|
|
It is interesting, I am actually okay either way. I usually tend to do cowboy coding if it is a smaller or a personal project but if it is slightly larger or if it is a work project I think having more details makes for a more successful project.
As software developers, we are used to having things change and shift and not really be locked down, but our customers tend not to be really comfortable with that, especially depending on the industry. I find most customers need a firm set of dates when things will be available, what they will cost and the level of effort things will take. You can't really give them that without having a significant amount of detail.
Quote: Exactly my current situation.
There's two things I can do: bitch about how nothing is clear and we're all wasting effort or trying to figure out what needs to be done and make the best of it.
I'm going for the latter, with the side note that I actually like working that way as talking to people and figuring out specs is a welcome change from programming
This is pretty much my thinking, for the most part, on not having things spelled out. I am pretty able to go with whatever is going on, but I really hate wasting my time and effort even though I get paid either way.
|
|
|
|
|
A "waterfall" project that is "chunked" small enough, becomes a series of "agile" projects ...
It's just a question of being able to prioritize.
(Just looked at a RFP from a muni govt with a "diagram" of their "plan" ... there should be a critical path; but it looks like a super nova ... Pass.)
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
In over 18 years with the same company, I've never worked from a written specification...the closest thing being a UI sketched on scrap paper.  When I was new, there may have been more details, but generally my boss would simply describe what a new screen should do...just get it done. Things haven't changed much except now we might discuss what a new application/module should do...the details are left up to me.
The phrase here has always been "We're making this stuff up!". Our business model may be atypical in that our software is provided to clients through annual contracts only. We are expected to know more than the customers/end users about their operations current and future needs.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Yes ... at some point, the "programmer" becomes the domain expert; but not the credit for being so (that's still the "domain" of the BA).
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
Agility is proportial to one's level in the current chain of command.
I'm top monkey only at home (and for the time being).
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
If any of you want to play with getting control back over your updates, this thread prompted an idea to create a bat file to possibly do the job. If you have any improvements to the bat, please post them, as I've never mastered all the arcanery behind that process.
@echo off
:while1
sc stop wuauserv
sc config wuauserv start= disabled
timeout 60
goto :while1
Just open a command prompt with administrator privileges and run the bat from there.
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool, especially to implement this without having to write a complicated app, etc. That was basically what I was going to do, but as an app -- didn't even think about writing it as a batch file! There may be some other services that need to be disabled too, but those can be easily added to the bat file!
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
My batch file is no longer working - MS seems to have made a super-hidden admin account or something (during a manual update), to take control of the services so they can't be stopped. Is it still working for you?
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: My batch file is no longer working - MS seems to have made a super-hidden admin account or something (during a manual update), to take control of the services so they can't be stopped. Is it still working for you?
I stopped using the batch file as even before the latest update, Windows was still shoving updates down my throat. It must have been sneaking through somehow.
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
If you figure out something new, holler. I've played a bit, and successfully taken ownership of the wuaueng.dll and some others, but still get '5' error with the batch file saying access denied. Maybe have to take ownership of svchost? Don't know - hesitant to play with that one.
Happy New Year!
|
|
|
|
|
so you replace 1 program that runs continuously in the background with another.
fascinating.
just curious, (I'm not on 10), what about stopping it and renaming the service .exe file?
at least if you want it can rename it back. (Could have a couple of .bats, at least they need only run once.
Signature ready for installation. Please Reboot now.
|
|
|
|
|
Lopatir wrote: so you replace 1 program that runs continuously in the background with another.
But one of those causes considerable grief when your machine restarts without your permission. And technically, it is not a replace! They both keep running.  But such is life in this case. Checked, and the command prompt is stuck at 0% usage if that is any consolation.
Lopatir wrote: just curious, (I'm not on 10), what about stopping it and renaming the service .exe file?
Might be possible, but there are a couple other background processes that Windows runs that might trigger the file to be reimplemented. And I'm not knowledgeable about them.
edit: maybe - reddit thread showing which service dlls to rename, but the wuaueng.dll is not in the newest version of Win10.
modified 20-May-18 13:08pm.
|
|
|
|
|
There is no windows update on Linux!  
|
|
|
|
|
Why would I update something I don't use?
|
|
|
|
|
Troy Hunt: Don't tell people to turn off Windows Update, just don't[^]
Disabling WU is like not vaccinating your kids. You might have the right to do it on your own computer, but don't bring that virus-laden bastard anywhere near my network! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Troy Hunt:
Everyone is wrong at least once in their life! If MS gave an option to use the old style update system, where a notification came in your task tray, I'd use it. But they don't, so spreading ways to get some control back is a market force. If everyone did so, they might read this message and add the option. Then I would not promote alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: the old style update system, where a notification came in your task tray
Which too many people ignored, leaving their machines unpatched for years.
And then promptly blamed Microsoft when their machine was compromised using a security vulnerability which had been patched 18 months earlier.
The current system isn't perfect - no system is. But if your machine is forcing a restart, that means you've been ignoring the "please restart" notifications for too long.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: But if your machine is forcing a restart, that means you've been ignoring the "please restart" notifications for too long.
I can't ignore something it never gave me. That is the biggest problem with the current screwed up system.
Richard Deeming wrote: And then promptly blamed Microsoft
Never did, so don't toss me into that camp.
It is fine if they keep the current system as default, for the people that only browse, and never leave projects open overnight. But give an option so power users can control their machine if they so wish. Then this thread wouldn't exist.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: leave projects open overnight
Without saving them first? You must have a decent UPS to be that confident that you won't lose power in the middle of the night.
David O'Neil wrote: But give an option so power users can control their machine if they so wish.
Because "power users" will never click to delay an update indefinitely, then forget to apply the update, and get hit by malware, right?
It's a no-win situation. If they give you the option to delay indefinitely, you end up getting infected and infecting others. If they give you the option to delay for a finite length of time, it's never going to be long enough for some people.
Yes, there's room for improvement. But turning updates off completely is still not a good idea. It's like solving the problem of worn brake-pads in your car by removing the brakes! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Yes, there's room for improvement.
We agree. And I do update, and don't recommend others don't. Point MS to this thread to get it improved.
Richard Deeming wrote: Without saving them first?
Regardless of whether or not I save them, when Windows forces the update without telling me, I lose the entire workspace. Yes, I have to recreate it when I do the update, but I can take steps to mitigate it when I know about the impending update, like saving tab arrangements and such if I want.
I have lost stuff 3 times because of this issue in the past. And I never got notifications for any of those updates. Enough is enough.
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: And I never got notifications for any of those updates.
I can't recall ever having an update where I didn't get a notification well in advance of the actual restart.
But then, this is Microsoft; "consistency" is a rude word to them.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: I can't recall ever having an update where I didn't get a notification well in advance of the actual restart.
I am jealous!
Richard Deeming wrote: But then, this is Microsoft; "consistency" is a rude word to them.
Got my five! I wish it wasn't true!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I started the rant in the other thread and I declare total bullshit. I bought Windows Professional for a good damn reason. I'm a professional. And if I have to save all my projects because my a**hole stupid OS forced a reboot... that's just stuck on stupid.
As I said earlier, you can polish the turd all you want, and in the end, you'll have a shiny turd. Tell you what, go into the MS server room and start pulling power plugs. See if there is an issue.
As a matter of fact, I DO have damn good UPS's on my LAPTOPS (battery - more UPS), there is no reason I should not be able to leave my machine up for weeks on end. MS' position is total and complete BS.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed.
We're all developers here. If updates are giving anyone such grief, they owe it to themselves to at least learn about Microsoft's Windows Update Server (WSUS). I suspect most of us on CP have an MSDN subscription, and have access to Windows Server. WSUS is a free add-on, is available from Windows Server 2003 onward, and it's rather trivial to install and configure. And it leaves you in total control of all updates.
It's certainly overkill for the average consumer, but we're not the typical bunch - most of us have multiple machines, and even more VMs, all of which need to be kept up to date - so even more reason to leverage the tools that are at our disposal.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
