When this all started, I submitted an article to/. addressing this, that was never published.
</whine>
What I propose is that everyone contribute a dollar or two and donate it to, say, FSF. Then FSF should use that to buy out SCO. This way, FSF owns the rights to distribute the commercial stuff, and can use the commercial revenue to fund GNU. Kills two birds with one stone.
This taxes my memory some, but I believe the following to be correct.
Microsoft originally licensed Unix System III, and later Syste V, from AT&T. They then updated MS-DOS to give it a Unix like look and feel, i.e., a new int 21h API with Unix like read. write, seek, etc., command.com with Unix shell like redirect, pipes and syntax, etc.
The original business plan for Microsoft was to sell MS-DOS to small business and home accounts, and Xenix to large business accounts. SCO was a Microsoft business partner who first resold and later purchased Xenix when Microsoft changed its plans.
Although SCO was a different company from Microsoft, they did receive significant income from Microsft through an investment and a substantial transfer of stock. I forget what percemtage of SCO Microsoft owned. This situation was not unique, as Microsoft did invest in a large number of their business partners in order to exert control over their partners.
At the risk of being moderated down, again, I have to say that Linus should heed his own words. Has anyone seriously looked at the Linux kernel lately? It is suffering from serious code bloat.
To quote "Let he who is without [fault] cast the first stone."
Problem isn't the VHDL simulator, but the development code that only runs on Windows. I've been developing FPGA processors for a bit now, and I'm forced to use Windows as a result.:(
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. I also enjoyed the movie, and even dragged my wife out to see it with me. It was, however, a rehash, and I apologized to my wife for subjecting her to it.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time an ST movie plot was a copy of an earlier plot. Does anyone remember the original movie? What was the difference between V'ger and that little sattelite taken on board the Enterprise in the original series? Both were looking for their creators, and leaving destruction behind them. We also saw this in the first season of ST:TNG, in many episodes.
I think that clearly shows that the problem is in the writing. The franchise needs new blood, and fresh plots. This isn't easy, and I can personally attest to this thanks to my involvement in local community theater. What is easy is slipping into rehashing old scripts, and that's the unfortunate situation we have here.
It may be best for Rick Berman to limit the movie making activities, and to concentrate on new plot lines for television series. It is where ST was born, it is where it was revived, and it will be where it dies if too little attention is paid to the franchise.
Nothing new. Caldera was a real bitch with FreeDOS. They wanted OpenDOS to be what the open source world flocked to, but had an agreement that wasn't even close to being open. They just wanted to rape people by getting them to work on their stuff for free while they lined their pockets.
SCO (Caldera) sucks and the best thing that could happen is if they just folded after this desparate attempt.
Not bad for a first shoot, and amazing for a little amateur indie production.
Remember, these were all shot without the aid of a studio, sound lot,
editing facility, etc. So, everyone who bitches and moans, all I have
to say is Grow Up! You can acquire the right to criticize
after you create something of equal or greater accomplishment.
First, some praise.
Fidelity: The degree of fidelity to which this production adheres
to the original TOS style is phenomenal.
Special effects: Any production that relies too heavily on special
effects is a poor production. One of Paramount's greatest flaws
in the current franchise production is the heavy use of special effects to
make up for plot weakness. The minimal use of these effects here was
perfect.
Technobabble: Thank you for not placing immense quantities of
technobabble into the script. Lord knows how offensive it is to viewers
who come from a scientific background. Whether or not you like TNG,
at least they tended to have some basis in science. Their technobabble
was at least partially based on (at the time) current scientific theories.
By the way, Star Trek is not the only culprit. Back
to the Future had the "flux capacitor" that was an oxymoron. In
electromagnetic theory, "flux" is a magnetic property and a "capacitor" is
an electrostatic device that stores electrostatic charge. Since magnetic
and electric fields are orthogonal in every way, having a capacitor capable
of storing magnetic flux instead of electric charge is the ultimate technobabble
ever produced out of Hollywood.
Now, for some constructive criticism
Dialogue: there were some slightly askew lines. For example,
reference to the "medicine" should have been "serum" or "vaccine,"
as typically used on TOS. These convey a sense of more specialized
drugs, as opposed to "medicine" that implies over the counter cough syrup.
PC: Like it or not, political correctness is important in any
production. Specifically, the alpha and omega reference in the opening
title voice over is clearly a reference to Christianity's Bible, and should
be changed.
Cinematography: Take your camera off automatic exposure. The
camera's reaction to change in lighting during panning is distracting. Scenes
should also be more carefully designed, as camera angle and scene composition
in many places looked like a home video. Zoom in a little more, with
more scenes and points of view.
Sound: More foley work would have been beneficial. For
example, crunching sounds when running through the woods, as well as sounds
of leaves brushing away when a character emerges would have benefited the
film. Also, consider boom mikes next time, as the dialogue had a hollow
sound, probably due to the use of the built in camcorder microphone. This
was especially true in the outdoor shots.
Music: Using the original score definitely added to the experience,
but there's a hitch. My advice to the producers is: compose new music.
You have been very careful to avoid all ties to the original franchise
by not using "Star Trek" anywhere, not copying the original final frontier
voice over, etc. However, I believe the music is copyrighted and owned
by Paramount, and they may have legal basis to stop this production and any
future production due to unauthorized use.
Mind you, TOS production quality is poor by today's technology, and even
a bit back then, so some of my criticisms may have been true of the TOS as
well. However, I think you have something here. Great work and
I hope to see more.
What all the/. people always fail to see is the business end of things.
Guess what -- they get a royakty payment for every Solaris, HP-UX, etc., box going out the door. Why? Because there is a part of System V in each one, and guess who owns the copyright?
Guess what, I can buy a UL disc and distribute every GPLed binary for free. GPL says I can do so. GPL also says that UL cannot charge for the binary, but merely for the act of compiling it on the media. Similar arguments for the BSDed bits as well.
Now, if they are looking to stop me, they have to include something in that distribution that is not GPLed. Then I can't redistribute the distribution. This starts to sound like the old ploy that Caldera tried to use on FreeDOS -- suck up the free stuff and combine it with their proprietary license to stop everyone else from redistributing it. I know because I was there. They approached all the FreeDOS developers, alluding to GPL, but then released OpenDOS with a nasty proprietary license that made every developer's work property of Caldera. They eventually pulled their source altogether when their ploy did not work.
Love simply cannot give me that mock annoyed/hurt/indignant response. No one is attacking Caldera, but don't try to misrepresent what you are actually doing. It is not a true, open source distribution. Period.
Yes fool (was Re:to the left, to the left...)
on
Field Day 2002
·
· Score: 0
Don't you ever listen to news reports in emergencies? Very often, amateur radio is the only means of communications into a disaster area.
Pay attention to the world, it may come in handy some day.
I dealt with them a long time ago. They were arrogant assholes who had no clue on how to run a business. For the most part, they only wanted to grab stuff out of the open source community and leverage other peoples work so that they could make a buck or two. They added no real value to the products. They won't be missed.
I don't even have to bother hacking, I just go to MidAmerica (http://www.madvet.com/) or Eckler's (http://www.ecklers.com/) and buy a drop in PROM already engineered for performance.
Old news, at best.
Re:Look at Copyright, Not the GPL
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: -1
Wrongo John. If they make substantial changes to the source code, i.e., change all function names, relocate the functions to different files, etc., they can get away with it. The copyright protects that work, and in that form.
I know. I've had my GPLed code hijacked. All the algorithms, are the same. Many of the functions are nearly identical. The case got kicked out of court.
If you follow lkml, you know that Linus' arrogance is growing bigger and better daily. He refuses to make changes to make linux grow up, insists on keeping it going for techies only, and never really finishes the job. He's off playing with 2.5.X when the 2.4 streasm is still very buggy. He's way off mark on scalability and ease of use. Thanks to this, linux has hit a plateau it may never recover from.
As far as the 2.4 stream is concerned, it only works for a typical PC. There are tons of VM problems that set in as soon as you use large memory, SMP hiccups, and both Linus and Alan are ignoring them. Lot's of device drivers are minimally tested, and break from minor release to minor release. If you're a serious linux site, stick with 2.2.19 as it works, as opposed to the 2.4 stream.
I was a big linux promoter in my fortune 100 company, but I'm looking at *BSD for production nowadays.
It was really great, and there was a lot of character building that made the show better as it aged. Even the new cast is really good, but Carter couldn't write a decent script if his life depended on it.
Ok folks, let's face it. Microsoft does a lot of research and creates a lot of software. Yes, they are motivated by profit and should be -- that's how a company can exist. Sure, Billy Boy's personality comes into play when it comes to its aggressive nature, but how many of you can say you wouldn't do the same given the circumstances.
Flame suit off
All kidding aside, they research quite a bit and, as buggy as it may be, have made computers accessible to everyone. Companies such as Apple, albeit first to the market with ease of use, failed to get into many homes and businesses. Microsoft succeeded.
I can show you plenty of examples where their research paid off. My wife was scared silly of computers in pre-Windows days and even in Win3.X days. She is now comfortable writing, doing graphics work and accessing the internet. She's also lucky to have a 24x7 help desk (me), but that's an issue dealt with later.
I can show you secretaries at the company I work for who were deathly afraid of using IBM Selectrics who now routinely use Word, send email, surf the web, maintain spreadsheets, etc. Of course, none of this was invented by Microsoft, but they got these programs into businesses, where others have failed miserably.
Where Microsoft is to be faulted is that they produce poor code, but it is a tremendous challenge to create an OS for all those diverse platforms -- see the linux kernel usenet posts to see the incredible peculiarites some of the intel hardware displays.
Microsoft is also to be faulted for being too aggressive, but everyone in the U.S. who is of voting age should bear the blame for putting the current administration in place. They are too big and will overtake the government in two years. Then, W will work for Billy Boy;-)
In any free enterprise system, the leader in a market must do everything they can to maintain that position. It is when they are allowed to grow out of bounds when things go wrong. However, this is where the government must step in, and it is here where they government has repeatedly failed. They are too slow, too entrenched by process and run by too many self interest groups to work here. So, if you really want to blame someone for your Microsoft woes, blame the U.S. Government for not being able to do their job.
However, capitalism is still a free enterprise system. If you can produce an alternative at a lower cost that does everything that Microsoft software does today or promises in the future, then you will curtail the Microsoft growth. What this means is that slashdotters should focus on an open alternative of.Net, Instant Messenger, etc., that runs not only on linux, but on *BSD, UNIX and Windows as well. The applications sell the operating system -- that was the lesson learned by Microsoft when they pulled together design teams to create Office, and it is applications that will "destroy the monopoly."
Sitting out there whining on/. about how no one can break up Microsoft is exactly what Gates wants. Get your ass off your chair, stop trying to be the first post on/. and start writing real applications. Join forces with other projects and merge the competing projects so that there are less projects out there, but better focused and with sizable teams contributing competetive applications.
Yes, you will have IP issues if you work in the field. Yes, it means giving up precious free time. But, if you are serious about keeping Microsoft in check, start working. If not, imagine the new $100 bill with Bill Gates smiling at you.
In the mean time, give Microsoft credit for bringing the computer into homes and offices where Apple, RMS and Linus have failed to do so.
Eazel had a bad business model. They were relying on subscriptions to supplement operating costs. That $14M figure you quote is strictly start up costs for about a 30 person size company for a year. I know, because I've done a lot of business proposals.
What they never accounted for was the delay in the start of cash flow. The could not wait long enough for their subscription money to build up. They needed the money right away, and never accounted for the fact that it would take three years to build the subscription service. That's what killed them.
Reality check time. Open Source has lost steam because the corporations that promote it cannot make a profit. This is by the very nature that virtually every open source kiddie will download the software when it's free and not pay a cent to the developer, i.e. Red Hat, Mandrake, etc. This means that the open source companies can never grow to the same size as Microsoft.
Also, we've historically failed to present a united effort. We are fragment, by the very fact that the individuals will work on what interests them, not what is needed for the "greater good" of dominating the market with the free software.
You see this coming out of organizations such as the Free Software Foundation. In this case, the Debian distribution avoids all installation interfaces needed for non technical users. This means that the Debian distribution, without external help, will never be as user friendly as Microsoft. They will never make it to the desktop without help from an external entity, and that external entity can never achieve the marketing and development power that Microsoft has without paying for it. Debian is then dead ended on the desktop, period. All that Cathedral and Bazaar stuff goes out the door.
This previous example is true ecause lot of the open source proponents live off funds they get elsewhere, i.e., parents, research grants, etc. Programmers need to eat and a place to live. The programmer needs to be paid. If you don't pay money for the software, the programmer can't get paid and goes elsewhere. We just saw this happen with a few Linux companies that recently died. Those companies didn't make enough money to pay their programmers and they needed to get paid. When the money wasn't coming in, the companies folded and they lost their jobs. Simple economics.
Sorry folks, but I've been pushing open source inside a major corporation for five years now. We support it, but it will probably never replace our internally developed software because the open source stuff simply does not approach what we get when we pay for it.
What did you expect to do, start at the top? You may be the brightest employee since time began, but are almost useless without some practical experience. This is how to get it.
... I was "brought down" the as reported by this book. Gates will still make more in one minute than I do in a year.
BTW -- it is pandering to slahsdotters; there's a lot to go before Microsoft is really brought down or threatened by anyone or anything else, linux included.
Coming from the other extreme, I get a lot of bull handed to me because I'm an older software engineer. What it all comes down to is what excuse can management create.
In my case, I get paid a lot more than someone fresh out of college, so I'm discriminated against, even though I can write better code in all the new languages, platforms, etc., than any new engineer. In fact, I'm always assigned to mentor college grads, so there's some value after all, even in management doesn't want to admit it!
Slashdot Mirror
When this all started, I submitted an article to
was never published.
</whine>
What I propose is that everyone contribute a dollar or two and donate it to, say, FSF. Then FSF should use that to buy out SCO. This way, FSF owns the rights to distribute the commercial stuff, and can use the commercial revenue to fund GNU. Kills two birds with one stone.
This taxes my memory some, but I believe the following to be correct.
Microsoft originally licensed Unix System III, and later Syste V, from AT&T. They then updated MS-DOS to give it a Unix like look and feel, i.e., a new int 21h API with Unix like read. write, seek, etc., command.com with Unix shell like redirect, pipes and syntax, etc.
The original business plan for Microsoft was to sell MS-DOS to small business and home accounts, and Xenix to large business accounts. SCO was a Microsoft business partner who first resold and later purchased Xenix when Microsoft changed its plans.
Although SCO was a different company from Microsoft, they did receive significant income from Microsft through an investment and a substantial transfer of stock. I forget what percemtage of SCO Microsoft owned. This situation was not unique, as Microsoft did invest in a large number of their business partners in order to exert control over their partners.
At the risk of being moderated down, again, I have to say that Linus should heed his own words. Has anyone seriously looked at the Linux kernel lately? It is suffering from serious code bloat.
To quote "Let he who is without [fault] cast the first stone."
Problem isn't the VHDL simulator, but the development code that only runs on Windows. I've been developing FPGA processors for a bit now, and I'm forced to use Windows as a result. :(
I'm afraid I have to agree with this. I also enjoyed the movie, and even dragged my wife out to see it with me. It was, however, a rehash, and I apologized to my wife for subjecting her to it.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time an ST movie plot was a copy of an earlier plot. Does anyone remember the original movie? What was the difference between V'ger and that little sattelite taken on board the Enterprise in the original series? Both were looking for their creators, and leaving destruction behind them. We also saw this in the first season of ST:TNG, in many episodes.
I think that clearly shows that the problem is in the writing. The franchise needs new blood, and fresh plots. This isn't easy, and I can personally attest to this thanks to my involvement in local community theater. What is easy is slipping into rehashing old scripts, and that's the unfortunate situation we have here.
It may be best for Rick Berman to limit the movie making activities, and to concentrate on new plot lines for television series. It is where ST was born, it is where it was revived, and it will be where it dies if too little attention is paid to the franchise.
Nothing new. Caldera was a real bitch with FreeDOS . They wanted OpenDOS to be what the open source world flocked to, but had an agreement that wasn't even close to being open. They just wanted to rape people by getting them to work on their stuff for free while they lined their pockets.
SCO (Caldera) sucks and the best thing that could happen is if they just folded after this desparate attempt.
StrongArm came from DEC, and I'm not sure but I think so did Xscale.
Learn to spell. Also, how's your acting?
First, some praise.
Now, for some constructive criticism
- Dialogue: there were some slightly askew lines. For example,
reference to the "medicine" should have been "serum" or "vaccine,"
as typically used on TOS. These convey a sense of more specialized
drugs, as opposed to "medicine" that implies over the counter cough syrup.
- PC: Like it or not, political correctness is important in any
production. Specifically, the alpha and omega reference in the opening
title voice over is clearly a reference to Christianity's Bible, and should
be changed.
- Cinematography: Take your camera off automatic exposure. The
camera's reaction to change in lighting during panning is distracting. Scenes
should also be more carefully designed, as camera angle and scene composition
in many places looked like a home video. Zoom in a little more, with
more scenes and points of view.
- Sound: More foley work would have been beneficial. For
example, crunching sounds when running through the woods, as well as sounds
of leaves brushing away when a character emerges would have benefited the
film. Also, consider boom mikes next time, as the dialogue had a hollow
sound, probably due to the use of the built in camcorder microphone. This
was especially true in the outdoor shots.
- Music: Using the original score definitely added to the experience,
but there's a hitch. My advice to the producers is: compose new music.
You have been very careful to avoid all ties to the original franchise
by not using "Star Trek" anywhere, not copying the original final frontier
voice over, etc. However, I believe the music is copyrighted and owned
by Paramount, and they may have legal basis to stop this production and any
future production due to unauthorized use.
Mind you, TOS production quality is poor by today's technology, and even a bit back then, so some of my criticisms may have been true of the TOS as well. However, I think you have something here. Great work and I hope to see more.What all the /. people always fail to see is the business end of things.
/.ers.
Guess what -- they get a royakty payment for every Solaris, HP-UX, etc., box going out the door. Why? Because there is a part of System V in each one, and guess who owns the copyright?
Smarten up
Guess what, I can buy a UL disc and distribute every GPLed binary for free. GPL says I can do so. GPL also says that UL cannot charge for the binary, but merely for the act of compiling it on the media. Similar arguments for the BSDed bits as well.
Now, if they are looking to stop me, they have to include something in that distribution that is not GPLed. Then I can't redistribute the distribution. This starts to sound like the old ploy that Caldera tried to use on FreeDOS -- suck up the free stuff and combine it with their proprietary license to stop everyone else from redistributing it. I know because I was there. They approached all the FreeDOS developers, alluding to GPL, but then released OpenDOS with a nasty proprietary license that made every developer's work property of Caldera. They eventually pulled their source altogether when their ploy did not work.
Love simply cannot give me that mock annoyed/hurt/indignant response. No one is attacking Caldera, but don't try to misrepresent what you are actually doing. It is not a true, open source distribution. Period.
Don't you ever listen to news reports in emergencies? Very often, amateur radio is the only means of communications into a disaster area.
Pay attention to the world, it may come in handy some day.
I dealt with them a long time ago. They were arrogant assholes who had no clue on how to run a business. For the most part, they only wanted to grab stuff out of the open source community and leverage other peoples work so that they could make a buck or two. They added no real value to the products. They won't be missed.
I don't even have to bother hacking, I just go to MidAmerica (http://www.madvet.com/) or Eckler's (http://www.ecklers.com/) and buy a drop in PROM already engineered for performance.
Old news, at best.
Wrongo John. If they make substantial changes to the source code, i.e., change all function names, relocate the functions to different files, etc., they can get away with it. The copyright protects that work, and in that form.
I know. I've had my GPLed code hijacked. All the algorithms, are the same. Many of the functions are nearly identical. The case got kicked out of court.
As far as the 2.4 stream is concerned, it only works for a typical PC. There are tons of VM problems that set in as soon as you use large memory, SMP hiccups, and both Linus and Alan are ignoring them. Lot's of device drivers are minimally tested, and break from minor release to minor release. If you're a serious linux site, stick with 2.2.19 as it works, as opposed to the 2.4 stream.
I was a big linux promoter in my fortune 100 company, but I'm looking at *BSD for production nowadays.
I agree. It's time to put this dog to rest.
Are you really the idiot you sound like here? There are a *lot* of embedded applications where this makes sense.
/. and begin to educate yourself.
Why don't you start reading stuff other than
Ok folks, let's face it. Microsoft does a lot of research and creates a lot of software. Yes, they are motivated by profit and should be -- that's how a company can exist. Sure, Billy Boy's personality comes into play when it comes to its aggressive nature, but how many of you can say you wouldn't do the same given the circumstances.
Flame suit off
All kidding aside, they research quite a bit and, as buggy as it may be, have made computers accessible to everyone. Companies such as Apple, albeit first to the market with ease of use, failed to get into many homes and businesses. Microsoft succeeded.
I can show you plenty of examples where their research paid off. My wife was scared silly of computers in pre-Windows days and even in Win3.X days. She is now comfortable writing, doing graphics work and accessing the internet. She's also lucky to have a 24x7 help desk (me), but that's an issue dealt with later.
I can show you secretaries at the company I work for who were deathly afraid of using IBM Selectrics who now routinely use Word, send email, surf the web, maintain spreadsheets, etc. Of course, none of this was invented by Microsoft, but they got these programs into businesses, where others have failed miserably.
Where Microsoft is to be faulted is that they produce poor code, but it is a tremendous challenge to create an OS for all those diverse platforms -- see the linux kernel usenet posts to see the incredible peculiarites some of the intel hardware displays.
Microsoft is also to be faulted for being too aggressive, but everyone in the U.S. who is of voting age should bear the blame for putting the current administration in place. They are too big and will overtake the government in two years. Then, W will work for Billy Boy ;-)
In any free enterprise system, the leader in a market must do everything they can to maintain that position. It is when they are allowed to grow out of bounds when things go wrong. However, this is where the government must step in, and it is here where they government has repeatedly failed. They are too slow, too entrenched by process and run by too many self interest groups to work here. So, if you really want to blame someone for your Microsoft woes, blame the U.S. Government for not being able to do their job.
However, capitalism is still a free enterprise system. If you can produce an alternative at a lower cost that does everything that Microsoft software does today or promises in the future, then you will curtail the Microsoft growth. What this means is that slashdotters should focus on an open alternative of .Net, Instant Messenger, etc., that runs not only on linux, but on *BSD, UNIX and Windows as well. The applications sell the operating system -- that was the lesson learned by Microsoft when they pulled together design teams to create Office, and it is applications that will "destroy the monopoly."
Sitting out there whining on /. about how no one can break up Microsoft is exactly what Gates wants. Get your ass off your chair, stop trying to be the first post on /. and start writing real applications. Join forces with other projects and merge the competing projects so that there are less projects out there, but better focused and with sizable teams contributing competetive applications.
Yes, you will have IP issues if you work in the field. Yes, it means giving up precious free time. But, if you are serious about keeping Microsoft in check, start working. If not, imagine the new $100 bill with Bill Gates smiling at you.
In the mean time, give Microsoft credit for bringing the computer into homes and offices where Apple, RMS and Linus have failed to do so.
What they never accounted for was the delay in the start of cash flow. The could not wait long enough for their subscription money to build up. They needed the money right away, and never accounted for the fact that it would take three years to build the subscription service. That's what killed them.
No. We have another solution which works identically.
Also, we've historically failed to present a united effort. We are fragment, by the very fact that the individuals will work on what interests them, not what is needed for the "greater good" of dominating the market with the free software.
You see this coming out of organizations such as the Free Software Foundation. In this case, the Debian distribution avoids all installation interfaces needed for non technical users. This means that the Debian distribution, without external help, will never be as user friendly as Microsoft. They will never make it to the desktop without help from an external entity, and that external entity can never achieve the marketing and development power that Microsoft has without paying for it. Debian is then dead ended on the desktop, period. All that Cathedral and Bazaar stuff goes out the door.
This previous example is true ecause lot of the open source proponents live off funds they get elsewhere, i.e., parents, research grants, etc. Programmers need to eat and a place to live. The programmer needs to be paid. If you don't pay money for the software, the programmer can't get paid and goes elsewhere. We just saw this happen with a few Linux companies that recently died. Those companies didn't make enough money to pay their programmers and they needed to get paid. When the money wasn't coming in, the companies folded and they lost their jobs. Simple economics.
Sorry folks, but I've been pushing open source inside a major corporation for five years now. We support it, but it will probably never replace our internally developed software because the open source stuff simply does not approach what we get when we pay for it.
What did you expect to do, start at the top? You may be the brightest employee since time began, but are almost useless without some practical experience. This is how to get it.
BTW -- it is pandering to slahsdotters; there's a lot to go before Microsoft is really brought down or threatened by anyone or anything else, linux included.
In my case, I get paid a lot more than someone fresh out of college, so I'm discriminated against, even though I can write better code in all the new languages, platforms, etc., than any new engineer. In fact, I'm always assigned to mentor college grads, so there's some value after all, even in management doesn't want to admit it!