. Subsequent sorts on an active index are inexpensive.



  • I only get 488 MB. I think my IT overlords think it's 1998, too. Their excuse was that they bought a new exchange server sized for the pre-merger staff.

    I'm just lucky that I have a laptop and I'm not forced to save to the "P"ersonal share. I autoarchive anything older than 90 days, and have only had to go back to my archive once or twice. I throw my archive.pst onto the share once a week, which seems approximately correct for the amount of email I receive.



  • I work in the ICT dept for a large organisation.  Our mailbox limit is 100MB.  Although we do have server side archiving running so old e-mails are stored on less expensive storage outside the exchange mailbox,

    Off the shelf SATA hard disks may be cheap.  Enterprise SAN storage, not so much.  You allow all your users 1GB instead of 100MB, organisation with 1000 users, that's an extra 900GB of storage that you need.  Plus another 900GB at your DR site, plus an extra 900GB of backup space times however many full backups you keep.  Costs quickly add up.

     Due to legislation governing how we record data, we have group policy that prevents Outlook from using pst files.  This is to allow central searching of ALL data.  We also found that pst file problems caused a significant quantity of our service desk calls.

    Our reasoning is that most people keep stuff out of habit rather than out of need.  By limiting the space available they are more likely to keep only what they need.  Personally, I hit my mailbox limit last week.  It took me half an hour to sift though it and I finished up deleting all except 3 e-mails. This is the first time in over 2 years that I have had to do any tidy up of my mailbox.  (I also discovered the reason I had run out of space was becuase Outlook had subscribed to a few RSS feeds when I installed it and I hadn't noticed)



  • Why back in my day we didn't get any network space and had to carry around floppy disks! Now git off my lawn!



  • How do I check my quota?



  • @Power Troll said:

    How do I check my quota?

    Right-click your status bar, and select "Quota". It's the top-most item.



  • when I adminned exchange back in the day (2003), MSFT didn't support the size of our exchange mailstore (2GB). Now they're recommending that much space for each user?

    Obligatory at least it's not Lotus Notes. (used notes once when I worked for Shinyplace as Tech who Calls in the Night [it was a living], and found its detractors lacking in imagination as they described that piece of ... software)



  • @piptheGeek said:

    Off the shelf SATA hard disks may be cheap.  Enterprise SAN storage, not so much.  You allow all your users 1GB instead of 100MB, organisation with 1000 users, that's an extra 900GB of storage that you need.  Plus another 900GB at your DR site, plus an extra 900GB of backup space times however many full backups you keep.  Costs quickly add up.

    And yet the cost is still an order of magnitude less than, say, 2 hours each of your C*O/upper management level employees' time.

    @piptheGeek said:

    Our reasoning is that most people keep stuff out of habit rather than out of need.

    And that is a problem because...?

    @piptheGeek said:

    By limiting the space available they are more likely to keep only what they need.

    By having unlimited space they can keep the things they need and the things they want.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @piptheGeek said:
    Off the shelf SATA hard disks may be cheap.  Enterprise SAN storage, not so much.  You allow all your users 1GB instead of 100MB, organisation with 1000 users, that's an extra 900GB of storage that you need.  Plus another 900GB at your DR site, plus an extra 900GB of backup space times however many full backups you keep.  Costs quickly add up.

    And yet the cost is still an order of magnitude less than, say, 2 hours each of your C*O/upper management level employees' time.

    Citation needed.  I asked my network admin at my previous job about why we couldn't just upgrade the storage so that people didn't complain so muchhave to clear out their mailboxes once in a while, and he told me that new trays of drives for our NetApp rack started at five-figure prices (UKP).  This firm had less than 80 employees, a couple of hours each of their time every year was far cheaper.  And that was just the drives; once the new storage started to get full up, then the backups wouldn't be able to run overnight or fit on a single tape any more, and we would have had to buy a second tape backup server as well.

    Of course perhaps your firm has hundreds of CxOs, or perhaps their pay rate is in four figures per hour, but your stubborn refusal to accept that limitations can exist on resources and your insistence that the firm should just spend tens of thousands because employees can't be arsed to delete the cute kitten pics out of their inboxes is probably the reason why you aren't headed for management yourself any time soon.  The firm isn't there to do favours or buy expensive toys for you, and you are paid to do your job using the tools you are provided.  If that doesn't include abusing your inbox as a general file storage server, then that's what you're being paid not to do.

    [Edit: corrected "racks of drives" to "trays of drives for our rack"]



  •  In 1998 my mailbox quota was something like 10MB. Of course that was a student email address, so I can't comment on other installations.

    Student email addresses included the "mail" so it was studentnumber@mail.connect.uni.edu.au (replace uni with my uni's tla).



  • @DaveK said:

    Citation needed.  I asked my network admin at my previous job about why we couldn't just upgrade the storage so that people didn't complain so muchhave to clear out their mailboxes once in a while, and he told me that new trays of drives for our NetApp rack started at five-figure prices (UKP).  This firm had less than 80 employees, a couple of hours each of their time every year was far cheaper.  And that was just the drives; once the new storage started to get full up, then the backups wouldn't be able to run overnight or fit on a single tape any more, and we would have had to buy a second tape backup server as well.

    Aka "because I'm a lazy fucker who doesn't want to bother fixing the problem and would rather shovel my shit onto my users to deal with." I don't see how you thought this paragraph would change my mind, it just confirms what I was already thinking.

    I'm not the kind of person who accepts excuses. Fuck excuses. If Google can provide it to millions of people, you can provide it to 500 people. Now shut the fuck up, stop your fucking whining, and fix the fucking problem.

    @DaveK said:

    your stubborn refusal to accept that limitations can exist on resources and your insistence that the firm should just spend tens of thousands because employees can't be arsed to delete the cute kitten pics out of their inboxes is probably the reason why you aren't headed for management yourself any time soon.

    Wow that's not even close to the reason why I'm not headed for management. (Actually, according to my job description, I'm already management... not that I do anything in my job description, mind you, but I guess technically...)

    @DaveK said:

    If that doesn't include abusing your inbox as a general file storage server, then that's what you're being paid not to do.

    I don't not anti-un-dis-understand what the fuck you're talking about.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And yet the cost is still an order of magnitude less than, say, 2 hours each of your C*O/upper management level employees' time.

    Anyone remotely at that level isn't paid by the hour, and likely works a lot of (technically) unpaid overtime. Also, he has a secretary to handle shit like that. You think it's not that expensive, but scale that out to a company with hundreds or thousands of employees and factor in the ginormous documents that get sent around (and that's just the legitimate, actual company business stuff) and it's easy to get something that would spiral out of control.

    Welcome to the real world.



  •  <font size="3">This isn't the correct thread for that running joke</font><font size="4">.</font><font size="3">  Although it is spelled correctly, this is the wrong thread.</font>



  • @Gern Blaanston said:

     <font size="3">This isn't the correct thread for that running joke</font><font size="4">.</font><font size="3">  Although it is spelled correctly, this is the wrong thread.</font>

    In case you can't tell, this is a grown-up place.  Although you're too young and stupid to be using it, it is a grown-up place.

     

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.
    Ouch... Laudable, you should be commended. I tell you this though, I'd rather spend 15 minutes throwing away or archiving mail each month than do without my salary for the next year or two...

     You can even have Outlook do most of the deleting or archiving for you...

     



  • @pnieuwkamp said:

    Ouch... Laudable, you should be commended. I tell you this though, I'd rather spend 15 minutes throwing away or archiving mail each month than do without my salary for the next year or two...

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245 I'd gladly pay $80 to never have to see a "out of quota" message as long as I remained at the company.

    See above for an explanation of why Outlook's auto-archive isn't a good idea. I did manually make an archive, which means if I want to search for something older than a few months, now I need to copy the archive to my C drive, mount it in Outlook, wait for the indexer, do my search, then unmount it, then delete it from the C drive. CONVENIENT!



  • @piptheGeek said:

    Off the shelf SATA hard disks may be cheap.  Enterprise SAN storage, not so much.  You allow all your users 1GB instead of 100MB, organisation with 1000 users, that's an extra 900GB of storage that you need.  Plus another 900GB at your DR site, plus an extra 900GB of backup space times however many full backups you keep.  Costs quickly add up.

    Really... Enterprise SSD storage, RAID-1, with Disk-to-Disk backup to another RAID-1 of Enterprise SSDs is only $120.00/GB. Given that the average corporate workstation has about $1500 in software installed on it, I'd call that cheap. Heck, a typical corporate phone costs two grand after licenses are factored in.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Jaime said:

    Really... Enterprise SSD storage, RAID-1, with Disk-to-Disk backup to another RAID-1 of Enterprise SSDs is only $120.00/GB. Given that the average corporate workstation has about $1500 in software installed on it, I'd call that cheap. Heck, a typical corporate phone costs two grand after licenses are factored in.
    Well, some companies managed to get locked into a purely rapetastic storage hardware vendor and pay buttloads more than that per gig. But those are the ones where CxOs and their wannabes make IT purchasing decisions instead of actual professionals.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The cost of me having to deal with cleaning out my email is about 1/10th the cost of them adding storage to the server.

    Really? You have an extremely high estimation of your worth, compared to the costs of SAN disks (including the mirrors used for DR), tape and network capacity to support larger database backups, processor requirements for longer database maintenance, and so on.

    It is not a false economy, it's an actual economy.

    @blakeyrat said:
    Now it's like, fuck, just take the cost of a 1.5 TB HD out of my salary this month and leave me the fuck alone forever.
     

    Instead you could, you know, learn how to use email properly. Here's a hint: it's for messaging, not for document management.

     



  •  

    @blakeyrat said:

    @DaveK said:
    Citation needed.  I asked
    my network admin at my previous job about why we couldn't just upgrade
    the storage so that people didn't complain so muchhave
    to clear out their mailboxes once in a while, and he told me that new
    trays of drives for our NetApp rack started at five-figure prices
    (UKP).  This firm had less than 80 employees, a couple of hours each of
    their time every year was far cheaper.  And that was just the drives;
    once the new storage started to get full up, then the backups wouldn't
    be able to run overnight or fit on a single tape any more, and we would
    have had to buy a second tape backup server as well.

    Aka "because I'm a lazy fucker who doesn't want to bother fixing the
    problem and would rather shovel my shit onto my users to deal with."

    No,
    read what I actually wrote you ignorant fool; it's not because he's
    lazy, he'd clearly looked into it; it's because management won't sign
    off on the expenditure.  Where do you think the money's going to come
    from?  You expect him to buy that kind of kit out of his own pocket? 
    That's one hell of a sense of entitlement you have there.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't see how you thought this paragraph would change my mind, it just confirms what I was already thinking.

    That's because your thinking is not based on any kind of rational process but is merely an expression of your unwarranted self-importance.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I'm not the kind of person who accepts excuses. Fuck excuses. If Google can provide it to millions of people, you can provide it to 500 people. Now shut the fuck up, stop your fucking whining, and fix the fucking problem.

    Who's whining here?  You're the cry-baby who can't be bothered to clean out his mailbox and expects everything to be changed around to suit him.  Google's whole business is providing people with email accounts so that they can sell advertising.  Other firms have other lines of business and you expect them to spend huge amounts providing you with a luxury that is entirely outside the purpose of their business?  Get over yourself.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    There is this nifty little feature called mail archiving that you can set up a filter for, and move all of your old commercially valuable e-mail to your hard drive, thus removing it from the server and any corporate backup or archiving regime, and replacing both problems with a different one.



  • @DaveK said:

    No,
    read what I actually wrote you ignorant fool; it's not because he's
    lazy, he'd clearly looked into it; it's because management won't sign
    off on the expenditure. Where do you think the money's going to come
    from?

    I dunno, how about wherever it came from 2 years ago before the shitty French Overlords bought us, back when our email had no quota? How about that money?

    How about they use the money our part of the French Overlord conglomo-corp saves by using the cheaper-per-head Outlook instead of buying both Office and Notes for every workstation? How about that money?

    Maybe the money they saved by canceling our transit benefits, so now I have to pay all my bus passes out-of-pocket. Or, hey, how about the money they're undoubtedly saving by moving our health insurance to a more expensive provider? Or the money saved by canceling our Christmas party last year?

    Goddamned, we need to be independent again.

    @DaveK said:

    That's because your thinking is not based on any kind of
    rational process but is merely an expression of your unwarranted
    self-importance.

    No. I'm their customer, and they're providing crappy customer service.

    @DaveK said:

    You're the cry-baby who can't be
    bothered to clean out his mailbox and expects everything to be changed
    around to suit him.

    So far I haven't gotten an answer to the simple question, "why should I have to clean out my email?" I've never had to clean out any other email account I've ever owned since, hm, about 1998 like the subject line says. Why do I have to now, in 2011? I like when IT moves forward, I do not like moving backwards.



  • @havokk said:

    Here's a hint: it's for messaging, not for document management.

    Did you know HyperCard was built to be a database application, like Filemaker or Access? You know what the most popular HyperCard application was? Myst.

    Do you know why Excel still exists and Quattro and 1-2-3 don't? Microsoft interviewed people using Excel and found that, by and large, most of them were not using it to build spreadsheets. They were using it to track lists, calendars, "other stuff". So they added features catering to "other stuff", other than creating spreadsheets. Meanwhile, Quattro and 1-2-3 were spending all of their development time creating more and more spreadsheet features that only an accountant could appreciate-- and hell, a PhD accountant at all.

    Once a piece of software is released to the public, you no longer have any say in how it "should" be used. The best you can do is find out what people are doing with it, and providing a modification that makes that task easier. For example, back before Adobe started sucking-ass, they found a lot of people were using Photoshop to mock-up UIs-- if you've ever done that in Photoshop, you know Photoshop sucks at it. So they introduced Fireworks, which is much better at it and comes with the same Creative Suite license. (It didn't work because they then forgot to make Fireworks not suck. Then all of Adobe started sucking anyway. But... anecdote still stands damnit!)

    This is actually a classic Linux user debate, where you ask about something you do every day in your other OS and the Linux user says "you don't need to do that." (One I remember specifically, "I tried Linux but it wouldn't let me paste spreadsheet cells into a paint program." "You don't need to do that." "Well I kind of do, so fuck you, back to Windows.)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    So far I haven't gotten an answer to the simple question, "why should I have to clean out my email?" I've never had to clean out any other email account I've ever owned since, hm, about 1998 like the subject line says. Why do I have to now, in 2011? I like when IT moves forward, I do not like moving backwards.

    Resources are finite. Maybe you've been lucky in the past, and haven't abused email. Also, you have a self proclaimed ADHD-like desire to change jobs. Maybe you've been lucky that you don't work in an environment where multi-megabyte documents are emailed multiple times per day. Maybe you don't have as much experience as you think you do.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    This is actually a classic Linux user debate, where you ask about something you do every day in your other OS and the Linux user says "you don't need to do that." (One I remember specifically, "I tried Linux but it wouldn't let me paste spreadsheet cells into a paint program." "You don't need to do that." "Well I kind of do, so fuck you, back to Windows.)

    Works for me (yes, maybe it didn't way back then, or I'm just using something different). You get the same sort of responses from Windows users about analogous things. Sometimes it's just user ignorance, or maybe what you're doing is kinda dumb. Obviously, you can use programs in ways that weren't intended, but that doesn't mean it's always a good idea.

    Anyways, you reminded me of this:

    Dilbert.com



  • @boomzilla said:

    Resources are finite.

    I never claimed otherwise. It's hard to debate with people who "make up" things I said, then "counter" them.

    @boomzilla said:

    Maybe you've been lucky in the past, and haven't abused email.

    There's no way to "abuse" email. The whole concept is ludicrous.

    @boomzilla said:

    Maybe you've been lucky that you don't work in an environment where multi-megabyte documents are emailed multiple times per day.

    Objection, relevance?

    @boomzilla said:

    Maybe you don't have as much experience as you think you do.

    Objection, relevance?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Maybe you've been lucky in the past, and haven't abused email.

    There's no way to "abuse" email. The whole concept is ludicrous.

    Hmm...no way to abuse something provided to you by your employer for the purposes of conducting the duties for which you were hired? Using it in ways that go against the policy of your employer? You must have no imagination.

    @blakeyrat said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Maybe you've been lucky that you don't work in an environment where multi-megabyte documents are emailed multiple times per day.

    Objection, relevance?

    WTF? Are you naturally this dumb, or have you worked at it?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I forwarded it to our IT ticketing system and added "Seriously?"

    What was their answer?



  • @boomzilla said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @boomzilla said:
    Maybe you've been lucky that you don't work in an environment where multi-megabyte documents are emailed multiple times per day.

    Objection, relevance?

    WTF? Are you naturally this dumb, or have you worked at it?

    I'm the one with no imagination.

    Tell me, without giving a bullshit answer like "WTF?", why shouldn't I be able to send as many large files as I please? Still nobody's answered this question.

    @zelmak said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I forwarded it to our IT ticketing system and added "Seriously?"

    What was their answer?

    I lied. I didn't submit the ticket, although I did create it. Because they can make my life difficult. Sorry.

    Knowing how they deal with the other companies under Overlord-ship, they'd "fix" the issue by installing Lotus Notes.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Knowing how they deal with the other companies under Overlord-ship, they'd "fix" the issue by installing Lotus Notes.

    Wimp!

    I lost my imaginary respect in you.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Tell me, without giving a bullshit answer like "WTF?", why shouldn't I be able to send as many large files as I please? Still nobody's answered this question.

    Resources are finite. You're starting to sound like the Sovereign Computing guy.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.