Picking on the CC seems like a bad example to me. As alluded too, I think the guys that run the CC would be the first to admit that theres problems to iron out.
But it would seem the far bigger problem is getting more people generating CC (or equally fair-use friendly) content. My company does CC-BY-SA Travel information (travel guides and restaurant reviews) and truth is it sucks. We are just starting out, so I suppose its to be expected on our end, but even the biggest player is bad compared to commercially licensed content. Theres actually a great article here some guy wrote about how horrible copyleft travel information is compared to commercially generated information.
In my opinion we first need to get more people actually generating copy left style content thats inherently more fair use friendly, before we quabble about problems with the license. Even in your own example with the albums, if there were 60,000 albums licensed CC-BY instead of 60, your impression conceivably would have been much different.
I agree with rossifer. In actuality, there are plenty of companies that aren't looking for experience, but are looking for raw ability. Heck its in Google's hiring charter "we value ability over experience". My company is the same and so are plenty of others. When I'm interviewing candidates, I'll choose a kid who quite clearly is a good problem solver, has solid engineering fundamentals, and comes from a good university over a guy with a mile long resume any day.
In my experience, if a company is looking for a mile long resume there are two scenarios present: 1. They are looking for a high level position, that an entry level guy isn't qualified for, or 2. the hiring managers are idiots themselves and won't be able tell what a good software engineer would look like so they have to compensate by relying on an inflated resume.
As an entry level guy trying to find his first job, you really don't care about scenario 1 or 2. Your not qualified for scenario 1 and you don't actually want scenario 2.
Instead what you should look for are companies that innovate, ones that have a strong tech department in the first place. Because the companies that don't are looking to hire a monkey to do monkey jobs. And if you really have the chops to be a good software engineer, then you don't worry about the monkey jobs - let them go to India, or the moon for that matter. Companies that you WANT to be mentoring you are the same ones that will be able to recognize your talent and ignore your thin resume.
What we have here is another usual question that all really depends on your project type.
That being said, I'll try to break from the typical, slashdot format and attempt to address your question:
Maturity of Solution: 1st PHP5, then Ruby, then Cake. Shouldn't be a lot of controversy here. PHP has been around since the dinosaur age, ruby came around with all that slick don't repeate yourself talk and then cake came about and tried to add ruby like framework to PHP.
Features is really going to depend on what your looking for. Rails allows you to write a lot of fairly complex stuff quickly, cake arguably has better built in security, PHP5 will scale better then any of them.
Everybody and their mama knows php5, any new kid thats worth a darn is probably learning rails, and then there's cake, which has nowhere near the dev support of the other two.
Rails wins here if your starting from scratch, but since so many devs already have php experience, complexity becomes sort of relative.
For better or worse, if you were to poll most devs that are building commercial production apps (at least out of the three options mentioned) php5 is going to win hands down. For my company it was a simple decision that hinges on two of the points: scaling and experience. We wanted something to scale to slashdot numbers, while being able to hire a bunch of kids from college to help the dev team build it all. Typical of online startups, we wanted the most bang for the bucks, and php5 was the choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Picking on the CC seems like a bad example to me. As alluded too, I think the guys that run the CC would be the first to admit that theres problems to iron out.
But it would seem the far bigger problem is getting more people generating CC (or equally fair-use friendly) content. My company does CC-BY-SA Travel information (travel guides and restaurant reviews) and truth is it sucks. We are just starting out, so I suppose its to be expected on our end, but even the biggest player is bad compared to commercially licensed content. Theres actually a great article here some guy wrote about how horrible copyleft travel information is compared to commercially generated information.
In my opinion we first need to get more people actually generating copy left style content thats inherently more fair use friendly, before we quabble about problems with the license. Even in your own example with the albums, if there were 60,000 albums licensed CC-BY instead of 60, your impression conceivably would have been much different.
I agree with rossifer.
In actuality, there are plenty of companies that aren't looking for experience, but are looking for raw ability. Heck its in Google's hiring charter "we value ability over experience". My company is the same and so are plenty of others. When I'm interviewing candidates, I'll choose a kid who quite clearly is a good problem solver, has solid engineering fundamentals, and comes from a good university over a guy with a mile long resume any day.
In my experience, if a company is looking for a mile long resume there are two scenarios present: 1. They are looking for a high level position, that an entry level guy isn't qualified for, or 2. the hiring managers are idiots themselves and won't be able tell what a good software engineer would look like so they have to compensate by relying on an inflated resume.
As an entry level guy trying to find his first job, you really don't care about scenario 1 or 2. Your not qualified for scenario 1 and you don't actually want scenario 2.
Instead what you should look for are companies that innovate, ones that have a strong tech department in the first place. Because the companies that don't are looking to hire a monkey to do monkey jobs. And if you really have the chops to be a good software engineer, then you don't worry about the monkey jobs - let them go to India, or the moon for that matter. Companies that you WANT to be mentoring you are the same ones that will be able to recognize your talent and ignore your thin resume.
What we have here is another usual question that all really depends on your project type. That being said, I'll try to break from the typical, slashdot format and attempt to address your question:
P.S. A similar question of Rails vs PHP vs Java question was somewhat subjectively discussed late last year http://www.cmswire.com/cms/industry-news/php-vs-ja va-vs-ruby-000887.php