• (cs) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    DailyWTF:
    ...the new Head of IT had come from an organization where kitschy meant progressive...
    Does anyone have the slightest idea WTF this is supposed to mean?

    "progressive meant kitschy" would make more sense to me. The other way would be an oxymoron.

  • Beta (unregistered)

    Hassan made a neat tool that could relieve everyone of a lot of drudge work. Miranda wound up occupying that niche, doing that very same drudge work for a salary. If, in the next paragraph, Miranda had jealously defended her niche, to the point of sabotaging the tool and slandering Hassan, this story would have started to sound eerily familiar.

  • brian (unregistered) in reply to Addison

    Access can handle that no problem if designed well. Anything else would be overkill for the specific task in hand.

    I have over 20 ppl using an Access database at once with about a thousand updates a day. I am planning on moving over to SQL Server when it gets approved, but Access is still quite capible of doing the job for now.

  • Jason (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    Jason:
    that was alll completely irrelevent.
    So is 99% of Harry Potter. It could have been condensed to:

    "My name is Harry Potter. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    The rest is just there to make the story more interesting.

    Don't get me started!

    Technically, most of the Harry Potter padding was just there so that the story couldn't possibly resolve until the end of the school year.. even if that meant that the characters had to be selectively stupid.

    Also, for some reason the Harry Potter filler was more interesting than:

    "With 128MB, they struggled to keep up with Windows NT 4.0 and Office 97. He had persuaded the board to allocate millions to replace every workstation and server, and upgrade the infrastructure to match"

    Maybe it's just an IT thing :)

  • d.k. Allen (unregistered) in reply to EngleBart
    EngleBart:
    o Memory Lane: I used to run IIS 2.0 on Windows NT Server 4.0 with only 12MB of RAM. I did not have a CD drive nor enough HD space for the database I needed, so I mapped a network drive to another computers CD drive. It was a work of art. It took a few minutes to boot up, but once it stabilized it had acceptable performance. Of course, this was a dev server and we were thankful to have it at all. The production server was state of the art.

    Back in my day, we had to punch our html onto cards with a hole-punch, and the Submit button was an actual physical button on the card reader. The web server had 256kw of memory, and Miranda was a 52-year-old clerk who took the web pages off the printer, separated them, and distributed them to the users waiting at the dispatch window.

  • (cs) in reply to ubersoldat
    ubersoldat:
    in '99 you had apache, php and mysql, so I don't see why would anyone do such a thing...
    In 1999, any M$ shop which was MS-only would probably not have heard of Apache, PHP, or MySQL: that's why.

    And even if the said 1999-vintage M$ shop had heard of Apache, PHP, and MySQL, those pieces of software would be regarded by management as:

    1. 'Beardy sandal-wearer' software.
    2. 'Suspicious' and/or 'unproven.'
    3. Subject to hacker attacks or otherwise 'not secure enough.'
    4. Not compatible with the company's corporate software.

    Given the other massive M$ spends that Hassan's shop were making: if they were going to do ANYthing Web-based, I'd more or less guarantee they would have gone with IIS and MS-SQL Server.

  • (cs) in reply to TopCod3r
    TopCod3r:
    In many ways I think that ASP is better than ASP.NET. The biggest culprit of this is code behind, I essentially have outlawed the use of code behind since it encourages you to write spaghetti code. I say essentially outlawed because if you really need to you can put in a request to the architecture group and it can be approved on a case-by-case basis if you need it.

    Nice troll. Hope you catch something.

  • (cs) in reply to Lars
    Lars:
    The thing about codebehind is that it should only contain simple view-logic. When you stuff it with a lot of business and persistence logic, you throw flexibility and reusability out the window.

    People have been writing complex apps in ASP.NET using almost only code-behind for years, and the legacy they have left behind is horrible.

    Not that that's ASP.NET's fault; I've seen those same people write complex apps in Access and Lotus-Notes-script, and the legacy they've left behind is far worse. At least ASP.NET is broken down into separate text files.

    I'm several months into my first official ASP.NET project (I had to finish up a couple others after the third-party developers dropped the ball) - I used SQL stored procedures from the start, but had to refactor more than one chunk of front-end logic into a class after discovering that yes, it did need to be used more than once after all.

  • Johnny Awkward (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    "My name is Harry Potter. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    Thankyou. That's one of the funniest things I've read here.

  • David (unregistered) in reply to TopCod3r

    LOL!!!!

    Unless you're serious of course ... in which case I'll need to know what company you manage so I can avoid ever thinking about working there ;-)

  • David (unregistered) in reply to David
    David:
    LOL!!!!

    Unless you're serious of course ... in which case I'll need to know what company you manage so I can avoid ever thinking about working there ;-)

    That was in response to "TopCoder" banning ASP.NET Codebehind and ViewState BTW ... didn't do the quote right.

    Captcha: Sagaciter ... in college I was an avid Sagaciter.

  • noone (unregistered) in reply to David
    It sounds like they already hired Miranda and did not want to get rid of her
    That's because Miranda is....Irish Girl!
  • Kingsnake (unregistered)

    TRWTF: That's not the Matterhorn.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to Zylon
    Zylon:
    DailyWTF:
    ...the new Head of IT had come from an organization where kitschy meant progressive...
    Does anyone have the slightest idea WTF this is supposed to mean?
    It means the new guy was one of those people who thinks they can make everyone work harder/better/faster through psychology. Oh no, you're not a "web developer." You're an "Internet Pioneer!" Now that I've made you feel important without any effort on my part, surely you'll run out and work 18 times as hard! These changes I am making are progress, and in no way are just highly visible but utterly superficial.

    All things considered, renaming things is the least obnoxious thing people do with their limited understanding of psychological conditioning. There's always some HR asshat out there with a minor in psychology who thinks that making everyone wear suits to work will make them do a better job. Let me be clear for those of you who've never experienced this: you're not wearing the suit to make you more appealing to a client, you're wearing it so you won't spend your day playing Solitaire. That's not the kind of thing someone in a suit would do. You know, because if you look professional you'll act professional.

    Of course, by that logic, the company would save a fortune by making their employees dress like they're homeless and paying them in crushed aluminum cans.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Ken B

    SPOILER ALERT!!!!

    Ken B:
    "My name is Harry Potter. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
  • John C. Kirk (unregistered)

    A few things seem odd about this story:

    1. As others have said, the survey isn't anonymous if they need to check everyone's name.

    2. I assume that people got free software at home via Microsoft's Home Use Program. There's no survey required for this - people just need to enter a code into the Microsoft website and pay for P&P.

    3. Technically, Office 2007 was available in 2006, but only at the very end of the year. (It was launched at the same time as Vista and Exchange 2007.) So, a more plausible configuration would be Windows XP, Office 2003, and Exchange 2003.

  • Somename (unregistered) in reply to Cad Delworth
    Cad Delworth:
    ubersoldat:
    in '99 you had apache, php and mysql, so I don't see why would anyone do such a thing...
    In 1999, any M$ shop which was MS-only would probably not have heard of Apache, PHP, or MySQL: that's why.
    Wasn't this story set in 2006?
  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to John C. Kirk
    John C. Kirk:
    1. As others have said, the survey isn't anonymous if they need to check everyone's name.
    The survey was "completely anonymous" not completely anonymous. There's a difference.
    John C. Kirk:
    2. I assume that people got free software at home via Microsoft's Home Use Program. There's no survey required for this - people just need to enter a code into the Microsoft website and pay for P&P.
    MS Office was distributed by IT in exchange for filling out the survey. The department probably didn't feel the need to tell people they could bypass filling out a "completely anonymous" survey that the new CIO wanted them to fill out by going to Microsoft's website.
    John C. Kirk:
    3. Technically, Office 2007 was available in 2006, but only at the very end of the year. (It was launched at the same time as Vista and Exchange 2007.) So, a more plausible configuration would be Windows XP, Office 2003, and Exchange 2003.
    Agreed here.
  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to John C. Kirk
    John C. Kirk:
    A few things seem odd about this story:
    1. As others have said, the survey isn't anonymous if they need to check everyone's name.
    "Can I have my free copy of the software? I promise that I filled out the survey." or "Can I have my free copy of the software? I promise I haven't already received it 8 times."

    Database 1: Names of all who have completed survey Database 2: Survey data No links between databases

    I have no idea how far they actually took this but it would be fairly easy to have two separate forms, one that recorded name and address and one that recorded survey data.

    Seal name data in envelope and include that envelope and survey data in submission.

    Person 1 reviews submissions and records survey data. When they validate a survey they put the, still sealed, name data into another pile of valid submissions.

    Person 2 takes this valid pile and records all the personal information for tracking who actually received a copy of office.

    Person 1 knows survey data but not who they match up with. Person 2 knows who submitted data but not what their survey answers were.

    Again, no idea if they cared enough to do this or just said "yea we won't yell at you if you say we suck." But asking personal data doesn't preclude something from being anonymous.

  • Kempeth (unregistered)

    Ahh, a hammer! With this I could make a tool to drive nails into wood...

  • the beholder (unregistered) in reply to John C. Kirk
    John C. Kirk:
    3. Technically, Office 2007 was available in 2006, but only at the very end of the year. (It was launched at the same time as Vista and Exchange 2007.) So, a more plausible configuration would be Windows XP, Office 2003, and Exchange 2003.
    Have you ever watched an upgrade process that big? In a government office I worked some years ago, requisitions for mere 20 licenses of an [OS/IDE/Components] could easily take 10 months to be approved by TPTB. Sometimes we would request something and it would be outdated before we laid hands on it.

    So I guess whoever decided for Office 2007 was already counting on it being launched way before the request approval.

  • MainCoder (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    frits:
    TopCod3r:
    Actually MVC was something that I had a hand in inventing many years ago, from some articles I wrote both internally in my company and also online, although it has been changed quite a bit from my original idea.
    I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea.
    Whose idea was it to market Windows version 6.1 (mine says "6.1.7600") under the name "Windows 7"?

    One number is the internal version, one number the external. What part of that don't you understand?

  • Massive Debt (unregistered) in reply to John
    John:
    Makes me think of the old Price is Right game where the Mountain man went up the price mountain yodeling. But I digress...

    ...and he fell off the cliff. That's how contestants lost that game.

  • (cs) in reply to Chris Haas
    Chris Haas:
    An Access database for a company with 2,000 users? Get more than 10 concurrent connections and you're hosed. Been there too many times.

    In a web app for Access there's only one user--the IIS Machine.

  • fred_ (unregistered) in reply to TopCod3r
    TopCod3r:
    Nice story. I'm glad they found his application useful. It goes to show that if you take initiative you can make a name for yourself even in a large company.

    I remember writing an application like this back in 2000... using ASP and Windows NT. In many ways I think that ASP is better than ASP.NET. For one thing it offers much more flexibility. A big problem I have with ASP.NET is it does not allow my development team to conform to the standards I created for how to write a web application. This makes it hard for me to educate the junior developers on my team about proper module design.

    The biggest culprit of this is code behind, I essentially have outlawed the use of code behind since it encourages you to write spaghetti code. I say essentially outlawed because if you really need to you can put in a request to the architecture group and it can be approved on a case-by-case basis if you need it.

    Thankfully without using code behind we can submit multiple forms to different aspx pages, and also are able to use <!--#include--> directives again, thus un-crippling ASP.NET back to the functionality that was available in ASP.

    (Don't get me started on viewstate, which is a reason I have outlawed the use of ASP.NET controls, and recommended the use of HTML controls instead. That discussion is for another time though. I could probably write a book on that one, or at least a codeproject article.)

    What's like back in th dark ages? Seperation of code from presentation.. OMG say it ain't so!

  • Finder Seeker (unregistered)
    everyone cheered at the chance to get a free copy of the office software
    Ahem... http://download.openoffice.org/

    Oh, that's right, back in the dark ages people thought only one organization was allowed to write software, and even though it costs about a penny to make another CD, software can't be any good unless you pay several hundred dollars for it.

  • Tarl Cabot (unregistered) in reply to TopCod3r
    TopCod3r:
    Actually MVC was something that I had a hand in inventing many years ago, from some articles I wrote both internally in my company and also online, although it has been changed quite a bit from my original idea.
    Right, I remember some of your blog posts. Back then MVC was envisioned as a "bridge" between the presentation layer and the back end, but whenever data tried to cross the bridge some stinking troll would pop out and demand his due!

    (Welcome back TC. ;)

  • (cs)

    this is not a WTF on an embedded system without a file system

  • sino (unregistered) in reply to Jeff
    Jeff:
    TRWTF is a p.o.c. that becomes production-ready with no additional work.
    I disagree!

    Good Sir,

    The pragmatic "production-ready" decision result points but to an incredible Proof, and/or an awesome Concept!

    TRWTF might be not writing proofs of concepts elegantly enough to be instantly "production-ready".*

    Cheers,

    XD

    *(It might be, but it's not)

  • Wolfraider (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    frits:
    TopCod3r:
    Actually MVC was something that I had a hand in inventing many years ago, from some articles I wrote both internally in my company and also online, although it has been changed quite a bit from my original idea.
    I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea.
    Whose idea was it to market Windows version 6.1 (mine says "6.1.7600") under the name "Windows 7"?

    ummm 6.1.7600? or 6 + 1 = 7.7600???

    Who knows?

  • F (unregistered) in reply to Addison
    Addison:
    Lars:
    You do realize that the DB connection won't be open until they actually press "Submit"?

    Damn it. Now I look like an idiot.

    "Now"?

  • sino (unregistered) in reply to Jason
    Jason:
    I know it's a tradition to pad these reports by about three paragraphs, but really, most of that stuff had nothing to do with the WTF.. The office-wide upgrade, the new IT guy, etc. -- that was all completely relevent.
    *koff*
    Scaling Project Mountain 2010-03-16

    by Mark Bowytz in Feature Articles

  • sino (unregistered) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    Jason:
    I know it's a tradition to pad these reports by about three paragraphs, but really, most of that stuff had nothing to do with the WTF.. The office-wide upgrade, the new IT guy, etc. -- that was alll completely irrelevent.
    So is 99% of Harry Potter. It could have been condensed to:

    "My name is Harry Potter. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    The rest is just there to make the story more interesting.

    :-)

    Yeah, I've heard that theory before. It's wrong.
    Alex Papadimoulis:
    ...take a good, hard look at your first revision and just say to yourself, "gloves".

  • Re:Me (unregistered) in reply to Ken B

    Whose Idea was it to market NT 5 as Windows 2000?

    Whose Idea was it to market Windows NT 5.1 as Windows XP?

    Um, I'm going to go out on a limb and say Marketing?

  • F (unregistered) in reply to Finder Seeker
    Finder Seeker:
    everyone cheered at the chance to get a free copy of the office software
    Ahem... http://download.openoffice.org/

    Oh, that's right, back in the dark ages people thought only one organization was allowed to write software, and even though it costs about a penny to make another CD, software can't be any good unless you pay several hundred dollars for it.

    You're forgetting the cost of that pretty box.

  • BF (unregistered) in reply to Addison
    Addison:
    Anon:
    Err, are you sure? It's not 2000 users constantly updating, it's 2000 entries in a DB over an 8 hour work day. I think the choice of Access for this rudimentary task would be fine.

    Wouldn't most of them do it in the first few days? If it takes 10 minutes each and 1000 people do it in the first 3 days that means 7 connections are open at once, on average. Go much above that average and you've got over 10 connections- more than a crappy server with a crappy access database can probably handle.

    A connection is open once to retrieve the page and once to save the results. This will most likely take under a second for each. While the site probably can't handle 2000 users simultaneously, it can probably easily process 2000 users in a 10 minute period.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to MainCoder
    MainCoder:
    Ken B:
    frits:
    TopCod3r:
    Actually MVC was something that I had a hand in inventing many years ago, from some articles I wrote both internally in my company and also online, although it has been changed quite a bit from my original idea.
    I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea.
    Whose idea was it to market Windows version 6.1 (mine says "6.1.7600") under the name "Windows 7"?

    One number is the internal version, one number the external. What part of that don't you understand?

    You're basically right but we need to clarify the terminology here:

    Internal version: The actual version of the software. External version: A random value that some marketing droid pulled out his ass to make the software sound more attractive - for example, by making it appear to be newer than it really is.

  • Hatterson (unregistered) in reply to BF
    BF:
    Addison:
    Anon:
    Err, are you sure? It's not 2000 users constantly updating, it's 2000 entries in a DB over an 8 hour work day. I think the choice of Access for this rudimentary task would be fine.

    Wouldn't most of them do it in the first few days? If it takes 10 minutes each and 1000 people do it in the first 3 days that means 7 connections are open at once, on average. Go much above that average and you've got over 10 connections- more than a crappy server with a crappy access database can probably handle.

    A connection is open once to retrieve the page and once to save the results. This will most likely take under a second for each. While the site probably can't handle 2000 users simultaneously, it can probably easily process 2000 users in a 10 minute period.

    Why would a DB connection be open to retrieve the page? He's not building a generic survey site. He's building a simple page that collects data for a static survey. There's absolutely nothing wrong with hard-coding all of the field names and/or acceptable values.

  • (cs) in reply to Lars
    Lars:
    The thing about codebehind is that it should only contain simple view-logic. When you stuff it with a lot of business and persistence logic, you throw flexibility and reusability out the window.

    People have been writing complex apps in ASP.NET using almost only code-behind for years, and the legacy they have left behind is horrible.

    The problem is the number of devs who don't know what business logic is. They think if it's not data access then it should go in the codebehind. They also don't understand how to keep data access separate from caching (I'm about to start showing how to cache to our team, because the boss is too worried we're going to the db too much... Who needs live data? ;-).

    Try reminding people sometimes they may need some bit of code in the aspx (it's like GOTO, used responsibly it's a boon, but you have to be able to WELL DEFINE the reason why your use case is responsible. Odds are, you're wrong if you want to use it, try again.) and you can see the brains asplode (see my previous parenthetical comment). They have become so ingrained lately that aspx is code free, markup only... I'm just glad when users don't put all their code in one page, I like my separation of code and design.

    Why did I start posting this crap again? </ramble><leave>

  • (cs) in reply to TopCod3r
    TopCod3r:
    Nice story. I'm glad they found his application useful. It goes to show that if you take initiative you can make a name for yourself even in a large company.

    I remember writing an application like this back in 2000... using ASP and Windows NT. In many ways I think that ASP is better than ASP.NET. For one thing it offers much more flexibility. A big problem I have with ASP.NET is it does not allow my development team to conform to the standards I created for how to write a web application. This makes it hard for me to educate the junior developers on my team about proper module design.

    The biggest culprit of this is code behind, I essentially have outlawed the use of code behind since it encourages you to write spaghetti code. I say essentially outlawed because if you really need to you can put in a request to the architecture group and it can be approved on a case-by-case basis if you need it.

    Thankfully without using code behind we can submit multiple forms to different aspx pages, and also are able to use <!--#include--> directives again, thus un-crippling ASP.NET back to the functionality that was available in ASP.

    (Don't get me started on viewstate, which is a reason I have outlawed the use of ASP.NET controls, and recommended the use of HTML controls instead. That discussion is for another time though. I could probably write a book on that one, or at least a codeproject article.)

    NICE! Myself, I've been trying to reinvent Microsoft's image from the outside by being quiet for years. I think I've finally reached a breakthrough. I've discovered nobody knows about my work!

    For my next project, I plan to redesign ASP.NET to include this way to never write code. All programs will just spring to life from some unknown* source.

    • ~ What?!? You've heard of India!?! Egads, my plan is RUINED!!! RUINED, I tell you, RUINED!!!

    **Also, nice troll, but I think his ears need a little more fuzz, and his shirt is too neatly pressed. Rip it a bit, have him sleep in it on the ground... that might help.

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    It's probably just as well - imagine who-knows-how-many folks attempting to simultaneously hit that poor little (probably) underpowered web server...
    I'm gonna guess about 2000 users will probably ever hit the site, total. Just a guess, I could be wrong...
  • (cs) in reply to Ken B
    Ken B:
    So is 99% of Harry Potter. It could have been condensed to:

    "My name is Harry Potter. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

    The rest is just there to make the story more interesting.

    :-)

    No Harry, I AM your father! Bwahahahahahaha!

  • (cs) in reply to d.k. Allen
    d.k. Allen:
    EngleBart:
    o Memory Lane: I used to run IIS 2.0 on Windows NT Server 4.0 with only 12MB of RAM. I did not have a CD drive nor enough HD space for the database I needed, so I mapped a network drive to another computers CD drive. It was a work of art. It took a few minutes to boot up, but once it stabilized it had acceptable performance. Of course, this was a dev server and we were thankful to have it at all. The production server was state of the art.

    Back in my day, we had to punch our html onto cards with a hole-punch, and the Submit button was an actual physical button on the card reader. The web server had 256kw of memory, and Miranda was a 52-year-old clerk who took the web pages off the printer, separated them, and distributed them to the users waiting at the dispatch window.

    No wooden table?

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to Finder Seeker
    Finder Seeker:
    Oh, that's right, back in the dark ages people thought only one organization was allowed to write software, and even though it costs about a penny to make another CD, software can't be any good unless you pay several hundred dollars for it.

    Plus the cost of the programmers who supplied something to put on that $.01 CD. Or do people work full-time for free on your planet?

  • Jerry (unregistered)

    TopCod3r, putting the F in WTF.

  • Finder Seeker (unregistered) in reply to Dan
    Dan:
    Finder Seeker:
    Oh, that's right, back in the dark ages people thought only one organization was allowed to write software, and even though it costs about a penny to make another CD, software can't be any good unless you pay several hundred dollars for it.

    Plus the cost of the programmers who supplied something to put on that $.01 CD. Or do people work full-time for free on your planet?

    On my planet, some of the people who love good software are willing to work for free to make it better. After all, they're usually adding a feature for their own benefit, and having done so, there is no additional cost in sharing it with a few billion other Earthlings.

    Those who think software development means a team of project managers, requirements analysts, graphic designers, compliance gatekeepers, meeting schedulers, note takers, status updaters, facilitators, communicators, presentation sizzlers, signoff refusers, teambuilding exercisers, diversity enforcers, committee members, supervisors, managers, more managers, and oh yes a developer -- need to get paid to tolerate this crap.

  • Ken B (unregistered) in reply to MainCoder
    MainCoder:
    Ken B:
    frits:
    TopCod3r:
    Actually MVC was something that I had a hand in inventing many years ago, from some articles I wrote both internally in my company and also online, although it has been changed quite a bit from my original idea.
    I'm a PC and Windows 7 was my idea.
    Whose idea was it to market Windows version 6.1 (mine says "6.1.7600") under the name "Windows 7"?
    One number is the internal version, one number the external. What part of that don't you understand?
    Yes, but since no one called XP "Windows 5", or Vista "Windows 6", why use "7"?

    On the other hand, how far backwards do you have to go from "Windows 2000" all the way back to "Windows 7"?

    (And, no, the answer isn't "1993".)

  • Bim Job (unregistered) in reply to dogbrags
    dogbrags:
    TopCod3r:
    In many ways I think that ASP is better than ASP.NET. The biggest culprit of this is code behind, I essentially have outlawed the use of code behind since it encourages you to write spaghetti code. I say essentially outlawed because if you really need to you can put in a request to the architecture group and it can be approved on a case-by-case basis if you need it.

    Nice troll. Hope you catch something.

    I've never understood why disagreeing with a paragraph written by somebody else, whether or not they are a "troll," would induce a passive-aggressive desire for something, anything, a virus maybe, to attack them.

    Breathe in. Breathe out. Say after me: "I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong. How's the Missus?"

  • Bim Job (unregistered)

    "While he had some experience in VBScript, he knew little about ASP programming." The whole thing goes downhill (via Access) from there.

    But, we've all been there. My equivalent of "Matterhorn" was "Sierra." (Non-obfuscated.)

    What is it with these management loons that they're always talking about mountain peaks and locker-rooms and (occasionally) Marine boot-camps and rather nasty photographs of donkeys having sex with women?

    What's wrong with just talking about software?

  • swordfishBob (unregistered)

    I thought they wouldn't deploy the app as it embarassingly demonstrates what could be achieved with the existing technology.

    Captcha=augue = augmented (better) arguing?

Leave a comment on “Scaling Project Mountain”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article