It's not that bad, actually. If you know C/C++, or have decent Unix admin skills, you can get a job in about 2 days in New England.
It does mean that you can't read "Learn VB in 24 hours" and expect to be making 150k tommorow. I do build and release work, as I love pain a great deal, so I know *I'm* never going to be out of work for too long...
What it boils down to in the end is the same thing it always has; make some contacts in the industry, don't screw up your first job TOO badly, and you're probably ok.
I still laugh at a person who interviewed for a junior programmer slot at one of my old companies (this was during the dot-com frenzy) with about a year of VB and a 6 week C++ class, claiming they needed 100k to even consider the offer. Those kind of people are out of work these days, and thank the gods for that. I just wish the welfare system had a "maximum hubris" limit...
But again, technology isn't going anywhere, so if you actually have "The skills to pay the bills", you don't have anything to worry about.
Ok, this is obviously either a troll or an idiot, but it's early in the morning and I'm bored so I'll bite.
You see, Amazon is a publically held corporation. Therefore, they are required to pursue the almighty buck. That's kind of the point. And I don't dislike Amazon, in fact, I think Amazon has done some good things - I like their new "honor system" that they're rolling out, both because it's kind of a slick marketing move, and it's a move away from ad based revenue for sites.
However, this patent is so obviously bogus that it's kind of a smack in the face to legitimate IP. And while the debates over IP rage long and furious and pointless on/., the fact remains that it does exist, and the laws need to be able to separate the real McCoy from the schmucks trying to patent anything they might be able to sue people for.
Of course, this court battle will continue for years and years, as Amazon needs to make money off of infringement lawsuits, seeing as it doesnt actually make any money selling books.
For once, though, it's nice to see a *bit* (about this much -->.--) of common sense prevail.
I don't use GPL code, specifically because I cannot open source the code I write professionally. It means I have to reinvent the wheel more often than I'd like, but hey, if someone writes GPL'd code, I respect that, and I don't use it in anything I can't open up.
As for you, Anonymous Coward, my brain isn't hardline or dogmatic, quite the opposite; There are some wonderful benefits to the GPL; (makes more code available to more people) however, I don't think "Freedom" is one of them.
I'm not opposed to Open Sourcing things (when I can) and in fact I argued quite vigorously for a portion of my company's proprietary code to go open, for technical reasons if nothing else. However, I think forcing anyone to do anything is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
Freedom is being able to do what you want. The GPL does not allow this, therefore it is not freedom. What's dogmatic about this?
(And to the people who wonder why I got labelled a Troll, I fully expected it when I said something bad about the almighty GPL, so I'm not worried about it.)
It makes you wonder what would cause them to do such a thing. Trying to stranglehold market share is one possible motivation, but Microsoft already proved what kind of reaction you get by doing that.
I wonder what the FSF (or Sun) would say about this?
Hrm. Low power consumption is nice, but part of me wonders how much of this is actual concern for such things, and how much of it is trying to cash in on the Open Source community's obsession with Everything Linus (tm).
I mean, hey, if so, more power to them. Not a bad strategy.;) But I think I'll believe it when 1) I see it and 2) I see it working.
On the other hand, being able to emulate would mean you'd never have to buy different hardware for running other chipets...maybe they're on to something.
I love all the GPL zealots who get their panties in a pretzel everytime someone ponders using Open Source code in something that isn't (either because it can't be, or the author just chooses not to). Sure, the GPL is legally binding. If someone puts their code under the GPL, then follow it if you intend on using it. What I do disagree with, is the notion of it being "Free". "Free" is the BSD license. Do what you want. "Free" is not "forcing someone to be free". That is, in my opinion, worse than closed-source; not only are you limiting what a developer can do with something, you're being a giant hypocrite by declaring that you're "freeing" code.
I work for a software firm that does not release their source code. That doesn't make me evil. It just means I make my living doing something I like. If I want to release code, I will, otherwise, keep your nose out of it.
(And I'm sure someone else will mention it, but I'm pretty sure OpenSSL is under the BSD license, so hey, go nuts.)
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that bad, actually. If you know C/C++, or have decent Unix admin skills, you can get a job in about 2 days in New England.
It does mean that you can't read "Learn VB in 24 hours" and expect to be making 150k tommorow. I do build and release work, as I love pain a great deal, so I know *I'm* never going to be out of work for too long...
What it boils down to in the end is the same thing it always has; make some contacts in the industry, don't screw up your first job TOO badly, and you're probably ok.
I still laugh at a person who interviewed for a junior programmer slot at one of my old companies (this was during the dot-com frenzy) with about a year of VB and a 6 week C++ class, claiming they needed 100k to even consider the offer. Those kind of people are out of work these days, and thank the gods for that. I just wish the welfare system had a "maximum hubris" limit...
But again, technology isn't going anywhere, so if you actually have "The skills to pay the bills", you don't have anything to worry about.
Ok, this is obviously either a troll or an idiot, but it's early in the morning and I'm bored so I'll bite.
/., the fact remains that it does exist, and the laws need to be able to separate the real McCoy from the schmucks trying to patent anything they might be able to sue people for.
You see, Amazon is a publically held corporation. Therefore, they are required to pursue the almighty buck. That's kind of the point. And I don't dislike Amazon, in fact, I think Amazon has done some good things - I like their new "honor system" that they're rolling out, both because it's kind of a slick marketing move, and it's a move away from ad based revenue for sites.
However, this patent is so obviously bogus that it's kind of a smack in the face to legitimate IP. And while the debates over IP rage long and furious and pointless on
I've been trolled, I think. Now ask me if I care.
Of course, this court battle will continue for years and years, as Amazon needs to make money off of infringement lawsuits, seeing as it doesnt actually make any money selling books.
For once, though, it's nice to see a *bit* (about this much -->.--) of common sense prevail.
I don't use GPL code, specifically because I cannot open source the code I write professionally. It means I have to reinvent the wheel more often than I'd like, but hey, if someone writes GPL'd code, I respect that, and I don't use it in anything I can't open up.
As for you, Anonymous Coward, my brain isn't hardline or dogmatic, quite the opposite; There are some wonderful benefits to the GPL; (makes more code available to more people) however, I don't think "Freedom" is one of them.
I'm not opposed to Open Sourcing things (when I can) and in fact I argued quite vigorously for a portion of my company's proprietary code to go open, for technical reasons if nothing else. However, I think forcing anyone to do anything is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
Freedom is being able to do what you want. The GPL does not allow this, therefore it is not freedom. What's dogmatic about this?
(And to the people who wonder why I got labelled a Troll, I fully expected it when I said something bad about the almighty GPL, so I'm not worried about it.)
It makes you wonder what would cause them to do such a thing. Trying to stranglehold market share is one possible motivation, but Microsoft already proved what kind of reaction you get by doing that.
I wonder what the FSF (or Sun) would say about this?
Hrm. Low power consumption is nice, but part of me wonders how much of this is actual concern for such things, and how much of it is trying to cash in on the Open Source community's obsession with Everything Linus (tm).
;) But I think I'll believe it when 1) I see it and 2) I see it working.
I mean, hey, if so, more power to them. Not a bad strategy.
On the other hand, being able to emulate would mean you'd never have to buy different hardware for running other chipets...maybe they're on to something.
I love all the GPL zealots who get their panties in a pretzel everytime someone ponders using Open Source code in something that isn't (either because it can't be, or the author just chooses not to). Sure, the GPL is legally binding. If someone puts their code under the GPL, then follow it if you intend on using it. What I do disagree with, is the notion of it being "Free". "Free" is the BSD license. Do what you want. "Free" is not "forcing someone to be free". That is, in my opinion, worse than closed-source; not only are you limiting what a developer can do with something, you're being a giant hypocrite by declaring that you're "freeing" code. I work for a software firm that does not release their source code. That doesn't make me evil. It just means I make my living doing something I like. If I want to release code, I will, otherwise, keep your nose out of it. (And I'm sure someone else will mention it, but I'm pretty sure OpenSSL is under the BSD license, so hey, go nuts.)