Wow, that just reads like a lot of bitterness. I wonder if the journalist is peeved that Marc blew off his questions. You could rewrite the article to use complimentary terms instead of critical ones, and the facts would remain the same, but it would appear almost praiseworthy of Marc. For example:
Then Andreessen used the prototype as a ploy for recruiting a colleague named Eric Bina to team up with him.
A ploy? Really? Like Andreessen lured Eric into an evil scheme? The author could have written "Then Andreessen used the prototype as a proof-of-concept for recruiting a colleague named Eric Bina to team up with him." Suddenly its not all conspiratorial. In fact, it almost makes Marc sound determined or resourceful.
Any article that uses adjectives and subjective language to damn someone is pretty weak out of the gate. On top of that, half the stuff the article "rebuts" I had never heard. Marc didn't invent the first browser? Duh. Marc has always been "sold" as the guy who created the first browser with inline graphics. And he didn't write code at Netscape? So what? He wrote code at NCSA. By the time he got to Netscape, he was in a leadership position. That article's critique of Marc is bizarre.
The reason I went to the movie and saw the series on DVD before seeing the movie was at the recommendation of a female friend. So I can't agree here.
It doesn't bother me if you disagree, because that gives me hope that the movie will do better than my impression leads me to believe. That would be great. I want the movie to succeed. So the question is, how much of what you saw, or what I saw, is reflective of society in general? And how does that impact the box office? I want you to be right, and I want to see Serenity at over $100 million, if not the first weekend, the second or third. That $100 million point is important, because it's a good sign that the movie/series attracts general audiences, not just geeks. If it can't hit $100 million, can it at least hit $60 million or so, to make up for the production and marketing costs?
If it can't even do that, then I'm afraid my impression was right. Miserably so. I'd rather be wrong.
One of my employees called me a "shitblocker" because I was so good at keeping the crap away from the team. However, I had another employee who just saw too much of the bad stuff, and it got to him. So I'm not posting as someone who has done a universally good job at this. Having made my disclaimer, here are few things I've done.
Don't tell your employees when you've had a row with your boss. At least some employees have not just empathy, but a susceptibility to transferrence. In other words, you tell the employees you got into it with your boss, and a handful of them will get all worked up, even though they weren't involved.
Don't use the previous point as handcuffs. You are not obligated to portray yourself as completely buying into the company line. Just don't rant to your employees about it. If they are frustrated that upper management had made a poor decision, it's reasonable to let the employees know that you think there are better ways, and that you'll keep trying to get upper management on board. But you don't want to start complaining, "I just had a shouting match with my boss, and that idiot wouldn't see sanity if it came up and punched him in the face!"
This is hard, but, you have to keep the chain of command in line. There are many bosses who think it's good to get to know everyone underneath them, no matter how many levels removed. And to a degree, it is. Friendliness is always welcome. However, many execs will take it too far, and start stepping on toes (because they can) and undermining the managers beneath them. If you tell your employee "I'll evaluate you for 6 months, and we'll discuss a raise then" and your boss tells the employee "all salaries are frozen" or "I'll get you a raise" then your authority is screwed. Or, if you tell your employee something is a priority, and your boss tells them otherwise (especially if they don't clue you in), then you've just become ineffective. So, even as a lower manager, you have to tell your superiors that you are in charge of your team, and they need to go through you. And then you need to keep on top of that, so nobody feels the need to go around you.
Get your employees into the limelight when things are good. Get them out of the limelight when things are bad. More than that, you do NOT want to blame your employees for anything. That doesn't mean you assume blame for everything, and get fired. But it does mean that the blame game is lose-lose, and you say so to any upper manager who insists on playing. Your employees are either protected (because they deserve more chances), or fired (because they don't). There is no in between, unless you're documenting things for HR.
Building on the previous point, while you don't ever want to leave your employees twisting in the wind with the execs, you also don't want them to let you take all their blame. I had one employee sit quietly by while the CEO chewed me out for something the employee had done (I warned him not to do it -- I knew the CEO would hate it). What was my mistake? I kept the employee for 2 more years, and had that same scenario play out again and again. You block crap for your employees, but you do so because they are worthy employees. Don't be a martyr, especially for any employee who is simply using you as a meat sheild.
Serenity looks like it should be called "The Adventures of Han Solo." Is this not just a Han Solo-like character in a Millennium Falcon-like ship doing what Han Solo did (smuggling), and avoiding the organized oppressive bad guys with bigger ships?
Hmm. Well, first, I'd pay good money to see a trilogy of movies about the early adventures of Han Solo, so although your comment sounds dismissive, to me it sounds quite enticing.
Having said that, if you mixed Han Solo up with some precogs from Minority Report, and added a bit of Johnny Mnemonic, you'd have a more accurate summary. But even that's not quite right. It needs a bit more to put it in a box. Maybe some Gattaca -- the idea of a perfect society, outsiders living free but in sometimes less than ideal conditions, hmm. Add in some of that "space western" from early, early Star Trek, and maybe that's it.
I don't know, I feel like I'm not putting it in a box very cleanly. Someone else could do it better, I'm sure. What I do know is that it's selling the movie short to just say "Han Solo."
I just got back from a matinee. I have three things to convey.
First, as a thirty-something father who remembers seeing the original Star Wars with my father back when I was age 7 or so, and as a fan of Farscape and Galactica (but not Trek), my reaction to this movie went like this: "Oh my God, that was breathtakingly good!" Joss Whedon has balls. He's willing to rip apart his own creation if it'll make a great movie. And I think it is seriously great. I'd see it five more times and not be satiated.
Second, my wife's reaction to the movie, as a thirty-something mom who loved LotR and Signs but could care less about sci-fi in general, was this: "yeah, it was good. A little too violent. I don't imagine I'd ever see it again, but I'm glad I got to see it once." I suspect her more level reaction is the reaction most non-geeks will have, and that leads me to point #3.
And point #3 is: I don't see this being a blockbuster. No geeks took off work to line up early. The women that were there expressed no interest in seeing the TV show resurrected, even after enjoying what I thought was an amazing movie. It doesn't resonate with general audiences. And I hate that. I soooooo wish it did. Even now, I'm hoping that I am terribly wrong in my impression. I hope it creams History of Violence this weekend, and comes out a slam-dunk for more investment. Because I'd like to hear more of the story. A lot lot more.
So what exactly is the difference between the MySQL-SCO relationship and the PostgreSQL-SCO realtionship that were announced at about the same time?
Well, anyone who glances at my posting history will know that I'm not exactly a fan of the PostgreSQL community (although the technology is looking good in 8.1). However, I'd prefer to dislike PostgreSQL for legitimate reasons, so let's clear up that press release that you linked to. It mentions the company, EnterpriseDB, and says they "make the PostgreSQL database." However, the PostgreSQL fans here on Slashdot have pointed out that EnterpriseDB is just one of a few companies that offer commercial branches of PostgreSQL. EnterpriseDB supposedly doesn't own it, control it, or speak for it. They are separate entities. The PostgreSQL developers apparently want to distance themselves from this, which I think is the correct move. In fact, I think they should be doing it more loudly. At least enough so that I don't have to.:)
Yay for Postgres/Perl. Boo for MySQL/PHP.
If PostgreSQL really does distance itself from EnterpriseDB and SCO, then yes, yay for them. But if you want, we can still dislike them for other reasons. As for MySQL, I think they really have made a blunder here. In fact, they've made two. They made the mistake of bragging about their deal with the devil in a press release, and then stuck with it as people began to voice concerns. So yeah, boo on MySQL.
Of course, despite the booing, I'm still hoping MySQL will do a 180 degree turnaround on this. Their community -- both employees and users -- is very friendly and productive. The communities that have sprung up around other database products are typically missing one of the two (friendly but not productive, or productive but not friendly).
Now... put down the bong, take a deep breath, and try to grow up a little.
Ah yes, again with the inept one-liners. And you're expecting this to help your point how? By proving that you're the one acting immaturely?
You apparently have confused hysteria with ethics, and apathy with pragmatism.
If you want to call your own position "pragmatism" I'm fine with that. Go be pragmatic. But to paint people as engaging in "hysteria" -- just because they refuse to bow before your poorly argued viewpoint -- is the height of hyperbole. It's a warning signal to me that I'm dealing with someone who cannot argue on the merits of a point, but rather punches below the belt, because it's the best case to be made. And that's not a good case to be made, it's a pathetic one. Which again explains why you'd be such an anonymous coward about it.
Big words from an anonymous coward. Somebody takes an ethical position and your response is to thrust your apathy forward as an example for all. What an pathetic counterargument.
You are a very hypersensitive, egotistical person.
Your response to him is bizarre and ineffectual. It doesn't disprove or diminish his points in any way. And of course you knew this, which is why you posted your pot-shot as an anonymous coward.
Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes.
<sarcasm> Yay! Morality and ethics don't apply to software! Don't worry about pop-up ads, it's just software. Don't worry about being tracked all over the Net and having your data sold, it's just software. Don't be concerned with monopolistic business practices, it's just software. We shouldn't be reacting to any negative developments in our line of work, it's just software! Let's all just walk around in a daze and make no judgments on the information we have. </sarcasm>
Sad to see something so uninsightful and morally bankrupt got positively modded.
MySQL, who has been a big hero in the open source community has join a pact with a company that practices... bad business practices.
What does this say about the business ethics of MySQL?
It's a good question. My knee-jerk reaction when I saw this story was to say, "MySQL betrayed me!" Kinda whiney. I started reading the comments, many very non-chalant about the partnership, and decided that maybe I overreacted. Then I went to the MySQL site and saw they were touting the partnership rather than disavowing it. At this point, I don't care if the Slashdot community backs MySQL -- I cannot.
It's hard for me to say that I do not want to back MySQL. They quoted me in their press release for their launch of MySQL 4.0. The companies I work for are featured in the "MySQL success stories" section of their site. I'm an advocate, and someone who has been willing to code around the MySQL shortcomings, because everything else about MySQL has been so damn perfect.
I don't know. I don't want to be harsh, but I'm also having a difficult time going along with the oddly magnanimous Slashdot groupthink. SCO is an old-fashioned villian. They're so clearly opposed to everything that I love to do, that they taint anyone who chooses to do business with them. Especially those who choose to issue press releases and brag about it.
I would still give MySQL a chance. It will take a long time for me to get off of their database. But to reconsider, I'd need to see MySQL not just remove their press release, but issue an anti-SCO press release, disbanding their partnership. I just don't see that happening, so I just cannot remain a proponent of MySQL.
I imagine nobody is happier to hear this that PostgreSQL. Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.
No. I will look for alternatives, but after the way the PostgreSQL advocates have treated MySQL users, PostgreSQL is not an option. The PostgreSQL fans have taken over tons of threads about MySQL -- they rarely generate their own good press, instead they just complain vociferously about all the good press that other DBs get. They belittle the legitimate critiques that people have about PostgreSQL, frequently making derogatory comments about the person rather than the critique. They have a conveniently shifting definition of what a "real database" is, so that as MySQL adds features, they can continously say, "well, now it may do everything I said it couldn't, but it's still not good enough."
The PostgreSQL database has an ugly community. And with support & learning being community-driven in most Open Source products, I cannot see myself chosing them. Instead, it's time to look at Firebird or for smaller projects, the new MiniSQL (or whatever it's called) that PHP recently added hooks for. I've also heard of another promising free database, but I can't recall the name right now -- it might have had something to do with Andreessen's Cloud-something business.
and the B.S. about it hurting startups is insane. No startups worth a damn started by hiring expensive people...
Tim, I'm going to use your post as a starting point for my post, but please don't consider this a rebuttal to your post.
Google isn't quite in my neighborhood, but close by. I know people working there, and I currently do contract work for a start-up populated by ex-Google and ex-Borland employees. As you might guess, the truth is more boring and less extreme than people are making it sound.
Google is cornering the market in a very limited sense -- they hire PhD's who can survive multiple rounds of interviews and tests. In other words, they're hiring exceptionally smart, high-end scholars who can survive a brutal vetting process. As you might guess, there are NOT a lot people like this. For Google to grow, it has to suck that niche dry.
This does affect start-ups. How? Well, most start-ups employ a few of these geniuses to help give them an edge and establish some technical leadership. When each company had a handful of PhD-level employees, everything was spread out evenly. Now that Google has pulled hundreds of them in, it is NOT spread out. A start-up looking to appear experienced, or to have some token high-end leadership figures, is hard-pressed. And that impacts the VC dollars coming in. That's a real problem.
Having said that, I'm contracting for a start-up that shares a building with the Mozilla team. Guess what? The start-up is fine. There are plenty. They may not all have evil geniuses as figureheads right now, but they're plugging along.
Even more than that, Google has left the MA/BA/MS/BS-level employees alone. Or at least, it hasn't made a dent. If you have a Batchelor's degree in Silicon Valley and you want a job, you're going to have to pursue it just as hard as in the rest of the country. The economy is slowly turning around, but it really is slow. Companies are not fighting over average joes, as they did during the Internet boom. It's still a bust, people still fight for jobs, and salaries are NOT sky-high.
So yes, Google is having an impact. But no, it is not affecting most engineers. Yes, other business leaders are complaining. No, their sentiment isn't shared by the rest of the local community.
The core code you use to run your operation, not tangential code used in side projects. You've released *NOTHING* that can be used to challenge your search engine dominance.
That's bizarre. Even the GPL doesn't have an "undermine your own business" clause. Where did this idea that open source means losing your competitive advantage come from?
I have a lot of code I give away on outshine.com, but I have a lot more that I don't. This is legal. The GPL states that you are not required to give back code if it remains internal. It's only when you begin distributing it that you must make sure it is available under a GPL license. Google has done nothing to violate the GPL as far as I know, and hasn't even violated the spirit of the GPL. Google allows employees to spend 20% of their work hours on open-source projects! They are so many times better than any other company here in the area that I am at a loss to see any justification for the critique.
Sheesh man, cheer for victories, no matter how incomplete. Open source advocates should take what the can get and always push for more, not bitch about how spoiled their victory is.
No, I think the grandparent post was right. There is no victory to cheer for here. The entire development team left. There are zero developers (see the small box on the right side) for the project. It's dead. And you'd have to be crazy to try to revive it, because the terms put in place for development include agreeing to be fined or otherwise penalized if you violate some unknown set of rules.
So this is all just beating a dead horse. They could next say "we've upgraded the server" and "we've found 2 new members for the Board" and any number of other praiseworthy announcements, but it wouldn't matter, because it's dead.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. It's hand-waving. It isn't a real victory, because it's of no use or relevance anymore. Now if they donated the copyright to the new opensourcematters.org, that would be something significant, because that's where the future product releases will be.
So I read the 20 questions and answers. I'm also slightly involved with Mambo -- not as a developer, but as a contractor who gets paid to deploy Mambo for companies. So I've seen the community at work, and I think I have a handle on it (though admittedly from an outsider's perspective).
All I can say is, wow. If Miro thought the publication of those answers would paint them as reasonable, they've really lost it. They start out sounding cool & collected, but quickly veer into crazy-town. For example, question #8 asks why no developers are on the Board. Their answer is OK at the start, basically "hey, Andrew and Brian from the dev team were going to be on board." If that's all you read, they sound fine. But they go on to admit that they later decided -- for the developers, without input -- that the Board was too much for them. Solution? They decided to have no devs on the board.
And just like that, their answer has gone from cool & collected to an admission of stupidity. They're not stupid to think that being on the Board is tough, mind you. It probably is, and it probably does mean that any developer on the Board would have little time left to BE a developer. But they are stupid to think that they would determine what is "too much" on their own, without allowing the developers to decide their own fate, and doubly stupid to think that the only solution is to choose one or the other. There must be dozens of possible ways to compromise or collaborate.
What else? Let's see. Although they don't explicitly list the names of people who it will apply to, they do state that core team developers must also be members. And guess what? Members can be penalized financially if they break Miro's rules. Isn't that a whopper of a chilling effect on development? I sure as hell won't volunteer my time on a project that will bill me if I'm deemed to be "too rude" on the forum, or whatever their rules are.
It's bizarre to me to think that anyone could expect something like this would go over well with the volunteers. It's no surprise to see nearly every major code contributor walking away from Miro. Anyone who stays has to be wealthy, out of it, or completely passive and compliant.
Miro, from one "project leader" to another, all I can say is that I'm happy -- thrilled -- when someone contributes code to my projects. I can't imagine erecting all these hurdles. I can't imagine treating volunteers like 5-year-olds, who need "consequences" for their naughty behavior. If bad behavior is a problem, the correct course of action is to cut ties with that developer. Grow up.
Get a day job. Focus on your career. Do the journalism website thing in your free time as a hobby. Don't expect to make a career out of it.
This is reasonable advice. I'm not sure they have to accept it as a fait accompli, but this is probably reality for 99% of the Web sites out there.
Actually - plan to spend serious cash going into debt over your project without ever recovering the expense. I"ve suck at least $25,000 into my project in the last six or seven years and I don't make a dime from it. I never expect that I will.
This is bad advice. It's the suffering artist or martyr brand of creativity. I don't buy this at all. My Web sites are profitable, from nothing more than AdSense ads and donations. The trick is to know SEO, and the other trick is to value your own product. If you work to make your service valuable, and you behave accordingly, other people will value it too. This means you can't go to either extreme -- you can't hawk it like an auctioneer, and you can't be "meh" about convincing people of your worth. Attach a worth to services, and care enough to investigate and adjust until you find the optimal amount of income. If people express reluctance, find out why and cater to them. Most will consider at least some steps to be reasonable to keep a site going.
And care about the ads on your site. If you run AdSense or something else, you should be checking to be sure the ads are visible but not obnoxious, and you should care about the clickthrough rates. If the rates are too low, you should be fixing up your pages to help Google discover the proper ads. For example, if a high-traffic page about razor blades is running ads for roller blades, then the text on the page needs to be revised to make it more clear what is being discussed. Eventually, the ads adjust and become more accurate, and thus, have a better clickthrough. There are a million ways to SEO-optimize your site, and most will help your ad revenue too. You don't have to suffer for your art. You have to be proud of your art and care enough about your income to take action.
There is no shortage of software engineers, and there hasn't been one for well over a decade.
Huh? As recently as early 2000 bidding wars over engineers & developers were commonplace, and tech companies successfully pushed for those bigger H1B quotas you mentioned. In 2000, I managed to get my last huge salary increase (changed jobs, good timing, right before the bubble burst).
Slashdot Mirror
Poof! Widespread adoption peters out right there.
Wow, that just reads like a lot of bitterness. I wonder if the journalist is peeved that Marc blew off his questions. You could rewrite the article to use complimentary terms instead of critical ones, and the facts would remain the same, but it would appear almost praiseworthy of Marc. For example:
A ploy? Really? Like Andreessen lured Eric into an evil scheme? The author could have written "Then Andreessen used the prototype as a proof-of-concept for recruiting a colleague named Eric Bina to team up with him." Suddenly its not all conspiratorial. In fact, it almost makes Marc sound determined or resourceful.
Any article that uses adjectives and subjective language to damn someone is pretty weak out of the gate. On top of that, half the stuff the article "rebuts" I had never heard. Marc didn't invent the first browser? Duh. Marc has always been "sold" as the guy who created the first browser with inline graphics. And he didn't write code at Netscape? So what? He wrote code at NCSA. By the time he got to Netscape, he was in a leadership position. That article's critique of Marc is bizarre.
I thought that's what they were secretly training River and her friends to do.
It doesn't bother me if you disagree, because that gives me hope that the movie will do better than my impression leads me to believe. That would be great. I want the movie to succeed. So the question is, how much of what you saw, or what I saw, is reflective of society in general? And how does that impact the box office? I want you to be right, and I want to see Serenity at over $100 million, if not the first weekend, the second or third. That $100 million point is important, because it's a good sign that the movie/series attracts general audiences, not just geeks. If it can't hit $100 million, can it at least hit $60 million or so, to make up for the production and marketing costs?
If it can't even do that, then I'm afraid my impression was right. Miserably so. I'd rather be wrong.
One of my employees called me a "shitblocker" because I was so good at keeping the crap away from the team. However, I had another employee who just saw too much of the bad stuff, and it got to him. So I'm not posting as someone who has done a universally good job at this. Having made my disclaimer, here are few things I've done.
Hmm. Well, first, I'd pay good money to see a trilogy of movies about the early adventures of Han Solo, so although your comment sounds dismissive, to me it sounds quite enticing.
Having said that, if you mixed Han Solo up with some precogs from Minority Report, and added a bit of Johnny Mnemonic, you'd have a more accurate summary. But even that's not quite right. It needs a bit more to put it in a box. Maybe some Gattaca -- the idea of a perfect society, outsiders living free but in sometimes less than ideal conditions, hmm. Add in some of that "space western" from early, early Star Trek, and maybe that's it.
I don't know, I feel like I'm not putting it in a box very cleanly. Someone else could do it better, I'm sure. What I do know is that it's selling the movie short to just say "Han Solo."
I just got back from a matinee. I have three things to convey.
First, as a thirty-something father who remembers seeing the original Star Wars with my father back when I was age 7 or so, and as a fan of Farscape and Galactica (but not Trek), my reaction to this movie went like this: "Oh my God, that was breathtakingly good!" Joss Whedon has balls. He's willing to rip apart his own creation if it'll make a great movie. And I think it is seriously great. I'd see it five more times and not be satiated.
Second, my wife's reaction to the movie, as a thirty-something mom who loved LotR and Signs but could care less about sci-fi in general, was this: "yeah, it was good. A little too violent. I don't imagine I'd ever see it again, but I'm glad I got to see it once." I suspect her more level reaction is the reaction most non-geeks will have, and that leads me to point #3.
And point #3 is: I don't see this being a blockbuster. No geeks took off work to line up early. The women that were there expressed no interest in seeing the TV show resurrected, even after enjoying what I thought was an amazing movie. It doesn't resonate with general audiences. And I hate that. I soooooo wish it did. Even now, I'm hoping that I am terribly wrong in my impression. I hope it creams History of Violence this weekend, and comes out a slam-dunk for more investment. Because I'd like to hear more of the story. A lot lot more.
Well, anyone who glances at my posting history will know that I'm not exactly a fan of the PostgreSQL community (although the technology is looking good in 8.1). However, I'd prefer to dislike PostgreSQL for legitimate reasons, so let's clear up that press release that you linked to. It mentions the company, EnterpriseDB, and says they "make the PostgreSQL database." However, the PostgreSQL fans here on Slashdot have pointed out that EnterpriseDB is just one of a few companies that offer commercial branches of PostgreSQL. EnterpriseDB supposedly doesn't own it, control it, or speak for it. They are separate entities. The PostgreSQL developers apparently want to distance themselves from this, which I think is the correct move. In fact, I think they should be doing it more loudly. At least enough so that I don't have to. :)
If PostgreSQL really does distance itself from EnterpriseDB and SCO, then yes, yay for them. But if you want, we can still dislike them for other reasons. As for MySQL, I think they really have made a blunder here. In fact, they've made two. They made the mistake of bragging about their deal with the devil in a press release, and then stuck with it as people began to voice concerns. So yeah, boo on MySQL.
Of course, despite the booing, I'm still hoping MySQL will do a 180 degree turnaround on this. Their community -- both employees and users -- is very friendly and productive. The communities that have sprung up around other database products are typically missing one of the two (friendly but not productive, or productive but not friendly).
Apparently a lot of people care, and a handful of ACs waving their hands saying "nothing to see here" doesn't seem to be swaying many.
Agreed. I concede your point.
Ah yes, again with the inept one-liners. And you're expecting this to help your point how? By proving that you're the one acting immaturely?
If you want to call your own position "pragmatism" I'm fine with that. Go be pragmatic. But to paint people as engaging in "hysteria" -- just because they refuse to bow before your poorly argued viewpoint -- is the height of hyperbole. It's a warning signal to me that I'm dealing with someone who cannot argue on the merits of a point, but rather punches below the belt, because it's the best case to be made. And that's not a good case to be made, it's a pathetic one. Which again explains why you'd be such an anonymous coward about it.
Big words from an anonymous coward. Somebody takes an ethical position and your response is to thrust your apathy forward as an example for all. What an pathetic counterargument.
Bwahahahaha! You prove my point by arguing about an opinion! Hilarious!
Addendum: apparently PostgreSQL is also partnering with SCO so now there is added incentive to choose Firebird or something else.
PS: I found the Andreessen FOSS database, it's called Derby and it's not as impressive as I'd hoped. Still, it's an option.
Your response to him is bizarre and ineffectual. It doesn't disprove or diminish his points in any way. And of course you knew this, which is why you posted your pot-shot as an anonymous coward.
<sarcasm>
Yay! Morality and ethics don't apply to software! Don't worry about pop-up ads, it's just software. Don't worry about being tracked all over the Net and having your data sold, it's just software. Don't be concerned with monopolistic business practices, it's just software. We shouldn't be reacting to any negative developments in our line of work, it's just software! Let's all just walk around in a daze and make no judgments on the information we have.
</sarcasm>
Sad to see something so uninsightful and morally bankrupt got positively modded.
It's a good question. My knee-jerk reaction when I saw this story was to say, "MySQL betrayed me!" Kinda whiney. I started reading the comments, many very non-chalant about the partnership, and decided that maybe I overreacted. Then I went to the MySQL site and saw they were touting the partnership rather than disavowing it. At this point, I don't care if the Slashdot community backs MySQL -- I cannot.
It's hard for me to say that I do not want to back MySQL. They quoted me in their press release for their launch of MySQL 4.0. The companies I work for are featured in the "MySQL success stories" section of their site. I'm an advocate, and someone who has been willing to code around the MySQL shortcomings, because everything else about MySQL has been so damn perfect.
I don't know. I don't want to be harsh, but I'm also having a difficult time going along with the oddly magnanimous Slashdot groupthink. SCO is an old-fashioned villian. They're so clearly opposed to everything that I love to do, that they taint anyone who chooses to do business with them. Especially those who choose to issue press releases and brag about it.
I would still give MySQL a chance. It will take a long time for me to get off of their database. But to reconsider, I'd need to see MySQL not just remove their press release, but issue an anti-SCO press release, disbanding their partnership. I just don't see that happening, so I just cannot remain a proponent of MySQL.
No. I will look for alternatives, but after the way the PostgreSQL advocates have treated MySQL users, PostgreSQL is not an option. The PostgreSQL fans have taken over tons of threads about MySQL -- they rarely generate their own good press, instead they just complain vociferously about all the good press that other DBs get. They belittle the legitimate critiques that people have about PostgreSQL, frequently making derogatory comments about the person rather than the critique. They have a conveniently shifting definition of what a "real database" is, so that as MySQL adds features, they can continously say, "well, now it may do everything I said it couldn't, but it's still not good enough."
The PostgreSQL database has an ugly community. And with support & learning being community-driven in most Open Source products, I cannot see myself chosing them. Instead, it's time to look at Firebird or for smaller projects, the new MiniSQL (or whatever it's called) that PHP recently added hooks for. I've also heard of another promising free database, but I can't recall the name right now -- it might have had something to do with Andreessen's Cloud-something business.
Tim, I'm going to use your post as a starting point for my post, but please don't consider this a rebuttal to your post.
Google isn't quite in my neighborhood, but close by. I know people working there, and I currently do contract work for a start-up populated by ex-Google and ex-Borland employees. As you might guess, the truth is more boring and less extreme than people are making it sound.
Google is cornering the market in a very limited sense -- they hire PhD's who can survive multiple rounds of interviews and tests. In other words, they're hiring exceptionally smart, high-end scholars who can survive a brutal vetting process. As you might guess, there are NOT a lot people like this. For Google to grow, it has to suck that niche dry.
This does affect start-ups. How? Well, most start-ups employ a few of these geniuses to help give them an edge and establish some technical leadership. When each company had a handful of PhD-level employees, everything was spread out evenly. Now that Google has pulled hundreds of them in, it is NOT spread out. A start-up looking to appear experienced, or to have some token high-end leadership figures, is hard-pressed. And that impacts the VC dollars coming in. That's a real problem.
Having said that, I'm contracting for a start-up that shares a building with the Mozilla team. Guess what? The start-up is fine. There are plenty. They may not all have evil geniuses as figureheads right now, but they're plugging along.
Even more than that, Google has left the MA/BA/MS/BS-level employees alone. Or at least, it hasn't made a dent. If you have a Batchelor's degree in Silicon Valley and you want a job, you're going to have to pursue it just as hard as in the rest of the country. The economy is slowly turning around, but it really is slow. Companies are not fighting over average joes, as they did during the Internet boom. It's still a bust, people still fight for jobs, and salaries are NOT sky-high.
So yes, Google is having an impact. But no, it is not affecting most engineers. Yes, other business leaders are complaining. No, their sentiment isn't shared by the rest of the local community.
That's bizarre. Even the GPL doesn't have an "undermine your own business" clause. Where did this idea that open source means losing your competitive advantage come from?
I have a lot of code I give away on outshine.com, but I have a lot more that I don't. This is legal. The GPL states that you are not required to give back code if it remains internal. It's only when you begin distributing it that you must make sure it is available under a GPL license. Google has done nothing to violate the GPL as far as I know, and hasn't even violated the spirit of the GPL. Google allows employees to spend 20% of their work hours on open-source projects! They are so many times better than any other company here in the area that I am at a loss to see any justification for the critique.
No, I think the grandparent post was right. There is no victory to cheer for here. The entire development team left. There are zero developers (see the small box on the right side) for the project. It's dead. And you'd have to be crazy to try to revive it, because the terms put in place for development include agreeing to be fined or otherwise penalized if you violate some unknown set of rules.
So this is all just beating a dead horse. They could next say "we've upgraded the server" and "we've found 2 new members for the Board" and any number of other praiseworthy announcements, but it wouldn't matter, because it's dead.
I guess what I'm saying is that it's irrelevant. It's hand-waving. It isn't a real victory, because it's of no use or relevance anymore. Now if they donated the copyright to the new opensourcematters.org, that would be something significant, because that's where the future product releases will be.
So I read the 20 questions and answers. I'm also slightly involved with Mambo -- not as a developer, but as a contractor who gets paid to deploy Mambo for companies. So I've seen the community at work, and I think I have a handle on it (though admittedly from an outsider's perspective).
All I can say is, wow. If Miro thought the publication of those answers would paint them as reasonable, they've really lost it. They start out sounding cool & collected, but quickly veer into crazy-town. For example, question #8 asks why no developers are on the Board. Their answer is OK at the start, basically "hey, Andrew and Brian from the dev team were going to be on board." If that's all you read, they sound fine. But they go on to admit that they later decided -- for the developers, without input -- that the Board was too much for them. Solution? They decided to have no devs on the board.
And just like that, their answer has gone from cool & collected to an admission of stupidity. They're not stupid to think that being on the Board is tough, mind you. It probably is, and it probably does mean that any developer on the Board would have little time left to BE a developer. But they are stupid to think that they would determine what is "too much" on their own, without allowing the developers to decide their own fate, and doubly stupid to think that the only solution is to choose one or the other. There must be dozens of possible ways to compromise or collaborate.
What else? Let's see. Although they don't explicitly list the names of people who it will apply to, they do state that core team developers must also be members. And guess what? Members can be penalized financially if they break Miro's rules. Isn't that a whopper of a chilling effect on development? I sure as hell won't volunteer my time on a project that will bill me if I'm deemed to be "too rude" on the forum, or whatever their rules are.
It's bizarre to me to think that anyone could expect something like this would go over well with the volunteers. It's no surprise to see nearly every major code contributor walking away from Miro. Anyone who stays has to be wealthy, out of it, or completely passive and compliant.
Miro, from one "project leader" to another, all I can say is that I'm happy -- thrilled -- when someone contributes code to my projects. I can't imagine erecting all these hurdles. I can't imagine treating volunteers like 5-year-olds, who need "consequences" for their naughty behavior. If bad behavior is a problem, the correct course of action is to cut ties with that developer. Grow up.
For someone who isn't trying, you're sure doing a good job. Congratulations!
This is reasonable advice. I'm not sure they have to accept it as a fait accompli, but this is probably reality for 99% of the Web sites out there.
This is bad advice. It's the suffering artist or martyr brand of creativity. I don't buy this at all. My Web sites are profitable, from nothing more than AdSense ads and donations. The trick is to know SEO, and the other trick is to value your own product. If you work to make your service valuable, and you behave accordingly, other people will value it too. This means you can't go to either extreme -- you can't hawk it like an auctioneer, and you can't be "meh" about convincing people of your worth. Attach a worth to services, and care enough to investigate and adjust until you find the optimal amount of income. If people express reluctance, find out why and cater to them. Most will consider at least some steps to be reasonable to keep a site going.
And care about the ads on your site. If you run AdSense or something else, you should be checking to be sure the ads are visible but not obnoxious, and you should care about the clickthrough rates. If the rates are too low, you should be fixing up your pages to help Google discover the proper ads. For example, if a high-traffic page about razor blades is running ads for roller blades, then the text on the page needs to be revised to make it more clear what is being discussed. Eventually, the ads adjust and become more accurate, and thus, have a better clickthrough. There are a million ways to SEO-optimize your site, and most will help your ad revenue too. You don't have to suffer for your art. You have to be proud of your art and care enough about your income to take action.
Huh? As recently as early 2000 bidding wars over engineers & developers were commonplace, and tech companies successfully pushed for those bigger H1B quotas you mentioned. In 2000, I managed to get my last huge salary increase (changed jobs, good timing, right before the bubble burst).
The year 2000 is not "well over a decade" ago.