>>I once went to a job interview where the newspaper add had absolutely nothing to do with the actual job requirements. About 5 minutes into the interview it was obvious that I was not meant for that job, but they insisted on torturing me for 3 hours anyway. What's the f***ing point!
I once turned down a $300 gig to go to such an interview. About five minutes into the interview, the guy glances at my resume and said: "oh, I can see by resume that are not qualified for this job." So why did they even call me in at all? Shouldn't they at least glance at my resume before they call me in?
After I was laid off at general dynamics, I was offered some free training from unemployment. They rejected all of my training ideas, and kept pushing project management, so I took that.
I inverviewed at raytheon for a job that I seemed to fit perfectly, especially since my top secret clearance was still active. The interviewer was very concerned about my project managemnet training. He kept saying: "this is just an admin job, it involves no project management." No matter what I said, his concern was very apparent.
I also interviewed at Sun, for a job that required a TS clearance. Same thing. The interviewer abrubtly said: "most of the people we hire for this position don't have that sort of education." and that was it.
My training in PM is useless for getting a PM job. Those jobs require years of experience in PM, and also years of experience in the specific technology being managed.
For example: let's say you are hired to work for slave wages at the helpdesk. After two months, you have proven your worth by doing a great job.
Hey, they have a great helpdesk tech who works for slave wages. Why should they ever promote the tech? If they promote the tech, then they'll have to get a new tech, and train him/her. Of course the tech will just quite, but companies are seldomly that far sighted. After the tech quits, the company will bitch about how techs are job hoppers.
Companies don't want to train because they are afraid of training people for the next job. Besides, it doesn't fit into the budget.
From what I have seen, over and over, hiring, retention, and promotions, are almost arbitrary. Such decions are almost never based on sound logic. Many times I've seen people promoted to management who have neither business, or technical, skills.
If so called "social skills" means playing politics, then I suppose that is important.
Recently, at work, I have had to switch form palmos to pocketpc.
From my experience, pocketpc just sucks. It is overloaded with useless features, it's slow and buggy, it's more complicated and less intuitive to use, and - of course - has the typical msft arm-twisting to buy msft only products.
Small wonder msft is the 4th most popular mobile device OS.
- I had no trouble syncing my palmos with linux, I don't think I can do that with pocketpc
- with hotsync, you just put the PDA in a cradle, hit the button and you're done. With activesync you get out your stylus and chose to export the data first. By default, activesync does not sync, only connects. To sync you tinker with the activesync settings - if the options are not mysteriously greyed out. I think activesync may be set to work only one PC.
- When my batteries ran out on my pocketpc, I lost my apps, and had to re-install, and re-register. This did not happen with my palmos device.
- palm is happy to provide you with palm's PIM software for your PC. Msft expects you to buy outlook.
Bottom line: I far prefer PalmOS's simple system, that just works.
I have both certs. Those certs are all about rote memorization of hardware specs, and network protocols, and the like.
For example, which processors will fit into a Socket-7? Which level of the OSI model relates to routing? Which cables are rated for 1gbs data transfers?
Arguably good stuff to know, but not very useful when faced with a difficult trouble-shooting problem. Something like "Teach Yourself Network trouble-shooting" might be better.
Scox is not just suing, scox is being sued. Buy IBM, RedHat, and Novell, and maybe others. Others may join in later. Class action lawsuits are not out of the question.
These lawsuits are no problem for scox, because scox plans on going bankrupt. But, if IBM bought scox, IBM would inheret all the lawsuits.
The entire scam was funded, and possibly orchestred, by msft. It was part of msft's ongoing Linux FUD campaign. And it is was more than a lawsuit and stock scam.
Lanham act violation - Scox knowing made verifiably untrue statements to the mass media. For example, scox has many times claimed to own the Unix operating system.
RICO - Scox has claimed that anybody using Linux has to pay scox, or scox will sue them. This is extortion, racketeering, and barratry. Scox even mailed out 1500 threatening letters.
Aside from funnelling money to scox, msft has clearly paid their shills - like Enderle - to promote the scam.
Msft, already convicted for abusive business practices, can not deny their involvement in this scam. If the sunw lawsuit was worth $2B, the IBM lawsuit should be worth $5B.
If you want to see real insider selling in a total tech scam look at GTW. On Friday GTW tanked 12% on > 2X normal volume to hit it's all time low.
CEO, and long time scam artist, Lap Shun Hui has been dumping his free shares by the millions, and not properly reporting his sales. Apparently the guy is above the law.
There has been very little insider selling involved in the scox-scam.
The whole point of an OS is to run your apps. If an OS doesn't do that, it's useless. I don't care if the OS is free, how fast it boots, how stable, how secure, how nice it looks, how evil msft is, or anything like that - if an OS doesn't run the apps, the OS is of no use. Period.
Since msft owns 90% - 95% of the desktop, who do you suppose most developers will develop for first? If anything OSX is a distant after-thought, and Linux even more so.
Also, any great F/OSS (Apache, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) will be ported to windows. So windows users enjoy the best of both worlds - in that respect.
One last thing, unknown to many Linux advocates: there is more to software than office-apps and mp3 players. There are thousands of verticle market applications that only run on msft.
It's a huge problem for desktop linux acceptance, and I don't see any way around it.
BTW: I use debian most of the time, but I still have to keep a windows partition. If I had to live with one OS, it would have to windows. *Sigh*.
Maybe it was a freash idea in the 1960s. But it got very old, very fast. After a while, a short while, you get one BS story, after another, after another. It quickly becomes pointless and tiresome.
A publication called "Rolling Stone" used to specialize in that sort of "journalism" - maybe they still do. After a while, you don't want read anything they publish, because you figure it's all crap.
Windows now has about 95% of the desktop market. Nobody is suggesting that will drop to 5% overnight.
Yes, the vast majority, of windows users will stay with windows, no question. But there is always that segment of the market which will be shopping for a new PC soon, and may consider a Mac.
How large could that segment be? 5% would be huge. If Apple could get another 2% - 3% of upcoming PC sale, Apple's sales would double. Clearly that is very significant.
Look at the job boards. Employers are looking for the right mixture of product specialized knowledge. Usually that want a combination of about six different products, and it's different for every position: one may want cisco, solaris, citrix, windows, oracle, veritas. The next may want: windows, redhat, ms-sql server, perl, php, html, css. And so on.
I always get the idea that the "authorities" who right these articles don't have a clue about the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to work for a company IncentraSolutions, which used OTRS to manage hundreds of customers, nationally and internationally.
Providing customer support was the core of their business. Incentra used OTRS by dozen of reps, 24/7.
>>I once went to a job interview where the newspaper add had absolutely nothing to do with the actual job requirements. About 5 minutes into the interview it was obvious that I was not meant for that job, but they insisted on torturing me for 3 hours anyway. What's the f***ing point!
I once turned down a $300 gig to go to such an interview. About five minutes into the interview, the guy glances at my resume and said: "oh, I can see by resume that are not qualified for this job." So why did they even call me in at all? Shouldn't they at least glance at my resume before they call me in?
After I was laid off at general dynamics, I was offered some free training from unemployment. They rejected all of my training ideas, and kept pushing project management, so I took that.
I inverviewed at raytheon for a job that I seemed to fit perfectly, especially since my top secret clearance was still active. The interviewer was very concerned about my project managemnet training. He kept saying: "this is just an admin job, it involves no project management." No matter what I said, his concern was very apparent.
I also interviewed at Sun, for a job that required a TS clearance. Same thing. The interviewer abrubtly said: "most of the people we hire for this position don't have that sort of education." and that was it.
My training in PM is useless for getting a PM job. Those jobs require years of experience in PM, and also years of experience in the specific technology being managed.
It seems to me, that most of the jobs listed (that anybody would want)are only available to people who already have those jobs.
The simple reason is: why rock the boat.
For example: let's say you are hired to work for slave wages at the helpdesk. After two months, you have proven your worth by doing a great job.
Hey, they have a great helpdesk tech who works for slave wages. Why should they ever promote the tech? If they promote the tech, then they'll have to get a new tech, and train him/her. Of course the tech will just quite, but companies are seldomly that far sighted. After the tech quits, the company will bitch about how techs are job hoppers.
Companies don't want to train because they are afraid of training people for the next job. Besides, it doesn't fit into the budget.
I've worked in IT over 25 years.
From what I have seen, over and over, hiring, retention, and promotions, are almost arbitrary. Such decions are almost never based on sound logic. Many times I've seen people promoted to management who have neither business, or technical, skills.
If so called "social skills" means playing politics, then I suppose that is important.
I can only post from my own experience.
I a using a two, or maybe even three, year old version of PockPC. But, I've used even older versions of PalmOS.
Recently, at work, I have had to switch form palmos to pocketpc.
From my experience, pocketpc just sucks. It is overloaded with useless features, it's slow and buggy, it's more complicated and less intuitive to use, and - of course - has the typical msft arm-twisting to buy msft only products.
Small wonder msft is the 4th most popular mobile device OS.
- I had no trouble syncing my palmos with linux, I don't think I can do that with pocketpc
- with hotsync, you just put the PDA in a cradle, hit the button and you're done. With activesync you get out your stylus and chose to export the data first. By default, activesync does not sync, only connects. To sync you tinker with the activesync settings - if the options are not mysteriously greyed out. I think activesync may be set to work only one PC.
- When my batteries ran out on my pocketpc, I lost my apps, and had to re-install, and re-register. This did not happen with my palmos device.
- palm is happy to provide you with palm's PIM software for your PC. Msft expects you to buy outlook.
Bottom line: I far prefer PalmOS's simple system, that just works.
As I understand it.
How does it hurt google for it's name to used as a verb?
I think, if anything, it would help google. I think that anything that makes your business name a household word, would be be helpful.
The media using google as a verb simply reflects the reality of the widespread use of "google" as a verb.
Create a user name that's derived from somebody you don't care for, maybe Darl McBride, or Jeff Merkey.
Then search for books on facisim, or sexual perversion, or how to make bombs, or something.
If enough people did it, their database would be useless.
I use debian myself.
But, I get sick and tired of zealots taking every opportunity to promote linux.
Okay, we get it, you use linux. We are all so proud of you. There, feel better now?
Back to reality, linux is not for everybody. If somebody is having problems with XP, saying "just install linux" will not make that person happy.
I have both certs. Those certs are all about rote memorization of hardware specs, and network protocols, and the like.
For example, which processors will fit into a Socket-7? Which level of the OSI model relates to routing? Which cables are rated for 1gbs data transfers?
Arguably good stuff to know, but not very useful when faced with a difficult trouble-shooting problem. Something like "Teach Yourself Network trouble-shooting" might be better.
I have plenty of evidence. After getting caught, msft admitted their involvement. Look for the "Halloween document."
Scox is not just suing, scox is being sued. Buy IBM, RedHat, and Novell, and maybe others. Others may join in later. Class action lawsuits are not out of the question.
These lawsuits are no problem for scox, because scox plans on going bankrupt. But, if IBM bought scox, IBM would inheret all the lawsuits.
Why do you think msft decided to sue by proxie?
The entire scam was funded, and possibly orchestred, by msft. It was part of msft's ongoing Linux FUD campaign. And it is was more than a lawsuit and stock scam.
Lanham act violation - Scox knowing made verifiably untrue statements to the mass media. For example, scox has many times claimed to own the Unix operating system.
RICO - Scox has claimed that anybody using Linux has to pay scox, or scox will sue them. This is extortion, racketeering, and barratry. Scox even mailed out 1500 threatening letters.
Aside from funnelling money to scox, msft has clearly paid their shills - like Enderle - to promote the scam.
Msft, already convicted for abusive business practices, can not deny their involvement in this scam. If the sunw lawsuit was worth $2B, the IBM lawsuit should be worth $5B.
Actually scox hit an intraday low of $0.56 on the day darl mcbride took over. Back then scox had about 10MM shares, today scox has about 20MM shares.
Even with scox at three year lows, the market-cap is up from about $6MM to over $40MM.
If you want to see real insider selling in a total tech scam look at GTW. On Friday GTW tanked 12% on > 2X normal volume to hit it's all time low.
CEO, and long time scam artist, Lap Shun Hui has been dumping his free shares by the millions, and not properly reporting his sales. Apparently the guy is above the law.
There has been very little insider selling involved in the scox-scam.
The whole point of an OS is to run your apps. If an OS doesn't do that, it's useless. I don't care if the OS is free, how fast it boots, how stable, how secure, how nice it looks, how evil msft is, or anything like that - if an OS doesn't run the apps, the OS is of no use. Period.
Since msft owns 90% - 95% of the desktop, who do you suppose most developers will develop for first? If anything OSX is a distant after-thought, and Linux even more so.
Also, any great F/OSS (Apache, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc.) will be ported to windows. So windows users enjoy the best of both worlds - in that respect.
One last thing, unknown to many Linux advocates: there is more to software than office-apps and mp3 players. There are thousands of verticle market applications that only run on msft.
It's a huge problem for desktop linux acceptance, and I don't see any way around it.
BTW: I use debian most of the time, but I still have to keep a windows partition. If I had to live with one OS, it would have to windows. *Sigh*.
I surprised you didn't mention the backwards compatibility issues.
Maybe it was a freash idea in the 1960s. But it got very old, very fast. After a while, a short while, you get one BS story, after another, after another. It quickly becomes pointless and tiresome.
A publication called "Rolling Stone" used to specialize in that sort of "journalism" - maybe they still do. After a while, you don't want read anything they publish, because you figure it's all crap.
Windows now has about 95% of the desktop market. Nobody is suggesting that will drop to 5% overnight.
Yes, the vast majority, of windows users will stay with windows, no question. But there is always that segment of the market which will be shopping for a new PC soon, and may consider a Mac.
How large could that segment be? 5% would be huge. If Apple could get another 2% - 3% of upcoming PC sale, Apple's sales would double. Clearly that is very significant.
"if you contribute to Linux, you can expect a msft sponsored bogo-lawsuit."
Even if IBM wins, the lawsuit will have cost IBM about $100 million. The lawsuit also will provide msft with five years anti-linux fud.
IBM can afford a $100M bogo-lawsuit, but what about companies that can not afford that? Or, what about companies that are not as commited to linux?
I will bet that a lot of companies have decided not to contributing to linux, due to the scox-scam.
Msft wins again.
It's the old chicken-and-egg problem. No body will hire you for those "hot" technology unless you already have years of experience with them.
Look at the job boards. Employers are looking for the right mixture of product specialized knowledge. Usually that want a combination of about six different products, and it's different for every position: one may want cisco, solaris, citrix, windows, oracle, veritas. The next may want: windows, redhat, ms-sql server, perl, php, html, css. And so on.
I always get the idea that the "authorities" who right these articles don't have a clue about the real world.