5 ms·

I've only had 1 employer (a DB company) so I can't speak to industry norms, but I've never had restrictions on things I could do or download on my computer. Har

by mgfist 4y ago

I've only had 1 employer (a DB company) so I can't speak to industry norms, but I've never had restrictions on things I could do or download on my computer. Hard for me to imagine working at a place where I need permission to download a tool or library when writing software. Seems like a huge burden.

0000011111 4y ago
It depends on the industry. However, in a good world you would have an internal repo with all the software users need to do their job and users would just download from that.
slongfield 4y ago
Libraries have licensing requirements that your company needs to comply with. Being able to download and use them without any oversight is an recipe for violating them.
- MAGZine 4y ago
  or... read the license and make sure you can comply with it. And if you don't know, or are unsure, ask for help. it's absurd to me that you'd need to put every library through compliance even if it has very straight forward OSS licenses.
  - nuclearnice1 4y ago
    In my experience, it’s impossible to assemble a group of 1000 programmers who are consistently able to read a license and reason correctly about whether the firm can follow it.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Do you really think everyone hired as a coder has enough intellectual property knowledge to understand all the complexities of all the various open source licenses in every potential usage?
    - MAGZine 4y ago
      Nope. That's why I said if you're unsure or don't know, ask.
- omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
  My last large employer handled licensing and defects via periodic scans and background removals/uninstall. There was specific software everyone could install with a service request, non-standard software could also be requested, temporary rights to usual stuff could be requested as could permanent access to those rights.
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Why not make the uninstalls/removal upfront? Why do it in the background?
    - omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
      I'm guessing because it's faster and there's less liability/risk. It was just annoying for me, but I could see it being a significant impediment for some people in some situations.
veilrap 4y ago
Agree 100%, if I were not able to download the applications and tools that make me productive, I would be looking for a new job at a less employee hostile work place.
- vlod 4y ago
  I've worked at places like this (where you don't have admin access). Generally they don't mind you installing stuff that's legit or makes you more productive. They just don't want you granting admin permissions to an email that you inadvertently clicked a strange links on, or some virus laden craking tools, you shouldn't be running. It's understandable, but super annoying. Yeah, it'll probably question my long term view of the company.
  - worik 4y ago
    > It's understandable, but super annoying Security and convenience are opposing forces. Security and reliability not so much. My plea to all of us is get used to it. People's piece of mind (at the least) depends on us doing our job, and as this story is an example of us failing. The age of programmers winging it should be long gone. We are professionals with responsibilities. Our jobs are not for our pleasure or satisfaction (even when they are fun and satisfying)
    - arcbyte 4y ago
      I know the tools I need. Enterprise IT doesn't.
      - worik 4y ago
        That is not true. Mēh. Perhaps. But then Enterprise IT is not doing its job. You should not bring your own tools to do this sort of job. We need to be professionals, not enthusiastic amateurs. We work with "Enterprise IT" not against them.
        arcbyte 4y ago
II2II 4y ago
While it is a burden, the point is that software needs to be audited before it is installed and that is an even bigger burden on the company. If it isn't essential to the business, it simply isn't going to be considered, At least that is the way in many of the non-IT companies I have worked for which handle massive amounts of data on other people. In this regard, Twitter's attitude is distressing. We may think of them as an IT company, but their actual business involves handling massive amounts of data on other people. While confidentiality of that information may not be the biggest concern, since much of it is intended to be published, the authenticity of that information is.
- mnd999 4y ago
  Software generally doesn’t need to be audited by a grad in a corporate IT department who knows next to nothing about software. We have official repos for that, why Jack-of-all-trades IT oafs think they can do a better job than distros who literally package software for a living is beyond me.
worik 4y ago
Never mind security. Maintaining a coherent approach to development strategies where anybody can "download ...[any] tool or library [they want] when writing software" is a terrifying idea. DO they let you use any computing language you want? Any OS? Our industry is on a very bad way

by mgfist 4y ago

0000011111 4y ago

It depends on the industry. However, in a good world you would have an internal repo with all the software users need to do their job and users would just download from that.

slongfield 4y ago

Libraries have licensing requirements that your company needs to comply with. Being able to download and use them without any oversight is an recipe for violating them.

MAGZine 4y ago
or... read the license and make sure you can comply with it. And if you don't know, or are unsure, ask for help. it's absurd to me that you'd need to put every library through compliance even if it has very straight forward OSS licenses.
- nuclearnice1 4y ago
  In my experience, it’s impossible to assemble a group of 1000 programmers who are consistently able to read a license and reason correctly about whether the firm can follow it.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Do you really think everyone hired as a coder has enough intellectual property knowledge to understand all the complexities of all the various open source licenses in every potential usage?
  - MAGZine 4y ago
    Nope. That's why I said if you're unsure or don't know, ask.
omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
My last large employer handled licensing and defects via periodic scans and background removals/uninstall. There was specific software everyone could install with a service request, non-standard software could also be requested, temporary rights to usual stuff could be requested as could permanent access to those rights.
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Why not make the uninstalls/removal upfront? Why do it in the background?
  - omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
    I'm guessing because it's faster and there's less liability/risk. It was just annoying for me, but I could see it being a significant impediment for some people in some situations.

veilrap 4y ago

Agree 100%, if I were not able to download the applications and tools that make me productive, I would be looking for a new job at a less employee hostile work place.

vlod 4y ago
I've worked at places like this (where you don't have admin access). Generally they don't mind you installing stuff that's legit or makes you more productive. They just don't want you granting admin permissions to an email that you inadvertently clicked a strange links on, or some virus laden craking tools, you shouldn't be running. It's understandable, but super annoying. Yeah, it'll probably question my long term view of the company.
- worik 4y ago
  > It's understandable, but super annoying Security and convenience are opposing forces. Security and reliability not so much. My plea to all of us is get used to it. People's piece of mind (at the least) depends on us doing our job, and as this story is an example of us failing. The age of programmers winging it should be long gone. We are professionals with responsibilities. Our jobs are not for our pleasure or satisfaction (even when they are fun and satisfying)
  - arcbyte 4y ago
    I know the tools I need. Enterprise IT doesn't.
    - worik 4y ago
      That is not true. Mēh. Perhaps. But then Enterprise IT is not doing its job. You should not bring your own tools to do this sort of job. We need to be professionals, not enthusiastic amateurs. We work with "Enterprise IT" not against them.
      - arcbyte 4y ago

II2II 4y ago

While it is a burden, the point is that software needs to be audited before it is installed and that is an even bigger burden on the company. If it isn't essential to the business, it simply isn't going to be considered, At least that is the way in many of the non-IT companies I have worked for which handle massive amounts of data on other people. In this regard, Twitter's attitude is distressing. We may think of them as an IT company, but their actual business involves handling massive amounts of data on other people. While confidentiality of that information may not be the biggest concern, since much of it is intended to be published, the authenticity of that information is.

mnd999 4y ago
Software generally doesn’t need to be audited by a grad in a corporate IT department who knows next to nothing about software. We have official repos for that, why Jack-of-all-trades IT oafs think they can do a better job than distros who literally package software for a living is beyond me.

worik 4y ago

Never mind security. Maintaining a coherent approach to development strategies where anybody can "download ...[any] tool or library [they want] when writing software" is a terrifying idea. DO they let you use any computing language you want? Any OS? Our industry is on a very bad way