One of the best managers I ever had had no IT background at all.
She did have a technical background - as an accountant - but she was managing an IT department.
I think it worked for her for three reasons -
1) She didn't pretend to know stuff she didn't - it's amazing how well people respond if you treat them honestly. Sure some people have hidden agendas and would try to exploit her lack of knowledge - but on the whole trust inspires trust. For the rest - see point 3)
2) She was willing and able to learn. She learnt enough technical detail to carry on meaningful conversations with her staff. She showed them by absorbing and retaining knowledge that she had a brain and was prepared to use it. This earns respect.
3) She was a good judge of character. She quickly figured out who really knew their stuff and she relied on key people to advise her on technical matters.
But maybe she was the exception rather than the rule.
The scientists should be in charge of the science, the engineers in charge of the engineering and the programmers in charge of the programming
Hmm first line managers maybe, but ultimately managers have to manage areas they have limited understanding of. The higher up you go the less you need to know of the technical details. If this wasn't the case - you'd never be able to have very large organisations - no-one can understand all the different disciplines to that level of detail.
Programmers don't always make good managers. The skills involved are very different. On the other hand you have to have the respect of your staff and the less technical managers tend to lose that. But the key is don't pretend to know more than you do - "Well Bob, I don't claim to understand how software B works but I need something that can do function Z - how do we best acheive that?" rather than "Bob, change software B, add function Z and have it done by lunchtime"
I left my last job after trying my hand at being a Team Leader - first small step on the management ladder. It was the only way to progress in that organisation. I tried it for 18months and whilst I think I was competent enough I wasn't great at it. I might have been better if I hadn't been the techie I am - because I needed to spend more time managing and less time in actual technical work. But I was doing that because - a) I didn't want to give up my technical skills completely, b) I didn't enjoy managing as much. It was when I figured this out that I realised that management wasn't for me - at least right now.
Since you asked here is a brief-ish account of what happened.
It was Sept/Oct 99 and I was trying to help my friend Andy install LinuxPPC on his Mac. He wanted to try it out - so he wanted to dual-boot with MacOS (8.6 I think).
I'd been using Linux on PCs since 94, plus I was more of a techie than Andy. But crucially I don't know Macs and Andy didn't on a techie level - though he was what I would call an expert user.
I'd be lying if I said I can remember the exact details of everything we did but I can best sum up the problems we encountered by saying that the state of the Linux install seemed similar to some of my first experiences in x86 linux installs a few years previous.
The documentation was scant - you had to hunt out HOWTOs and FAQs from the web. So we'd get part through the install, realize we'd miss something, reboot into MacOS to connect to the web and search for help.
The disk partitioning was done by hand - with a command line interface. I was fairly comfortable with this but at the time x86 commonly had character-graphical tools.
At one stage we corrupted the boot sector (or the Mac equivalent) and we were in the Mac firmware/BIOS. I was surprised and slightly daunted to realise it was written in Forth! - which I very very vaguely knew from school days. A visit to Apple's technical support webpages and we eventually fixed that problem.
Overall I think I can't be too critical of LinuxPPC itself (and if my original post seemed so I apologise). I think it was a combination of factors, including
- my lack of Mac expertese
- trying to install dual-boot, always harder than a straight install
but also I think *at the time* you did need to be fairly technical and knowledgeable to install it. Whereas Yellow Dog as described in the review seems much more end-user friendly. But then again I'm sure by now LinuxPPC is just as easy to install.
The postscript to the story is that after a fairly difficult few days of installing, Andy was very pleased with his new Linux system. He had to learn a few new concepts but soon he was up and running. He liked the desktop (Gnome IIRC). He was impressed by Gimp - whilst it was no Photoshop it was the best thing he'd seen for free. So a happy ending.
Pretty thorough review and the guy seems to know his Macs (which I don't particularly).
I was just wondering though if he perceives OS X as slow because there really isn't much native software yet - it all runs through the compatibility layer (forgotten the name).
But Yellow Dog certainly seems to be a lot better than LinuxPPC which I tried to help my friend install and found tricky. But that was a year ago and things have moved on.
I was disturbed that there seem to be a number of installation options you can't change - I think it needs an 'expert mode'.
UK's even simpler - tick or cross in a box next to a name. Of course that's because we have First Past the Post rather than Proportional Representation. Which may be a worse or better system depending on your point of view.
I find this whole topic a minefield. I've been refining my opinions on it for years and I don't pretend to be clever enough to understand all the issues.
Having said that I gonna dive in... (diving into a minefield - mixed metaphors are fun!:) )
Your criticism appears to be that IBM is prepared to promote Linux whilst at the same time not wholly accepting the philosophy which produced it. You feel that because they have put a lot of money into Linux they must automatically adopt a particular view of IP. To do otherwise is "unethical and inconsistent"
But it's only inconsistent if you assume that IBM's motivation in promoting Linux is to promote Free Software. But it's not - it's to take advantage of a business opportunity. IBM are doing what any business does - they've seen an opportunity to make money and they are pursuing it. The 'deal' they've made is to put money and resources into the promotion and development of Linux - in order to reap the reward of increased sales of hardware, services, support and proprietary software.
Ethics are very subjective and IBM seems to have a chequered history but I will say this: Without necessarily adopting the Free Software Philosophy they seem to have behaved responsibly and fairly - giving back to the community and respecting the licensing of Linux.
You'll notice btw that Handy all the way through is very careful to say "Open Source" rather than "Free Software".
Imagine for a second a new non-free OS called Newnix. Imagine that it suddenly becomes popular and begins to pick up serious market share in the server market. But it's new so there's not the availability of compatible hardware, software, services and support. A lot of businesses would seriously consider a major commitment to Newnix if only these things were in place. Serious enough to pay for them. As soon as that happens software, hardware and services businesses will scramble to get involved in Newnix and get a piece of this new pie.
Now do you understand IBM's commitment to Linux? It's not fundamentally different to their commitment to Windows or any other platform.
Finally - and I do realize I've rambled - presumably you object to the fact that they are prepared to use the fruits of others' commitment to Free Software whilst not embracing this themselves. However that's the paradox of Free Software, of some might say, Freedom itself (whatever that is!) - namely that if you are truely committed to it you end up supporting the rights of those who are not.
"And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?"
Actually it's the exact opposite. The GPL is there is preserve the right to change and distribute changes. Copyright here is being used to protect the integrity of the original. Although I agree it is a good thing.
At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
I haven't got a copy to hand to check but The Bible Society holds one of them, I think Hodder and Stoughton have another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the theory behind it is not so much to prevent people acquiring it, or even to make money, but to prevent against someone changing the text.
So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
You misunderstand me. I do not use the word belief to mean blind faith. I simply mean the state of being convinced of something.
Where we agree is that on this issue people's beliefs should be based on scientific evidence rather than a gut feeling or other factors.
There's a whole area of philosophy which deals with how we know what we know and how certain we can be of it. You yourself say that science is "our vision of truth, as close as we can get it". Sometimes science brings along a change so radical that it completely alters what we thought we knew ("the world is round not flat", "the earth goes around the sun"). So I think that using the word 'believe' is often more appropriate than 'know' - even where we are discussing scientific conclusions based on evidence.
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
I'm not really disagreeing with your underlying point but you need to understand that faith can be based on evidence as much as it can be based on nothing or wishful thinking.
However I think Jon Katz actually raising the issue of belief is a key one. Until people believe the problem is real they won't be motivated to make the changes, or influence their governments to make the changes.
when I was 15 our school had an educational visit from some guys from the local (50 miles) nuclear power station. I asked this question "Isn't it irresponsible to use a form of energy which creates a waste product which will be toxic for thousands of years?"
The answer - he suggested that we can store it safely and that in 50 or 100 years maybe we'll find a way to use it safely, maybe we'll have a little slot on the side of our house where we'll put pellets of the waste to fuel our homes.
I never he felt he answered my question adequately and I still don't feel anyone else has.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the best managers I ever had had no IT background at all.
She did have a technical background - as an accountant - but she was managing an IT department.
I think it worked for her for three reasons -
1) She didn't pretend to know stuff she didn't - it's amazing how well people respond if you treat them honestly. Sure some people have hidden agendas and would try to exploit her lack of knowledge - but on the whole trust inspires trust. For the rest - see point 3)
2) She was willing and able to learn. She learnt enough technical detail to carry on meaningful conversations with her staff. She showed them by absorbing and retaining knowledge that she had a brain and was prepared to use it. This earns respect.
3) She was a good judge of character. She quickly figured out who really knew their stuff and she relied on key people to advise her on technical matters.
But maybe she was the exception rather than the rule.
I used to work for an electricity company in the UK. The IT deparment was ~150 people - I led a team of 6 DBAs
The scientists should be in charge of the science, the engineers in charge of the engineering and the programmers in charge of the programming
Hmm first line managers maybe, but ultimately managers have to manage areas they have limited understanding of. The higher up you go the less you need to know of the technical details. If this wasn't the case - you'd never be able to have very large organisations - no-one can understand all the different disciplines to that level of detail.
Programmers don't always make good managers. The skills involved are very different. On the other hand you have to have the respect of your staff and the less technical managers tend to lose that. But the key is don't pretend to know more than you do - "Well Bob, I don't claim to understand how software B works but I need something that can do function Z - how do we best acheive that?" rather than "Bob, change software B, add function Z and have it done by lunchtime"
I left my last job after trying my hand at being a Team Leader - first small step on the management ladder. It was the only way to progress in that organisation. I tried it for 18months and whilst I think I was competent enough I wasn't great at it. I might have been better if I hadn't been the techie I am - because I needed to spend more time managing and less time in actual technical work. But I was doing that because - a) I didn't want to give up my technical skills completely, b) I didn't enjoy managing as much. It was when I figured this out that I realised that management wasn't for me - at least right now.
Since you asked here is a brief-ish account of what happened.
It was Sept/Oct 99 and I was trying to help my friend Andy install LinuxPPC on his Mac. He wanted to try it out - so he wanted to dual-boot with MacOS (8.6 I think).
I'd been using Linux on PCs since 94, plus I was more of a techie than Andy. But crucially I don't know Macs and Andy didn't on a techie level - though he was what I would call an expert user.
I'd be lying if I said I can remember the exact details of everything we did but I can best sum up the problems we encountered by saying that the state of the Linux install seemed similar to some of my first experiences in x86 linux installs a few years previous.
The documentation was scant - you had to hunt out HOWTOs and FAQs from the web. So we'd get part through the install, realize we'd miss something, reboot into MacOS to connect to the web and search for help.
The disk partitioning was done by hand - with a command line interface. I was fairly comfortable with this but at the time x86 commonly had character-graphical tools.
At one stage we corrupted the boot sector (or the Mac equivalent) and we were in the Mac firmware/BIOS. I was surprised and slightly daunted to realise it was written in Forth! - which I very very vaguely knew from school days. A visit to Apple's technical support webpages and we eventually fixed that problem.
Overall I think I can't be too critical of LinuxPPC itself (and if my original post seemed so I apologise). I think it was a combination of factors, including
- my lack of Mac expertese
- trying to install dual-boot, always harder than a straight install
but also I think *at the time* you did need to be fairly technical and knowledgeable to install it. Whereas Yellow Dog as described in the review seems much more end-user friendly. But then again I'm sure by now LinuxPPC is just as easy to install.
The postscript to the story is that after a fairly difficult few days of installing, Andy was very pleased with his new Linux system. He had to learn a few new concepts but soon he was up and running. He liked the desktop (Gnome IIRC). He was impressed by Gimp - whilst it was no Photoshop it was the best thing he'd seen for free. So a happy ending.
Pretty thorough review and the guy seems to know his Macs (which I don't particularly).
I was just wondering though if he perceives OS X as slow because there really isn't much native software yet - it all runs through the compatibility layer (forgotten the name).
But Yellow Dog certainly seems to be a lot better than LinuxPPC which I tried to help my friend install and found tricky. But that was a year ago and things have moved on.
I was disturbed that there seem to be a number of installation options you can't change - I think it needs an 'expert mode'.
1. people write numbers next to names
UK's even simpler - tick or cross in a box next to a name. Of course that's because we have First Past the Post rather than Proportional Representation. Which may be a worse or better system depending on your point of view.
The question was "Is broadband really slowing down?"
ADSL is broadband.
I find this whole topic a minefield. I've been refining my opinions on it for years and I don't pretend to be clever enough to understand all the issues.
Having said that I gonna dive in... (diving into a minefield - mixed metaphors are fun!Your criticism appears to be that IBM is prepared to promote Linux whilst at the same time not wholly accepting the philosophy which produced it. You feel that because they have put a lot of money into Linux they must automatically adopt a particular view of IP. To do otherwise is "unethical and inconsistent"
But it's only inconsistent if you assume that IBM's motivation in promoting Linux is to promote Free Software. But it's not - it's to take advantage of a business opportunity. IBM are doing what any business does - they've seen an opportunity to make money and they are pursuing it. The 'deal' they've made is to put money and resources into the promotion and development of Linux - in order to reap the reward of increased sales of hardware, services, support and proprietary software.
Ethics are very subjective and IBM seems to have a chequered history but I will say this: Without necessarily adopting the Free Software Philosophy they seem to have behaved responsibly and fairly - giving back to the community and respecting the licensing of Linux.
You'll notice btw that Handy all the way through is very careful to say "Open Source" rather than "Free Software".
Imagine for a second a new non-free OS called Newnix. Imagine that it suddenly becomes popular and begins to pick up serious market share in the server market. But it's new so there's not the availability of compatible hardware, software, services and support. A lot of businesses would seriously consider a major commitment to Newnix if only these things were in place. Serious enough to pay for them. As soon as that happens software, hardware and services businesses will scramble to get involved in Newnix and get a piece of this new pie.
Now do you understand IBM's commitment to Linux? It's not fundamentally different to their commitment to Windows or any other platform.
Finally - and I do realize I've rambled - presumably you object to the fact that they are prepared to use the fruits of others' commitment to Free Software whilst not embracing this themselves. However that's the paradox of Free Software, of some might say, Freedom itself (whatever that is!) - namely that if you are truely committed to it you end up supporting the rights of those who are not.
Ah I didn't realize the KJV was Crown Copyright.
I'm from the UK too btw.
"And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?"
Actually it's the exact opposite. The GPL is there is preserve the right to change and distribute changes. Copyright here is being used to protect the integrity of the original. Although I agree it is a good thing.
At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
I haven't got a copy to hand to check but The Bible Society holds one of them, I think Hodder and Stoughton have another. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I believe the theory behind it is not so much to prevent people acquiring it, or even to make money, but to prevent against someone changing the text.
So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
There is a Linux for Psion project see here
It's worse than just being a weak rebuttal. It hurts his overall argument.
The whole paper is supposed to give 'quantitative' reasons to choose Free Software - i.e. the numbers.
Here he's effectively saying "You don't need to see the numbers, I've already decided for you that they don't matter"
You misunderstand me. I do not use the word belief to mean blind faith. I simply mean the state of being convinced of something.
Where we agree is that on this issue people's beliefs should be based on scientific evidence rather than a gut feeling or other factors.
There's a whole area of philosophy which deals with how we know what we know and how certain we can be of it. You yourself say that science is "our vision of truth, as close as we can get it". Sometimes science brings along a change so radical that it completely alters what we thought we knew ("the world is round not flat", "the earth goes around the sun"). So I think that using the word 'believe' is often more appropriate than 'know' - even where we are discussing scientific conclusions based on evidence.
To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
I'm not really disagreeing with your underlying point but you need to understand that faith can be based on evidence as much as it can be based on nothing or wishful thinking.
I agree with nearly all of what you've said.
However I think Jon Katz actually raising the issue of belief is a key one. Until people believe the problem is real they won't be motivated to make the changes, or influence their governments to make the changes.
You use "we" like everyone but you should be setting up and maintaining your infrastructure for you.
I said 'we' and I meant 'we' I didn't mean 'everyone but me'.
I agree with you on the whole. I'm not 100% anti-nuclear energy.
The original poster implied there were no downsides to nuclear.
As you pointed out all forms of energy have a downside.
It's not an either/or necessarily. We should be looking to use less power and looking into renewable energy.
when I was 15 our school had an educational visit from some guys from the local (50 miles) nuclear power station. I asked this question "Isn't it irresponsible to use a form of energy which creates a waste product which will be toxic for thousands of years?"
The answer - he suggested that we can store it safely and that in 50 or 100 years maybe we'll find a way to use it safely, maybe we'll have a little slot on the side of our house where we'll put pellets of the waste to fuel our homes.
I never he felt he answered my question adequately and I still don't feel anyone else has.
I may be missing something but x.xx and y.yy WILL result in an answer of the form zz.zzzz
quoi?
yes - but I find that's not a bad thing
thanks - that'll keep me entertained for a while.
I saw that show and Harrison Ford said that he was definitely interested in doing it. However he gave the impression that no firm plans were in place.
The Techno-Trousers were 'Ex-NASA' - so there's prior art but it doesn't belong to Wallace.
The porridge cannon on the other hand...
Who modded this up as Funny? There's nothing funny about 1st and 2nd degree burns.