Again, you think they couldn't? It's cheaper to do it that way. Look at it this way. SuSE existed, in a near vacuum, before IBM. Only with IBM is linux on computers. No, IBM didn't make linux. They got it on machines. And, I might add, an OS *not* on machines is prettty pointless.
They could have, but they didn't. Why? Because SuSE had already done all the work of putting together a good distro. Obviously, IBM considers SuSE one of the big players in the Linux distro game. They are the distro provider, IBM is the "enabler" if you will. Linux distros have existed up to this point on their own merits, and by your account being on next-to-zero computers. SuSE may need IBM to further their business, but their business existed on its own before they partnered with IBM. Neither is essential to the others survival, but I think they can work very well together.
Perhaps Stallman's linux world, if only because they haven't renamed the company GNU/IBM. They're damned big when it comes to translating linux into cash, which, I might add, none of the "big players" you're fond of have been able to do.
Exactly. IBM knows IT business. SuSE knows Linux. IBM knows that they aren't a Linux company, SuSE et al know that they don't have huge hooks into IT business. That is why they are working together. They do different things, and each does their own very well.
If you're talking corporate America, people outside the IT department never heard of SuSE, and probably not Redhat either. They've heard of IBM. So when the IT guy goes to the CEO and says "We want to go with linux instead of Microsoft," the CEO says "What the hell is linux?" At this point, the IT guy has two options. He can say, "An OS made by this obscure company in Germany," or he can say "A great OS made by IBM." Guess one gets linux on machines at that company.
That doesn't make IBM a Linux company. IBM is a solution company. Just because the corporate world is very familiar with IBM doesn't make them a Linux company. It doesn't make the original statemet about SuSE and RedHat being the big two providers of Linux less true. The perception of the business world doesn't change the fact.
Absolute horseshit. IBM is directly responsible for most of the linux installs running in the corporate world. Period. That may not make them a big name in the slashdot crowd, but around normal humans, and in business, it does.
Of course IBM is huge in the business world. Them being responsible for getting Linux installed in businesses doesn't make them responsible for Linux itself. It is a small distinction, and probably not worth arguing about.
Let's look at it this way - I bet SuSE puts linux on more machines in the US *with* IBM than *without.* You want the counter position?
Sure, I'll take the counter position - without a Linux distribution such as RedHat or SuSE, IBM puts Linux on zero machines in the US.
The original point was that SuSE and RedHat were said to be the two biggest names in Linux, and someone argued that they forgot about IBM. It doesn't matter what people in the business world think, IBM is not a big player in the Linux world. They are huge in the IT and business world, nobody doubts that. They are smart because they know better than to reinvent the wheel, so they partner with companies who are the big players in whatever part of IT they need to use. That is SuSE and RedHat.
Unclear to me how this constitutes patent abuse. If someone is investing major resources in R&D and coming up with nonobvious inventions, it seems entirely proper for that person to seek patent protection.
You are confusing "infesting in R&D" with "investing in intellectual property".
Companies like Red Hat have found such bugs in the Linux kernel, sendmail, apache, samba, etc, etc because they are looking for them, fixing them, and patching their user-base proactively.
I have a beef w/Redhat. Can someone here maybe explain to my why they issue patches the way they do? They don't update the version number of the package when they apply a fix, so there is no way to tell if you are running a patched version or not. Quite annoying. Yes, there are ways to keep track of it yourself, but I don't see any reason why they don't indicate the patch version in the package numbering scheme.
Bottom line is, who is responsible for getting linux on corporate servers? The answer is a big I-B-M. SuSE can puff up all they want, but IBM could go with any linux distro, practically. They could roll their own, if they wanted or needed to. Ask any CEO who makes linux and they'll say IBM. As such, I maintain that what the SuSE suit was saying was a tad deceptive, or at least way overly self-important.
IBM is not a Linux company. SuSE and RedHat are. They are the two biggest Linux distros. (I know there are others who may argue this, but nobody would argue that IBM should be in that list) If you ask people who makes "Linux", you'll get various answers - and I'll bet none of them are IBM. I am not discounting what IBM does for the Linux business, it is very important. But it *isn't* creating Linux. Until IBM rolls their own distro, they aren't a big name in Linux. Are they a big player in the IT world? Yes. But SuSE is one of the largest distros, and even IBM recognizes that - otherwise they wouldn't have chosen to partner with them.
They cease to be liable the moment you click "I Agree"
Or purchased a pre-installed system.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the folks in Redmond strung up by their short-hairs. I don't think anyone wants the writers of software to be liable for how it is used. I just want them to write decently secure software. It is really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they have repeatedly abused their power. If they *really* cared about security, this could all be written off to the nature of the software industry. There will always be bugs, always be crackers. Hopefully, there will not always be Microsoft as we know them today.
Literally, he left out a damned big company - IBM. Yes, they use Red Hat's stuff, but to say "Linux means two companies - Red Hat and SuSE, and nobody else" is just flat wrong on that basis.
Speaking of flat wrong...
Ummm, are you forgetting about the fact that SuSE and IBM signed the Munich deal? I doubt that SuSE is unaware of IBM. But IBM doesn't have a Linux distro, which is why they teamed up with SuSE.
Microsoft should instead be focusing completely on security, performance, interoperability, stability, and flexibility - you know, all of the things that are allowing Linux to kill Microsoft on the server side.
Who says they aren't? UI design and security are not mutually exclusive.
Given their history, I'll assume that they aren't until they prove that they are. I haven't seen any announcements about Longhorn's newly designed security. Instead, we hear about DRM, multimedia capabilities, and pretty screenshots. Sorry, Microsoft lost their "benefit of the doubt" long ago.
The second one sucked really bad. I mean if it did not have the "matrix" label on it, it probably would of bombed on the box office. The first one rocked so I am not anti-matrix by any means. I was more plot and less action. It seems like the second one was about how to make a movie with more actions seens then any other with little plot.
Allow me to offer another opinion. The second movie was really good, it was just laid out poorly. Everything you were looking for was there, it was just all crammed into one part of the movie. You didn't have time to digest what was happening in the plot before the next big action sequence. In the first one, you got to figure out what was going on as you went. In the second one, it was action action action PLOT action action action. Yes, the love scene was bad, the "Soddom and Gomorrah" part could have been done a little better. Morpheus did pontificate a little too much, and some of the dialog was corny. But I think when you can finally put all the movies together the second one will fit. At least I hope it will. I was disappointed right after I saw it, but the more I talked about it with my wife, I saw some of the more symbolic references. Now with most movies, I would think that it could just be coincidental, but I think the Warchowski brothers know what they are doing, and put them in there on purpose.
I am glad that they had some swordplay in the second one, I thought that was pretty cool. But I think that the real gist of the second movie was to introduce The Architect and to let agent Smith go off the deep end.
The first movie was better, because it introduced The Matrix to us. There is nothing they could do in the second one to compete with that, just like T2 couldn't come up with the same magic of the Terminator. (although they did a nice twist with the second one where Arnold was the good guy). But with the Terminator, they had nowhere to go with the 3rd one. I didn't see it, and probably won't. The interest wasn't there for me. With The Matrix, I really want to see what happens in the third one. Hopefully they'll wrap it up nicely and make it a great trilogy.
Whooptie doo. If they are monitoring USENET looking for any insight into how the public thinks, they are in for a big surprise. I'll bet their results indicate that most people are either complete idiots (aka noobs) who ask the dumbest and most obvious questions, or they are insufferable jackasses who love to belittle people for being the former.
In college, you learn algorithms and theory, much of which you will forget and never use again. In addition, you do these things on your own time.
Ahh, but what about the ones that you don't forget? What about the ones that you *think* you'll never use again, but sometime down the road they pop up? When I was in college, I took an Operating Systems class. I never thought I would need that information. I have used that info many times in my career. Without having taken that class, I wouldn't have chosen to learn about how an OS works. I also had to take circuit design as part of my major. I never thought I would need it either, but I have. Maybe not so much in my career as in my personal life, but being interested in electronics does help me around the office. You never know what you'll use that information for in the future. In fact, the one class I took that taught mostly theory, a Software Engineering class my senior year, was the class that got me my job. I had brought in my final project when I interviewed at Motorola. Instead of just being a programmer, I had learned the basics of the software development lifecycle. You would be surprised how many programmers don't know anything beyond "code, compile, release". Requirements, design, coding, configuration management, stages of testing, development models, etc etc. You'd be really surprised how many people who have "real work experience" have no idea how the other parts of the lifecycle work.
The best way to learn to do something is to do it. In this case, "it" is working in IT. The best way to learn to work in IT is to work in IT. A college is a replication of an office environment also geared at making you more well rounded. Going to school teaches you broad concepts. Working in an office environment teaches you to work in an office environment.
Agreed. But if you don't understand those broad concepts, you are doomed to work in the same office environment. If you learn something in the office environment, you learn the way *that particular office* does it. You go somewhere else, they may do it differently. All I am saying is that you cannot learn everything you know from the experience of doing it. Yes, you have to get in there and "get your hands dirty" so to speak, but you need to learn the concepts first. Is a bachelor's enough to teach you that? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you want to do. Is it *possible* to self-teach some of these concepts? Of course, but that isn't the norm.
Think of it like this: You want to be a network admin. You go get a job doing network admin stuff at a place that only has Windows. Are you really learning networking, or just the way Windows does networking? Wouldn't you be much better off if you had studied the concepts of networking first?
Alan Cox [interview] posted a tiny patch to the lkml removing himself as maintainer of a couple of older/defunct drivers, adding, "Update other stuff because I will be away for a year". I scrambled for a Welsh translator to see what I'd been missing in his diary, but found no hints there. Fortunately a few minutes later he followed up with an explanation:
"At the end of September I'm off back to University on a years sabbatical from Red Hat to study for an MBA. I've made the decision that I'm basically going to vanish for the year so I can concentrate on the course, and on the pet side project of learning Welsh."
The 2.2 kernel that Alan maintained for several years now "needs a new maintainer, someone who can spend their entire life refusing patches, being ignored by the mainstream (because 2.2 is boring) and by vendors (who don't ship 2.2 any more)." In parting, he optimistically says:
"A few years ago I'd have worried about doing this, the great thing is that with the kernel community we have today I know I'm not a critical cog in the mach
but he was worthless as a "regular" employee... he was too smart for the job
I don't follow to that conclusion. Do you have more evidence? All I hear you saying is that he was smart and crazy organized. This makes him worthless as a regular employee?! WTF? Sounds like he'd have an edge over others in tough times to me.
Of course I have more evidence, I didn't base that conclusion on just those statements. But I didn't want to write a book here.:-) On paper, the guy was qualified. In person, he was out of his element. He was used to working at NASA, where process is strict and extensive. We were in a more laid-back environment (to him) and he had trouble dealing with it. He became frustrated easily because of the environment. His experience and extensive knowledge didn't help him in this case, it was detrimental. When you have to think on your feet, you flounder if all your thoughts are on color coded index cards.
This "overqualified" management speak is such a load of rubbish. Underqualified? Yes, we call that "not qualified". Overqualified? Huh? That's "qualfied", with extra breadth, character, untapped potential, etc. That's life. If you have a brain, if you're well read, if you pay attention and analyze the life that streams past you, then you're "overqualified" because no position could possibly tap all that knoweldge, widsom, experience, etc.
Holy cow, nobody has ever referred to something I have said as "management speak".:-) Technically, he had great experience in engineering environments. He should have been able to tone down to fit the environment, but that wasn't the case. You can't unlearn certain things. Once you are used to working in certain environments, it is very hard to go backwards, so to speak. If you are used to working in a slower paced, government organization where everything is triple-checked, you may not fit into a small company where decisions are made quickly. Maybe you are right that someone could be conidered "unqualified" instead of "overqualified", but overqualified implies something that unqualified does not. The person may have the technical skills needed, but perhaps they aren't a fit into the environment. Overqualified may also mean "you know too much, you have too much experience, and we aren't willing to pay you what you are worth".
Could you just have written "Hey, anything that discourages Windows use!" after the story? I mean, christ, that's exactly what probably a good 90% of people here are thinking when they read these stories.
Actually, I think "Wow, I am glad that my main machine at home is running Linux so I don't have to deal with this garbage."
But I do agree with your assessment of the "editor's" comments. Not necessary.
what about the guy that has his Associates Degree and has been coding for over 10 years?
I can't remember right now who said it, but I love this phrase. It is great when referring to lots of things, from coding to martial arts:
Ten years of learning is not the same as one year of learning repeated ten times.
Think about that, and remember it. Just because someone has been a coder for 10 years doesn't mean they have gotten any better. Just like someone shouldn't hire anyone on education alone, neither should you on coding experience. Just because they were employed and coding for 10 years doesn't mean squat by itself. Lots of places keep people around because it is easier than firing them. I have seen it first hand.
You are better off looking at the combination of things equally instead of prioritizing them. Education DOES matter. If someone has been coding for 10 years but they can't spell or write correct sentences, what are you going to do when they have to give a solution presentation to a group of people? On the other hand, if they have PhD but they can't interact or get along with other people at all, you don't want them on a team of coders working closely together. There are a lot of factors to consider when hiring someone, don't focus on one in particular, unless you are fitting a very specialized position.
You have to fit the job that is being filled. Why would someone pay you what you are worth when there are 100 people out there that they could hire for a lot less? The title of my post has two meanings:
1) There are lots of tech people out of work, so you could very well be over-qualified with a PhD or even a Masters.
2) There are a lot of people out there to work the grunt jobs, and fewer people getting a higher education in IT. This could be an advantage.
It is all going to depend on what companies are around you. If they are all small, private companies doing web work, you may be out of luck. If you are near an IBM office, or some other tech giant who may have a use for someone with a PhD, then you could have a chance.
It is a real issue that people can be overeducated for a lot of jobs.
I used to work at Motorola, and we hired a contractor that was really smart. He was hired to help us test a release of some real-time cellular products. He had worked at NASA for years, and had some good stories. But he was worthless as a "regular" employee. He kept 3 sets of notecards in his shirt pocket, each set being a different color. One color was for process stuff, one was for technical stuff, and the other was for something else. When you would tell him something he would whip out his notecards and write it down on whichever category it fit into. If you ever wanted information from him, he went to his notecards. He was a good guy, and really smart, but he was too smart for the job.
I worked with another guy at a small company who didn't know Unix, but said he could learn it. He had a Masters and was working on his PhD. (I was surprised he didn't know any Unix, but whatever) We thought he was capable of picking it up, but he clearly wasn't. Two months after he started, he still had to refer to his notes to remember how to list a directory's contents. He was a smart guy, but he just didn't get it.
My suggestion? If you go for the PhD, do something in the computer security field. There will always be a need for computer security gurus, and in that field you'll be up against snot-nosed kids for the jobs.:-)
I can't believe this! Software not being released on time? I'll bet that this is the first time in the history of software development that someone didn't hit their target release date. Oh the humanity! Won't someone please think of the children...
Hmm, it's Tuesday. Must be "bitch about Microsoft not issuing updates". Tomorrow is "bitch about Microsoft issuing too many updates".
There is enough valid stuff to complain about when it comes to Microsoft, let's not start just speculating wildly.
It has been demonstrated that while nVidia may have the fastest overall chip, ATi has concentrated on a more balanced solution -- better color and clarity of the image. ATi's ship is not all that much slower than nVidia anyway when you look at the specs and benchmarks. I would rather have a game console that's fast and has a good, crisp image than a fuzzy-around-the-edges rendering. This is a good thing for XBox.
Yeah - there's nothing quite like playing a suck-ass game with nice, clear, colorful images.
Not to mention that you are playing them on a low-res TV.
From the BBC article: Fans can copy tracks, burn them to CDs and transfer them to other devices as much as they want "within reason", he added.
Well, I feel comforted.
Whee. I can transfer them to my MP3 player and do what with them exactly? I can burn them to CDs, but can I burn them to AUDIO CDs? And this is all better than what I currently do with MP3s how?
Slashdot Mirror
They could have, but they didn't. Why? Because SuSE had already done all the work of putting together a good distro. Obviously, IBM considers SuSE one of the big players in the Linux distro game. They are the distro provider, IBM is the "enabler" if you will. Linux distros have existed up to this point on their own merits, and by your account being on next-to-zero computers. SuSE may need IBM to further their business, but their business existed on its own before they partnered with IBM. Neither is essential to the others survival, but I think they can work very well together.
Perhaps Stallman's linux world, if only because they haven't renamed the company GNU/IBM. They're damned big when it comes to translating linux into cash, which, I might add, none of the "big players" you're fond of have been able to do.
Exactly. IBM knows IT business. SuSE knows Linux. IBM knows that they aren't a Linux company, SuSE et al know that they don't have huge hooks into IT business. That is why they are working together. They do different things, and each does their own very well.
That doesn't make IBM a Linux company. IBM is a solution company. Just because the corporate world is very familiar with IBM doesn't make them a Linux company. It doesn't make the original statemet about SuSE and RedHat being the big two providers of Linux less true. The perception of the business world doesn't change the fact.
Absolute horseshit. IBM is directly responsible for most of the linux installs running in the corporate world. Period. That may not make them a big name in the slashdot crowd, but around normal humans, and in business, it does.
Of course IBM is huge in the business world. Them being responsible for getting Linux installed in businesses doesn't make them responsible for Linux itself. It is a small distinction, and probably not worth arguing about.
Let's look at it this way - I bet SuSE puts linux on more machines in the US *with* IBM than *without.* You want the counter position?
Sure, I'll take the counter position - without a Linux distribution such as RedHat or SuSE, IBM puts Linux on zero machines in the US.
The original point was that SuSE and RedHat were said to be the two biggest names in Linux, and someone argued that they forgot about IBM. It doesn't matter what people in the business world think, IBM is not a big player in the Linux world. They are huge in the IT and business world, nobody doubts that. They are smart because they know better than to reinvent the wheel, so they partner with companies who are the big players in whatever part of IT they need to use. That is SuSE and RedHat.
Instead of using coal or natural gas, use hydrogen. Duh.
You are confusing "infesting in R&D" with "investing in intellectual property".
I have a beef w/Redhat. Can someone here maybe explain to my why they issue patches the way they do? They don't update the version number of the package when they apply a fix, so there is no way to tell if you are running a patched version or not. Quite annoying. Yes, there are ways to keep track of it yourself, but I don't see any reason why they don't indicate the patch version in the package numbering scheme.
IBM is not a Linux company. SuSE and RedHat are. They are the two biggest Linux distros. (I know there are others who may argue this, but nobody would argue that IBM should be in that list) If you ask people who makes "Linux", you'll get various answers - and I'll bet none of them are IBM. I am not discounting what IBM does for the Linux business, it is very important. But it *isn't* creating Linux. Until IBM rolls their own distro, they aren't a big name in Linux. Are they a big player in the IT world? Yes. But SuSE is one of the largest distros, and even IBM recognizes that - otherwise they wouldn't have chosen to partner with them.
Or purchased a pre-installed system.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want the folks in Redmond strung up by their short-hairs. I don't think anyone wants the writers of software to be liable for how it is used. I just want them to write decently secure software. It is really hard to give them the benefit of the doubt when they have repeatedly abused their power. If they *really* cared about security, this could all be written off to the nature of the software industry. There will always be bugs, always be crackers. Hopefully, there will not always be Microsoft as we know them today.
This is an old article - about 4 days old. I should know, that was when I submitted the story.
On 2003-08-18 14:52:23 to be precise.
But my submission has neither been rejected or accepted.
Throw another karma log on the fire.
Speaking of flat wrong...
Ummm, are you forgetting about the fact that SuSE and IBM signed the Munich deal? I doubt that SuSE is unaware of IBM. But IBM doesn't have a Linux distro, which is why they teamed up with SuSE.
Who says they aren't? UI design and security are not mutually exclusive.
Given their history, I'll assume that they aren't until they prove that they are. I haven't seen any announcements about Longhorn's newly designed security. Instead, we hear about DRM, multimedia capabilities, and pretty screenshots. Sorry, Microsoft lost their "benefit of the doubt" long ago.
Allow me to offer another opinion. The second movie was really good, it was just laid out poorly. Everything you were looking for was there, it was just all crammed into one part of the movie. You didn't have time to digest what was happening in the plot before the next big action sequence. In the first one, you got to figure out what was going on as you went. In the second one, it was action action action PLOT action action action. Yes, the love scene was bad, the "Soddom and Gomorrah" part could have been done a little better. Morpheus did pontificate a little too much, and some of the dialog was corny. But I think when you can finally put all the movies together the second one will fit. At least I hope it will. I was disappointed right after I saw it, but the more I talked about it with my wife, I saw some of the more symbolic references. Now with most movies, I would think that it could just be coincidental, but I think the Warchowski brothers know what they are doing, and put them in there on purpose.
I am glad that they had some swordplay in the second one, I thought that was pretty cool. But I think that the real gist of the second movie was to introduce The Architect and to let agent Smith go off the deep end.
The first movie was better, because it introduced The Matrix to us. There is nothing they could do in the second one to compete with that, just like T2 couldn't come up with the same magic of the Terminator. (although they did a nice twist with the second one where Arnold was the good guy). But with the Terminator, they had nowhere to go with the 3rd one. I didn't see it, and probably won't. The interest wasn't there for me. With The Matrix, I really want to see what happens in the third one. Hopefully they'll wrap it up nicely and make it a great trilogy.
Whooptie doo. If they are monitoring USENET looking for any insight into how the public thinks, they are in for a big surprise. I'll bet their results indicate that most people are either complete idiots (aka noobs) who ask the dumbest and most obvious questions, or they are insufferable jackasses who love to belittle people for being the former.
Ahh, but what about the ones that you don't forget? What about the ones that you *think* you'll never use again, but sometime down the road they pop up? When I was in college, I took an Operating Systems class. I never thought I would need that information. I have used that info many times in my career. Without having taken that class, I wouldn't have chosen to learn about how an OS works. I also had to take circuit design as part of my major. I never thought I would need it either, but I have. Maybe not so much in my career as in my personal life, but being interested in electronics does help me around the office. You never know what you'll use that information for in the future. In fact, the one class I took that taught mostly theory, a Software Engineering class my senior year, was the class that got me my job. I had brought in my final project when I interviewed at Motorola. Instead of just being a programmer, I had learned the basics of the software development lifecycle. You would be surprised how many programmers don't know anything beyond "code, compile, release". Requirements, design, coding, configuration management, stages of testing, development models, etc etc. You'd be really surprised how many people who have "real work experience" have no idea how the other parts of the lifecycle work.
The best way to learn to do something is to do it. In this case, "it" is working in IT. The best way to learn to work in IT is to work in IT. A college is a replication of an office environment also geared at making you more well rounded. Going to school teaches you broad concepts. Working in an office environment teaches you to work in an office environment.
Agreed. But if you don't understand those broad concepts, you are doomed to work in the same office environment. If you learn something in the office environment, you learn the way *that particular office* does it. You go somewhere else, they may do it differently. All I am saying is that you cannot learn everything you know from the experience of doing it. Yes, you have to get in there and "get your hands dirty" so to speak, but you need to learn the concepts first. Is a bachelor's enough to teach you that? Maybe, maybe not, depends on what you want to do. Is it *possible* to self-teach some of these concepts? Of course, but that isn't the norm.
Think of it like this: You want to be a network admin. You go get a job doing network admin stuff at a place that only has Windows. Are you really learning networking, or just the way Windows does networking? Wouldn't you be much better off if you had studied the concepts of networking first?
On an interesting note, I read this today:
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/759
Here is the text:
I don't follow to that conclusion. Do you have more evidence? All I hear you saying is that he was smart and crazy organized. This makes him worthless as a regular employee?! WTF? Sounds like he'd have an edge over others in tough times to me.
Of course I have more evidence, I didn't base that conclusion on just those statements. But I didn't want to write a book here. :-) On paper, the guy was qualified. In person, he was out of his element. He was used to working at NASA, where process is strict and extensive. We were in a more laid-back environment (to him) and he had trouble dealing with it. He became frustrated easily because of the environment. His experience and extensive knowledge didn't help him in this case, it was detrimental. When you have to think on your feet, you flounder if all your thoughts are on color coded index cards.
This "overqualified" management speak is such a load of rubbish. Underqualified? Yes, we call that "not qualified". Overqualified? Huh? That's "qualfied", with extra breadth, character, untapped potential, etc. That's life. If you have a brain, if you're well read, if you pay attention and analyze the life that streams past you, then you're "overqualified" because no position could possibly tap all that knoweldge, widsom, experience, etc.
Holy cow, nobody has ever referred to something I have said as "management speak". :-) Technically, he had great experience in engineering environments. He should have been able to tone down to fit the environment, but that wasn't the case. You can't unlearn certain things. Once you are used to working in certain environments, it is very hard to go backwards, so to speak. If you are used to working in a slower paced, government organization where everything is triple-checked, you may not fit into a small company where decisions are made quickly. Maybe you are right that someone could be conidered "unqualified" instead of "overqualified", but overqualified implies something that unqualified does not. The person may have the technical skills needed, but perhaps they aren't a fit into the environment. Overqualified may also mean "you know too much, you have too much experience, and we aren't willing to pay you what you are worth".
Actually, I think "Wow, I am glad that my main machine at home is running Linux so I don't have to deal with this garbage."
But I do agree with your assessment of the "editor's" comments. Not necessary.
I can't remember right now who said it, but I love this phrase. It is great when referring to lots of things, from coding to martial arts:
Ten years of learning is not the same as one year of learning repeated ten times.
Think about that, and remember it. Just because someone has been a coder for 10 years doesn't mean they have gotten any better. Just like someone shouldn't hire anyone on education alone, neither should you on coding experience. Just because they were employed and coding for 10 years doesn't mean squat by itself. Lots of places keep people around because it is easier than firing them. I have seen it first hand.
You are better off looking at the combination of things equally instead of prioritizing them. Education DOES matter. If someone has been coding for 10 years but they can't spell or write correct sentences, what are you going to do when they have to give a solution presentation to a group of people? On the other hand, if they have PhD but they can't interact or get along with other people at all, you don't want them on a team of coders working closely together. There are a lot of factors to consider when hiring someone, don't focus on one in particular, unless you are fitting a very specialized position.
Not if you know Greek.
1) There are lots of tech people out of work, so you could very well be over-qualified with a PhD or even a Masters.
2) There are a lot of people out there to work the grunt jobs, and fewer people getting a higher education in IT. This could be an advantage.
It is all going to depend on what companies are around you. If they are all small, private companies doing web work, you may be out of luck. If you are near an IBM office, or some other tech giant who may have a use for someone with a PhD, then you could have a chance.
It is a real issue that people can be overeducated for a lot of jobs.
I used to work at Motorola, and we hired a contractor that was really smart. He was hired to help us test a release of some real-time cellular products. He had worked at NASA for years, and had some good stories. But he was worthless as a "regular" employee. He kept 3 sets of notecards in his shirt pocket, each set being a different color. One color was for process stuff, one was for technical stuff, and the other was for something else. When you would tell him something he would whip out his notecards and write it down on whichever category it fit into. If you ever wanted information from him, he went to his notecards. He was a good guy, and really smart, but he was too smart for the job.
I worked with another guy at a small company who didn't know Unix, but said he could learn it. He had a Masters and was working on his PhD. (I was surprised he didn't know any Unix, but whatever) We thought he was capable of picking it up, but he clearly wasn't. Two months after he started, he still had to refer to his notes to remember how to list a directory's contents. He was a smart guy, but he just didn't get it.
My suggestion? If you go for the PhD, do something in the computer security field. There will always be a need for computer security gurus, and in that field you'll be up against snot-nosed kids for the jobs. :-)
Hmm, it's Tuesday. Must be "bitch about Microsoft not issuing updates". Tomorrow is "bitch about Microsoft issuing too many updates".
There is enough valid stuff to complain about when it comes to Microsoft, let's not start just speculating wildly.
How do you know?
As it stands, there will always be something influencing the result.
And what if that something is a random event?
Yeah - there's nothing quite like playing a suck-ass game with nice, clear, colorful images.
Not to mention that you are playing them on a low-res TV.
Whee. I can transfer them to my MP3 player and do what with them exactly? I can burn them to CDs, but can I burn them to AUDIO CDs? And this is all better than what I currently do with MP3s how?
Sounds to me like you need to get some new testers, if that is all they are doing.
reverse as in "back up"
engineer as in "train engineer"
So to Ben Affleck, reverse engineer = back that caboose up.