4 ms·

Why instead start thinking about a damn really spread infra?! Or why the hell doing WFH against a central infra instead of having a spread one? Surely some serv

by kkfx 5y ago

Why instead start thinking about a damn really spread infra?! Or why the hell doing WFH against a central infra instead of having a spread one? Surely some servers somewhere are needed, but much of the actual work can be perfectly done locally on desktops, sharing just the outcome. That's of course demand certain things remote side, like a locked dedicated room in the worker house etc, a thing that should be required anyway to avoid famous Judge-cat or naked MP on cam and many others we all know. Surely demand a big infra change, but it's a nonsense working in a distributed manner with a non-distributed infra/tools.

aaomidi 5y ago
Because companies see devex as a time waster. And the devex efforts are never rewarded.
- kkfx 5y ago
  I mean things from why instead of mandate VDIs crap companies who do WFH do no give managed desktops instead? Very basic examples as such that do not demand even significant revolution in operation terms, only a bit of logistic which is needed anyway. I understand that in a liquid world no one want to pour money on something uncertain BUT on the workers side, those who are willing to WFH can simply state that and organize themselves to offer a room with basic stuff, receiving just compensation from offering room, furniture, connection etc, the company only provide needed gears managing them from remote, the same they provide to the office minus furniture, cleaning service, ... plus a smaller compensation to the worker. Again very basic examples. Things those who really want WFH would do anyway and on company side does not represent a specific capex nor opex nor a specific risk. Hybrid working do not work anyway: - people in the office have to work as they were from home, witch made them unhappy; - alternating WFH and in office means double gears or moving stuff back&forth and both are not really sustainable; - workers do not earn nothing except of stress, companies do not save a penny since they still maintain the office, less used than normal. After have imposed to many WFH a significant slice of them now want such mode and no coercive means will make them change advise, so trying to state "all ended, now back to the office" will not work anyway, at least not without a significant price for the company and for some workers. Try to keep the feet in two different shoes does not work either, see above, so? IMVHO it's time to really discuss who can go full remote, with casual meetings few times a year as needed, and who can not or are not willing to. Workers and companies have anyway to face the challenge so why keep it up in emergency crappy mode?

by kkfx 5y ago

aaomidi 5y ago

Because companies see devex as a time waster. And the devex efforts are never rewarded.

kkfx 5y ago
I mean things from why instead of mandate VDIs crap companies who do WFH do no give managed desktops instead? Very basic examples as such that do not demand even significant revolution in operation terms, only a bit of logistic which is needed anyway. I understand that in a liquid world no one want to pour money on something uncertain BUT on the workers side, those who are willing to WFH can simply state that and organize themselves to offer a room with basic stuff, receiving just compensation from offering room, furniture, connection etc, the company only provide needed gears managing them from remote, the same they provide to the office minus furniture, cleaning service, ... plus a smaller compensation to the worker. Again very basic examples. Things those who really want WFH would do anyway and on company side does not represent a specific capex nor opex nor a specific risk. Hybrid working do not work anyway: - people in the office have to work as they were from home, witch made them unhappy; - alternating WFH and in office means double gears or moving stuff back&forth and both are not really sustainable; - workers do not earn nothing except of stress, companies do not save a penny since they still maintain the office, less used than normal. After have imposed to many WFH a significant slice of them now want such mode and no coercive means will make them change advise, so trying to state "all ended, now back to the office" will not work anyway, at least not without a significant price for the company and for some workers. Try to keep the feet in two different shoes does not work either, see above, so? IMVHO it's time to really discuss who can go full remote, with casual meetings few times a year as needed, and who can not or are not willing to. Workers and companies have anyway to face the challenge so why keep it up in emergency crappy mode?