After reading the article, I found several flaws with his arguments.
Operating systems are not irrelevant. Software has to run on something. Flawed OS, flawed running of software.
Yes, he's invented a kicky way of portraying information that he likes. Who says it's going to work for everyone? He may like it - but his way of working doesn't sound like mine.
Microsoft won a technical victory. Fine, it doesn't mean that it's the right choice.
He wants us to put our entire "narrative of life" on an Operating System. I want to damn well trust that OS and not have to replace it every year or pay a liscensing fee and loose my narrative.
He's trying to build a house for everyone based on his preferences and with no attention to the foundation.
How many other "marketing-oriented" "facts" are being touted today as justification for business, hiring, tactical, or hiring strategies? Or to be cruder, how many other business lies are out there mucking things up?
There's a re-evaluation of business tactics and laws going on. Maybe its time to re-evaluate supposed technological "truths" as well.
And maybe we techies can use this as yet another example of the hype over reality in technology, since WorldCom is in the use. Next time someone non-technical tosses out something obviously ridiculous, bring THIS up and ask them where they got their idea.
Sure we can trust the Big Corporations . . .
on
MPAA vs. Television
·
· Score: 2
Just a thought . ..
Right now America's mistrust of corporations and those that run them is quite high.
Maybe this is a new weapon in our arsenal against the MPAA and their ilk.
People are now aware that some CEOs and their cronies used their companies for personal enrichment while shafting everyone else. They used others for their own personal enrichment.
The MPAA is trying to use lobbying and pressure to expand their control and wring more money out of us - previous laws and policies and basic decency be damned.
In both cases it's "we're rich, forget you and what happens to you."
Perhaps this may be a useful way to help Joe Public understand the issues.
The idea companies and individuals have an absolute right to make a profit is not just the root of this behavior - its one of the roots of the scandals now plauging American businesses.
It's not very far from "I can cook the books to make money" to "I can manipulate the government to enforce my ability to make money" is it?
Every few years Micrisoft tosses out yet ANOTHER technology that's going to be the next big thing and everyone has to use. So, how long is.NET going to survive before there's.NET+? Or.NET2005? Or.NETX?
Will Apache then keep up with that? Will Microsoft let them?
I remember COM, COM+, DCOM, and MTS. I still have to explain the difference to people.
This article is completely irrelevant to spam. It's essentially a study in Diffusion of Responsibility and related, well-known psychological phenomena.
Yes, it's quite relevant, and suggests the 'net may extend well known psychological phenomena to unforseen degrees. But as for spam, it doesn't tell us a thing.
This isn't news. We've known this. We've known this for quite awhile. It's not new.
News is a business. Your choice is pretty much either try for "objectivity" via government control or leave it to something vaguely resembling free enterprise.
And we get all the attendant advantages and problems. And we've known this for quite awhile. I became graphically aware of it during the OJ mess.
Of course, it's good to talk about it. It's become a problem. It's gotten worse.
However, after you talk you SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Don't whine, don't be a victim, don't expect someone else to solve it for you, DO something.
We can do something. We can use alternate outlets. We can make people aware. We can protest. We can write in (if you write something controversial it MAY get published since these guys do like sensationalism).
Yes, life can suck. Now stop being a victim and do something about it.
I suggest a good reading of Patrick Harpur's "Daimonic Reality" if you can get a copy. He takes a look at "Otherworldly" phenomena that's very eye-opening.
Re:This is arguably *the* most critical problem
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Yes. Yes, exactly.
I'm an M$ developer for the most part (though I'm moving away as fast as my career will allows) and it gets utterly insane. After several years of ASP, VB, ADO development, suddenly I have to deal with.NET.
This is why I'm moving towards PHP, *nix, Java, and C++. This is insane.
First, I think the article is spot-on. Gods, I'm tired of adapting to so-called upgrades. I rarely upgrade things unless there's a reason, but there are times you're left with no choice (say, a company-wide decision).
The other side of this thats ignored is the programmers. A lot of us are NOT trying to ram out Spectacleware, we'd like to talk to the users, like to go "slow and steady" and don't get the options. We don't often get the chance to make that decision, however, because someone wants something out the door pronto.
Version fatigue? I'd say its being suffered on both sides because the people making the decisions don't care about users or programmers.
Re:bah. ignore the users.
on
Version Fatigue
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Ever project I've been on that ignored the users ended up crashing and burning and eating up a lot of cash and time. In many cases a programmer doesn't know what a user needs because they have different experiences. I've seen year-plus-long projects go under because users simply refused to use a new system that was forced on them.
Of course its NOT easy to figure out what users want, and it requires some savvy to figure it out and get sign-off. That's part of the programming lifestyle.
I can sympathize with version fatigue, though. I'm tired of companies (read M$) deciding how I think.
Wal-Mart is offering cheap machines for basic users with a reliable OS. It's a good alternative to windows for many people, and Wal-Mart makes a nice bit of money.
In this economy (worldwide and American), things are a bit tighter, people want more bang for their buck. Wal-Mart is filling that need.
This is interesting news for Microsoft. I have to wonder how much of M$'s sales were due to economic exhuberance and people feeling any computer problem can be solved by throwing money at a big name.
I wonder if the economic downturn in America and the slow global economy are actually Microsoft's greatest enemies? Sure, it's great to blow gods-know-how-much money on some flashy M$ product when everyone wanted a familiar face. It's something quite different when the bottom line looms in people's visions.
But a third party company screwed this baby up in transition, not M$. Using this as a "M$-is-so-evil/incompetent" story is pretty inappropriate.
There's many, many other reasons to dislike Microsoft. Taking one out of context only strengthen's Microsoft's hand and makes those who oppose Microsoft look petty.
Approaching this differently, here are my experiences when I had counteroffers and stayed.
Twice in my first consulting position (4.5 years), I had an opportunity to leave. The first was when a client made an offer, and the company counteroffered before I said anything. The second was when I considered leaving the consulting business, and they offered to transfer me to a different position.
The first time I did not initiate the job search. The second time I was fed up with a lot of issues, but the company understood and I had been a loyal employee for several years.
In short, if you've got a good relationship with the company and good reason to leave, a counteroffer may be an adjustment.
Now, on the flipside . ..
If the company is paying you squat and now suddenly magically finds the money, be very, very suspicious. It doesn't sound like the relationship is solid, and they're only looking at the bottom line.
I've heard tell, as many have said here, that counteroffers are just an attempt to retain you until they can fire you. In many cases, it seems to be a fact.
I was interviewed for a position. I was perfectly qualified for it. The managers liked me. What happened? It and 11 other positions (all unfilled at the time) were transferred to another department. So the process had to start over - and this company took 5 weeks minimum to hire people (usually more like 8 now).
I keep reminding myself that they're just screwing themselves, and they'll have to come running to us IT people eventually.
One company I was talking to had things so bad managers were going over HR's head because they were FOUR people behind on hiring. In IT. In this economy. With a project needing to be completed.
Seen the same thing. The Overseas thing just doesn't seem to work.
IT requires, in many cases, a team and team mentality. It requires contact with design teams, marketing, etc. Just tossing it to someone else won't work.
I'm an IT professional with 6.5 years of experience, who lost his job in the great downsizing. It's been a pain, but I've also learned a lot, especially by talking to companies, recruiters, and my fellow downsizees. This is what I've found - though your millage may vary.
First, even with the job cuts, IT is a huge and unavoidable part of the economy. It will inevitably recover because IT is too important. It will expand because IT has definitely not met the limits of what it can do.
Second, some of the cuts done were extremely unwise and are backfiring on companies already. I hear stories of patches not being released, remaining staff members working on maintenance instead of improvement or expansion, etc.
Third, one of the biggest barriers to hiring now is the HR department. Consulting companies, recruiters, and potential employees are confronted with slow processes, poor interviews, and HR departments that do not know what they're talking about technology-wise. Nothing like having someone ask you if you have two years of Windows 2000 or.NET. I've also seen companies lose people because HR moves to slow - losing people in THIS economy.
Fourth, as the article notes, many companies have largely screwed themselves in their approach to IT. IT, in my experience, has a high turnover rate, and these recent activities only encourage people to leave IT and avoid IT. Without training, their employees won't have skills (while some of us hardcores will practice our code while we flip burgers or cash our unemployment checks). They'll have to break down and hire knowledgeable people.
In my experience, the market has already started opening up, especially for people with 3+ years of experience. Give it another year and IT will be back to where it was and then some - because, even if people don't like it, they need us.
Even in this crappy economy, I just landed a job. Why? No one had the experience needed for what I had to do.
Also, if you're "just a coder" you are screwed. Why? Because code-pounding doesn't cut it anymore. I sell myself on a variety of extra skills - knowledge of statistics, research, and communications. I do architecture and databases. In short, I'm broadened.
Computers are here to stay. You may not make a quarter of a million a year. You WILL be employed. Just keep up your skills and expand your scope, and be ready to do some lead or project management work.
Also, take a look at degrees. I'm seeing more and more call for them.
The article, despite some interesting theorizations, basically supposes the internet and technology already exists in a vaccum that only a few people can affect, and that they're all on the same side. So this future will come about.
The internet does not exist in a vaccum, it is used by millions of people.
Technology is not just a monolithic product, and attempts to make it so will doubtlessly backfire. If the US government mandated ridiculous standards, what that did in the US would NOT necessarily affect the rest of the world. One could also kiss some exports goodbye.
The various 800-lb Gorillas in technology are NOT on the same side, and they've got other factions nipping at their heels as well. Take a look at the new Gateway commericals that emphasize CD ripping for just one example . ..
It is also assumed people are sheep. The problem being of course everyone assumes OTHER people are sheep while they of course are independent and free-spirited. Take a look at the spambusting, the popupkillers, DCSS, etc. People have been rebelling against this crap for some time.
Would some people like the 'net this way? Definitely. Will it happen? The fact we already have stories like this tells me probably not.
Interesting thought here from a non-engineer:
If the buildings experience side effects of unintentional cooling, perhaps this design is, thus, best suited for a warmer environment.
This makes me wonder therefore if there are a variety of possible energy-saving building designs - that are best suited for different environments. What can work best in a given environment to use renewable energy resources? Is there research going on in this area?
Slashdot Mirror
He's trying to build a house for everyone based on his preferences and with no attention to the foundation.
Heck with me the unemployment in my state is very nice, and pays about as much as a McDonalds job after taxes.
How many other "marketing-oriented" "facts" are being touted today as justification for business, hiring, tactical, or hiring strategies? Or to be cruder, how many other business lies are out there mucking things up?
There's a re-evaluation of business tactics and laws going on. Maybe its time to re-evaluate supposed technological "truths" as well.
And maybe we techies can use this as yet another example of the hype over reality in technology, since WorldCom is in the use. Next time someone non-technical tosses out something obviously ridiculous, bring THIS up and ask them where they got their idea.
Just a thought . . .
Right now America's mistrust of corporations and those that run them is quite high.
Maybe this is a new weapon in our arsenal against the MPAA and their ilk.
People are now aware that some CEOs and their cronies used their companies for personal enrichment while shafting everyone else. They used others for their own personal enrichment.
The MPAA is trying to use lobbying and pressure to expand their control and wring more money out of us - previous laws and policies and basic decency be damned.
In both cases it's "we're rich, forget you and what happens to you."
Perhaps this may be a useful way to help Joe Public understand the issues.
Just a thought.
The idea companies and individuals have an absolute right to make a profit is not just the root of this behavior - its one of the roots of the scandals now plauging American businesses.
It's not very far from "I can cook the books to make money" to "I can manipulate the government to enforce my ability to make money" is it?
Every few years Micrisoft tosses out yet ANOTHER technology that's going to be the next big thing and everyone has to use. So, how long is .NET going to survive before there's .NET+? Or .NET2005? Or .NETX?
Will Apache then keep up with that? Will Microsoft let them?
I remember COM, COM+, DCOM, and MTS. I still have to explain the difference to people.
This article is completely irrelevant to spam. It's essentially a study in Diffusion of Responsibility and related, well-known psychological phenomena.
Yes, it's quite relevant, and suggests the 'net may extend well known psychological phenomena to unforseen degrees. But as for spam, it doesn't tell us a thing.
Wow, so I can bring my computer up to government standards?
Sorry. I prefer to set my standards MUCH higher.
Patent the idea of ridiculous patents.
Sue anyone who then tries to claim a ridiculous patent idea like this.
This isn't news. We've known this. We've known this for quite awhile. It's not new.
News is a business. Your choice is pretty much either try for "objectivity" via government control or leave it to something vaguely resembling free enterprise.
And we get all the attendant advantages and problems. And we've known this for quite awhile. I became graphically aware of it during the OJ mess.
Of course, it's good to talk about it. It's become a problem. It's gotten worse.
However, after you talk you SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Don't whine, don't be a victim, don't expect someone else to solve it for you, DO something.
We can do something. We can use alternate outlets. We can make people aware. We can protest. We can write in (if you write something controversial it MAY get published since these guys do like sensationalism).
Yes, life can suck. Now stop being a victim and do something about it.
I suggest a good reading of Patrick Harpur's "Daimonic Reality" if you can get a copy. He takes a look at "Otherworldly" phenomena that's very eye-opening.
Yes. Yes, exactly.
.NET.
I'm an M$ developer for the most part (though I'm moving away as fast as my career will allows) and it gets utterly insane. After several years of ASP, VB, ADO development, suddenly I have to deal with
This is why I'm moving towards PHP, *nix, Java, and C++. This is insane.
First, I think the article is spot-on. Gods, I'm tired of adapting to so-called upgrades. I rarely upgrade things unless there's a reason, but there are times you're left with no choice (say, a company-wide decision).
The other side of this thats ignored is the programmers. A lot of us are NOT trying to ram out Spectacleware, we'd like to talk to the users, like to go "slow and steady" and don't get the options. We don't often get the chance to make that decision, however, because someone wants something out the door pronto.
Version fatigue? I'd say its being suffered on both sides because the people making the decisions don't care about users or programmers.
Ever project I've been on that ignored the users ended up crashing and burning and eating up a lot of cash and time. In many cases a programmer doesn't know what a user needs because they have different experiences. I've seen year-plus-long projects go under because users simply refused to use a new system that was forced on them.
Of course its NOT easy to figure out what users want, and it requires some savvy to figure it out and get sign-off. That's part of the programming lifestyle.
I can sympathize with version fatigue, though. I'm tired of companies (read M$) deciding how I think.
Forgive me if this diverges a bit here and there.
Wal-Mart is offering cheap machines for basic users with a reliable OS. It's a good alternative to windows for many people, and Wal-Mart makes a nice bit of money.
In this economy (worldwide and American), things are a bit tighter, people want more bang for their buck. Wal-Mart is filling that need.
This is interesting news for Microsoft. I have to wonder how much of M$'s sales were due to economic exhuberance and people feeling any computer problem can be solved by throwing money at a big name.
I wonder if the economic downturn in America and the slow global economy are actually Microsoft's greatest enemies? Sure, it's great to blow gods-know-how-much money on some flashy M$ product when everyone wanted a familiar face. It's something quite different when the bottom line looms in people's visions.
But a third party company screwed this baby up in transition, not M$. Using this as a "M$-is-so-evil/incompetent" story is pretty inappropriate.
There's many, many other reasons to dislike Microsoft. Taking one out of context only strengthen's Microsoft's hand and makes those who oppose Microsoft look petty.
Approaching this differently, here are my experiences when I had counteroffers and stayed.
.
Twice in my first consulting position (4.5 years), I had an opportunity to leave. The first was when a client made an offer, and the company counteroffered before I said anything. The second was when I considered leaving the consulting business, and they offered to transfer me to a different position.
The first time I did not initiate the job search. The second time I was fed up with a lot of issues, but the company understood and I had been a loyal employee for several years.
In short, if you've got a good relationship with the company and good reason to leave, a counteroffer may be an adjustment.
Now, on the flipside . .
If the company is paying you squat and now suddenly magically finds the money, be very, very suspicious. It doesn't sound like the relationship is solid, and they're only looking at the bottom line.
I've heard tell, as many have said here, that counteroffers are just an attempt to retain you until they can fire you. In many cases, it seems to be a fact.
Leave the job. Take the new one.
Agreed. 90% of my training has been on my own. Right now, got my head inside VB .NET and Java, and I'll probably be better off for it.
I've learned not to count on the companies unless they've really got a good rappor with employees.
Not surprised at all.
I was interviewed for a position. I was perfectly qualified for it. The managers liked me. What happened? It and 11 other positions (all unfilled at the time) were transferred to another department. So the process had to start over - and this company took 5 weeks minimum to hire people (usually more like 8 now).
I keep reminding myself that they're just screwing themselves, and they'll have to come running to us IT people eventually.
In my experience, HR makes a bad situation worse.
One company I was talking to had things so bad managers were going over HR's head because they were FOUR people behind on hiring. In IT. In this economy. With a project needing to be completed.
Seen the same thing. The Overseas thing just doesn't seem to work.
IT requires, in many cases, a team and team mentality. It requires contact with design teams, marketing, etc. Just tossing it to someone else won't work.
I'm an IT professional with 6.5 years of experience, who lost his job in the great downsizing. It's been a pain, but I've also learned a lot, especially by talking to companies, recruiters, and my fellow downsizees. This is what I've found - though your millage may vary.
.NET. I've also seen companies lose people because HR moves to slow - losing people in THIS economy.
First, even with the job cuts, IT is a huge and unavoidable part of the economy. It will inevitably recover because IT is too important. It will expand because IT has definitely not met the limits of what it can do.
Second, some of the cuts done were extremely unwise and are backfiring on companies already. I hear stories of patches not being released, remaining staff members working on maintenance instead of improvement or expansion, etc.
Third, one of the biggest barriers to hiring now is the HR department. Consulting companies, recruiters, and potential employees are confronted with slow processes, poor interviews, and HR departments that do not know what they're talking about technology-wise. Nothing like having someone ask you if you have two years of Windows 2000 or
Fourth, as the article notes, many companies have largely screwed themselves in their approach to IT. IT, in my experience, has a high turnover rate, and these recent activities only encourage people to leave IT and avoid IT. Without training, their employees won't have skills (while some of us hardcores will practice our code while we flip burgers or cash our unemployment checks). They'll have to break down and hire knowledgeable people.
In my experience, the market has already started opening up, especially for people with 3+ years of experience. Give it another year and IT will be back to where it was and then some - because, even if people don't like it, they need us.
Even in this crappy economy, I just landed a job. Why? No one had the experience needed for what I had to do.
Also, if you're "just a coder" you are screwed. Why? Because code-pounding doesn't cut it anymore. I sell myself on a variety of extra skills - knowledge of statistics, research, and communications. I do architecture and databases. In short, I'm broadened.
Computers are here to stay. You may not make a quarter of a million a year. You WILL be employed. Just keep up your skills and expand your scope, and be ready to do some lead or project management work.
Also, take a look at degrees. I'm seeing more and more call for them.
The article, despite some interesting theorizations, basically supposes the internet and technology already exists in a vaccum that only a few people can affect, and that they're all on the same side. So this future will come about.
.
The internet does not exist in a vaccum, it is used by millions of people.
Technology is not just a monolithic product, and attempts to make it so will doubtlessly backfire. If the US government mandated ridiculous standards, what that did in the US would NOT necessarily affect the rest of the world. One could also kiss some exports goodbye.
The various 800-lb Gorillas in technology are NOT on the same side, and they've got other factions nipping at their heels as well. Take a look at the new Gateway commericals that emphasize CD ripping for just one example . .
It is also assumed people are sheep. The problem being of course everyone assumes OTHER people are sheep while they of course are independent and free-spirited. Take a look at the spambusting, the popupkillers, DCSS, etc. People have been rebelling against this crap for some time.
Would some people like the 'net this way? Definitely. Will it happen? The fact we already have stories like this tells me probably not.
Interesting thought here from a non-engineer:
If the buildings experience side effects of unintentional cooling, perhaps this design is, thus, best suited for a warmer environment.
This makes me wonder therefore if there are a variety of possible energy-saving building designs - that are best suited for different environments. What can work best in a given environment to use renewable energy resources? Is there research going on in this area?