Who gives a shit about Ubuntu's artwork other than the people making it? The Bored Billionaire. That's who. What contrived bullshit.
If you're making it, your peers find it usable, and some billionaire overlord doesn't like it, you can simply stop working on things for this idiot and make them for any other distro out there -- they'll be glad to have you.
In Ubuntu, Mark's payin' the bills. What he says goes. Draw nice stuff for someone else, they'll probably appreciate it more. Let Mark go pay someone to make his artwork to his standards.
Computer Science isn't computer operations, or systems engineering -- it's quite different.
But, with that said: Computer jobs are becoming like any other. More than 80% of us are grunts, working for (hopefully) middle class wages. The other "rock-stars" stand to make more money.
But at least we're not the idiotic, enthusiastic, crowd that dominated the Internet boom.
If you're getting into it for the money, go do something else. We don't want you.
If you're getting into it because it's work you can enjoy - welcome. We have plenty of open places for motivated, smart people.
Try to find a company where they allow you to actually fix their problems, and want you to. Anything else, you'll be frustrated.
For most IT projects you could better categorize them as: "decreases costs and adds efficiency to the business", "increases costs and makes things more difficult", and "is huge Enterprise overhead purchased by someone at the CxO level who's clueless."
Oh wait, that third one falls into the second category, but the magic of "I'm in charge, do what I say" comes into play and suddenly the need to determine whether or not the project is worth the money being spent flys out the window.
If you work on projects that fall into that third category, you know who you are. The larger the organization, the more money you're being paid over your peers to shut-up and keep working on it, no matter how many years behind it is, no matter how few goals it actually will reach when you're done, and no matter ANY form of logic.
As Rick Moranis stated so succinctly in the movie SpaceBalls, "Keep firing, Assholes!"
Spin huge masses around each other at high speed, then marvel at the fact that shit gets flung off regularly. I think if this is news, Astronomers are dumber than I thought they were. What exactly are they hoping to learn from this that they couldn't simulate in a standard centrifuge?
The reality is simple. There aren't enough "senior" engineers to go around in an *expanding* market for IT work.
Duh.
If you want "senior" people you can either pay through the nose for them, or you can hire two "junior" people and set the bar high. One or the other will get there, real quick.
Stop looking for "senior" people and start looking for *highly motivated* people, and your search will become a lot easier.
Agreed. Another "let's say these two things are related" article with key buzzwords to get people to think there's really news here. POP in mutt is news? Please. Really.
Even stranger, he was then allowed to have sex with his daughters not very long thereafter, without being turned into salt himself, kinda screwing up the whole "immorality" part of the story already stated previously.
Let the idiots dumb enough to think their games are a reality kill each other off.
It'll be entertaining on the evening news.
Re:People in the Bay Area say there *was* a bubble
on
Dot-Com Bubble v2.0?
·
· Score: 1
Your analysis seems sound, but I would add that VC's anxious to make a buck might push some of these companies public in the next six months to try to do damage control on their bad investments. Stay away...
I really need someone with the skills to blatently state that an MIT CS degree holder can't be stumped technologically, and that someone with a MBA can't be stumped in business.
Did you approve that copy? Wow. You know better. Nice marketing if you did.
You can get support for proprietary software only if the vendor chooses to provide it.
The most obvious example would be older versions of Windows, but it's applicable to every piece of purchased software.
If the old software meets your needs but has one or two niggling bugs, if the company that produced it wants you to upgrade to a completely new version and end-of-life's the original -- you have no options.
The industry has a built in merry-go-round... wheee. Add in that new coders making the same mistakes their older and wiser peers made 10-20 years ago (because we all refuse to standardize HOW we build things) and you have a neverending cycle of crap.
They're trying to lower the costs of running a TV station to the point beyond which systems can't deal with problems and you'll kill yourself maintaining it.
There's a reason the pros buy pro hardware and software bundled.
And there's a reason these guys can't afford it. (Hint: They don't know how to run a TV station or they'd have enough market share to pay for the stuff.)
Run away. Far away. Let them die in peace.
Meanwhile, on a more positive note -- Linux Format has run a number of articles over the last few years about how the BBC does use Linux highly successfully for certain niche portions of running a TV business. But not the whole BBC!
Feel free to do some research/homework by looking across the pond. They're far ahead of U.S. TV in using Linux, but they're also running a monopoly with government funding... meaning they play (and I mean play) with a LOT of technology over there.
NPR and PBS similarly have interesting "toys" in the States, but the big shops -- use tools that work and concentrate on their content (sorry, that's a "web" word but it seems to fit) and talent, and they make damn sure the production tools don't get in the way.
They also don't count on toy tools for on-air playback. Off-air time costs money and viewers... screwups in playback that require some geek to come fix a shell script, aren't tolerated in real professional broadcast circles.
Unless you're already hiring coders to write some amazingly good code, and you've already figured out how you do on-site 24/7 support of the systems... don't go anywhere near broadcast. That's the world they live in, and they'll eat up and spit out anything that hiccups more than once or twice a year.
If you barely understand it and have to look it up in a book, you're doing the next guy to work on your code (and your organization) no favors.
Make stuff ONLY as complex as it NEEDS to be. That's the job of a good engineer.
If you're bored, perhaps you're struggling with the fact that 80% of what is done with computers today ONLY requires linked lists, hashes, and that dull "generic" stuff to get the job done.
No need to build the Golden Gate Bridge to span the 10 foot wide creek in your back yard. In fact, it's downright bad design.
Your boredom with those data structures isn't cause enough to abandon them, no more than we're all going to stop welding steel plates together when building large structures.
Engineering is engineering. Computer engineers need MORE structure and standards, not less by any means.
The truly outstanding algorythm geniuses also know WHEN to apply them, and then they have to see MASSIVE performance gains to make them worthwhile -- because they know their code is highly disruptive technology to those who don't understand it and might have to maintain it someday.
And the really amazing ones always mentor/teach a few people to understand it later to take over maintenance.
Of course, if you try to unnaturally force specific people into teams that don't follow any particular business function (as my employer has recently done), you end up with three or four "islands" of people who don't interact.
When we asked "What did all this remodeling get us?" the answer was as inane as it was sad: "The building offered free remodeling, so we *had* to take it."
People that truly get things done tend to migrate toward whatever methodologies or techniques work best for themselves.
Sitting on the sidelines and thinknig that any of this has much to do with the big picture of people writing code for a Linux distro misses far too much of what's really going on.
OSS distribution models have been around far longer than commercial software distribution models, if you think about it.
Slashdot Mirror
This is news in Linux now? Good lord.
Who gives a shit about Ubuntu's artwork other than the people making it? The Bored Billionaire. That's who. What contrived bullshit.
If you're making it, your peers find it usable, and some billionaire overlord doesn't like it, you can simply stop working on things for this idiot and make them for any other distro out there -- they'll be glad to have you.
In Ubuntu, Mark's payin' the bills. What he says goes. Draw nice stuff for someone else, they'll probably appreciate it more. Let Mark go pay someone to make his artwork to his standards.
Computer Science isn't computer operations, or systems engineering -- it's quite different.
But, with that said: Computer jobs are becoming like any other. More than 80% of us are grunts, working for (hopefully) middle class wages. The other "rock-stars" stand to make more money.
But at least we're not the idiotic, enthusiastic, crowd that dominated the Internet boom.
If you're getting into it for the money, go do something else. We don't want you.
If you're getting into it because it's work you can enjoy - welcome. We have plenty of open places for motivated, smart people.
Try to find a company where they allow you to actually fix their problems, and want you to. Anything else, you'll be frustrated.
For most IT projects you could better categorize them as: "decreases costs and adds efficiency to the business", "increases costs and makes things more difficult", and "is huge Enterprise overhead purchased by someone at the CxO level who's clueless."
Oh wait, that third one falls into the second category, but the magic of "I'm in charge, do what I say" comes into play and suddenly the need to determine whether or not the project is worth the money being spent flys out the window.
If you work on projects that fall into that third category, you know who you are. The larger the organization, the more money you're being paid over your peers to shut-up and keep working on it, no matter how many years behind it is, no matter how few goals it actually will reach when you're done, and no matter ANY form of logic.
As Rick Moranis stated so succinctly in the movie SpaceBalls, "Keep firing, Assholes!"
The fact that a 100% democracy would seriously suck has already been documented and studied for many years by Sociologists.
That would also mean that encouraging idiots who are uninformed to vote and actually getting them to go do it would be a bad thing, no?
Spin huge masses around each other at high speed, then marvel at the fact that shit gets flung off regularly. I think if this is news, Astronomers are dumber than I thought they were. What exactly are they hoping to learn from this that they couldn't simulate in a standard centrifuge?
"mutiple threads" = cluster
:-)
"concurrently serviced" = fuck
I see now why no one wants to work on that code.
The reality is simple. There aren't enough "senior" engineers to go around in an *expanding* market for IT work.
Duh.
If you want "senior" people you can either pay through the nose for them, or you can hire two "junior" people and set the bar high. One or the other will get there, real quick.
Stop looking for "senior" people and start looking for *highly motivated* people, and your search will become a lot easier.
Dig any ditches lately? You know how much shit you have to go through to avoid hitting fiber optics? :-)
It's not an unskilled labor position if you're responsible for the digging of the ditch anymore. Hasn't been for a long time now.
Maybe the guys under the supervision of the MFIC (mother-******-in-charge) are dumb as a box of rocks, but not the MFIC.
Agreed. Another "let's say these two things are related" article with key buzzwords to get people to think there's really news here. POP in mutt is news? Please. Really.
Gushing review of 1000+ page book that can't even begin to be as concise as K & R... again.
Yawn.
Send the author back when they can get the size down to something the size of K & R while maintaining the same level of usefulness.
Don't worry.
... with all of us. You won't "look bad" at all.
You won't look bad if you share:
- your mother's maiden name
- your SSN #
- and your birthdate
So I'm sure you're willing to do that immediately, right?
Perhaps you need to expand your definition of privacy a bit before generalizing about privacy.
So let me get this straight, you write an app so damn good it gets the title "killer app", and then you are only able to sell it as shareware?
I'm thinkin' if you're smart enough to write a truly killer app, you don't give a damn about putting it out as shareware, that's for sure.
I predict there will be a slew of ultra-lame software pieces created from this publicity stunt that all suck ass.
Even stranger, he was then allowed to have sex with his daughters not very long thereafter, without being turned into salt himself, kinda screwing up the whole "immorality" part of the story already stated previously.
Get out while you still can!
Ah that live steel part sounds great.
Let the idiots dumb enough to think their games are a reality kill each other off.
It'll be entertaining on the evening news.
Your analysis seems sound, but I would add that VC's anxious to make a buck might push some of these companies public in the next six months to try to do damage control on their bad investments. Stay away...
I really need someone with the skills to blatently state that an MIT CS degree holder can't be stumped technologically, and that someone with a MBA can't be stumped in business.
Did you approve that copy? Wow. You know better. Nice marketing if you did.
When oil prices hit $100 a barrel, it'll be feasible. (Just a rough estimate. Fill in your own number with real research.)
If you're asking, "Is it feasible?" today and you don't see the neighbors building new towers in their backyards -- the answer is blatently obvious.
You can get support for proprietary software only if the vendor chooses to provide it.
The most obvious example would be older versions of Windows, but it's applicable to every piece of purchased software.
If the old software meets your needs but has one or two niggling bugs, if the company that produced it wants you to upgrade to a completely new version and end-of-life's the original -- you have no options.
The industry has a built in merry-go-round... wheee. Add in that new coders making the same mistakes their older and wiser peers made 10-20 years ago (because we all refuse to standardize HOW we build things) and you have a neverending cycle of crap.
Ask yourself "Why?" before continuing.
They're trying to lower the costs of running a TV station to the point beyond which systems can't deal with problems and you'll kill yourself maintaining it.
There's a reason the pros buy pro hardware and software bundled.
And there's a reason these guys can't afford it. (Hint: They don't know how to run a TV station or they'd have enough market share to pay for the stuff.)
Run away. Far away. Let them die in peace.
Meanwhile, on a more positive note -- Linux Format has run a number of articles over the last few years about how the BBC does use Linux highly successfully for certain niche portions of running a TV business. But not the whole BBC!
Feel free to do some research/homework by looking across the pond. They're far ahead of U.S. TV in using Linux, but they're also running a monopoly with government funding... meaning they play (and I mean play) with a LOT of technology over there.
NPR and PBS similarly have interesting "toys" in the States, but the big shops -- use tools that work and concentrate on their content (sorry, that's a "web" word but it seems to fit) and talent, and they make damn sure the production tools don't get in the way.
They also don't count on toy tools for on-air playback. Off-air time costs money and viewers... screwups in playback that require some geek to come fix a shell script, aren't tolerated in real professional broadcast circles.
Unless you're already hiring coders to write some amazingly good code, and you've already figured out how you do on-site 24/7 support of the systems... don't go anywhere near broadcast. That's the world they live in, and they'll eat up and spit out anything that hiccups more than once or twice a year.
If you barely understand it and have to look it up in a book, you're doing the next guy to work on your code (and your organization) no favors.
Make stuff ONLY as complex as it NEEDS to be. That's the job of a good engineer.
If you're bored, perhaps you're struggling with the fact that 80% of what is done with computers today ONLY requires linked lists, hashes, and that dull "generic" stuff to get the job done.
No need to build the Golden Gate Bridge to span the 10 foot wide creek in your back yard. In fact, it's downright bad design.
Your boredom with those data structures isn't cause enough to abandon them, no more than we're all going to stop welding steel plates together when building large structures.
Engineering is engineering. Computer engineers need MORE structure and standards, not less by any means.
The truly outstanding algorythm geniuses also know WHEN to apply them, and then they have to see MASSIVE performance gains to make them worthwhile -- because they know their code is highly disruptive technology to those who don't understand it and might have to maintain it someday.
And the really amazing ones always mentor/teach a few people to understand it later to take over maintenance.
Of course, if you try to unnaturally force specific people into teams that don't follow any particular business function (as my employer has recently done), you end up with three or four "islands" of people who don't interact.
When we asked "What did all this remodeling get us?" the answer was as inane as it was sad: "The building offered free remodeling, so we *had* to take it."
(Sigh...)
But it's not about killing them, it's about causing panic.
Get the sheeples scared, and keep them that way.
No, he says they work better for HIM.
People that truly get things done tend to migrate toward whatever methodologies or techniques work best for themselves.
Sitting on the sidelines and thinknig that any of this has much to do with the big picture of people writing code for a Linux distro misses far too much of what's really going on.
OSS distribution models have been around far longer than commercial software distribution models, if you think about it.
Name one major advance in router/backbone technology that wasn't pushed by bandwidth.
Then determine what percentage of the backbone bandwidth is porn.
Also determine who the only paying customers who had significant levels of traffic on the early commercial Internet were.