If you're in the industry, you know that there's no shortage of IT people. There is, however, a huge shortage of _good_ people.
What we're seeing is a huge number of so-called programmers and developers being churned out in the thousands by cheesy technical schools. These people have no problem solving ability, and instead rely solely on their ability to memorize coursework.
These are the kind of people that put a programming language like Java on their resume. They don't actually know Java. They wouldn't know an algorithm if it bit them on the ass. They _do_ know how to use the Java class libraries to churn out something that works. In 5 years, they're going to need to be completely reeducated.
This isn't the fault of these people. This is the fault of an industry that is always looking for the quick fix, and the easiest solution. The inherent problem is that they're merely treating the symptoms of IT worker shortage without getting to the heart of the problem.
Companies need to stop looking for resume buzzwords and start hiring people with the ability to learn. Instead of hiring the trainee fresh out of his or her 6-month Java certification course, hire the guy with 10 years of C++ experience. It's only going to take him a couple weeks to get productive, and when Java, or any other technology for that matter, becomes obsolete, he's just as easily going to be able to move on to the next phase of his career.
That guy with the certificate... he's going to be back right where he started.
> So help me out, Slashdot, who is it??? What
> foundation do we use to consider this a "law"???
Gordon Moore was one of Intel's founders. Unbeknownst to a lot of people, he didn't actually come up with this at Intel, but at his previous company, Fairchild Semiconductor.
Moore's law is a law in the same sense as Murphy's Law I suppose. Not like one of Newton's laws.
Actually, the Mac has pretty well defined keyboard accessibility also. I don't like using it as much as Windows, but it is there, and it is a standard.
Quote from BeNews:
"The kernel can be extended by dynamically plugging in service-providing processes, such as file systems...good memory protection and easy upgradability. It is also the exact opposite of the Linux kernel, which is "monolithic" (everything is built into the kernel, hence the need for re-compilation when you add/remove hardware)."
Is this right? I run plenty of modules on my system that are not in the kernel. I thought compliling your own kernel was one of the best things ABOUT linux.
This is somewhat right. The Linux kernel is monolithic, but you can dynamically add/remove kernel modules.
Isn't it incorrect to describe Linux as Monolithic? Especially with all the chimps hanging around Redmond...
Why does everything have to turn into a slam against Microsoft? Monolithic, in this case, is not meant as a derogatory remark.
> WTF? Did I watch the "original" happy ending or > the true ending?! Does anyone know?
If you watched the film noire version, you saw the happy ending. The "true" version contained no voice overs, as well as the unicorn dream. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
> I think the difference between python and perl > can simply be explained that perl is about > getting something done, no matter about how > messy or incorrect the method used may be, > while python is about doing things correctly > 1st time, for later use.
What? Because Python forces you to a strict coding style doesn't mean that your code is "correct". It's still possible to write a bad algorithm in Python, just as it is in Perl.
> Its the difference between grafting OOP into a > text processing language or including it from > the start.
Perhaps you should actually point out some limitations of Perl's OOP. Maybe you could also explain what this has to do with your own code quality.
> Its also got a more readable and less misused > syntax, albeit its use of whitespace is at the > other extreme from perl's fit it all into one > line with no carraige returns in sight. (if its > not like that, your likely not using perl to its > tersest extent.)
What are you talking about? Sure it's possible to write Perl code on one line, just as in many other languages. Unless you're an idiot, or purposefully writing obfuscated code, it's generally not done.
I'm sick of all these comments complaining about how hard Perl code is to read.
Providing that: a) you actually know the language, and b) the code was written by someone who actually knows the language
You should have zero problems with readability. Remarkably enough, the above applies for nearly every other programming language.
> From someone who has dabbled in both and used > neither significantly.
Like so many others in this discussion, I doubt that you're qualified to make such broad assumptions about either language.
You will know. When your code you try to read six months from now.
This is a stupid statement that is rehashed time and time again. Once could just as easily write unmaintainable code in any existing programming language. If written by a competent Perl programmer, Perl code should be just as easy, if not easier to understand than anything else.
I am, of course, assuming that proper time has been taken to actually learn the language. If not, the above statement has absolutely no merit.
As a longtime Debian user, (currently Potato) I know that Debian has received a lot of criticism for its political process. Perhaps because of the entirely open way of decision-making, it sometimes seems like the important decisions take a long time to make. Some have suggested that Debian needs some sort of a benevolent dictator. (much in the same way as the Linux kernel)
Perhaps directly affected by this, the Debian releases, although rock solid, are usually very far apart. (yes, I know there's always unstable)
It may be good that things undergo lengthy review; however is there some sort of middle ground that must be reached? What are your thoughts on the above?
You're right, they haven't actually come out and said "open source," and instead say things like "similar to an 'open source' style of license." Still, I think their reasoning for coming up with this was to jump on the speeding open source bandwagon. It's really too bad they are only willing to go halfway.
One place where the toolkit and/or window mangler people could really help is the slow, stupid, repetitious, non-searchable menu paradigm. If I were to pick one thing after proper documentation, it would be this. Maybe even before. You don't want each program to cope with it. That's the wrong layer.
OK, you've got me really curious. What do you think would be a good replacement for this?
I know NeXT actually had quite a few good ideas about UI design, including really simple things such as placing scrollbar arrows together. (so you don't have to go all the way to the top of the screen to scroll back down) I really do agree with you though, instead of simply copying the current (and lacking) interfaces mentioned above, why not innovate a little! I think this also goes back to the issues brought up in the SGI article from yesterday.
If you want to hit a moving target, you have to aim where its going to be, and not to where it currently is.
Basically, its supposed to provide a safe interface between the graphics card and the kernel. Probably the coolest part about it, is once you write a GGI application, you can (theoretically) run it under X, SVGAlib, glide, fbcon, etc. I think some nutcase actually wrote a text mode target for it. It's actually pretty cool to program for, having done a little bit of hacking with it, and not all that hard.
What do you mean by "code re-use?" Re-use as much code as you like, just keep it under the terms of the Novell license.
Really though, Novell has a lot of cool products, and I hope they are being sincere about this. I've read over the license, and I see no immediate problems. This looks like a lot more effort than Sun put into their pseudo "open source" SCSL, which was basically a ploy by their marketing people so that they could actually (ab)use the term "open source."
About a week after Columbine, in a small town called Taber, approximately an hour from where I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, a 14? year old student walked into his school and shot several people, one died. Canada's not the haven you presume it to be.
The following article should be forwarded anonymously to all the PHB's out there. The Hacker FAQ (for managers). Anyone who is, or works with hackers should immediately see its relevance.
That's exactly the point that I was trying to make. The difficulty in the experiment was not determining differences in the photographs, but the context in which to make the comparison.
I remember an experiment in which a neural network was used to distinguish between objects in photographs. Although successful, the researchers discovered that instead of noticing differences in the objects, what was actually being compared were such subtleties as the color of the sky in the background.
One of the points brought up was that although neural nets hold interesting possibilities in the future, we first must find ways of dealing with the infinite number of possible relations that we take for granted in our own minds.
-- The only thing worse than being redundant is being redundant.
With this cap in place, shouldn't we be able to run low bandwidth web/mail servers? I do a lot of work from home, and its nice to be able to access my system from wherever. I don't see what it will hurt, now that we can't possibly use up much of their bandwidth.
I've been looking at picking up that O'Reilly Qt Programming book. It is for the older version AFAIK. Did the API drastically change, or will I be safe picking this up.
Well, I'm not really sure about MediaOne, as they don't offer cable in my area, however I must say that I am extremely disappointed in Shaw @Home (Red Deer, Alberta, Canada). Yesterday I received a long e-mail from one of their system engineers (an mcse at that), explaining how because I was running Linux, and had sendmail and a web server running, (i do internal CGI testing with it, and dont use either for external traffic), and because Linux is insecure, I had 14 days to remove all my server processes and "secure my system".
Previous to this, I had logged about 200k of portscans coming from the Shaw office in Calgary, Alberta, and had firewalled the address that they were coming from. After being put on technical support for about 8 hours, (approximately), I finally got to speak to a technician, who then told me that I had been placed on the abuse list, and it was doubtful whether I would ever get my cable access back.
I then followed up the e-mail I got from the MCSE with a lengthy reply explaining my position, and the fact that I kind of know whether or not my box is secure (I am a UNIX sysadmin for an ISP), and am still waiting for his reply. This has frustrated me immensely, and I am at the end of my rope. Unfortunately, Shaw @Home is the fastest Internet around, and I don't know if I could go back to modem. (Although its free). Anyways, that's my rant of the day.
I can think of a lot of reasons the US, and other major governments would not want this thing in the air. Essentially a low cost spy satellite, imagine the uses this thing could provide for terrorists, and other malicious parties. Im really not too clear on its intended purposes, but thats what I was able to gather from this anyways.
Slashdot Mirror
A simple rule of thumb is that if your company decides to use Oracle, they need to hire a DBA.
If you're in the industry, you know that there's no shortage of IT people. There is, however, a huge shortage of _good_ people.
What we're seeing is a huge number of so-called programmers and developers being churned out in the thousands by cheesy technical schools. These people have no problem solving ability, and instead rely solely on their ability to memorize coursework.
These are the kind of people that put a programming language like Java on their resume. They don't actually know Java. They wouldn't know an algorithm if it bit them on the ass. They _do_ know how to use the Java class libraries to churn out something that works. In 5 years, they're going to need to be completely reeducated.
This isn't the fault of these people. This is the fault of an industry that is always looking for the quick fix, and the easiest solution. The inherent problem is that they're merely treating the symptoms of IT worker shortage without getting to the heart of the problem.
Companies need to stop looking for resume buzzwords and start hiring people with the ability to learn. Instead of hiring the trainee fresh out of his or her 6-month Java certification course, hire the guy with 10 years of C++ experience. It's only going to take him a couple weeks to get productive, and when Java, or any other technology for that matter, becomes obsolete, he's just as easily going to be able to move on to the next phase of his career.
That guy with the certificate... he's going to be back right where he started.
> So help me out, Slashdot, who is it??? What
> foundation do we use to consider this a "law"???
Gordon Moore was one of Intel's founders. Unbeknownst to a lot of people, he didn't actually come up with this at Intel, but at his previous company, Fairchild Semiconductor.
Moore's law is a law in the same sense as Murphy's Law I suppose. Not like one of Newton's laws.
Take it as you will
Actually, the Mac has pretty well defined keyboard accessibility also. I don't like using it as much as Windows, but it is there, and it is a standard.
Quote from BeNews: "The kernel can be extended by dynamically plugging in service-providing processes, such as file systems...good memory protection and easy upgradability. It is also the exact opposite of the Linux kernel, which is "monolithic" (everything is built into the kernel, hence the need for re-compilation when you add/remove hardware)."
Is this right? I run plenty of modules on my system that are not in the kernel. I thought compliling your own kernel was one of the best things ABOUT linux.
This is somewhat right. The Linux kernel is monolithic, but you can dynamically add/remove kernel modules.
Isn't it incorrect to describe Linux as Monolithic? Especially with all the chimps hanging around Redmond...
Why does everything have to turn into a slam against Microsoft? Monolithic, in this case, is not meant as a derogatory remark.
> WTF? Did I watch the "original" happy ending or > the true ending?! Does anyone know?
If you watched the film noire version, you saw the happy ending. The "true" version contained no voice overs, as well as the unicorn dream. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and rent one of the best sci-fi movies of all time.
> I think the difference between python and perl
> can simply be explained that perl is about
> getting something done, no matter about how
> messy or incorrect the method used may be,
> while python is about doing things correctly
> 1st time, for later use.
What? Because Python forces you to a strict coding style doesn't mean that your code is "correct". It's still possible to write a bad algorithm in Python, just as it is in Perl.
> Its the difference between grafting OOP into a
> text processing language or including it from
> the start.
Perhaps you should actually point out some limitations of Perl's OOP. Maybe you could also explain what this has to do with your own code quality.
> Its also got a more readable and less misused
> syntax, albeit its use of whitespace is at the
> other extreme from perl's fit it all into one
> line with no carraige returns in sight. (if its
> not like that, your likely not using perl to its
> tersest extent.)
What are you talking about? Sure it's possible to write Perl code on one line, just as in many other languages. Unless you're an idiot, or purposefully writing obfuscated code, it's generally not done.
I'm sick of all these comments complaining about how hard Perl code is to read.
Providing that:
a) you actually know the language, and
b) the code was written by someone who actually knows the language
You should have zero problems with readability. Remarkably enough, the above applies for nearly every other programming language.
> From someone who has dabbled in both and used
> neither significantly.
Like so many others in this discussion, I doubt that you're qualified to make such broad assumptions about either language.
You will know. When your code you try to read six months from now.
This is a stupid statement that is rehashed time and time again. Once could just as easily write unmaintainable code in any existing programming language. If written by a competent Perl programmer, Perl code should be just as easy, if not easier to understand than anything else.
I am, of course, assuming that proper time has been taken to actually learn the language. If not, the above statement has absolutely no merit.
As a longtime Debian user, (currently Potato) I know that Debian has received a lot of criticism for its political process. Perhaps because of the entirely open way of decision-making, it sometimes seems like the important decisions take a long time to make. Some have suggested that Debian needs some sort of a benevolent dictator. (much in the same way as the Linux kernel)
Perhaps directly affected by this, the Debian releases, although rock solid, are usually very far apart. (yes, I know there's always unstable)
It may be good that things undergo lengthy review; however is there some sort of middle ground that must be reached? What are your thoughts on the above?
Thanks!
Whoops.
s/down/up/
You're right, they haven't actually come out and said "open source," and instead say things like "similar to an 'open source' style of license." Still, I think their reasoning for coming up with this was to jump on the speeding open source bandwagon. It's really too bad they are only willing to go halfway.
OK, you've got me really curious. What do you think would be a good replacement for this?
I know NeXT actually had quite a few good ideas about UI design, including really simple things such as placing scrollbar arrows together. (so you don't have to go all the way to the top of the screen to scroll back down) I really do agree with you though, instead of simply copying the current (and lacking) interfaces mentioned above, why not innovate a little! I think this also goes back to the issues brought up in the SGI article from yesterday.
If you want to hit a moving target, you have to aim where its going to be, and not to where it currently is.
General Graphics Interface
Basically, its supposed to provide a safe interface between the graphics card and the kernel. Probably the coolest part about it, is once you write a GGI application, you can (theoretically) run it under X, SVGAlib, glide, fbcon, etc. I think some nutcase actually wrote a text mode target for it. It's actually pretty cool to program for, having done a little bit of hacking with it, and not all that hard.
What do you mean by "code re-use?" Re-use as much code as you like, just keep it under the terms of the Novell license.
Really though, Novell has a lot of cool products, and I hope they are being sincere about this. I've read over the license, and I see no immediate problems. This looks like a lot more effort than Sun put into their pseudo "open source" SCSL, which was basically a ploy by their marketing people so that they could actually (ab)use the term "open source."
About a week after Columbine, in a small town called Taber, approximately an hour from where I live in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, a 14? year old student walked into his school and shot several people, one died. Canada's not the haven you presume it to be.
The following article should be forwarded anonymously to all the PHB's out there. The Hacker FAQ (for managers). Anyone who is, or works with hackers should immediately see its relevance.
That's exactly the point that I was trying to make. The difficulty in the experiment was not determining differences in the photographs, but the context in which to make the comparison.
I remember an experiment in which a neural network was used to distinguish between objects in photographs. Although successful, the researchers discovered that instead of noticing differences in the objects, what was actually being compared were such subtleties as the color of the sky in the background.
One of the points brought up was that although neural nets hold interesting possibilities in the future, we first must find ways of dealing with the infinite number of possible relations that we take for granted in our own minds.
--
The only thing worse than being redundant is being redundant.
With this cap in place, shouldn't we be able to run low bandwidth web/mail servers? I do a lot of work from home, and its nice to be able to access my system from wherever. I don't see what it will hurt, now that we can't possibly use up much of their bandwidth.
I've been looking at picking up that O'Reilly Qt Programming book. It is for the older version AFAIK. Did the API drastically change, or will I be safe picking this up.
Thanks.
We get ADSL in two months. Unfortunately I won't be living here, and there will be a 1 gigabyte upstream transfer limit.
Well, I'm not really sure about MediaOne, as they don't offer cable in my area, however I must say that I am extremely disappointed in Shaw @Home (Red Deer, Alberta, Canada). Yesterday I received a long e-mail from one of their system engineers (an mcse at that), explaining how because I was running Linux, and had sendmail and a web server running, (i do internal CGI testing with it, and dont use either for external traffic), and because Linux is insecure, I had 14 days to remove all my server processes and "secure my system".
Previous to this, I had logged about 200k of portscans coming from the Shaw office in Calgary, Alberta, and had firewalled the address that they were coming from. After being put on technical support for about 8 hours, (approximately), I finally got to speak to a technician, who then told me that I had been placed on the abuse list, and it was doubtful whether I would ever get my cable access back.
I then followed up the e-mail I got from the MCSE with a lengthy reply explaining my position, and the fact that I kind of know whether or not my box is secure (I am a UNIX sysadmin for an ISP), and am still waiting for his reply. This has frustrated me immensely, and I am at the end of my rope. Unfortunately, Shaw @Home is the fastest Internet around, and I don't know if I could go back to modem. (Although its free). Anyways, that's my rant of the day.
I can think of a lot of reasons the US, and other
major governments would not want this thing in the
air. Essentially a low cost spy satellite, imagine
the uses this thing could provide for terrorists,
and other malicious parties. Im really not too
clear on its intended purposes, but thats what I
was able to gather from this anyways.
I've heard a lot of good things about Glade.
Where does it fit in? Does anyone that'as tried
it have an opinion of it?