If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
It's so unfortunate that to be considered a good programmer you need to spend a lot of time outside of work educating yourself and keeping of with new technologies. What happened to knowing the basics and foundations and being easily trainable? What happened to sticking with proven stuff and not latching on to the newest fad or not learning technologies that will be outdated very soon?
You're misinterpreting me.
Spending your spare time learning your craft is all well and good, necessary even in the software world. I have no problems with a meritocracy.
Ultimately you can't grade job effectiveness automatically based on public data. Not all software is public, so it's not fair to grade based on Ohloh.net, etc.
If you want a meritocracy, fine -- show me your test! Let's see if I'm the right person for the job. But please don't grade me based on how I spend my time, money, etc. in private, or on the availability of code I've written. Those are not metrics that should factor into hiring decisions.
Having some sort of portfolio of previous work (that you can share, of course) isn't that crazy of an idea in any field.
What is crazy -- and sort of sick -- is the idea of hiring people based on what they do in their off hours. The private life of a potential employee should be off limits as far as hiring is concerned.
What time since ~2000 has Yahoo been a relevant technology company?
That's actually a good question. I tend to see Yahoo more as a holding company than an R&D company, much like IAC/InterActive (owner of Ask.com, Vimeo, OKCupid, etc.)
Seems to me the problem is with expectations; investors want Yahoo to be Google, but that's fundamentally not who they are, were, or ever will be.
From the summary, it looks like the most serious threat to the internet is click fraud.
The idea that I should sell space on my website on a per-click basis makes no real sense. Think about it:
* The amount of money I make is tied to the quality of the ad, which I don't control. * If people see the ad and decide to buy a product without clicking it, that means I'm giving away ads for free.
The problem isn't click fraud, it's that clicks aren't an appropriate way to get paid for advertising in the first place. CPC schemes might make Google a ton of money, but it's not very good for anyone else.
I'd guess that less than 1% of OSS projects have an office and a health plan. For the 99%.that include people doing it in their spare time, being able to make a little extra money contributing to OSS would sure encourage me to do more.
If hobby programmers are already working for free, offering to pay them makes no sense.
And while "less than 1%" of open source software might be made by professional developers, that tiny little fraction of open source software is what people actually use: Firefox, Linux, Chrome, Android, etc. etc.
CodeSpells actually exists and is backed by a university. Code Hero shows no signs of ever being completed and is backed by a guy who's notorious for scamming people.
We talked about funding individual ticket bounties, but that didn't make sense to us. For one thing, a lot of code changes aren't easily ticketable -- or the ticketing itself is a lot of work, i.e. planning meetings are required. It doesn't seem fair to pay for the programming but not the planning.
But the big problem is this: how do you get continuous enough funding to have a staff, an office, health plans, etc. when you're doing individual bounties? The funding seems like it wouldn't be stable enough to support the company.
I'd also point out that this very idea has been tried several times already, never with much success.
Apple has confusingly named their new iDevice connector "Lightning," so I think people can be forgiven for assuming Thunderbolt and Lightning are from the same company.
I think a huge part of what made him a great critic was that even when you disagreed with his opinion, you could usually sympathize with him anyway. It takes an unusually talented critic to pull that off.
Slashdot Mirror
If he's successful in preventing HTML5 from being adopted by Netflix, Amazon, etc., that's a big win for non-open technology like Flash and Silverlight.
Stallman is a good example of what happens if you don't pick your battles carefully.
You're misinterpreting me.
Spending your spare time learning your craft is all well and good, necessary even in the software world. I have no problems with a meritocracy.
Ultimately you can't grade job effectiveness automatically based on public data. Not all software is public, so it's not fair to grade based on Ohloh.net, etc.
If you want a meritocracy, fine -- show me your test! Let's see if I'm the right person for the job. But please don't grade me based on how I spend my time, money, etc. in private, or on the availability of code I've written. Those are not metrics that should factor into hiring decisions.
Having some sort of portfolio of previous work (that you can share, of course) isn't that crazy of an idea in any field.
What is crazy -- and sort of sick -- is the idea of hiring people based on what they do in their off hours. The private life of a potential employee should be off limits as far as hiring is concerned.
A company firing 900 people in a single day isn't newsworthy? Seriously?
Do you really think a guy who runs a car company would want to see public transit improved?
What a stupid thing to say. Look, Amazon wants to make money. More users isn't the same as more money. There is a difference.
Yup, hence the words "Amazon Original Pilots" on the show's Amazon page.
As a huge fan of both The Onion and Jeffrey Tambor, I hope they pick this one up.
That's actually a good question. I tend to see Yahoo more as a holding company than an R&D company, much like IAC/InterActive (owner of Ask.com, Vimeo, OKCupid, etc.) Seems to me the problem is with expectations; investors want Yahoo to be Google, but that's fundamentally not who they are, were, or ever will be.
What a vague statement! This entire article is lacking in any real specifics or citations.
The idea that I should sell space on my website on a per-click basis makes no real sense. Think about it:
* The amount of money I make is tied to the quality of the ad, which I don't control.
* If people see the ad and decide to buy a product without clicking it, that means I'm giving away ads for free.
The problem isn't click fraud, it's that clicks aren't an appropriate way to get paid for advertising in the first place. CPC schemes might make Google a ton of money, but it's not very good for anyone else.
FTA: "Surely some mistake, you say? KDE and lightweight kan't fit in the same sentence. I think they can."
That's a rationalization, at best. You're still expecting people to work for free for the benefit of others.
If hobby programmers are already working for free, offering to pay them makes no sense.
And while "less than 1%" of open source software might be made by professional developers, that tiny little fraction of open source software is what people actually use: Firefox, Linux, Chrome, Android, etc. etc.
Seriously? Never heard of something called "Google"?
The bigger problem is that once students exit the game, their memory gets garbage collected and they have no recollection of what they learned.
Let's compare the two, shall we?
CodeSpells actually exists and is backed by a university. Code Hero shows no signs of ever being completed and is backed by a guy who's notorious for scamming people.
Not at the federal level -- as of 2009, the IRS no longer gives nonprofit status to software companies.
So you think PBS and NPR are "inherently stupid"? Please explain.
Not being able to eat and pay rent might be *your* dream, but the rest of us actually want to get paid for our work.
This is of interest to me since at my day job we're trying to (advertisement warning) crowdfund our new email client.
We talked about funding individual ticket bounties, but that didn't make sense to us. For one thing, a lot of code changes aren't easily ticketable -- or the ticketing itself is a lot of work, i.e. planning meetings are required. It doesn't seem fair to pay for the programming but not the planning.
But the big problem is this: how do you get continuous enough funding to have a staff, an office, health plans, etc. when you're doing individual bounties? The funding seems like it wouldn't be stable enough to support the company.
I'd also point out that this very idea has been tried several times already, never with much success.
Life immitates a Mr. Show sketch? That's never a good sign, frankly.
That advice is all well and good until you want to actually get paid for your work.
Apple has confusingly named their new iDevice connector "Lightning," so I think people can be forgiven for assuming Thunderbolt and Lightning are from the same company.
I think a huge part of what made him a great critic was that even when you disagreed with his opinion, you could usually sympathize with him anyway. It takes an unusually talented critic to pull that off.
Does Google have a compelling business case for such an option? If so, please explain.