arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
I've got a bunch of stuff in OneNote, mainly boilerplates to copy and paste from, but at least I'm not dumb enough to try and share it with other users.I have never found a need to use OneNote.
I've got a bunch of stuff in OneNote, mainly boilerplates to copy and paste from, but at least I'm not dumb enough to try and share it with other users.I have never found a need to use OneNote.
Ensure control frameworks are implemented in line with risk appetite and provide effective assurance and resilience of our IT services???????
Copied from a job ad. Always good to see "attention to detail" only runs so far in some organisations
I have never found a need to use OneNote.
OneNote used to be installed on PCs at <Big bank> and way back then it had a pretty decent OCR function if you pasted a screenshot into it. With each new version though almost every part of OneNote seemed to get worse.
That is a very profitable model for the leasing company.This is developing into a derail, but a potential solution is to lease the equipment on-site. The leasing company "owns" the kit and does all the upgrades, etc., but it lives on your premises. So you get the benefits of on-prem kit with the benefit of being "service charged" for it. That the total outlay over the equipment lifetime is way higher than making it a capital purchase is neither here nor there. The money comes from "a different bucket"![]()
I've read a few articles where people worked out that AWS is great value on the small scale as you can (as we did) fire up and stop servers easily to meet demand. But as you scale up the prices get steeper.
This was clamped down on a number of years ago in the UK. If you're effectively taking out a finance lease so you own all the risks / costs of the equipment, you have to account for it as if you own it.
It's been a while since I last worked in that sector, so the details may be off slightly, but it's something like that.
Don't forget to actualise the conceptuals.
As I said it's got worse over the years but as an example, a few years back my team of 4 Devs built a really useful team tool with it. It held snippets of code, references to specs and other doc.
Top tabs were by project and within that side tabs were ADRs, implementation details, feedback from stakeholders etc.
Worked fat better for us than SharePoint which was run by knobheads.
eta: I'll need to check my wife or daughter's laptops for a recent Office. My laptop is Linux and my desktop has LibreOffice. I have vague memories of looking at a more recent OneNote and wondering WTF they'd done to it. In my view MS have never appreciated or understood what OneNote can do.
<shudder>
Sharepoint is the elephants graveyard. Everyone has heard of it, no one knows where it is. It should have the tagline:
"Sharepoint: Where information goes to die."
Sharepoint very much depends on how it's set up. It can be set up so that it works excellently, if the engineers setting it up know what they're doing. If they don't, it can be a pile of dog's breakfast after it's come out of the dog's other end.Sharepoint can be OK. Not great but OK. We tried running our own and it was ok. Then management knobs took over who had no idea what our working practices were or anything really. One of their first decisions was disabling direct links that allowed docs etc to be moved from one place to another and still be found. So link rot all over. That and other decisions made it unusable.
It's a source of worry to me that I actually understand what they're asking for. Apart from the question marks at the end, of course.Copied from a job ad. Always good to see "attention to detail" only runs so far in some organisations
I did one of the first EU implementations of it.......<shudder>
Sharepoint is the elephants graveyard. Everyone has heard of it, no one knows where it is. It should have the tagline:
"Sharepoint: Where information goes to die."
Well, this is fun: soon we'll need an authenticator to authenticate the authenticator we currently use. I foresee no possible problems, complications, or absurdity with this.
User, my dear, I want you to navigate yourself (if you can) to the company org chart.
Due to working for a company that is technically owned by another company, the MS Outlook view of my hierarchy was that I was on level 14. Only thirteen steps below the big, big boss.
(It wasn't quite real. Besides the top 3 being real execs at the parent company, at least two of the folks were admins rather than actual managers). But I was a long, long, way down....
That's just someone failing to maintain the GAL properly.Never trust Outlook. According to Outlook my job title is the one I had four years ago, my desk is located on a floor that doesn't exist in the building I worked in five years ago, and my phone number is a landline to the building I worked in ten years ago.
That's just someone failing to maintain the GAL properly.