Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
Lynn
On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 4:46:49 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
Lynn
This would never happen to Dagwood Bumstead too...
In article <2d1f1bf3-1467-40db-b5b5-08ffd2e9429fn@googlegroups.com>,
Darryl H <heinedarryl@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, October 22, 2022 at 4:46:49 PM UTC-5, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
Lynn
This would never happen to Dagwood Bumstead too...
"Blondie" is kind of an anti-Dilbert because the tropes are reversed.
Dagwood is actually apparently quite bad at his job, and Mr. Dithers is
a sharp cookie.
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time
at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts
at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time
at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts
at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It
is not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done
so for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean
avoiding legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that
when your time at work is done, you are off duty. No answering
calls, emails or texts at night, weekends, vacations, that sort
of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to
tell the boss that he’s just told you to do something
impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the
mainframe era, and, for years, I was the only person who could
respond to any sort of software emergency. If I had to put in 36
hours straight, I had to; we were a billion-dollar company with
only one computer (apart from factory-floor and laboratory
minis), and the billing and the payroll had to keep rolling or
there’d be Hell to pay.
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time
at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts
at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the
boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe >era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort
of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to;
we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from >factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had
to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time
at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts
at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the
boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe >> era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort
of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to;
we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from
factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had
to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
On 11/8/2022 8:35 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,911 Dispatch Systems on call programmer here.
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time
at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts >>>> at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the
boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe >>> era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort >>> of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to;
we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from
factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had >>> to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
In article <tkeglo$cg6$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2022 8:35 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,911 Dispatch Systems on call programmer here.
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is
not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time >>>>> at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts >>>>> at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the
boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe >>>> era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort >>>> of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to; >>>> we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from
factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had >>>> to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
(Hal Heydt)
So ALL your calls were dire emergencies.
On 11/10/2022 2:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tkeglo$cg6$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2022 8:35 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,911 Dispatch Systems on call programmer here.
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is >>>>>>> not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding
legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time >>>>>> at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts >>>>>> at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the >>>>> boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe
era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort >>>>> of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to; >>>>> we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from
factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had >>>>> to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
(Hal Heydt)
So ALL your calls were dire emergencies.
Well, all the after hours ones were. I had one weekend where I went to
work on Friday, went home at the end of my usual work day and was awake
until Monday morning dealing with 50 to 60 priority 1 TSRs (a normal
weekend would have half a dozen), THEN had to go in to the office Monday >morning because my supervisor had scheduled a meeting with me for
immediately after the Monday morning staff meeting without telling me
what it was about. I was the first give me report (all projects ahead
of schedule, which meant under-budget) and then passed out, having been
awake for 72+ hours straight at that point. Someone woke me when the
meeting ended, I staggered after my supervisor for our meeting. As soon
as we were in his office he told me he had rescheduled it. When we had
the meeting a few days later it was to reprimand me for falling asleep
in the staff meeting. o_O (Obviously that wasn't the original reason,
the real reason was so he could reprimand me for _something_ because the >company had new owners and was looking to lower payroll thru
"attrition". Even the HR person who was in the meeting with us agreed
with my complaint about that and that reprimand didn't go in my file.
Of course the supervisor just threw out another BS "reprimand" that I
was "too friendly" with the clients' personnel but he weasel worded that >enough that HR couldn't throw it out.)
Another one. When we got these after hours priority 1 calls the contact
was usually a dispatch supervisor or a senior dispatcher. Sometimes it
was someone in the agency's IT department. I got the page for this call
at 2am on a Sunday morning. Called the given number and the person who >answered identified themselves as the Chief of Police for <one of the
major west coast cities> and wanted to know why it was that as soon as
one of his officers had been shot _my_ system ground to a halt. (No >pressure. :P ) I finished connecting in to their system and quickly
saw what the problem was. They were overloading their network, too much >traffic because too many people were following the incident "live" and
they hadn't upgraded their network as we had advised when we installed
their system to be able to handle something like that. Called him back, >explained what I found and suggested that he have everyone who did NOT
have a NEED to be up to the second on the incident close out the window
they were following it on and just run a one-time 'query incident
history' when they wanted to see what the current situation was. I also
said I'd have our network people contact his IT department Monday
morning about upgrading their network to our recommended capacity. If
the Chief complained it never reached me and all the other programmers
agreed with my handling of it.
Do I win? :D
In article <tkkm9e$pc9s$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2022 2:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tkeglo$cg6$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2022 8:35 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,911 Dispatch Systems on call programmer here.
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is >>>>>>>> not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding >>>>>>> legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time >>>>>>> at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts >>>>>>> at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the >>>>>> boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe
era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort >>>>>> of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to; >>>>>> we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from >>>>>> factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had >>>>>> to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
(Hal Heydt)
So ALL your calls were dire emergencies.
Well, all the after hours ones were. I had one weekend where I went to
work on Friday, went home at the end of my usual work day and was awake
until Monday morning dealing with 50 to 60 priority 1 TSRs (a normal
weekend would have half a dozen), THEN had to go in to the office Monday
morning because my supervisor had scheduled a meeting with me for
immediately after the Monday morning staff meeting without telling me
what it was about. I was the first give me report (all projects ahead
of schedule, which meant under-budget) and then passed out, having been
awake for 72+ hours straight at that point. Someone woke me when the
meeting ended, I staggered after my supervisor for our meeting. As soon
as we were in his office he told me he had rescheduled it. When we had
the meeting a few days later it was to reprimand me for falling asleep
in the staff meeting. o_O (Obviously that wasn't the original reason,
the real reason was so he could reprimand me for _something_ because the
company had new owners and was looking to lower payroll thru
"attrition". Even the HR person who was in the meeting with us agreed
with my complaint about that and that reprimand didn't go in my file.
Of course the supervisor just threw out another BS "reprimand" that I
was "too friendly" with the clients' personnel but he weasel worded that
enough that HR couldn't throw it out.)
Another one. When we got these after hours priority 1 calls the contact
was usually a dispatch supervisor or a senior dispatcher. Sometimes it
was someone in the agency's IT department. I got the page for this call
at 2am on a Sunday morning. Called the given number and the person who
answered identified themselves as the Chief of Police for <one of the
major west coast cities> and wanted to know why it was that as soon as
one of his officers had been shot _my_ system ground to a halt. (No
pressure. :P ) I finished connecting in to their system and quickly
saw what the problem was. They were overloading their network, too much
traffic because too many people were following the incident "live" and
they hadn't upgraded their network as we had advised when we installed
their system to be able to handle something like that. Called him back,
explained what I found and suggested that he have everyone who did NOT
have a NEED to be up to the second on the incident close out the window
they were following it on and just run a one-time 'query incident
history' when they wanted to see what the current situation was. I also
said I'd have our network people contact his IT department Monday
morning about upgrading their network to our recommended capacity. If
the Chief complained it never reached me and all the other programmers
agreed with my handling of it.
Do I win? :D
(Hal Heydt)
You win. Thos are certainly far more traumatic incidents than
anything I ever had to deal with.
While I din't have to *do* anything--other than get out of the
way--one shop I worked in had (1) an explosive concentration of
natural gas in the machine room (on the 14th floor of 1
Embarcadero Center, no less), and (2) a "flood" affecting that
same machine room when a 1.5" water line with 30 stories of
pressure head drained a 10K gallon holding tank under the false
floor.
I was present for a couple of other incidents. One was in a
conferencce room on the 14th floor when the Coalinga 'quake hit.
Most of the rest of the people in the meeting were management and
I was asked why I'd gotten under the table. My reply was that I
did what *corporate* *policy* called for in that situation. They
conceded that I was correct. At a different company where I was
the only non-management presnt (I was brought along as "our"
sides token techie), the data center people asserted that what we wanted--send data from a ASCII terminal emulator to an EBCDIC
mainframe couldn't be done. So I (innocently) asked why not,
since I'd been doing just that about 5 years earlier at another
company. The data center folks immediately said, "Well, we've
never done it." Fortunately the folks on my side of the table
recognized the difference. A few months later a "new" feature
was rolled out (i.e. they'd recompiled the code that ran the 3705 communications controller to do protocol and character conversions).
In article <tkkm9e$pc9s$1@dont-email.me>,
(Hal Heydt)
You win. Thos are certainly far more traumatic incidents than
anything I ever had to deal with.
While I din't have to *do* anything--other than get out of the
way--one shop I worked in had (1) an explosive concentration of
natural gas in the machine room (on the 14th floor of 1
Embarcadero Center, no less), and (2) a "flood" affecting that
same machine room when a 1.5" water line with 30 stories of
pressure head drained a 10K gallon holding tank under the false
floor.
I was present for a couple of other incidents. One was in a
conferencce room on the 14th floor when the Coalinga 'quake hit.
Most of the rest of the people in the meeting were management and
I was asked why I'd gotten under the table. My reply was that I
did what *corporate* *policy* called for in that situation. They
conceded that I was correct. At a different company where I was
the only non-management presnt (I was brought along as "our"
sides token techie), the data center people asserted that what we wanted--send data from a ASCII terminal emulator to an EBCDIC
mainframe couldn't be done. So I (innocently) asked why not,
since I'd been doing just that about 5 years earlier at another
company. The data center folks immediately said, "Well, we've
never done it." Fortunately the folks on my side of the table
recognized the difference. A few months later a "new" feature
was rolled out (i.e. they'd recompiled the code that ran the 3705 communications controller to do protocol and character conversions).
In article <tkkm9e$pc9s$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/10/2022 2:04 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tkeglo$cg6$1@dont-email.me>,
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 11/8/2022 8:35 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <FLucnQmw-L_Pj_X-nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>,911 Dispatch Systems on call programmer here.
John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/22 2:10 AM, Default User wrote:
Thomas Koenig wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> schrieb:
Dilbert: Dilbert Quiet Quits
https://dilbert.com/strip/2022-10-22
Based on a true story.
I'm not sure what the recent rage over quiet quitting is. It is >>>>>>>> not a new phenomenom. In the Dilbertverse, Wally has done so
for decades.
Not really. As I understand the concept, it doesn't mean avoiding >>>>>>> legitimate work or goofing off. Instead, it means that when your time >>>>>>> at work is done, you are off duty. No answering calls, emails or texts >>>>>>> at night, weekends, vacations, that sort of thing.
As is often the case, people hear the term and put their own
interpretation to it.
It can easily drift into other things, like not bothering to tell the >>>>>> boss that he’s just told you to do something impossible.
Actually, the whole thing is alien to me, because I’m from the mainframe
era, and, for years, I was the only person who could respond to any sort >>>>>> of software emergency. If I had to put in 36 hours straight, I had to; >>>>>> we were a billion-dollar company with only one computer (apart from >>>>>> factory-floor and laboratory minis), and the billing and the payroll had >>>>>> to keep rolling or there’d be Hell to pay.
(Hal Heydt)
I, too, spent some years as The Programmer On Call.
(Hal Heydt)
So ALL your calls were dire emergencies.
Well, all the after hours ones were. I had one weekend where I went to >>work on Friday, went home at the end of my usual work day and was awake >>until Monday morning dealing with 50 to 60 priority 1 TSRs (a normal >>weekend would have half a dozen), THEN had to go in to the office Monday >>morning because my supervisor had scheduled a meeting with me for >>immediately after the Monday morning staff meeting without telling me
what it was about. I was the first give me report (all projects ahead
of schedule, which meant under-budget) and then passed out, having been >>awake for 72+ hours straight at that point. Someone woke me when the >>meeting ended, I staggered after my supervisor for our meeting. As soon
as we were in his office he told me he had rescheduled it. When we had
the meeting a few days later it was to reprimand me for falling asleep
in the staff meeting. o_O (Obviously that wasn't the original reason,
the real reason was so he could reprimand me for _something_ because the >>company had new owners and was looking to lower payroll thru
"attrition". Even the HR person who was in the meeting with us agreed
with my complaint about that and that reprimand didn't go in my file.
Of course the supervisor just threw out another BS "reprimand" that I
was "too friendly" with the clients' personnel but he weasel worded that >>enough that HR couldn't throw it out.)
Another one. When we got these after hours priority 1 calls the contact >>was usually a dispatch supervisor or a senior dispatcher. Sometimes it
was someone in the agency's IT department. I got the page for this call
at 2am on a Sunday morning. Called the given number and the person who >>answered identified themselves as the Chief of Police for <one of the
major west coast cities> and wanted to know why it was that as soon as
one of his officers had been shot _my_ system ground to a halt. (No >>pressure. :P ) I finished connecting in to their system and quickly
saw what the problem was. They were overloading their network, too much >>traffic because too many people were following the incident "live" and
they hadn't upgraded their network as we had advised when we installed >>their system to be able to handle something like that. Called him back, >>explained what I found and suggested that he have everyone who did NOT
have a NEED to be up to the second on the incident close out the window >>they were following it on and just run a one-time 'query incident
history' when they wanted to see what the current situation was. I also >>said I'd have our network people contact his IT department Monday
morning about upgrading their network to our recommended capacity. If
the Chief complained it never reached me and all the other programmers >>agreed with my handling of it.
Do I win? :D
(Hal Heydt)
You win. Thos are certainly far more traumatic incidents than
anything I ever had to deal with.
While I din't have to *do* anything--other than get out of the
way--one shop I worked in had (1) an explosive concentration of
natural gas in the machine room (on the 14th floor of 1
Embarcadero Center, no less), and (2) a "flood" affecting that
same machine room when a 1.5" water line with 30 stories of
pressure head drained a 10K gallon holding tank under the false
floor.
I was present for a couple of other incidents. One was in a
conferencce room on the 14th floor when the Coalinga 'quake hit.
Most of the rest of the people in the meeting were management and
I was asked why I'd gotten under the table. My reply was that I
did what *corporate* *policy* called for in that situation. They
conceded that I was correct. At a different company where I was
the only non-management presnt (I was brought along as "our"
sides token techie), the data center people asserted that what we >wanted--send data from a ASCII terminal emulator to an EBCDIC
mainframe couldn't be done. So I (innocently) asked why not,
since I'd been doing just that about 5 years earlier at another
company. The data center folks immediately said, "Well, we've
never done it." Fortunately the folks on my side of the table
recognized the difference. A few months later a "new" feature
was rolled out (i.e. they'd recompiled the code that ran the 3705 >communications controller to do protocol and character conversions).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 09:39:19 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,844 |
| Posted today: | 1 |