In the light of the great comments from former CP employees, this article becomes a bit amusing: http://www1.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2438110,00.html. Its an interview with Darin Gilson, president and chief operating officer at Campus Pipeline, regarding CP strategies for keeping employees (and mentioning their continuing goal of going public with an IPO.)
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'd be interested in hearing from other current and former CP employees who'd care to share info anonymously.
I'd also like to know specifically how the school benefits financially. Does the school get click-through ad money and/or are they paid so much per student??? How are the payments made and to who?
I can't see enough reason in the functionality of the software that they are providing. Many institutions have already chosen commercial packages for online registration, course delivery, etc.. Virtually all had to have an email system prior to Campus Pipeline. So what carrot is dangled in front of the university "powers that be" to make them look at it? (Besides the obvious envelopes of cash slipped to the University Regents, that is.)
If the student's eyeballs have commercial value (and they DO), then why should an institution give that value AWAY to Campus Pipeline only in exchange for buggy free software that requires the purchase of an expensive Solaris box, not to mention the addtional administration manhours?
Why not simply impliment some banner rotation software and make the money for themselves?. Even better, schools could form a consortium to provide space in the rotation for national advertisers. Give them a place to buy ads on the whole consortium network.
The article mentioned by/. says the software is free, but doesn't mention that you need to buy a pretty expensive Solaris box to run it on. And I guess university IT departments have plenty of available manhours to administrater the system, huh?
Campus Pipeline appears to promise the world to everyone. They say they can tie existing university systems together (with Java). They say they will be coming out with a version that runs on Linux.
I think they are simply a company spin-off that was aiming at a big bucks IPO (before that bubble burst).
Faculty on many campuses don't like it and are putting up a fuss. That, plus the fact that the IRS is looking at taxing income unrelated to an educational institutions "primary mission", may be putting the brakes on Campus Pipeline implimentation.
Yes, Campus Pipeline is (at best) tacky but the fact that many institutions are hopping in bed with them is a result of the financial pressure that many universities are under in the face of State government funding cutbacks.
There is a problem with your review. You compare a "downloaded" version of LinuxPPC with a CD of YellowDog and then complain that LinuxPPC has no "useful software". I'd suggest getting the LinuxPPC 2000 CD ($20 - actually two CDs, one for source) and then comparing. Nothing against Yellow Dog, which is a fine Distro, just don't trash LinuxPPC on the basis of this guy's review.
LinuxPPC 2000 installation from the CD couldn't be much easier.
I _would_ like to know how to do some basic benchmarking to compare performance of OSs & machines running the same. If anyone has any pointers, feel free to pass them along.
You've got a couple of options (that I know about): http://www.marathoncomputer.com/pr_fndra.html alt ernatively, you could get a shelf and sit them side by side (basically the same amount of rackspace) and you don't have to turn your head sideways to view the logo. :>)
PS...I'm running MkLinux and LinuxPPC 2000 on Mac Workgroup Servers.
Do you think everything out this thoroughly? They provide a phone on the desk too. Does that mean that you can only use it for company business and that they have the right to record all of your phone conversations? I guess they can listen in when you call the doctor, or the Workman's compensation claim division, or any number of things.
The difference between phone and email is that the phone service does not require local administration that may require some messages' privacy to be breached. So people are morons if they think that their email is NOT going to be read by someone and say something stupid.
But saying that it is OK for them to read anything/everything is ridiculous.
This is the major point that the Music Industry is missing. As huge music fans they also expose their friends to more music that they may not have heard before. Their friends may not all be into burning their own CDs, etc. but will go out and buy music based on what they have heard.
It's the same concept as Radio only more so.
The end result will be that more bands will be known, sell more tickets and sell more music. The overall consumption of purchased music will grow because you have more bands/musical styles being heard by more people (beyond the Napsters).
It is absolutely stupid that the marketers don't get this (I think many do, but the lawyers are telling them that if they don't defend their "rights" they will lose them, and SO FAR the companies are listening more to the lawyers).
If we made it legal for geeks to get a few cigarettes free through the internet that they could pass on to friends (though the cigarettes could only be smoked with digital equipment nearby), do you think the tobacco companies would complain? They'd LOVE it! More people exposed to their product/brand that are going to need to stop at the store to buy some for when they were away from their computers. More people hooked, consumption patterns rise.
If you want to use all the programming tools that come with a full Linux installation these days, or use a metatool l ike autoconf, you have to master Perl, Python, Tcl, Emacs Lisp, two major flavors of shell, and several slightly different flavors of regular expressions. That is simply too high a price for someone who is already running as fast as she can to stay on th e leading edge of fluid mechanics research. Advocating it is about as sensible as suggesting that online help should be written in whatever mix of English, Esperanto, and Klingon appeals to individual developers, and betrays a self-centeredness that may g o a long way toward explaining why so much of today's software is so hard to use.
So Python it is. If you haven't looked at the language already, it is to Perl or Visual Basic what Java is to C++ (but without any marketing hype).
I'd say that first you should define "financial reward".
Are you saying the average rate of pay for a programmer that can do Mac is less than the average rate of pay for a programmer that can do windows?
I don't have any figures, but I'm thinking that it is probably tougher to find a good Mac programmer than a good Windows/Linux programmer, thus they are probably not paid LESS.
If you are saying that if you are writing for yourself but you are writing for a smaller market so your chance at financial rewards is less, then I have to say that depends. Using that logic, there were 10 PCs sold for every one Mac, so it really didn't make good business sense to create the iMac, right? (It has only become the single best selling computer on the market).
In fact, I'd make the argument that you have a better chance of rewards writing for the Mac market. Example: Dialpad sort of products. Multiple options on Windows; no dominant player on the Mac side. If one of those companies had emphasized writing for the Mac, they'd have the dominant app on the Mac side...rather than slugging it out with multiple competitors on the Windows side.
I would like to present a brief analogy to ask a larger question: Imagine a theoretical TWO dimensional universe. A planet in this two dimensional universe would be like a flat sheet of paper with no thickness. Two dimensional creatures living "on" that planet would have no knowledge or concept of "up" or "down" (the third dimension). If there were two of these creatures, standing side by side, and one of us (being three dimensional creatures) reached down and picked one of them up, he would have appeared to simply disappear from his friends perspective. If we put him back down, he would seem to magically reappear. These creatures would have no concept of how this was accomplished and the creature lifted would have no words to adequately express what he had experienced. Moving this thought experiment up a dimension, it would be equally simple for a "higher being" to transfer a mouse inside a tennis ball (and back), though this would be "impossible" from our viewpoint. Based on the above thought experiment, my question for Chris is this: Does he believe that there are things that exist outside our plane of existence that BY THEIR VERY NATURE cannot be proved or explained by observation and scientific methodology? (This does not mean that science does not provide an extremely valuable service, just that it may be the height of arrogance to believe that the only things that exist or are possible are those postulated by science). Curious George
No apology necessary. I knew immediately what he was talking about however, and appreciated the tip of the hat to the Foundation Trilogy (+). Mind blowing stuff that I've been meaning to read again for 25 years. What a mind that guy had. Curious George
Jeff Zeldman doesn't need me to defend him or his recognized place among the web design greats, but allow me to say that just as absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, neither does anyone's ignorance of Mr. Zeldman's legacy of work or stature mean that he has none.
Neither does his legacy or stature endow him with infallibility (or a need to march lockstep with conventional thinking on all matters). I do agree with a few of the quibbles raised here and would be interested in his reasons for going against the CW on px vs pt and hijacking the status bar.
I do know from his excellent mailing list (and now web site) that he tends to believe in stretching the limits on PERSONAL sites, while playing it more conservative on "for hire" customers.
Believe me, he knows of what he speaks. And if you haven't heard of him and want to know who is out of it (you or the rest of the world) try typing "Zeldman" into Google.
I suspect part of the reason you don't see LinuxPPC for older machines would be the same explanation given by the BeOS people (from their PowerPC FAQ): Q: Seriously -- why can't you support NuBus machines? A: NuBus machines have a different physical address space layout. They have a different interrupt controller. They do not have Open Firmware (which we leverage to get information about the machine). These are but a few of the technical reasons why we aren't able to support NuBus-based machines. It is unfortunate, but it is simply not technically practical to recompile our operating system and make it work on every Power Mac system, since an operating system has to have intimate knowledge of the motherboard it's running on. Given the resources of our small company, we've decided to concentrate on PCI-based systems.:::::::::::::::::::::: MkLinux was (no doubt) able to do so because it was supported directly by Apple, so would have been given all of the necessary info and access. While I, too, wish that LinuxPPC was available for older Macs, I can understand how a company could risk its very survival by spreading itself too thin (especially in the beginning). Choosing a cutoff point for legacy machines and concentrating resources from that point on is only logical. Curious George
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for sharing your experience. I'd be interested in hearing from other current and former CP employees who'd care to share info anonymously.
I'd also like to know specifically how the school benefits financially. Does the school get click-through ad money and/or are they paid so much per student??? How are the payments made and to who?
I can't see enough reason in the functionality of the software that they are providing. Many institutions have already chosen commercial packages for online registration, course delivery, etc.. Virtually all had to have an email system prior to Campus Pipeline. So what carrot is dangled in front of the university "powers that be" to make them look at it? (Besides the obvious envelopes of cash slipped to the University Regents, that is.)
Curious George
Why not simply impliment some banner rotation software and make the money for themselves?. Even better, schools could form a consortium to provide space in the rotation for national advertisers. Give them a place to buy ads on the whole consortium network.
Curious George
The article mentioned by /. says the software is free, but doesn't mention that you need to buy a pretty expensive Solaris box to run it on. And I guess university IT departments have plenty of available manhours to administrater the system, huh?
Campus Pipeline appears to promise the world to everyone. They say they can tie existing university systems together (with Java). They say they will be coming out with a version that runs on Linux. I think they are simply a company spin-off that was aiming at a big bucks IPO (before that bubble burst).
Faculty on many campuses don't like it and are putting up a fuss. That, plus the fact that the IRS is looking at taxing income unrelated to an educational institutions "primary mission", may be putting the brakes on Campus Pipeline implimentation.
Yes, Campus Pipeline is (at best) tacky but the fact that many institutions are hopping in bed with them is a result of the financial pressure that many universities are under in the face of State government funding cutbacks.
Curious George
LinuxPPC 2000 installation from the CD couldn't be much easier.
I _would_ like to know how to do some basic benchmarking to compare performance of OSs & machines running the same. If anyone has any pointers, feel free to pass them along.
Curious George
http://www.marathoncomputer.com/pr_fndra.html
al
PS...I'm running MkLinux and LinuxPPC 2000 on Mac Workgroup Servers.
Curious George
The difference between phone and email is that the phone service does not require local administration that may require some messages' privacy to be breached. So people are morons if they think that their email is NOT going to be read by someone and say something stupid.
But saying that it is OK for them to read anything/everything is ridiculous.
Curious George
Curious George
This is the major point that the Music Industry is missing. As huge music fans they also expose their friends to more music that they may not have heard before. Their friends may not all be into burning their own CDs, etc. but will go out and buy music based on what they have heard.
It's the same concept as Radio only more so.
The end result will be that more bands will be known, sell more tickets and sell more music. The overall consumption of purchased music will grow because you have more bands/musical styles being heard by more people (beyond the Napsters).
It is absolutely stupid that the marketers don't get this (I think many do, but the lawyers are telling them that if they don't defend their "rights" they will lose them, and SO FAR the companies are listening more to the lawyers).
If we made it legal for geeks to get a few cigarettes free through the internet that they could pass on to friends (though the cigarettes could only be smoked with digital equipment nearby), do you think the tobacco companies would complain? They'd LOVE it! More people exposed to their product/brand that are going to need to stop at the store to buy some for when they were away from their computers. More people hooked, consumption patterns rise.
Same thing with digital music
Hey, the guy never said it was a GOOD argument! :>)
Actually, this same basic point was made by a writer at Dr. Dobbs who said in his article Python, C++, and Other Religions:
If you want to use all the programming tools that come with a full Linux installation these days, or use a metatool l ike autoconf, you have to master Perl, Python, Tcl, Emacs Lisp, two major flavors of shell, and several slightly different flavors of regular expressions. That is simply too high a price for someone who is already running as fast as she can to stay on th e leading edge of fluid mechanics research. Advocating it is about as sensible as suggesting that online help should be written in whatever mix of English, Esperanto, and Klingon appeals to individual developers, and betrays a self-centeredness that may g o a long way toward explaining why so much of today's software is so hard to use.
So Python it is. If you haven't looked at the language already, it is to Perl or Visual Basic what Java is to C++ (but without any marketing hype).
Curi ous George
I'd say that first you should define "financial reward".
Are you saying the average rate of pay for a programmer that can do Mac is less than the average rate of pay for a programmer that can do windows?
I don't have any figures, but I'm thinking that it is probably tougher to find a good Mac programmer than a good Windows/Linux programmer, thus they are probably not paid LESS.If you are saying that if you are writing for yourself but you are writing for a smaller market so your chance at financial rewards is less, then I have to say that depends. Using that logic, there were 10 PCs sold for every one Mac, so it really didn't make good business sense to create the iMac, right? (It has only become the single best selling computer on the market).
In fact, I'd make the argument that you have a better chance of rewards writing for the Mac market. Example: Dialpad sort of products. Multiple options on Windows; no dominant player on the Mac side. If one of those companies had emphasized writing for the Mac, they'd have the dominant app on the Mac side...rather than slugging it out with multiple competitors on the Windows side.
Something to think about.
I would like to present a brief analogy to ask a larger question: Imagine a theoretical TWO dimensional universe. A planet in this two dimensional universe would be like a flat sheet of paper with no thickness. Two dimensional creatures living "on" that planet would have no knowledge or concept of "up" or "down" (the third dimension). If there were two of these creatures, standing side by side, and one of us (being three dimensional creatures) reached down and picked one of them up, he would have appeared to simply disappear from his friends perspective. If we put him back down, he would seem to magically reappear. These creatures would have no concept of how this was accomplished and the creature lifted would have no words to adequately express what he had experienced. Moving this thought experiment up a dimension, it would be equally simple for a "higher being" to transfer a mouse inside a tennis ball (and back), though this would be "impossible" from our viewpoint. Based on the above thought experiment, my question for Chris is this: Does he believe that there are things that exist outside our plane of existence that BY THEIR VERY NATURE cannot be proved or explained by observation and scientific methodology? (This does not mean that science does not provide an extremely valuable service, just that it may be the height of arrogance to believe that the only things that exist or are possible are those postulated by science). Curious George
No apology necessary. I knew immediately what he was talking about however, and appreciated the tip of the hat to the Foundation Trilogy (+). Mind blowing stuff that I've been meaning to read again for 25 years. What a mind that guy had. Curious George
Jeff Zeldman doesn't need me to defend him or his recognized place among the web design greats, but allow me to say that just as absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence, neither does anyone's ignorance of Mr. Zeldman's legacy of work or stature mean that he has none.
Neither does his legacy or stature endow him with infallibility (or a need to march lockstep with conventional thinking on all matters). I do agree with a few of the quibbles raised here and would be interested in his reasons for going against the CW on px vs pt and hijacking the status bar.
I do know from his excellent mailing list (and now web site) that he tends to believe in stretching the limits on PERSONAL sites, while playing it more conservative on "for hire" customers.
Believe me, he knows of what he speaks. And if you haven't heard of him and want to know who is out of it (you or the rest of the world) try typing "Zeldman" into Google.
I suspect part of the reason you don't see LinuxPPC for older machines would be the same explanation given by the BeOS people (from their PowerPC FAQ): Q: Seriously -- why can't you support NuBus machines? A: NuBus machines have a different physical address space layout. They have a different interrupt controller. They do not have Open Firmware (which we leverage to get information about the machine). These are but a few of the technical reasons why we aren't able to support NuBus-based machines. It is unfortunate, but it is simply not technically practical to recompile our operating system and make it work on every Power Mac system, since an operating system has to have intimate knowledge of the motherboard it's running on. Given the resources of our small company, we've decided to concentrate on PCI-based systems. :::::::::::::::::::::: MkLinux was (no doubt) able to do so because it was supported directly by Apple, so would have been given all of the necessary info and access. While I, too, wish that LinuxPPC was available for older Macs, I can understand how a company could risk its very survival by spreading itself too thin (especially in the beginning). Choosing a cutoff point for legacy machines and concentrating resources from that point on is only logical. Curious George