Re:Interview questions.
on
Beyond Pay?
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Were they derogatory and demeaning?
Can I not ask you if you were gay? If you had a girlfriend?
Ok, the "airplane" joke was bad.
Re:Interview questions.
on
Beyond Pay?
·
· Score: 1
I will probally be a his word vs. theirs. It was just one interview, which he could have got up and walked out fine because there was no relationship existing with the company.
If they continue this once he works there, then it could be harrassment.
Your friend did the right move in answering and smiling. He could always say "No" to their offer later if it really bothered him.
> If it needs to be customized at the code level, it can be done and yes it can be done cheaply.
Using my example; Excel and Windows costs like $200 for a corporation that size.
A programmer will cost, say $20/hr. Thats includes overhead. Do you think it will take him 10 hours to find the problem in my macro, that works in Excel, in how many megs of code in Wine and OpenOffice? And for security, I need him on staff doing nothing when I don't have a problem.
>If it needs to be customized at the code level, it can't be.
How many everyday business programs do I have that can't be done with some sort of macro/internal programming language?
>why would anyone choose a proprietary solution in a business where software runs the company?
Because, the reality is that everyone does it. And no one gets fired for doing what is the norm.
>Why do you assume that because something is Open Source that it will take longer to fix it should something go wrong? I really don't get this.
I'm not saying that its longer. I'm questioning, as the parent post stated, if its cheap. Nothing specific to OpenSource says that it definately has to.
> may be cheaply modified to fit your specific needs.
I question this since how much do you think its going to be in man-hours to have a programmer fix something in Wine or OpenOffice if my insanely complex budgetting Excel macro fails?
How many people in the world even have the skill to do this within in a few days? Is it possible, yes. Is it cheap? No.
>Open-Source Software is more secure because there are more people reviewing it.
Pretty bad argument for business. "So our security, and my job, relies on what people do in their spare time?"
>It's cheaper to use Free/Open-Source Software.
It might not be if you have to retrain people to use it. Even with free training, the employee's time cost. They already know how to use their existing OS and applications.
>A good OS should not come with marketing prejudices, nor force the users to upgrade their development platforms every 2-3 years.
Is someone still supporting Linux version 1.4? If I wanted to run the latest version of Apache or OpenOffice, what kernal version do I have to run?
>Windows applications are measurably more complex, less stable, and more costly than equivalents on Unix-like systems.
If I have the code to a "Unix-like system application" could I not recompile it and make it a Windows application? How does it sudden become more costly and complex?
>but at the end of the day Windows is as dead as a dodo.
So what is the point of spending all this energy ranting? Why don't all zealots just keep quiet and let the dead die? If the end is unavoidable, don't you have something better to do?
>Why did the system fail? Because you, the company managers and shareholders, and Mr. Joe Public himself didn't want to pay for it.
That excuse runs into the "Not my department" category.
Suppose I wanted to build a 3 story house for $10,000. Can't do it? Just cut corners, use less nails, cheapers tiles, thiner materials. Get it under cost.
Now should an Civil Engineer sign off on it? Is that what a professional and ethical action be?
What happens when the house falls apart in the first snow storm? Do you think "He got what he paid for." would be a ok excuse?
>I respect your integrity, but as far as I'm concerned MS is a pretty sleezy company so I'm not gonna shed any tears for them.
Its about not stooping to their level.
The main drivers of OpenSource are those which just program and share, not those that fight dirty/go on illogical and embarassing rants.
Look at SCO. I assume that there are many fine people there, but how do you view the company as a whole? After this SCO vs. IBM thing is over, what is your impression of them?
>Its almost a surprise MS didn't "leak" Win 95 or 3.1 years ago to catch open source developers like this.
Please, you are talking about sacrificing the source code for NT and 2000 just to hold off OpenSource projects, which WILL happen eventually regardless of what lawyers say. They can't stop every comptuer science student out there from writing and giving away programs.
The number of virus created and holes which will be found (now and years in the future), IF this is true, will almost destroy any IT administrator to a weaping mound of tears and make them seriously consider moving to Linux/BSD/Mac.
Moving to XP won't help because this could happen with that code also.
So, IF this is true, this MIGHT be more damaging to MS than the Dept of Justice thingy from years ago. Not something MS would want to do on purpose no matter what they think about OpenSource.
Would you really get any distros from something as "wild and open" as p2p? How hard would it be to slip "something extra" into the binaries, create an ISO and hope that no one bothers to check the checksums?
IF they did do that and it was publicized you can be assured that people would be defending them saying how it helps them serve you better, help control costs (and passes the savings to the consumer) and, hey, we can trust Apple!
Of course, if anyone here was a passonate lover of Prada stores, they would post the same thing about them too.
>Expect a lot more events like this in the future, and don't expect EE's to prevent them.
Why should Joe Public not expect them (EEs or other Professional Engineers) to prevent them?
Don't they have a professional responsiblity to the public? Isn't the financial damage this did to the economy enough reason to have done something before? I'm not sure how days is consider a good down time.
Saying that "Its just soooo hard!" or "Its not my department" is not exactly the things I would want to hear when someone is explaining why they failed to prevent the one of the largest systems failures in recent memory.
The software handled one part of the electrical system involved.
What about a good Electrical/Mechanical/Civil Engineering solution that would have prevented it from cascading through different systems / electrical companies / countries?
One piece of software which didn't raise an alarm is shocking. The fact that it cascaded over such a wide area is simply mind blowing.
Before we talk about "software engineers" how about talking about "traditional engineers" and their role in this massive failure?
Internal combustion engine only runs on oil by-products. Why should that matter?
>It is not backwards compatible with itself.
And how is this difference from the dependency complexity of Linux? I've had lots of RPM complain about not having the correct version of libc and other libraries.
>It is more expensive than it should be.
Costs is a determining factor in standars? CDs and DVD have royality payments for the media, why are these standards?
>It is internally too complex
Complexity is relative. I could say that the internal combusition engine is too complex.
>and thus not sufficiently robust for heavy-duty applications.
Get into the real world and see how many applications are running on windows. Unless you are talking about mammoth sized applications, then even Linux out of the box isn't good enough.
>It is sold by a company that exploits its clients and partners so much that they hurt.
Has nothing to do with standards or not.
> There are alternatives.
There are alternative to the internal combustion engine too.
> The alternatives are cheaper.
Again, does cost have anything to do with standards?
>It's not about favouritism but about choosing standards.
>Like all standards, it does not matter which one is chosen, rather that there is a standard.
Given the number of Windows machines out there vs. Linux, why not just choose Windows as the standard? It has the critical mass. It has the accessiblity. Its rare that a big software company has a software product that supports Linux and doesn't support Windows. Its being used as servers, in home computers, in office computers, on every laptop supported by the manufactuer. Supported by game companies and by multimedia companies and by device manufacturers.
Why isn't Windows the "standard" right now? Why not just end the "fuss" right now and let Windows win the OS wars?
Slashdot Mirror
Were they derogatory and demeaning?
Can I not ask you if you were gay? If you had a girlfriend?
Ok, the "airplane" joke was bad.
I will probally be a his word vs. theirs. It was just one interview, which he could have got up and walked out fine because there was no relationship existing with the company.
If they continue this once he works there, then it could be harrassment.
Your friend did the right move in answering and smiling. He could always say "No" to their offer later if it really bothered him.
MS is a risk they are used to.
Open Source brings risks, which they are not used to.
That makes all the difference in the world.
> If it needs to be customized at the code level, it can be done and yes it can be done cheaply.
Using my example;
Excel and Windows costs like $200 for a corporation that size.
A programmer will cost, say $20/hr. Thats includes overhead. Do you think it will take him 10 hours to find the problem in my macro, that works in Excel, in how many megs of code in Wine and OpenOffice? And for security, I need him on staff doing nothing when I don't have a problem.
>If it needs to be customized at the code level, it can't be.
How many everyday business programs do I have that can't be done with some sort of macro/internal programming language?
>why would anyone choose a proprietary solution in a business where software runs the company?
Because, the reality is that everyone does it. And no one gets fired for doing what is the norm.
>Why do you assume that because something is Open Source that it will take longer to fix it should something go wrong? I really don't get this.
I'm not saying that its longer. I'm questioning, as the parent post stated, if its cheap. Nothing specific to OpenSource says that it definately has to.
> may be cheaply modified to fit your specific needs.
I question this since how much do you think its going to be in man-hours to have a programmer fix something in Wine or OpenOffice if my insanely complex budgetting Excel macro fails?
How many people in the world even have the skill to do this within in a few days? Is it possible, yes. Is it cheap? No.
>Open-Source Software is more secure because there are more people reviewing it.
Pretty bad argument for business. "So our security, and my job, relies on what people do in their spare time?"
>It's cheaper to use Free/Open-Source Software.
It might not be if you have to retrain people to use it. Even with free training, the employee's time cost. They already know how to use their existing OS and applications.
Ever hear about this great new thing called Linux? Came from Finland, but don't let that deter you.
>Some people are loath to buy more expensive word processors
Some people are loathed to buy a word processor at any price.
>Are you keeping up with the Commodore? Because the Commodore is keeping up with you!
Is Lional Richie getting back with his old band?
>A good OS should not come with marketing prejudices, nor force the users to upgrade their development platforms every 2-3 years.
Is someone still supporting Linux version 1.4? If I wanted to run the latest version of Apache or OpenOffice, what kernal version do I have to run?
>Windows applications are measurably more complex, less stable, and more costly than equivalents on Unix-like systems.
If I have the code to a "Unix-like system application" could I not recompile it and make it a Windows application? How does it sudden become more costly and complex?
>but at the end of the day Windows is as dead as a dodo.
So what is the point of spending all this energy ranting? Why don't all zealots just keep quiet and let the dead die? If the end is unavoidable, don't you have something better to do?
Seriously, you are suppose to wear the aluminum foil hat, not chew on it.
>Why did the system fail? Because you, the company managers and shareholders, and Mr. Joe Public himself didn't want to pay for it.
That excuse runs into the "Not my department" category.
Suppose I wanted to build a 3 story house for $10,000. Can't do it? Just cut corners, use less nails, cheapers tiles, thiner materials. Get it under cost.
Now should an Civil Engineer sign off on it? Is that what a professional and ethical action be?
What happens when the house falls apart in the first snow storm? Do you think "He got what he paid for." would be a ok excuse?
>I respect your integrity, but as far as I'm concerned MS is a pretty sleezy company so I'm not gonna shed any tears for them.
Its about not stooping to their level.
The main drivers of OpenSource are those which just program and share, not those that fight dirty/go on illogical and embarassing rants.
Look at SCO. I assume that there are many fine people there, but how do you view the company as a whole? After this SCO vs. IBM thing is over, what is your impression of them?
>Its almost a surprise MS didn't "leak" Win 95 or 3.1 years ago to catch open source developers like this.
Please, you are talking about sacrificing the source code for NT and 2000 just to hold off OpenSource projects, which WILL happen eventually regardless of what lawyers say. They can't stop every comptuer science student out there from writing and giving away programs.
The number of virus created and holes which will be found (now and years in the future), IF this is true, will almost destroy any IT administrator to a weaping mound of tears and make them seriously consider moving to Linux/BSD/Mac.
Moving to XP won't help because this could happen with that code also.
So, IF this is true, this MIGHT be more damaging to MS than the Dept of Justice thingy from years ago. Not something MS would want to do on purpose no matter what they think about OpenSource.
Actually this will push them towards DRM and other content management lock-down.
"If we had DRM, we could have prevented the source code from being transmitted freely."
If this is true and there are serious IT wide consequences from this, then it will be the best case to pass laws implementing DRM.
>It has the checksums checker built in. :( I just found that piece of info in the BitTorrent FAQ. Thanks.
>Not to mention linux distros (mandrake).
Would you really get any distros from something as "wild and open" as p2p? How hard would it be to slip "something extra" into the binaries, create an ISO and hope that no one bothers to check the checksums?
IF they did do that and it was publicized you can be assured that people would be defending them saying how it helps them serve you better, help control costs (and passes the savings to the consumer) and, hey, we can trust Apple!
Of course, if anyone here was a passonate lover of Prada stores, they would post the same thing about them too.
>Expect a lot more events like this in the future, and don't expect EE's to prevent them.
Why should Joe Public not expect them (EEs or other Professional Engineers) to prevent them?
Don't they have a professional responsiblity to the public? Isn't the financial damage this did to the economy enough reason to have done something before? I'm not sure how days is consider a good down time.
Saying that "Its just soooo hard!" or "Its not my department" is not exactly the things I would want to hear when someone is explaining why they failed to prevent the one of the largest systems failures in recent memory.
> strict cirriculum requirements of the main engineering authority in Canada,
The authorities are on a provincial level not the national level.
>and "Architect", too, interestingly enough).
Although this is true, I really hate this law. Do you know how many people I know who use "System Architect" as a title?
The software handled one part of the electrical system involved.
What about a good Electrical/Mechanical/Civil Engineering solution that would have prevented it from cascading through different systems / electrical companies / countries?
One piece of software which didn't raise an alarm is shocking. The fact that it cascaded over such a wide area is simply mind blowing.
Before we talk about "software engineers" how about talking about "traditional engineers" and their role in this massive failure?
>The most amazing thing about that show is that it almost perfectly mirrors the modern workplace.
The ratio to good-looking women to men was 2 to 1.
I, for one, welcome our new modern workplace....
>It only runs on Intel CPUs.
Internal combustion engine only runs on oil by-products. Why should that matter?
>It is not backwards compatible with itself.
And how is this difference from the dependency complexity of Linux? I've had lots of RPM complain about not having the correct version of libc and other libraries.
>It is more expensive than it should be.
Costs is a determining factor in standars? CDs and DVD have royality payments for the media, why are these standards?
>It is internally too complex
Complexity is relative. I could say that the internal combusition engine is too complex.
>and thus not sufficiently robust for heavy-duty applications.
Get into the real world and see how many applications are running on windows. Unless you are talking about mammoth sized applications, then even Linux out of the box isn't good enough.
>It is sold by a company that exploits its clients and partners so much that they hurt.
Has nothing to do with standards or not.
> There are alternatives.
There are alternative to the internal combustion engine too.
> The alternatives are cheaper.
Again, does cost have anything to do with standards?
>It's not about favouritism but about choosing standards.
>Like all standards, it does not matter which one is chosen, rather that there is a standard.
Given the number of Windows machines out there vs. Linux, why not just choose Windows as the standard? It has the critical mass. It has the accessiblity. Its rare that a big software company has a software product that supports Linux and doesn't support Windows. Its being used as servers, in home computers, in office computers, on every laptop supported by the manufactuer. Supported by game companies and by multimedia companies and by device manufacturers.
Why isn't Windows the "standard" right now? Why not just end the "fuss" right now and let Windows win the OS wars?
8 track tapes.
How do you explain my system?
Win 98 and RedHat 9.
Both have Mozilla start up at the same speed. In fact, once loaded the Win98 Mozilla has faster tab-switching.
>IE is the most used browser, that I agree with. But not the most well known or commonly known one.
If the users of IE can't even notice the name of the product in the title bar, how will they the name of browsers they don't even use?