I've found, as a general rule, that people with some military training and background are generaly better engineers than your typical CS grad, as they have a real understanding of what mission critical means.
A 21 year old kid who has legitimately been responsible for someone elses life is far more experienced than the valedectorian at your local code monkey U.
In short, I need people who can learn and think quickly.
Then you aught to be looking for experience rather than a degree. When I hire, I hire experience over education every time. Contrary to the rantings of all these college students, college doesn't teach you to think and learn quickly. It teaches you to approach a problem in a manner that the university finds appropriate. Often, this isn't the manner in which a company wants it approached. There isn't anything worse than a brand new CS grad straight out of the ivory tower who is so smart you can't teach him anything.
Furthermore, judging by the number of companies that require a degree, I have to assume they don't want Tools either.
The requrirements of a particular position are generaly set by HR. They are rarely the requirements of the hiring manager. I've held many positions that "required" a degree. I've taught university courses that I was "unqualified" to take.
The degree, ultimately, isn't worth a whole lot, other than to get you into a better postions against other canidates with no experience, none of which I'd hire, anyway.
If you've got a couple of years under your belt, take the degree that interests you.
The difference between tech school and college is tech school teaches you how to do a particular task, and college teaches you how to think about things.
And furthermore...
When you go to college and take your first CS class, I think you'll be surprised at how inapplicible all your years of on-the-job programming experience actually are.
Do you ever use your big brain to think about how inaplicable all your years of high falutin' school are to the job? Companies don't want well rounded tools, they want sharp cutting tools to perform particular tasks.
Get a degree in the things that interest you. It will ultimately have little to do with your profession.
Well there, Sport, you are infringing their mark (TI is a registerd trademark) and they have to protect it, or they loose it.
The letters 'T' and 'I' used consecutively belong to them when used to describe their products. You didn't ask them to use it, and they have every right, moraly and legaly, to ask you to stop, or to use it in a manner they see fit.
There are lots of companies using TI in their marks without any problems. Why do you supose they like you best?
We're talking about a high school here. Most if not all of these kids have only seen Windows up to this point.
That is my whole point. A kid that can navigate the Windows UI is *exactly* who I don't want administering to my enterprise systems. I don't want kids, I want professionals. There is a huge difference between the two.
Kids in my day used to disect frogs in school, too, but we never called 'em doctors, no matter how good they were at it.
I think what the poster was trying to elude to is that NT admins are fairly cheap because there are a lot of them. Unix (and Linux) admins are expensive because the supply is low.
And there is that popular myth again. There are lots of people that can point and click, and convince you the are "admins."
businesses want students who are proficient with Windows and Office
Fair enough. And they shall have them. Linux will never take over on the desktop, nor should it. It can take over at the server end, though. Thats where energy should be focused.
and schools don't have the resources to hire people who are competent Linux admins.
Meaning what? They have the resources to hire incompetent NT admins? Or that competent NT admins are cheaper than competent unix admins?
Competency in systems administration has nothing to do with the systems to which you administer. You help perpetrate the myth of "Linux is hard, MS is easy" when you make this argument. Linux admin is hard to find, and so is NT admin. Thats because good administration is hard to find. NT's slick interfaces make PHB's *think* it's easy (all ya have to do is clickclickclickclick!), but that's not the same thing.
Actually, the complaint about EJB had nothing to do with the technology. I can't criticize it, because I don't know anything about it. Except that it has a non-descriptive name.
I'd like you to take a step back and read that. You know nothing about it. How can you tell me the name is non descriptive?
If it has to do with "containers" why not call it JavaCan
Because if you knew anything (and we've already established that you don't), you would know that EJB is a pretty descriptive name. It has three terms, "Enterprise," which means something in the context of systems, "Java," which also means something, and "Beans" which in the context of Java, also means something quite specific.
I guess the fact that it doesn't have a "father" (like Wall or K&R) shows.
Well, scoot, James Gosling and Bill Joy are pretty accomplished engineers. I'm sure they would be quite distraught that a little high school piker like you thinks they're a "committe."
I'm just saying that I find Java (in the larger sense of Java) to be jargonistic to the extreme, and for its own sake.
So long as you continue to wallow in your own ignorance, this isn't going to change. You have already acknowledged you know nothing of the technology. You have already acknowledged that you don't understand language style issues. Why do you continue to run on at the lip?
So, your basic complaint seems to be "I don't know Java, I'm too dumb to figure out Java, my old lady took some Java in school, and she's too dumb to figure it out, too, so it must be jargon."
Here's the deal, scooter. EJB is a real technology, with it's own specification. The simple fact that you "cant get your head around it" speaks far more about you than it does about Java.
So you go on and continue to whine about your misconceptions. The rest of us are going to continue to write beans, run the cool containers, and deploy them.
Love!
FatHog
P.S. Since you seem to blame your tools for your own ineptitude, here is a clue for you.
The maintenance people are still in place. The architects and senior developers are looking for work.
I know that karma will come back to bite them in the ass, but the present is still a bitch.
Oh God now thats funny. It seems all those poor slob maintenance guys are still drawing a check, while all you high falutin' "archetect" types are standing on line for free cheese.
I'd say Karma already came around and bit you in the ass.
To be fair, complex data structure dereferencing *can be* hard to read in Perl.
Yes, but(tm)... In the context of OO, you should never have to dereference a complex data structure. You shouldn't have to know a dang thing about the structure.
Regardless, I've found people squawking about the "write only" feature of Perl all share a common feature amongst themselves. None of them write Perl.
If you aren't motivated enough to put in on paper and stick it in an envelope, why are you surprised your congressman responds in an equaly lazy manner?
Put it on paper. I've never recieved unsatisfactory service from my representative when I do.
E-mail is an easy rant. They get zillions of them from lazy constituents every day.
If you knew anything about music, you would know you're dead assed wrong. A musician's adjustment of tones to compensate for speicific characteristics of the instrument doesn't make the tones any different.
Most small projects does not need transactions, subqueries or locking. And to really take advantages of such features you need to have some good understanding of databases.
Implying that people choose MySQL because they don't have a good understanding of RDBMS systems. And I'd agree. If they did, they would know that most "small projects" do indeed have some need for transactions, subqueries, or locking, but they just don't know it, until it's too late.
If I had skipped college and enlisted in the Navy instead, I wouldn't have had a problem either since I'd have some concrete experience. But there wasn't much in the way of jobs in southern MD.
If you want to become a sharp tool, rather than well rounded, the military will train you to be very, very proficient within a narow range of skills. It worked for me, and I have the whole rest of my life to become "well rounded."
Slashdot Mirror
A 21 year old kid who has legitimately been responsible for someone elses life is far more experienced than the valedectorian at your local code monkey U.
Then you aught to be looking for experience rather than a degree. When I hire, I hire experience over education every time. Contrary to the rantings of all these college students, college doesn't teach you to think and learn quickly. It teaches you to approach a problem in a manner that the university finds appropriate. Often, this isn't the manner in which a company wants it approached. There isn't anything worse than a brand new CS grad straight out of the ivory tower who is so smart you can't teach him anything.
Furthermore, judging by the number of companies that require a degree, I have to assume they don't want Tools either.
The requrirements of a particular position are generaly set by HR. They are rarely the requirements of the hiring manager. I've held many positions that "required" a degree. I've taught university courses that I was "unqualified" to take.
The degree, ultimately, isn't worth a whole lot, other than to get you into a better postions against other canidates with no experience, none of which I'd hire, anyway.
If you've got a couple of years under your belt, take the degree that interests you.
And furthermore...
When you go to college and take your first CS class, I think you'll be surprised at how inapplicible all your years of on-the-job programming experience actually are.
Do you ever use your big brain to think about how inaplicable all your years of high falutin' school are to the job? Companies don't want well rounded tools, they want sharp cutting tools to perform particular tasks.
Get a degree in the things that interest you. It will ultimately have little to do with your profession.
The letters 'T' and 'I' used consecutively belong to them when used to describe their products. You didn't ask them to use it, and they have every right, moraly and legaly, to ask you to stop, or to use it in a manner they see fit.
There are lots of companies using TI in their marks without any problems. Why do you supose they like you best?
Theif.
That is my whole point. A kid that can navigate the Windows UI is *exactly* who I don't want administering to my enterprise systems. I don't want kids, I want professionals. There is a huge difference between the two.
Kids in my day used to disect frogs in school, too, but we never called 'em doctors, no matter how good they were at it.
And there is that popular myth again. There are lots of people that can point and click, and convince you the are "admins."
Fair enough. And they shall have them. Linux will never take over on the desktop, nor should it. It can take over at the server end, though. Thats where energy should be focused.
and schools don't have the resources to hire people who are competent Linux admins.
Meaning what? They have the resources to hire incompetent NT admins? Or that competent NT admins are cheaper than competent unix admins? Competency in systems administration has nothing to do with the systems to which you administer. You help perpetrate the myth of "Linux is hard, MS is easy" when you make this argument. Linux admin is hard to find, and so is NT admin. Thats because good administration is hard to find. NT's slick interfaces make PHB's *think* it's easy (all ya have to do is clickclickclickclick!), but that's not the same thing.
Sugalski is grade 'A' people. He once gave me an entire MicroVAX and storage shelf for nothing but the shipping costs.
Groovy dude...
T1 is one of the all time best sci-fi movies. T2 suxored. When little John whined and made Arnie promise not to kill anyone, I about had to puke.
Two trivia questions...
How many cops did T1 Arnie kill in the police station shootout?
How many people did T2 Arnie kill in the entire moovie?
There should be no such thing as a "good" terminator. Ever.
I'd like you to take a step back and read that. You know nothing about it. How can you tell me the name is non descriptive?
If it has to do with "containers" why not call it JavaCan
Because if you knew anything (and we've already established that you don't), you would know that EJB is a pretty descriptive name. It has three terms, "Enterprise," which means something in the context of systems, "Java," which also means something, and "Beans" which in the context of Java, also means something quite specific.
I guess the fact that it doesn't have a "father" (like Wall or K&R) shows.
Well, scoot, James Gosling and Bill Joy are pretty accomplished engineers. I'm sure they would be quite distraught that a little high school piker like you thinks they're a "committe."
I'm just saying that I find Java (in the larger sense of Java) to be jargonistic to the extreme, and for its own sake.
So long as you continue to wallow in your own ignorance, this isn't going to change. You have already acknowledged you know nothing of the technology. You have already acknowledged that you don't understand language style issues. Why do you continue to run on at the lip?
So, your basic complaint seems to be "I don't know Java, I'm too dumb to figure out Java, my old lady took some Java in school, and she's too dumb to figure it out, too, so it must be jargon."
Here's the deal, scooter. EJB is a real technology, with it's own specification. The simple fact that you "cant get your head around it" speaks far more about you than it does about Java.
So you go on and continue to whine about your misconceptions. The rest of us are going to continue to write beans, run the cool containers, and deploy them.
Love!
FatHog
P.S. Since you seem to blame your tools for your own ineptitude, here is a clue for you.
Name this language:
$FatHogHitMeOverTheHeadWithTheStupidStick = 1;
%IShouldGoBackToAccountingWhereIBelong = qw( Peter => 1, FatHog => 0);
bless my $soul, 'Silly';
Yeah. I'm super jealous of all that free cheese and cheap milk.
Us employed folks gotta buy it at the grocery. I guess I shoulda' been an "Archetect."
I know that karma will come back to bite them in the ass, but the present is still a bitch.
Oh God now thats funny. It seems all those poor slob maintenance guys are still drawing a check, while all you high falutin' "archetect" types are standing on line for free cheese.
I'd say Karma already came around and bit you in the ass.
Except for this...
To be fair, complex data structure dereferencing *can be* hard to read in Perl.
Yes, but(tm)... In the context of OO, you should never have to dereference a complex data structure. You shouldn't have to know a dang thing about the structure.
Regardless, I've found people squawking about the "write only" feature of Perl all share a common feature amongst themselves. None of them write Perl.
Go figgure.
If you aren't motivated enough to put in on paper and stick it in an envelope, why are you surprised your congressman responds in an equaly lazy manner?
Put it on paper. I've never recieved unsatisfactory service from my representative when I do.
E-mail is an easy rant. They get zillions of them from lazy constituents every day.
If you knew anything about music, you would know you're dead assed wrong. A musician's adjustment of tones to compensate for speicific characteristics of the instrument doesn't make the tones any different.
Thats why it's the same on the piano.
You mean, if I want forign keys and transactions at the same time, I can get that?
Oh.
And what happens to that vaunted "speed" when I use locking?
Oh.
Its a toy. Apparently a fast toy, in a very narrow range of applications, but a toy none the less.
man -k postgres might do wonders for your clue deficiency, or try "apropos postgres", if yer "old school."
Implying that people choose MySQL because they don't have a good understanding of RDBMS systems. And I'd agree. If they did, they would know that most "small projects" do indeed have some need for transactions, subqueries, or locking, but they just don't know it, until it's too late.
I know this may seem like a radical idea, but did you consider using your file systems for this?
If you want to become a sharp tool, rather than well rounded, the military will train you to be very, very proficient within a narow range of skills. It worked for me, and I have the whole rest of my life to become "well rounded."
Vi is a groovy text editor. EMACS is the finest OS ever known to man.
HTH!
Depends where on the ship you are. The hangar bay of an aircraft carrier is considered "outdoors" as far as proper military attire is concerned.
They're not old enough to vote.
It used to be "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." Then it became "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft."
Hopefully, this will change things.