What you are looking at is corporate environments; the studios of the past (Ex: Westwood and Blizzard) had a small headcounts, and people were direct decision makers.
> StarCraft was originally envisioned as a game with modest goals that could fit into a one-year development cycle so that it could be released for Christmas, 1996
> Warcraft II had only six core programmers and two support programmers; that was too few for the larger scope of StarCraft,
No boardrooms of PMs, and Directors, and VPs, and execs, chiming in every decision, leading to fast turnarounds.
This is pretty much what this solution does, but through udev.
Systemd, D-Bus, and udev can be used separately or together to make this easier to listen in userland, it will just be dependent on your distribution or setup.
OpenCV and other onboard computer softwares can be trained to recognize shapes, 10+ years ago there was a demo of a NodeCopter controlled small drone following red flags.
Stick the GPS coord, fly there, and once in a geofence look for a shape to crash into doesn't seem impossible given what was possible 10 years ago.
The big difference is they can now run this on the copter instead of being remotely controlled; a 100$ raspberry pi has enough processing power for this, and so does several other off-the-shelf mini computers powered by lithium batteries.
Gnome2 was a good functional desktop, sure it was copying the 2000s with windows 98/2000 style, but it worked. Hell, even OpenStep is more functional than Gnome3 as a daily computer interface.
Gnome3 targeted a weird mix of incompatible devices, like a windows 8 interface, and kinda failed as a design given the devices it optimized for never took over the market. There's not that many tablets running Gnome or touchscreen laptops anymore.
It's almost like Android took the design team by complete surprise, while they tried to make desktops a tablet experience, but failed at doing both.
This becomes quickly apparent in a smaller company or if you have a manager that knows what they are doing.
You'll get hired, if you pass the technical interviews, but if you cannot contribute at the level they hired you, you'll be exited and that will be suspicious for your next application.
yup! FreeBSD jails are essentially what OP wants with chroot++.
I was pretty puzzled when Docker and LXC came around as this whole new thing believed to have "never been done before"; FreeBSD had supported a very similar concept for years before security groups were added in Linux.
Jails and ezjail were stellar to make mini no-overhead containers when running various services on a server. Being able to archive them and expand them on a new machine was also pretty cool (as long as the BSD version was the same.)
A big one is the lack of peer reviews and processes, including team meetings, that would slow them down. No PM, no UX, just yourself and the keyboard with some goals in mind. No OKRs or tickets to close.
It's a bit like any early industry, from cars to airplanes to trains. Earlier models were made by a select few people, and there was several versions until today where GM and Ford have thousands of people involved in designing a single car iteration.
Yes... If I remember we were aiming for the newly released "Windows 8"-based Phone OS, and the previous version was fully incompatible with it so all apps had to be redone. Tiles were the new thing to build for.
I was on the DVLUP project where Nokia and Microsoft attempted to inject energy into windows phone app development. We could see the tension between the two companies as we were a 3rd party contracted by Nokia to build the platform. The Nokia exec we were in contact with was fantastic, and really tried to make Windows Phone a success. Unfortunately the Nokia IT teams we worked with were not happy and essentially tried to sabotage through inactions (we just needed OAuth / SSO to link accounts and track app installs, it took over 3 months of email chains within Nokia).
> Yes there is collateral damage because Hamas uses civilians as human shields, so we have no choice but to kill them too, but we do not specifically target them.
> we have no choice but to kill them too, but we do not specifically target them
The story of Starcraft 1 is quite interesting as the devs copied the Warcraft 2 code and began changing it quickly[1](https://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/tough-times-on-the-road-to-...).
> StarCraft was originally envisioned as a game with modest goals that could fit into a one-year development cycle so that it could be released for Christmas, 1996 > Warcraft II had only six core programmers and two support programmers; that was too few for the larger scope of StarCraft,
No boardrooms of PMs, and Directors, and VPs, and execs, chiming in every decision, leading to fast turnarounds.