The review seems to have missed the point
on
Solaris: Another View
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I could not disagree with the review more. It was a smart, thoughtful, considered movie which effectively portrayed complex issues in a way that Hollywood is typically unable (or unwilling) to do.
The criticism of the premise could as well apply to Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and every other episode of Star Trek. In fact, the characters explicitly question why Solaris would be doing what it is doing, why if it has such capabilities it didn't just destroy the space station or choose some other way to engage the characters. They are eventually left with the conclusion that there may not be an answer that they can understand, though they continue to struggle for understanding. That process of trying to understand is exactly the human dilemma that the film as art is trying to explore.
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney and the subject matter itself was not the kind of thing someone would expect from a major director who is undoubtedly under pressure from the studios to provide the world with action-packed blockbusters. If you enjoy movies such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Being There" in which the subject matter and pacing is more about intellectual and artistic achievement than maximizing profits, you will enjoy this movie.
I think the reviewer entirely missed the point and recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thoughtful, provocative films.
In this case, assuming all you say is true, I think the primary lesson for you to learn is not that businesses are not rational in their decision making (though several of the preceeding posts give reasons why they might be) but that you bid too low.
The bidding strategy should not be to charge what you may think is a reasonable price, but to offer a bid price below their willingness-to-pay and perhaps only slightly lower than the next-highest potential bid winner then sell the heck out of your bid. Spend some time and effort to make yourself seem bigger and more reputable than you otherwise may come across if that's what businesses value.
After all, the outcome will be that you make more money for the same work. You're happy. The company pays below their willingness-to-pay. They're happy. Everyone's happy.
And if you lose a couple of bids while you're refining your strategy but snag the third (based on the prices you cited), you've earned just as much money as winning one bid at the low price and done much less work.
In consulting, your business strategy is as important as your product.
This is among the best technical books on my shelf
on
Vi IMproved -- Vim
·
· Score: 1
This book was well-researched and very well written. The layout and explication are first-rate. Subjects are easy to find and it's chock full of well-explained tips and tricks. I highly recommend it as one of the best technical books on my bookshelf.
If you pick up a copy, even if you're an experienced vi user, you'll find that you start thumbing through it on a regular basis even when you're not looking for something specific. If you're a vim user, you will be in heaven. And perhaps the best testament, whenever I bring it into work, it doesn't take long to disappear from my desk.
I use both emacs and vi on a regular basis depending on what and where I'm working and am very fascile on both. I switched from being a part-time vi user to a most-of-the-time vim user after reading this book.
Trust me. If you want either a vi or a vim book, you won't go wrong with this one.
I've been reading the Apocalypses with interest as well as the comments from the peanut gallery.
For all of the hub bub and brouhahah, I think after it is released and people start to explore all the new (and old) features, folks are going to find Perl 6 an amazing tool that improves on an already amazing tool set.
With all of the flame wars regarding Perl/Python/Ruby (like triplets calling each other ugly), it's good to see Perl continuing to innovate, improve and set a brisk pace for others to follow.
Re:Perl's had it's day - It's become like COBOL
on
Apocalypse 5 Released
·
· Score: 1
I totally disagree, and I think your statement shows a lack of knowledge of Perl and the Perl community.
I've looked into Python and Ruby, and they're both excellent languages, but whatever you can do in those languages you can do in Perl *and* you have the entirety of the CPAN at your disposal. Gadzooks! Can anything beat "perl -MCPAN -e 'install Template'"? Perl is a language I come back to over and over again because it is the best language for the job.
I think Python and Ruby tried to take ideas from Perl and improve upon them. This would make changing languages a good forward-looking strategy if Perl were a static language.
But, as Larry is showing with the Perl 6 Apocalypses, it is an incredibly dynamic language with a dynamic community (check out PerlMonks) and the community leadership is not afraid to make changes (some of them radical) that learn from past critiques and produce a new and exciting environment.
While it's not as new (and hence doesn't have the hipness factor -- don't fall for the hype) of the other languages, as opposed to sinking into the category of an also-ran to Python and Ruby, I think Perl will continue to lead the charge that these languages will follow.
I hope all three languages continue to thrive. By competing in similar mindspace, they will only improve each other and lead to a better environment for each of their respective communitites.
And I believe that for years to come, I will continue to come back to Perl because the leadership is seasoned and smart, it is continuing to improve and expand, and because it will simply continue to be the best language for the job.
The less information that has to be provided to receive the evaluation copy the better. Since you would like to be able to contact folks at a later date for sales purposes, a simple, succinct statement indicating that their e-mail addresses and/or phone number won't be provided to any 3rd parties and that they'll receive a minimal amount of unsolicited contacts would allay most folks' fears, I would imagine.
Often technical folks, particularly who work at large (i.e., beaurocratic) organizations, are either crunched for time or go through a lengthy process between the time they decide to investigate an evaluation copy and the time they actually evaluate the evaluation copy. I have more than once downloaded a 30-day evaluation only to have 30 days go by before I truly have the time to evaluate it. I would allow a user to download an evaluation copy more than once with the same username/password (perhaps you could limit it to 3 downloads) and/or extend the evaluation period to 60 or 90 days. I would send a minimally intrusive e-mail after 30 days asking whether they have had a chance to evaluate the copy, asking if they have any comments, and/or asking if they need a brief (e.g., additional 30 day) extension of the evaluation period. If they have not downloaded the evaluation, it may serve as a gentle reminder.
I've used ActiveState's PerlApp to build binaries. It works on Linux, Solarix, HP-UX, and Windows.
And I can say from experience that it works incredibly well. I've compiled a script which used 20,000 lines of code amongst the various modules I'd built, not including Perl/Tk and the many other CPAN modules I used, and out popped a nice binary which worked just as if run from Perl.
I develop on Linux, but I can use it to generate binaries for Windows users. It opens up a whole new audience for me. I develop quickly on the platform I am efficient on, and all the Windows users know is that they get something with a nice GUI that works as advertised and which was developed in half the time.
Of the many lies, big and small, I've heard in my years as a technical professional, the biggest unfortunately belong to former employers it would not be right to compromise in the telling.
I'm guessing that any slashdot reader who has been in the technical arena for more than 10 years is in the same position.
I don't know that much about ColdFusion, but with Perl one can generate POD documentation, Java has javadoc, etc.
The first thing you should do is create coding standards in which documentation is part of the coding process. The documentation standards should be such that you can automatically generate documentation as the code base changes.
For example, on every Perl project I work on these days, I introduce a script (about 30 lines of code) which auto-generates documentation from the PODs. The script can be run as a cron job that auto-updates the online documentation every week. That way, coders document as they go, and central documentation resource automatically regenerates itself on a regular basis.
The second thing you should do is set up an intranet site (behind the firewall!) for developer documentation. Include the auto-generated documentation, documents describing your coding standards, project management documentation for developers, use cases, class diagrams (does ColdFusion even have objects?), activity diagrams, sequence diagrams, etc., etc. If you have a team of 20 people, undoubtedly you have someone who manages code revisioning. Likewise, managing the developer intranet should be included in someone's job description, and, what's more, they should be given the time to do it properly.
Apparently Sun wants StarOffice to remain free for Solaris users to promote the complementarities between the office suite and their operating system. A viable strategy, and one I think that makes good business sense.
However they are missing a critical observation in deciding to charge Linux users: There are very strong complementarities between Linux and Solaris. Furthermore, Linux does not now own a substantial portion of the desktop market, though it certainly has a substantial advantage over Solaris in this arena.
So if the Sun executives were a bit more farsighted, they would continue to make StarOffice free for Linux, FreeBSD, other free Unix-like operating systems users. (At least until they know whether or not Linux will capture a significant portion of the desktop market in the future.) After all, it will be far easier for them to take market share from a large installed base of Linux users in 5 years than it would be to steal market share from Windows users.
First, you seem to think that because you aren't building a bridge or digging a ditch, you can't help.
That is entirely false. Many of these countries need infrastructure and other resources to make their marketplaces more efficient or facilitate better exchange of information or resources either internally or with the rest of the world.
In fact, while the average agricultural worker in an agricultural economy could care less about establishing a secure internet connection when they're having trouble feeding their families, by creating infrastructure you may be able to help thousands of farmers by allowing market intermediaries to better market or sell goods internally or abroad.
As much resources are wasted in many developing nations because markets and infrastructure are inadequate or easily abused due to informational inequities or corruption as anything else.
The point is that your skills are valuable. You may be able to use them to help more at the macro level than a strong back and sweat could help at the micro level. As you would do in the job market, leverage your skills in volunteering by using them in their most productive capacity.
Finally, you may be able to help from right here at home. Look at Bram Moolenaar's vim. More specifically, download it, then type ":help uganda". Vim is charityware. Rather than pay for this open-source product, the author asks you to donate to the Kibaale Children's Centre. I use vim all the time, and I've made a donation. In fact, I contributed more than I've paid for any other piece of software in years.
So if you're a good coder, consider something of that nature. Or get creative. I don't know how much Bram has raised for the KCC, but I'd guess his coding skills have made a big difference in alot of children's lives.
You've obviously got a big heart and a good head. If you use them both, I have no doubt you'll make a difference:-)
"I think the numbers are quite reasonable. The applications are putting a load on us," [Microsoft's] Muglia said. "These numbers are barely covering (our costs)...We're not making money with these numbers."
Thank heaven.
They already spend (from what I read) $100-$200 million / year developing and improving Internet Explorer. (I hope my source is correct on that, though I can't seem to dig it up just now.) That is roughly the GDP of the country of Dominica. And they pay other companies to adopt it as their browser technology. What could their motivation possibly be to spend this much money on a product they give away for free? (Yes, that last question was a joke, folks;-)
Frankly, I was worried the company was going to go bankrupt.
You should instead ask, "Why wasn't everything written in C++?"
They wrote a small piece in C++ because it was the right tool for the job. They wrote the rest in Perl because it was the right tool for the job.
If the whole thing was written in C++, they would probably still be coding the basic application.
When your needs are to get an application to market quickly, there are few languages that can compete with Perl.
If you question the scalability of Perl, I would challenge you to write a complex web application in any language that would handle 200,000 sessions and 2.5 million page views per hour.
Using Perl as opposed to, say, Java or C++, is like using Emacs as opposed to Notepad.
You can learn Notepad lickety split. You'll get alot more done if you know neither and have to get something done in a single day.
But over the long haul, you'd be far better off using Emacs.
Perl (and Python) are the same way: If you turn a bunch of inexperienced coders loose with no oversight and no structure, you'll get crap. But if you have a team of experienced Perl programmers, they will beat the pants off of any team of, say, C++ developers in terms of development time any day of the week.
Not to detract from C++. I am simply saying that the languages are used for different things, and that poor code follows from poor coding standards and practices, inexperience, and unorganized minds.
So if you can't write Perl without seeing spaghetti, I would suggest you have either some learning to do or that you need more discipline in your coding practices.
While there are strong sentiments about the desktop choices, it is important to the Linux community that there is a choice. I think in the long run, it will be a positive thing.
I think KDE is fantastic, but I simply prefer GNOME. I've been watching GNOME make incredible strides in the time that it's been around, and I think as a GNOME user I have alot to look forward to.
I have also been using the Ximian desktop at home, and I think they've put out a great product. (I actually forked over $29.95 to Ximian because I valued their product so much I thought it worthwhile to purchase it.) Red Carpet has worked flawlessly for me so far. While I still like to build certain things (Apache, Perl, etc.) myself, it saves me a good deal of time not having to worry about keeping my packages up to date. Evolution still has some bugs, but it's getting more solid literally every day. I was happy to fork over some money to Ximian and I'll continue to do so as they improve their product.
I know that there are going to be Debian users telling me I can get Red Carpet for free via apt-get, and they are right. I know there are folks who consider KDE the superior desktop, and they've got alot of good points.
However, I prefer Red Hat, Ximian, and GNOME, and Ximian has put out the right product for my preferences, and I am happy to pay for it confident that they will use the money not only to enhance their product, but to create things that will give back to the community as well.
So I say keep up the good work, Ximian, from a very satisfied user.
I've wondered on occasion whether there is GPL software (or select chunks taken from GPL software) nested in various flavors of Windows itself or other Microsoft products.
After all, it is only recently that Microsoft was the clear laggard behind various *nixes and Mac in terms of stability and other issues. (Still is in some categories.) If you were a Microsoft engineer back in the late 80s / early 90s, and you were tasked with building the company's first server-grade OS, where would you look for ideas?
And how would anyone know since the source isn't released to the public?
In a related story, Microsoft recently purchased a controlling interest in President George W. Bush for $2.3 billion in cash and stock. Said Bill Gates, "We felt the move was in the best interests of Microsoft, and thus in the best interest of the nation. Not to mention that the price was right, and at the right time." An inflated market valuation and crippling costs-of-ownership had prevented Microsoft from previously acquiring a controlling interest in Bill Clinton.
Response from executives at rival Hewlett Packard has been that of shock and dismay given their recent $25 billion acquisition of Compaq. "We could have gotten so much more for so much less!" an unidentified executive is quoted as saying. HP executives are said to be exploring the possibility of acquiring a portion of Vice President Dick Cheney.
Could someone who uses a compatible browser please post a link to the e-mail address of the webmaster?
I use Netscape on Linux (latest version) and I can't even get a link to a contact for the site.
I've been a web developer for over 6 years now, and I've never been tasked to build something that can't be supported in Netscape and IE on all available platforms. It's not that difficult! Trust me. I know.
If these guys (i.e., the Microsoft tech team) can't build a site that's cross-browser compatible, then, quite frankly, they are incompetent boobs. The British government needs to find someone who either knows what they're doing or doesn't have a hidden agenda.
Who would you rather hire: Someone who enjoys and values the work that they do so much that they code in their spare time, increasing their knowledge base and experience? Or someone who goes home and watches Gilligan's Island reruns all night?
If you needed a lawyer, would you hire someone who lives and breathes law, or someone who would rather be fishing?
This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. If I see open source volunteerism on a resume, it goes right to the top of the stack.
An earlier reply expressed concern that developers might work on recreational code during business hours. I have worked with active open source developers who have done recreational coding on the job, but after their manager told them that was inappropriate, they stopped. If they didn't stop, they would have been fired, no differently than if they were spending too much time browsing the web at work.
If the earlier poster thinks this is a problem, they need to ask themselves whether it is a problem with the employee or the management. Unless the employee is both stupid and terminally unprofessional, it is the latter.
Another post expressed concern that somehow hiring an open source developer would "infect" your code base with GPLed code. Geez. I feel like I'm reliving the early hysteria of the AIDS epidemic when people were uneducated as to how AIDS was spread. Anyone who considers that a serious issue needs to check their paranoia at the door. Could it be that the Microsoft et al. propoganda is actually being swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by gullible individuals? I should hope most folks have more in the way of critical thinking skills than that.
All in all, the folks I've worked with who are open source developers or at least tuned into the open source world have been the cream of the crop in terms of expertise and knowledge base and, above all, are passionate about their work.
I don't know what the existing stable of open source companies are doing, but the answer in business terms is so damn simple I can hardly stand it.
For unmodified products, charge per incident as is always done.
For modified products, charge hourly for a technician to diagnose the problem.
Red Hat, for example, would certainly be able to make more money from consulting services arising from the diagnosis and repair of modified code than the per-incident charges, and if the customer took the time and trouble to modify the source, it is probably valuable enough to them to pay for a qualified consultant to figure out where they're going wrong. The customer is happy to pay and Red Hat is happy to charge. Everyone is happy, and that's the basis of a solid business model.
Would Microsoft offer a version of IIS customized for a customer's unique requirements together with patches, architectural diagrams and documentation for less than $10,000 or $20,000 that allows the customer to extend the product to meet their future requirements? Hardly. But Red Hat could offer the same for Apache, and make a sizable profit in the process. <HINT>This is a business model unique to open source service providers that is largely, so far as I can tell, untapped.</HINT>
The concept of spending money on database consultants or software architects is old hat. What's the difference between charging for a highly qualified hacker with an intimate knowledge of sendmail, for example, to look at your code and charging for a highly qualified DBA to look at your schema? (Answer: None.)
I own a Dell Inspiron 7000, which I bought when I thought I still needed Windows (I haven't booted into Windows in many moons now), and I love it. The memory is fast and the ATI chipset rocks.
However, everything said in the other replies basically mirrors my experience: The Dell sales staff is clueless clueless clueless when it comes to Linux. At the very least, they should train a subset of their sales force in Linux and direct you to them when you have a question.
They also limit your hardware options in ways that I don't understand... they won't sell boxes with some things that I know there are drivers for.
So why not get the benefit of the Dell manufacturer and a sales and support staff that really knows their biz? QLITech would be my first choice.
That said, you also gotta give Dell many kudos for its support of Linux. If you want to buy from a big name, go with Dell.
I find Big Brother to be a reliable, configurable, and robust monitoring tool. They have clients that run on both *nix and Windoze and hundreds of user-contributed plug-ins that can monitor everything from your Oracle instance to the weather in Chatenooga (sp?).
Another monitoring app which I found so fun to play with I contributed code to the project is Peep: The Network Auralizer. It's certainly a unique idea for a monitoring app, and it tends to grow on you over time.
Kudos to them for a bold move. I hope other distros follow suit.
What they and other distros are charging for is convenience. I pay for convenience all the time, for everything from coffee (I could always make my own coffee) to groceries (shopping at the small local grocery instead of going to the big chain store), and I'm happy to do it or I simply wouldn't.
I get involved in contributing bits of code to open source projects and simply being an advocate for free software. I've even donated money to open source projects and I've encouraged the companies I've worked for to donate. To the company it's a token amount but for the free software project it is truly meaningful. And I am happy paying for the convenience of Red Hat CDs because they provide me with value in bundling their distro and because advocacy with one's pocketbook, in my opinion, can be as effective as advocacy from a soapbox.
Considering the amount of money I've made personally from the use of open source tools, I would even be happy to pay double or triple what they charge. Even then, it wouldn't be a fraction of I would spend if Windows were my only option.
Free software and the market economy are not mutually exclusive, and, in my opinion, history will show them to be highly complementary.
So vote with your pocketbook, folks, and give a little back to the people who give to you.
Based on years of experience coding and managing development teams for a living, including both scientific coding (in optoelectronic engineering, scheduling algorithms, and mathematical economics) and "business" coding, I have found little correlation between a CS degree and competence as a programmer.
Furthermore, there seems to be little correlation between a CS degree and skills in mathematics.
I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "What am I really looking for?" Most professional programmers with years of experience wouldn't necessarily be interested in scientific computing because it doesn't grow their skill set in the areas that are of most value to programmers; i.e., the scientific projects I've worked on tend to be small projects using a small team of programmers working against a limited budget and not necessarily using the biggest, baddest technologies out there. And frankly, the most experienced and talented coders would not find scientific programming a good use of their time. It would be like having a physicist wiring your house.
I've very much enjoyed working on scientific programming projects, but for personal gratification rather than professional development.
What you should do is find one person who will maintain intellectual continuity for the project and who you trust to really know (or learn) the art of software project management and architectures (and it is an art!) and who you know gains personal gratification from the tasks they're working on (so they don't just jump ship a year down the line for a higher salary) and use them to assemble a team of motivated students or others whose skill levels and (most importantly) personal interests are allied with the needs of the project.
You'd be better off finding a good 2nd year physics undergraduate with a good reputation and who you could trust to work with you for a couple of years and having them learn how to code than to take a 4th year CS undergraduate, who has learned how to code technically but not how to code in reality and could really care less about what they're coding. The physics student will learn a skill that will be much more marketable after graduation than physics (unfortunately) and you will gain the benefit of a bright employee whose interests are allied with those of your project.
Slashdot Mirror
The criticism of the premise could as well apply to Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and every other episode of Star Trek. In fact, the characters explicitly question why Solaris would be doing what it is doing, why if it has such capabilities it didn't just destroy the space station or choose some other way to engage the characters. They are eventually left with the conclusion that there may not be an answer that they can understand, though they continue to struggle for understanding. That process of trying to understand is exactly the human dilemma that the film as art is trying to explore.
The role was a gutsy move for George Clooney and the subject matter itself was not the kind of thing someone would expect from a major director who is undoubtedly under pressure from the studios to provide the world with action-packed blockbusters. If you enjoy movies such as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Being There" in which the subject matter and pacing is more about intellectual and artistic achievement than maximizing profits, you will enjoy this movie.
I think the reviewer entirely missed the point and recommend this film to anyone who enjoys thoughtful, provocative films.
The bidding strategy should not be to charge what you may think is a reasonable price, but to offer a bid price below their willingness-to-pay and perhaps only slightly lower than the next-highest potential bid winner then sell the heck out of your bid. Spend some time and effort to make yourself seem bigger and more reputable than you otherwise may come across if that's what businesses value.
After all, the outcome will be that you make more money for the same work. You're happy. The company pays below their willingness-to-pay. They're happy. Everyone's happy.
And if you lose a couple of bids while you're refining your strategy but snag the third (based on the prices you cited), you've earned just as much money as winning one bid at the low price and done much less work.
In consulting, your business strategy is as important as your product.
This book was well-researched and very well written. The layout and explication are first-rate. Subjects are easy to find and it's chock full of well-explained tips and tricks. I highly recommend it as one of the best technical books on my bookshelf.
If you pick up a copy, even if you're an experienced vi user, you'll find that you start thumbing through it on a regular basis even when you're not looking for something specific. If you're a vim user, you will be in heaven. And perhaps the best testament, whenever I bring it into work, it doesn't take long to disappear from my desk.
I use both emacs and vi on a regular basis depending on what and where I'm working and am very fascile on both. I switched from being a part-time vi user to a most-of-the-time vim user after reading this book.
Trust me. If you want either a vi or a vim book, you won't go wrong with this one.
For all of the hub bub and brouhahah, I think after it is released and people start to explore all the new (and old) features, folks are going to find Perl 6 an amazing tool that improves on an already amazing tool set.
With all of the flame wars regarding Perl/Python/Ruby (like triplets calling each other ugly), it's good to see Perl continuing to innovate, improve and set a brisk pace for others to follow.
I've looked into Python and Ruby, and they're both excellent languages, but whatever you can do in those languages you can do in Perl *and* you have the entirety of the CPAN at your disposal. Gadzooks! Can anything beat "perl -MCPAN -e 'install Template'"? Perl is a language I come back to over and over again because it is the best language for the job.
I think Python and Ruby tried to take ideas from Perl and improve upon them. This would make changing languages a good forward-looking strategy if Perl were a static language.
But, as Larry is showing with the Perl 6 Apocalypses, it is an incredibly dynamic language with a dynamic community (check out PerlMonks) and the community leadership is not afraid to make changes (some of them radical) that learn from past critiques and produce a new and exciting environment.
While it's not as new (and hence doesn't have the hipness factor -- don't fall for the hype) of the other languages, as opposed to sinking into the category of an also-ran to Python and Ruby, I think Perl will continue to lead the charge that these languages will follow.
I hope all three languages continue to thrive. By competing in similar mindspace, they will only improve each other and lead to a better environment for each of their respective communitites.
And I believe that for years to come, I will continue to come back to Perl because the leadership is seasoned and smart, it is continuing to improve and expand, and because it will simply continue to be the best language for the job.
The less information that has to be provided to receive the evaluation copy the better. Since you would like to be able to contact folks at a later date for sales purposes, a simple, succinct statement indicating that their e-mail addresses and/or phone number won't be provided to any 3rd parties and that they'll receive a minimal amount of unsolicited contacts would allay most folks' fears, I would imagine.
Often technical folks, particularly who work at large (i.e., beaurocratic) organizations, are either crunched for time or go through a lengthy process between the time they decide to investigate an evaluation copy and the time they actually evaluate the evaluation copy. I have more than once downloaded a 30-day evaluation only to have 30 days go by before I truly have the time to evaluate it. I would allow a user to download an evaluation copy more than once with the same username/password (perhaps you could limit it to 3 downloads) and/or extend the evaluation period to 60 or 90 days. I would send a minimally intrusive e-mail after 30 days asking whether they have had a chance to evaluate the copy, asking if they have any comments, and/or asking if they need a brief (e.g., additional 30 day) extension of the evaluation period. If they have not downloaded the evaluation, it may serve as a gentle reminder.
Hope this helps
And I can say from experience that it works incredibly well. I've compiled a script which used 20,000 lines of code amongst the various modules I'd built, not including Perl/Tk and the many other CPAN modules I used, and out popped a nice binary which worked just as if run from Perl.
I develop on Linux, but I can use it to generate binaries for Windows users. It opens up a whole new audience for me. I develop quickly on the platform I am efficient on, and all the Windows users know is that they get something with a nice GUI that works as advertised and which was developed in half the time.
Needless to say, I recommend it highly.
I'm guessing that any slashdot reader who has been in the technical arena for more than 10 years is in the same position.
The first thing you should do is create coding standards in which documentation is part of the coding process. The documentation standards should be such that you can automatically generate documentation as the code base changes.
For example, on every Perl project I work on these days, I introduce a script (about 30 lines of code) which auto-generates documentation from the PODs. The script can be run as a cron job that auto-updates the online documentation every week. That way, coders document as they go, and central documentation resource automatically regenerates itself on a regular basis.
The second thing you should do is set up an intranet site (behind the firewall!) for developer documentation. Include the auto-generated documentation, documents describing your coding standards, project management documentation for developers, use cases, class diagrams (does ColdFusion even have objects?), activity diagrams, sequence diagrams, etc., etc. If you have a team of 20 people, undoubtedly you have someone who manages code revisioning. Likewise, managing the developer intranet should be included in someone's job description, and, what's more, they should be given the time to do it properly.
Hope this helps
However they are missing a critical observation in deciding to charge Linux users: There are very strong complementarities between Linux and Solaris. Furthermore, Linux does not now own a substantial portion of the desktop market, though it certainly has a substantial advantage over Solaris in this arena.
So if the Sun executives were a bit more farsighted, they would continue to make StarOffice free for Linux, FreeBSD, other free Unix-like operating systems users. (At least until they know whether or not Linux will capture a significant portion of the desktop market in the future.) After all, it will be far easier for them to take market share from a large installed base of Linux users in 5 years than it would be to steal market share from Windows users.
That is entirely false. Many of these countries need infrastructure and other resources to make their marketplaces more efficient or facilitate better exchange of information or resources either internally or with the rest of the world.
In fact, while the average agricultural worker in an agricultural economy could care less about establishing a secure internet connection when they're having trouble feeding their families, by creating infrastructure you may be able to help thousands of farmers by allowing market intermediaries to better market or sell goods internally or abroad.
As much resources are wasted in many developing nations because markets and infrastructure are inadequate or easily abused due to informational inequities or corruption as anything else.
The point is that your skills are valuable. You may be able to use them to help more at the macro level than a strong back and sweat could help at the micro level. As you would do in the job market, leverage your skills in volunteering by using them in their most productive capacity.
Finally, you may be able to help from right here at home. Look at Bram Moolenaar's vim. More specifically, download it, then type ":help uganda". Vim is charityware. Rather than pay for this open-source product, the author asks you to donate to the Kibaale Children's Centre. I use vim all the time, and I've made a donation. In fact, I contributed more than I've paid for any other piece of software in years.
So if you're a good coder, consider something of that nature. Or get creative. I don't know how much Bram has raised for the KCC, but I'd guess his coding skills have made a big difference in alot of children's lives.
You've obviously got a big heart and a good head. If you use them both, I have no doubt you'll make a difference
Thank heaven.
They already spend (from what I read) $100-$200 million / year developing and improving Internet Explorer. (I hope my source is correct on that, though I can't seem to dig it up just now.) That is roughly the GDP of the country of Dominica. And they pay other companies to adopt it as their browser technology. What could their motivation possibly be to spend this much money on a product they give away for free? (Yes, that last question was a joke, folks
Frankly, I was worried the company was going to go bankrupt.
They wrote a small piece in C++ because it was the right tool for the job. They wrote the rest in Perl because it was the right tool for the job.
If the whole thing was written in C++, they would probably still be coding the basic application.
When your needs are to get an application to market quickly, there are few languages that can compete with Perl.
If you question the scalability of Perl, I would challenge you to write a complex web application in any language that would handle 200,000 sessions and 2.5 million page views per hour.
Using Perl as opposed to, say, Java or C++, is like using Emacs as opposed to Notepad.
You can learn Notepad lickety split. You'll get alot more done if you know neither and have to get something done in a single day.
But over the long haul, you'd be far better off using Emacs.
Perl (and Python) are the same way: If you turn a bunch of inexperienced coders loose with no oversight and no structure, you'll get crap. But if you have a team of experienced Perl programmers, they will beat the pants off of any team of, say, C++ developers in terms of development time any day of the week.
Not to detract from C++. I am simply saying that the languages are used for different things, and that poor code follows from poor coding standards and practices, inexperience, and unorganized minds.
So if you can't write Perl without seeing spaghetti, I would suggest you have either some learning to do or that you need more discipline in your coding practices.
I think KDE is fantastic, but I simply prefer GNOME. I've been watching GNOME make incredible strides in the time that it's been around, and I think as a GNOME user I have alot to look forward to.
I have also been using the Ximian desktop at home, and I think they've put out a great product. (I actually forked over $29.95 to Ximian because I valued their product so much I thought it worthwhile to purchase it.) Red Carpet has worked flawlessly for me so far. While I still like to build certain things (Apache, Perl, etc.) myself, it saves me a good deal of time not having to worry about keeping my packages up to date. Evolution still has some bugs, but it's getting more solid literally every day. I was happy to fork over some money to Ximian and I'll continue to do so as they improve their product.
I know that there are going to be Debian users telling me I can get Red Carpet for free via apt-get, and they are right. I know there are folks who consider KDE the superior desktop, and they've got alot of good points.
However, I prefer Red Hat, Ximian, and GNOME, and Ximian has put out the right product for my preferences, and I am happy to pay for it confident that they will use the money not only to enhance their product, but to create things that will give back to the community as well.
So I say keep up the good work, Ximian, from a very satisfied user.
After all, it is only recently that Microsoft was the clear laggard behind various *nixes and Mac in terms of stability and other issues. (Still is in some categories.) If you were a Microsoft engineer back in the late 80s / early 90s, and you were tasked with building the company's first server-grade OS, where would you look for ideas?
And how would anyone know since the source isn't released to the public?
Gotta wonder
Response from executives at rival Hewlett Packard has been that of shock and dismay given their recent $25 billion acquisition of Compaq. "We could have gotten so much more for so much less!" an unidentified executive is quoted as saying. HP executives are said to be exploring the possibility of acquiring a portion of Vice President Dick Cheney.
I use Netscape on Linux (latest version) and I can't even get a link to a contact for the site.
I've been a web developer for over 6 years now, and I've never been tasked to build something that can't be supported in Netscape and IE on all available platforms. It's not that difficult! Trust me. I know.
If these guys (i.e., the Microsoft tech team) can't build a site that's cross-browser compatible, then, quite frankly, they are incompetent boobs. The British government needs to find someone who either knows what they're doing or doesn't have a hidden agenda.
If you needed a lawyer, would you hire someone who lives and breathes law, or someone who would rather be fishing?
This is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. If I see open source volunteerism on a resume, it goes right to the top of the stack.
An earlier reply expressed concern that developers might work on recreational code during business hours. I have worked with active open source developers who have done recreational coding on the job, but after their manager told them that was inappropriate, they stopped. If they didn't stop, they would have been fired, no differently than if they were spending too much time browsing the web at work.
If the earlier poster thinks this is a problem, they need to ask themselves whether it is a problem with the employee or the management. Unless the employee is both stupid and terminally unprofessional, it is the latter.
Another post expressed concern that somehow hiring an open source developer would "infect" your code base with GPLed code. Geez. I feel like I'm reliving the early hysteria of the AIDS epidemic when people were uneducated as to how AIDS was spread. Anyone who considers that a serious issue needs to check their paranoia at the door. Could it be that the Microsoft et al. propoganda is actually being swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by gullible individuals? I should hope most folks have more in the way of critical thinking skills than that.
All in all, the folks I've worked with who are open source developers or at least tuned into the open source world have been the cream of the crop in terms of expertise and knowledge base and, above all, are passionate about their work.
-
For unmodified products, charge per incident as is always done.
-
For modified products, charge hourly for a technician to diagnose the problem.
Red Hat, for example, would certainly be able to make more money from consulting services arising from the diagnosis and repair of modified code than the per-incident charges, and if the customer took the time and trouble to modify the source, it is probably valuable enough to them to pay for a qualified consultant to figure out where they're going wrong. The customer is happy to pay and Red Hat is happy to charge. Everyone is happy, and that's the basis of a solid business model.Would Microsoft offer a version of IIS customized for a customer's unique requirements together with patches, architectural diagrams and documentation for less than $10,000 or $20,000 that allows the customer to extend the product to meet their future requirements? Hardly. But Red Hat could offer the same for Apache, and make a sizable profit in the process. <HINT>This is a business model unique to open source service providers that is largely, so far as I can tell, untapped.</HINT>
The concept of spending money on database consultants or software architects is old hat. What's the difference between charging for a highly qualified hacker with an intimate knowledge of sendmail, for example, to look at your code and charging for a highly qualified DBA to look at your schema? (Answer: None.)
However, everything said in the other replies basically mirrors my experience: The Dell sales staff is clueless clueless clueless when it comes to Linux. At the very least, they should train a subset of their sales force in Linux and direct you to them when you have a question.
They also limit your hardware options in ways that I don't understand ... they won't sell boxes with some things that I know there are drivers for.
So why not get the benefit of the Dell manufacturer and a sales and support staff that really knows their biz? QLITech would be my first choice.
That said, you also gotta give Dell many kudos for its support of Linux. If you want to buy from a big name, go with Dell.
Another monitoring app which I found so fun to play with I contributed code to the project is Peep: The Network Auralizer. It's certainly a unique idea for a monitoring app, and it tends to grow on you over time.
Hope this helps!
What they and other distros are charging for is convenience. I pay for convenience all the time, for everything from coffee (I could always make my own coffee) to groceries (shopping at the small local grocery instead of going to the big chain store), and I'm happy to do it or I simply wouldn't.
I get involved in contributing bits of code to open source projects and simply being an advocate for free software. I've even donated money to open source projects and I've encouraged the companies I've worked for to donate. To the company it's a token amount but for the free software project it is truly meaningful. And I am happy paying for the convenience of Red Hat CDs because they provide me with value in bundling their distro and because advocacy with one's pocketbook, in my opinion, can be as effective as advocacy from a soapbox.
Considering the amount of money I've made personally from the use of open source tools, I would even be happy to pay double or triple what they charge. Even then, it wouldn't be a fraction of I would spend if Windows were my only option.
Free software and the market economy are not mutually exclusive, and, in my opinion, history will show them to be highly complementary.
So vote with your pocketbook, folks, and give a little back to the people who give to you.
Based on years of experience coding and managing development teams for a living, including both scientific coding (in optoelectronic engineering, scheduling algorithms, and mathematical economics) and "business" coding, I have found little correlation between a CS degree and competence as a programmer.
Furthermore, there seems to be little correlation between a CS degree and skills in mathematics.
I think the question you have to ask yourself is, "What am I really looking for?" Most professional programmers with years of experience wouldn't necessarily be interested in scientific computing because it doesn't grow their skill set in the areas that are of most value to programmers; i.e., the scientific projects I've worked on tend to be small projects using a small team of programmers working against a limited budget and not necessarily using the biggest, baddest technologies out there. And frankly, the most experienced and talented coders would not find scientific programming a good use of their time. It would be like having a physicist wiring your house.
I've very much enjoyed working on scientific programming projects, but for personal gratification rather than professional development.
What you should do is find one person who will maintain intellectual continuity for the project and who you trust to really know (or learn) the art of software project management and architectures (and it is an art!) and who you know gains personal gratification from the tasks they're working on (so they don't just jump ship a year down the line for a higher salary) and use them to assemble a team of motivated students or others whose skill levels and (most importantly) personal interests are allied with the needs of the project.
You'd be better off finding a good 2nd year physics undergraduate with a good reputation and who you could trust to work with you for a couple of years and having them learn how to code than to take a 4th year CS undergraduate, who has learned how to code technically but not how to code in reality and could really care less about what they're coding. The physics student will learn a skill that will be much more marketable after graduation than physics (unfortunately) and you will gain the benefit of a bright employee whose interests are allied with those of your project.
What about Ctrl-Alt-Backspace?
Or Ctrl-Alt-F1, then log in as root, then killall X? Crude, but works even in the most dire of circumstances.