Or, is that just ready made convential wisdom, that doesn't really pan out in the real world?
I've known people who have decided to make a living out of doing what they love - and hated it. Why? Because when you do what you love by your own rules, it's fun. When it's a job: everything is different, you can't do what *you* want. For example, if you do software developement as a job, you may find yourself being a "cog" tediously working on some tiny part of a giant system.
Furthermore, most people love stuff that is in way over-crowded fields. For example, about 50% of high-school students say they want jobs like: actor, musician, artist, or writer. Which means about 50% of high-school students will end up frustrated in the career paths - sorry folks it's a demand/supply thing.
IT employers are cherry-picking. If you don't already have 5 years experience in a specific area, it's not even worth considering.
For example, let's suppose you want to go into project management, but you have no experience in PM. So you take some graduate classes, and get a few certs, and . . . nothing. Take a look at the job boards, there is no such thing as starting in new field - you must have expereince in that field. In fact, most tech have a landry list of skills, and you need experience in all of them. And the experience must be full time, recent, and verifiable; and every job has a different landry list.
Or, let's say you want to be a java developer, you learn java, and then you can't get a job. It just does not work like that. From my experience: the choice is not up to the IT worker.
IT is extremely specialized. The list of skills you learn at one company probably won't be useful to another company. Also, IT is pretty much glutted, and getting worse.
As an MBA level manager, you're not tied to any specific technology. And you're not just another java developer that they can replace with somebody from India. How often do you see an IT director's job being done by somebody overseas, or by an H1B?
If you ever decided that IT was not for you, you could move into finance, or operations, or whatever.
As I understand it: much of the outcome of the ATT vs BSD trial was sealed. ATT sold novell whatever Unix rights ATT happend to own. But that might have been nothing, or next to nothing.
In all likelihood, much of the ATT code is now public domain. The public does not really know.
This has the same stench as that retard Paul Murphy (really Rudy de Haas).
Let's see, Microsoft pays for: fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, pro-msft bloggers, fake journalists like Enderle, fake think-thinks like AdTI, and astroturf campaigns; amoung other things.
Frankly, I no longer believe any pop-media blog, or article, that is pro-msft, or anti-msft-competition. Msft has too much media influence.
I don't know if Vista is a "train wreck" but I don't see any reason what-so-ever to upgrade.
I know some idiot is going post some "why don't you just use a horse and carrage" message. But, really, specifically, why on earth should I spend all that money, and go through all that trouble, for nothing?
W2K runs all of hw and sw. It's fast, and stable, it's not obtrusive, I know how to use it, and I don't need a new PC to run it. Not only do I not need that "eye candy" I hate it, I want my gui to look serious, not like a toy. W2K does not have all the DRM, WGA, and authentication cr@p.
So what does Vista do for me? How will Vista make me more productive? How will Vista save me money? Seems like paying money for an additional annoyance. I am not saying msft sucks, I am not saying vista sucks. But, this seems to be the worst "upgrade" imaginable.
1) Management does not want IT people to solve business problems. They want IT people to do what they are told. Management often feel threatend by IT people who have too many business ideas.
2) Being good at your job can just as easily insure that you will not be promoted to management. You can find managers anywhere, but where do you find IT slaves who know your system? Often, the more experience IT guys are asked to take on some managerial duties in addition to their technical jobs. But, IT almost never get promoted to higher level management.
In 2003 msft bought $17M worth of scox Unix licenses. Licenses that msft already has, and does not use. Also in 2003 msft arranged another $50 million worth of financing through a company called Baystar. Msft tried hard to keep of those financing deals secret, but msft's involvement has been exposed. On Halloween, 2003, a internal memo was revealed that specified msft's involvement with baystar in financing scox. When scox hit financial hard times, another mysterious $10 million "investment" came out of nowhere.
IMO: anybody who thinks otherwise does not understand the scam.
Want to gloat about scox's share price being down, about scox not doing well financially? Fine, but remember this: scox's market cap is about twice as high now, as it was before the scam. And scox was as good as dead before the scam. Look at the financials, scox would have dead two years ago if not for this scam. Furthermore, darl and kevin mcbride are making out like bandits - each has made about two million since the scam started - not bad for small time Utah scammers. And remember, scox was a canopy company - not a real company. Canopy plays shell games with dozens of make-believe companies.
Msft financed the scam lawsuit, and msft got a great ROI out of the deal. The scam cost msft about as much as the cost to produce one TV commercial, and msft got a ton of grade-A FUD. The scox scam is nothing but about 1% of msft's continuing FUD campaign against Linux. Msft wants potential Linux users to know that Linux is a legal mine field. Msft also wants potential linux comtributers to know that they are risking a msft sponsered bogo-suit. Remember: just because the lawsuit is bogus doesn't mean the lawsuit won't cost over $50M in legal fees - and who wants that? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just not contribute to linux?
It's hard to take anything novl claims about msft seriously. This seems like more bought-and-paid-for msft brown-nosing. Very similar to the all the bogus "think tanks" that msft bought, or all of silly msft sponsored astro-turfing, or all the phoney-baloney msft sponsored TCO studies, or all the msft paid analysts that gush over msft. And doesn't msft pay bloggers, and message board posters?
Frankly, I don't see how any reasonably well informed person can believe anything positive published about msft. Msft pays for good PR in every way imaginable.
No offense, but I don't think you know what you're posting about. Are you a lawyer? If not, would you please explain where get these bizzaro world laws from?
Very typical of pop-media hack-journalism. The article is *not* about "is computer science dead" rather, it's about development shifting from inhouse, to 3rd party apps - a trend that's been going on for decades.
Whether ODF or OOXML are good standards, or not, is beside the point.
It's the process that is being studied here. Why were the detailed objections of 5 nations brushed aside, and the decision made by one person? Supposedly, if even one nation objects, that is supposed to derail the "fast track" process.
That is a fair question, and I hope it gets more attention.
My answer is: by remaining anonymous, you can avoid retailiation by powerful entities that may not like what you have to say - whether your articles are true or not. Benjamin Franklin knew this, and sent his letters to the newspaper editor, under a psuednym.
As a more modern example: suppose you knew of a utility company committing some type of a crime. You expose the crime on your blog. The utility company, although guilty, files a lawsuit against you, that would cost you $250K to fight. Your only way out is to stop posting the truth about the company.
The entire scox-scam is nothing but a small part of msft's ongoing fud campain. The entire scam will cost msft well under $100M - pocket change for msft.
Now that the scox-scam is winding down, msft has bought a new bitch - Novell.
Msft message to corrupt users is crystal clear: "F/OSS is a legal mine-field. If you even use linux you risk a lawsuit. If you substantially contribute to linux a lawsuit is nearly inevitable. If you even think about touching a F/OSS produce, you will be legally forced to open all of code." Msft has pounded on that message for years and years. Lots of msft shills scream hystical warnings, all kinds of fake lawsuits, fake studies from msft owned "think tanks" and so on.
I think msft's fud campaign has been smart, and successful.
Enderle is an admitted shill, and a well known liar. He twists facts, his "logic" is laughable. All of those things have been pointed out, and verified many times.
And where do you get this crap that open discussion about linux is not allowed on slashdot? I see linux criticized on slashdot all of the time.
For example: Rob claims that it's a myth that linux is secure. To prove that linux is not secure Rob points out that people on groklaw post under assumed names. I mean come on now, I ask you, how could linux *possibly* be secure when some people on groklaw don't use their real names?
Ah well, what can we expect from an additted microsoft shill.
in their careers. And those people have families, and big expenses. And it isn't fair to just suddenly pull the rug out from under them so bill gates can earn another billion.
As to the poor people in other countries, here's an idea: fix your own damn county instead of piggy-backing on the USA.
A lot of people put a lot of good faith effort in their careers. In the USA, higher education is not subsidized like is in other countries, it can be damn expensive. I paid for my degree out of pocket, now I feel it's a mistake, not really worth anything.
After all that effort, all that money, all that working 60 hours a week for slave wages to get experience; some techies feel they have earned the right to earn more than the janitor.
Also, some of us have worked in IT so long, that it really isn't realistic to change career fields.
But, then other's here will argue: "F.U. man! Why should you get all the breaks?"
There is really only one think to do: get out of technology. Read the writing on the wall, it's not getting better, it's getting worse. Those who have managed to hold on to good jobs will refute this - I say just wait for it.
Just for fun, let's think the unthinkable (FWIW: I have a bachelor's degree in math myself).
The USA need top level scientists, no doubt about it. Also, people need basic math skills, no doubt about that. But how many people use trigonometry in the daily lives? How often do we use the quadratic equation? Or Euclidean geometry?
Let's face it folks, engineering is going to follow manufacturing, and software development, overseas. The USA will be a nation of lawers. That's were the money is.
I must admit, I remember very little of the physics, chemistry, or biology that I took. I don't know if I manage a difficult differential equation either. Doesn't seem to affect me much, I guess it was all for nothing anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308, 39118116,00.htm
I think I read a more recent article, that claimed SAP experts were earning over $160K, but I can't seem to find that article right now.
Or, is that just ready made convential wisdom, that doesn't really pan out in the real world?
I've known people who have decided to make a living out of doing what they love - and hated it. Why? Because when you do what you love by your own rules, it's fun. When it's a job: everything is different, you can't do what *you* want. For example, if you do software developement as a job, you may find yourself being a "cog" tediously working on some tiny part of a giant system.
Furthermore, most people love stuff that is in way over-crowded fields. For example, about 50% of high-school students say they want jobs like: actor, musician, artist, or writer. Which means about 50% of high-school students will end up frustrated in the career paths - sorry folks it's a demand/supply thing.
IT employers are cherry-picking. If you don't already have 5 years experience in a specific area, it's not even worth considering.
For example, let's suppose you want to go into project management, but you have no experience in PM. So you take some graduate classes, and get a few certs, and . . . nothing. Take a look at the job boards, there is no such thing as starting in new field - you must have expereince in that field. In fact, most tech have a landry list of skills, and you need experience in all of them. And the experience must be full time, recent, and verifiable; and every job has a different landry list.
Or, let's say you want to be a java developer, you learn java, and then you can't get a job. It just does not work like that. From my experience: the choice is not up to the IT worker.
IT is extremely specialized. The list of skills you learn at one company probably won't be useful to another company. Also, IT is pretty much glutted, and getting worse.
As an MBA level manager, you're not tied to any specific technology. And you're not just another java developer that they can replace with somebody from India. How often do you see an IT director's job being done by somebody overseas, or by an H1B?
If you ever decided that IT was not for you, you could move into finance, or operations, or whatever.
Are you posting about managerial consulting, or some kind of system consulting?
What sort of qualifications do you have? MBA? Engineering? CISSP? RHCE?
http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/d ilbert2007048874323.gif
As I understand it: much of the outcome of the ATT vs BSD trial was sealed. ATT sold novell whatever Unix rights ATT happend to own. But that might have been nothing, or next to nothing.
In all likelihood, much of the ATT code is now public domain. The public does not really know.
I am not opposed to upgrading at all. I would be happy to upgrade. Just give me a reason.
What will Vista do for me, or anybody else for that matter?
Eye candy? Is that it? No improvement in speed, security, ease of use, stability, or anything else?
And I'm supposed to run out and buy a new PC for that? Is msft kidding? Could anybody be that stupid?
This has the same stench as that retard Paul Murphy (really Rudy de Haas).
Let's see, Microsoft pays for: fake TCO studies, fake benchmark studies, pro-msft bloggers, fake journalists like Enderle, fake think-thinks like AdTI, and astroturf campaigns; amoung other things.
Frankly, I no longer believe any pop-media blog, or article, that is pro-msft, or anti-msft-competition. Msft has too much media influence.
I don't know if Vista is a "train wreck" but I don't see any reason what-so-ever to upgrade.
I know some idiot is going post some "why don't you just use a horse and carrage" message. But, really, specifically, why on earth should I spend all that money, and go through all that trouble, for nothing?
W2K runs all of hw and sw. It's fast, and stable, it's not obtrusive, I know how to use it, and I don't need a new PC to run it. Not only do I not need that "eye candy" I hate it, I want my gui to look serious, not like a toy. W2K does not have all the DRM, WGA, and authentication cr@p.
So what does Vista do for me? How will Vista make me more productive? How will Vista save me money? Seems like paying money for an additional annoyance. I am not saying msft sucks, I am not saying vista sucks. But, this seems to be the worst "upgrade" imaginable.
1) Management does not want IT people to solve business problems. They want IT people to do what they are told. Management often feel threatend by IT people who have too many business ideas.
2) Being good at your job can just as easily insure that you will not be promoted to management. You can find managers anywhere, but where do you find IT slaves who know your system? Often, the more experience IT guys are asked to take on some managerial duties in addition to their technical jobs. But, IT almost never get promoted to higher level management.
JMHO.
In 2003 msft bought $17M worth of scox Unix licenses. Licenses that msft already has, and does not use. Also in 2003 msft arranged another $50 million worth of financing through a company called Baystar. Msft tried hard to keep of those financing deals secret, but msft's involvement has been exposed. On Halloween, 2003, a internal memo was revealed that specified msft's involvement with baystar in financing scox. When scox hit financial hard times, another mysterious $10 million "investment" came out of nowhere.
IMO: anybody who thinks otherwise does not understand the scam.
Want to gloat about scox's share price being down, about scox not doing well financially? Fine, but remember this: scox's market cap is about twice as high now, as it was before the scam. And scox was as good as dead before the scam. Look at the financials, scox would have dead two years ago if not for this scam. Furthermore, darl and kevin mcbride are making out like bandits - each has made about two million since the scam started - not bad for small time Utah scammers. And remember, scox was a canopy company - not a real company. Canopy plays shell games with dozens of make-believe companies.
Msft financed the scam lawsuit, and msft got a great ROI out of the deal. The scam cost msft about as much as the cost to produce one TV commercial, and msft got a ton of grade-A FUD. The scox scam is nothing but about 1% of msft's continuing FUD campaign against Linux. Msft wants potential Linux users to know that Linux is a legal mine field. Msft also wants potential linux comtributers to know that they are risking a msft sponsered bogo-suit. Remember: just because the lawsuit is bogus doesn't mean the lawsuit won't cost over $50M in legal fees - and who wants that? Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to just not contribute to linux?
It's hard to take anything novl claims about msft seriously. This seems like more bought-and-paid-for msft brown-nosing. Very similar to the all the bogus "think tanks" that msft bought, or all of silly msft sponsored astro-turfing, or all the phoney-baloney msft sponsored TCO studies, or all the msft paid analysts that gush over msft. And doesn't msft pay bloggers, and message board posters?
Frankly, I don't see how any reasonably well informed person can believe anything positive published about msft. Msft pays for good PR in every way imaginable.
No offense, but I don't think you know what you're posting about. Are you a lawyer? If not, would you please explain where get these bizzaro world laws from?
Is that what you are saying? Everybody else involved in the ISO should just go away, and leave everything to one person?
Very typical of pop-media hack-journalism. The article is *not* about "is computer science dead" rather, it's about development shifting from inhouse, to 3rd party apps - a trend that's been going on for decades.
Whether ODF or OOXML are good standards, or not, is beside the point.
It's the process that is being studied here. Why were the detailed objections of 5 nations brushed aside, and the decision made by one person? Supposedly, if even one nation objects, that is supposed to derail the "fast track" process.
This stinks to high-heaven of msft corruption.
That is a fair question, and I hope it gets more attention.
My answer is: by remaining anonymous, you can avoid retailiation by powerful entities that may not like what you have to say - whether your articles are true or not. Benjamin Franklin knew this, and sent his letters to the newspaper editor, under a psuednym.
As a more modern example: suppose you knew of a utility company committing some type of a crime. You expose the crime on your blog. The utility company, although guilty, files a lawsuit against you, that would cost you $250K to fight. Your only way out is to stop posting the truth about the company.
Think it can't happen? It already has.
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this before.
The entire scox-scam is nothing but a small part of msft's ongoing fud campain. The entire scam will cost msft well under $100M - pocket change for msft.
Now that the scox-scam is winding down, msft has bought a new bitch - Novell.
Msft message to corrupt users is crystal clear: "F/OSS is a legal mine-field. If you even use linux you risk a lawsuit. If you substantially contribute to linux a lawsuit is nearly inevitable. If you even think about touching a F/OSS produce, you will be legally forced to open all of code." Msft has pounded on that message for years and years. Lots of msft shills scream hystical warnings, all kinds of fake lawsuits, fake studies from msft owned "think tanks" and so on.
I think msft's fud campaign has been smart, and successful.
discussion?
Enderle is an admitted shill, and a well known liar. He twists facts, his "logic" is laughable. All of those things have been pointed out, and verified many times.
And where do you get this crap that open discussion about linux is not allowed on slashdot? I see linux criticized on slashdot all of the time.
For example: Rob claims that it's a myth that linux is secure. To prove that linux is not secure Rob points out that people on groklaw post under assumed names. I mean come on now, I ask you, how could linux *possibly* be secure when some people on groklaw don't use their real names?
Ah well, what can we expect from an additted microsoft shill.
in their careers. And those people have families, and big expenses. And it isn't fair to just suddenly pull the rug out from under them so bill gates can earn another billion.
As to the poor people in other countries, here's an idea: fix your own damn county instead of piggy-backing on the USA.
A lot of people put a lot of good faith effort in their careers. In the USA, higher education is not subsidized like is in other countries, it can be damn expensive. I paid for my degree out of pocket, now I feel it's a mistake, not really worth anything.
After all that effort, all that money, all that working 60 hours a week for slave wages to get experience; some techies feel they have earned the right to earn more than the janitor.
Also, some of us have worked in IT so long, that it really isn't realistic to change career fields.
But, then other's here will argue: "F.U. man! Why should you get all the breaks?"
There is really only one think to do: get out of technology. Read the writing on the wall, it's not getting better, it's getting worse. Those who have managed to hold on to good jobs will refute this - I say just wait for it.
Just for fun, let's think the unthinkable (FWIW: I have a bachelor's degree in math myself).
The USA need top level scientists, no doubt about it. Also, people need basic math skills, no doubt about that. But how many people use trigonometry in the daily lives? How often do we use the quadratic equation? Or Euclidean geometry?
Let's face it folks, engineering is going to follow manufacturing, and software development, overseas. The USA will be a nation of lawers. That's were the money is.
I must admit, I remember very little of the physics, chemistry, or biology that I took. I don't know if I manage a difficult differential equation either. Doesn't seem to affect me much, I guess it was all for nothing anyway.