I suspect that I've been burning my LPs and analog tapes to CD for a somewhat longer time period than most of the folks here have been burning music CDs on their PCs (hint: I bought it in 1998).:-)
Of course, I make CD-to-CD copies using my PC burner these days, but I didn't buy the above component strictly for (or even mainly for) digital-to-digital transfers. I bought it to digitize my analog music collection.
It's also admittedly been nice to have a "digital tape deck" that lets me do transfers of music from any source to CD at the touch of a button with no computer required.
Even if you get something wrong (as I've done more than once here ), it's an opportunity to have your memory refreshed by someone else, and other folks here can learn from the exchange as well.
I still use StarOffice 5.1a for OS/2 once or twice a week, so it's basic nature is probably a little closer to the top of my mind than most people's...:-)
I think you misunderstand. I've been writing code professionally for 17 years now in various contexts, and I've learned that every business has its own culture and its own set of idiosyncrasies.
When it comes to internal software development, I suspect there is no "typical" company.
I'm only questioning the (apparent) high level of specificity in your stated requirements for the Windows device driver developer position.
(I've not seen the actual job posting -- all I have to go by is your comments here on Slashdot).
By specifying "Windows device driver developer" and looking only at that very specific subset of Windows development experience, you seem to be putting up an artificial barrier that locks out a sizable number of experienced Windows developers who may have been able to do that type of task with very little adjustment.
That's all I'm saying. If the folks interpreting incoming resumes are actually being given a little more latitude when doing their evaluations, then I could be mistaken. I'm just giving you my initial impression.
The WORLDFLIGHT flight operations system I worked on at NWA for the better part of a decade was a very complex online transaction system. Over 1000 discrete transaction codes, 2 million LOC (Fortran) even with very heavy use of the external subroutine library, roughly 30 feet of paper *programmer* documentation, additional end-user docs, vendor docs, language and platform manuals, etc.
I could probably bring someone up to speed so they'd be effective in a bug hunting or even development role in two to three weeks.
That involves a lot more knowledge than your DICOM specification, believe me.
If you don't have an in-house DICOM expert, I'm a little more sympathetic.
If you do, however, I'd say you're digging your own hole here.
I don't personally know anyone whose written Windows device drivers, and I know a lot of people writing various forms of software on a variety of different platforms, businesses, and geographic areas.
Maybe it's a more specialized skill than you think?
What would a typical company need specialized Windows drivers for?
Unless they actually create hardware devices that are used on Windows systems (and that don't use a reference driver from someone else), that isn't going to be part of their problem domain.
I tend to hit/. so fast during the week (often literally doing so between compiles when I have some down time) that I'm not always careful about the specific phrasing I use.
That doesn't make it a common skill in the general programmer population, however, and that's my point.
We use a lot of specific technology in the airline industry, also, but over the years we learned that the probability of finding someone who knows those formats, languages, or systems/environments was just about zero unless they'd actually worked in the airline industry before.
Because of this, we decided that some level of basic technical training was going to be a fact of life regardless of who we hired, and in the long run that turned out to be better. A person with good previous general software development/support experience proved to be more valuable than some of the folks we'd hired who already knew the specific technology!
Don't be too sure that someone couldn't learn about DICOM in a week. I had a contract once where I knew the main language being used but I didn't know anything about the specific database in use, any of the text editors, or the general programming environment, and I was writing productive code at that site (and modifying an existing program) inside four hours, mainly thanks to their willingness to teach me what was needed.
...that they could walk into a room filled with several dozen experienced programmers, interview each one, and fail to find a single "qualfied" candidate.
Remember that not everyone has formal experience using the same set of specific products or tools that you have, and that many things (like file formats) are relatively easy for almost anyone to pick up and work with if they're even remotely competent.
16"x12"x12" "small" (book) boxes are only $25.50 for a 15-pack ($1.70 apiece), which admittedly isn't as cheap as places like U-Line, but I've gotten three moves out of some of mine.:-)
With all due respect, both WFW 3.11 and NT 3.51 were released around the time I suggested that the Windows user base really took off (Feb 1994 and June 1995 respectively).
Both of them also followed the time that OS/2 was hurt by ISV deals and PC preloads by at least two years, and perhaps three.
I hardly think my history lesson is skewed. You may want to revisit your memories again...
Many of the deals Microsoft made with PC makers and with application developers were made in the early 1990's when Microsoft Windows was 16-bit (v3.0 and 3.1) and was still gaining marketshare.
The PC users at that time were mostly running DOS, and some ran Windows, DESQView, or OS/2 as multitaskers, but GUI applications were few and far between.
Windows didn't obtain the kind of user support that *you're* talking about until well after Microsoft Office had been around for a few incarnations (around the time of the Windows 95 release). Before that, it was just one of many GUI environments and toolkits in use (albeit one of the more prevalent ones).
Microsoft has effectively eliminated its commercial competition in the desktop OS market. It is no longer viable for a commercial entity to attempt to create an OS in the desktop space.
If that isn't a monopoly position in that market, I'm not really sure what would qualify...
(1) My main (serious) desktop system (2) My secondary (Windows/gaming) system (3) My tertiary (OS testing/playing) system (4) Wife's main (serious) machine (5) File server (for common files) (6) Firewall
Oops. That's six machines.:-)
I actually have nine in total, not including the Mac, because I found that multiple cheap SCSI boxes can make very good file servers. YMMV.
With Windows being the only option when buying a new PC from most vendors, and with Microsoft requiring key ISVs to only develop for Windows in order to obtain the latest and greatest developer information, Microsoft didn't have to do that much marketing to the end user.
IBM's entire culture underwent a change because of the DOJ, and Microsoft owes part of its existence to the fact that IBM was limited in what it could do to make the PC an IBM-only product.
Microsoft, on the other hand, hasn't had to change a thing. If anything, their abuses are more brazen now then they were in the Netscape days.
Did Amiga have easy to use wifi? No? Did Amiga have a media player, instant messaging program, or web server built in? Did it have 3D graphics?
If it still existed today, you *bet* it would have all of those things. The Amiga's core strength was multimedia -- the Video Toaster beat EVERYTHING that the PC had to offer in its day.
Installation could be a pain, but preinstallations would have rendered that moot.
OS/2 2.0's GUI in 1992 (the WorkPlace Shell) was far closer to Win95's GUI than anything else, and folks seen to have adopted that GUI just fine even though it uses two mouse buttons.
BeOS is effectively dead. OS/2 is being EOL'd in 2006. Linux and BSD are community-created software which came from outside the marketplace. Sun's x86 offering is a curiosity at best.
MacOSX requires hardware blessed by Apple, so it still doesn't directly compete.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us geeks with audiophilic tendencies weren't willing to wait until the PC world caught up, and I actually still use it from time to time.
More info here:
:-)
http://www.gallagher.com/music/cdr.htm
I suspect that I've been burning my LPs and analog tapes to CD for a somewhat longer time period than most of the folks here have been burning music CDs on their PCs (hint: I bought it in 1998).
Of course, I make CD-to-CD copies using my PC burner these days, but I didn't buy the above component strictly for (or even mainly for) digital-to-digital transfers. I bought it to digitize my analog music collection.
It's also admittedly been nice to have a "digital tape deck" that lets me do transfers of music from any source to CD at the touch of a button with no computer required.
My Philips CD burner will only burn music to CD-R blanks which are marked in a certain way and which are formally certified for music use.
Those blanks are more expensive than data CD-R blanks because the music industry already gets a cut.
Even if you get something wrong (as I've done more than once here ), it's an opportunity to have your memory refreshed by someone else, and other folks here can learn from the exchange as well.
:-)
I still use StarOffice 5.1a for OS/2 once or twice a week, so it's basic nature is probably a little closer to the top of my mind than most people's...
I think you misunderstand. I've been writing code professionally for 17 years now in various contexts, and I've learned that every business has its own culture and its own set of idiosyncrasies.
When it comes to internal software development, I suspect there is no "typical" company.
I'm only questioning the (apparent) high level of specificity in your stated requirements for the Windows device driver developer position.
(I've not seen the actual job posting -- all I have to go by is your comments here on Slashdot).
By specifying "Windows device driver developer" and looking only at that very specific subset of Windows development experience, you seem to be putting up an artificial barrier that locks out a sizable number of experienced Windows developers who may have been able to do that type of task with very little adjustment.
That's all I'm saying. If the folks interpreting incoming resumes are actually being given a little more latitude when doing their evaluations, then I could be mistaken. I'm just giving you my initial impression.
I've not actually met you in person, though. :-)
Neither StarOffice 3.x, 4.x, or 5.x for OS/2 was written in Java. It's native software, though it did use a cross-platform GUI toolkit.
That's the question you need to ask yourself.
The WORLDFLIGHT flight operations system I worked on at NWA for the better part of a decade was a very complex online transaction system. Over 1000 discrete transaction codes, 2 million LOC (Fortran) even with very heavy use of the external subroutine library, roughly 30 feet of paper *programmer* documentation, additional end-user docs, vendor docs, language and platform manuals, etc.
I could probably bring someone up to speed so they'd be effective in a bug hunting or even development role in two to three weeks.
That involves a lot more knowledge than your DICOM specification, believe me.
If you don't have an in-house DICOM expert, I'm a little more sympathetic.
If you do, however, I'd say you're digging your own hole here.
I don't personally know anyone whose written Windows device drivers, and I know a lot of people writing various forms of software on a variety of different platforms, businesses, and geographic areas.
Maybe it's a more specialized skill than you think?
What would a typical company need specialized Windows drivers for?
Unless they actually create hardware devices that are used on Windows systems (and that don't use a reference driver from someone else), that isn't going to be part of their problem domain.
I tend to hit /. so fast during the week (often literally doing so between compiles when I have some down time) that I'm not always careful about the specific phrasing I use.
:-)
Sorry for the confusion.
That doesn't make it a common skill in the general programmer population, however, and that's my point.
We use a lot of specific technology in the airline industry, also, but over the years we learned that the probability of finding someone who knows those formats, languages, or systems/environments was just about zero unless they'd actually worked in the airline industry before.
Because of this, we decided that some level of basic technical training was going to be a fact of life regardless of who we hired, and in the long run that turned out to be better. A person with good previous general software development/support experience proved to be more valuable than some of the folks we'd hired who already knew the specific technology!
Don't be too sure that someone couldn't learn about DICOM in a week. I had a contract once where I knew the main language being used but I didn't know anything about the specific database in use, any of the text editors, or the general programming environment, and I was writing productive code at that site (and modifying an existing program) inside four hours, mainly thanks to their willingness to teach me what was needed.
...that they could walk into a room filled with several dozen experienced programmers, interview each one, and fail to find a single "qualfied" candidate.
Remember that not everyone has formal experience using the same set of specific products or tools that you have, and that many things (like file formats) are relatively easy for almost anyone to pick up and work with if they're even remotely competent.
16"x12"x12" "small" (book) boxes are only $25.50 for a 15-pack ($1.70 apiece), which admittedly isn't as cheap as places like U-Line, but I've gotten three moves out of some of mine. :-)
This page also has a lot of interesting info about the history of right-sided and left-sided driving.
With all due respect, both WFW 3.11 and NT 3.51 were released around the time I suggested that the Windows user base really took off (Feb 1994 and June 1995 respectively).
Both of them also followed the time that OS/2 was hurt by ISV deals and PC preloads by at least two years, and perhaps three.
I hardly think my history lesson is skewed. You may want to revisit your memories again...
Many of the deals Microsoft made with PC makers and with application developers were made in the early 1990's when Microsoft Windows was 16-bit (v3.0 and 3.1) and was still gaining marketshare.
The PC users at that time were mostly running DOS, and some ran Windows, DESQView, or OS/2 as multitaskers, but GUI applications were few and far between.
Windows didn't obtain the kind of user support that *you're* talking about until well after Microsoft Office had been around for a few incarnations (around the time of the Windows 95 release). Before that, it was just one of many GUI environments and toolkits in use (albeit one of the more prevalent ones).
Microsoft has effectively eliminated its commercial competition in the desktop OS market. It is no longer viable for a commercial entity to attempt to create an OS in the desktop space.
If that isn't a monopoly position in that market, I'm not really sure what would qualify...
(1) My main (serious) desktop system
:-)
(2) My secondary (Windows/gaming) system
(3) My tertiary (OS testing/playing) system
(4) Wife's main (serious) machine
(5) File server (for common files)
(6) Firewall
Oops. That's six machines.
I actually have nine in total, not including the Mac, because I found that multiple cheap SCSI boxes can make very good file servers. YMMV.
Lotus SmartSuite is still around and includes Lotus WordPro (a rebranded AmiPro) and Lotus 123.
:-)
I know a couple of people who still use WordPerfect, and only one of them is a lawyer.
Office has capable competitors -- it just isn't a competitive marketplace anymore.
With Windows being the only option when buying a new PC from most vendors, and with Microsoft requiring key ISVs to only develop for Windows in order to obtain the latest and greatest developer information, Microsoft didn't have to do that much marketing to the end user.
IBM's entire culture underwent a change because of the DOJ, and Microsoft owes part of its existence to the fact that IBM was limited in what it could do to make the PC an IBM-only product.
Microsoft, on the other hand, hasn't had to change a thing. If anything, their abuses are more brazen now then they were in the Netscape days.
Did Amiga have easy to use wifi? No? Did Amiga have a media player, instant messaging program, or web server built in? Did it have 3D graphics?
If it still existed today, you *bet* it would have all of those things. The Amiga's core strength was multimedia -- the Video Toaster beat EVERYTHING that the PC had to offer in its day.
Installation could be a pain, but preinstallations would have rendered that moot.
OS/2 2.0's GUI in 1992 (the WorkPlace Shell) was far closer to Win95's GUI than anything else, and folks seen to have adopted that GUI just fine even though it uses two mouse buttons.
BeOS is effectively dead. OS/2 is being EOL'd in 2006. Linux and BSD are community-created software which came from outside the marketplace. Sun's x86 offering is a curiosity at best.
MacOSX requires hardware blessed by Apple, so it still doesn't directly compete.
What's left?
And both implemented them before Microsoft did.
Both were also DOS compatible, so legacy software concerns had nothing to do with it.
Microsoft was just slow. It was more profitable that way.