That's a good point. I left out quite a bit, since it wasn't all related to the topic, but one point is to arrange your own financing at a bank instead of going through the dealer. If you know what you're doing, you can find the VIN for the car you want, get a loan, then call up the manager, negotiate a deal for only hundreds over their invoice price, instead of paying just a little under the sticker price. That can be a difference of thousands.
Before I learned this (from an AAA book, btw), I would look at what they had, look at the sticker, figure out a fair price and interest rate, and just keep saying, "No," over and over. Each time they run the numbers, they like to look like they're waiting for them and talking with the manager and finance guy, but they're really stalling, to make you impatient. If you're going to dicker like that, take a book to read while the salesman is out of the closing room.
And, since it's been mentioned, once you get terms, you'll talk to someone who just seems to be an innocent person entering your data into the computer. That's the F&I (Finance and Insurance) person. They will suggest all kinds of insurance, special coverage, dealer prep (which is absolutely nothing, but they get paid hundreds for it). Their job is to add as much onto the price and loan as possible -- and they get commission on it.
I have a small company that provides data for lawyers and other professionals. At first I would wear a suit, but was telling them what my product could do. They knew I started the company and had designed and written most of the software. In short, my "agent" had pre-sold me, as well as my product, and he had sold me as an uber-geek. When they saw me in a suit, they were't sure how to react (and this isn't just techies -- this is the lawyers, too).
When I started wearing a simple collared shirt with a company logo on it, and made sure I looked more like a computer geek, I found I was treated with much more respect by all concerned. It reminded me of when I was invited in to pitch to Ron Moore at ST:TNG. My agent told me about one of her writers who went to an interview in a 3 piece suit and it almost cost him the job (the producer said he was used to writers in moth eaten sweaters).
I think a lot of it has to do with people's expectations, as well as who you are. I think the lawyers could tell I wasn't a suit and that writer didn't own a suit (bought it for the interview). If you are comfortable as you are, you will show more comfort and confidence.
You're being too literal in interpreting what the other poster says. I think his point is that he's making it clear, by not wearing a suit, that he is being natural, and not fronting for the other tech people he's talking to. Perhaps they respect him because his attitude and clothes are in sync with who he is and how he acts.
That's a good point, but there is a difference in how you judge others and how others judge you. His point is that people are more likely to form a positive opinion if you do things like stand up straight and make eye contact.
If you think about it, a lot of what he suggests are simple things that show pride in one's self and self confidence. Maybe we're just subconsciously looking for clues that a person feels good about him/herself -- after all, if they don't like themselves, why should we?
Which is why I alwyas go car shopping wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt (and, if it's warm enough, sandals). If I'm buying a car, I've researched it, I'm not going to dicker in person (if you do it over the phone and do it right, you can 1) dicker with a manager and NOT a salesman, 2) let them think you're "in the biz", and 3) sometimes dicker from their price and go up, instead of starting at the sticker and go down). Once a salesman sees you on a car lot, you don't get a moment of peace, so I like to look grungy for them. I've also found that some smart salesman won't judge, and the ones that'll come up to you even if you're dressed grungy are more professional and easier to deal with.
I think of grungy clothes as a deflector shield for Lesiure-Suit-Larry type car salesman.
I have also had experiences where I've been snubbed by one salesman because I looked grungy, and another treats me real well, and I made sure the one that snubbed me sees me paying the other with a large wad of cash. This works great at stores where they get paid in commission. I've even been known to make a comment on my way out, like, "I tried to get everyone to help me, but he's the only who did, so I made sure he got the commission."
I don't see what your comment has to do with my post. My point is that someone who has to make decisions about more than just, "How do I make sure I use ONLY 100% pure FOSS" will realize that it isn't that simple. It's a lot easier to be a purist when it doesn't get in the way of paying the bills AND when you're not responsible for maintaning a business's or departments income so you don't have to start firing people.
Yes, sticking with 100% FOSS is nice, but there is room in this world for all types of software, and I, for one, would rather maintain my business's income than have to look someone I know and have worked with while we built things up and tell him that I can no longer pay him, but it's okay, because we're using 100% FOSS, so I'm sure he won't mind losing his (or her) job.
I provide services to mostly lawyers. My system uses OOo, and that means they have to use OOo at least a tiny bit to use it. I've had several clients ask me more about it and if they could use it on other computers. They're shocked when I tell them how much OOo costs, what kind of licensing it's under, and what open source is.
I know at least one of my clients decided to start rolling it out in his offices because he liked it, liked the pricing, and felt it was a good alternative.
That's the point. A lot of purists have never been in a position where they had to make decisions about how they can keep the profit margin up.
Yes, they'd be willing to live in a card board box, but it's not the people in the boxes who make the changes. It's not the people who sit in their cubicles and piss and moan about purity, or who aren't the ones making decisions that make the changes. One CEO who has worked his way up, and decides what technology a large company will use will have an effect when he lets a sales person know what he'll buy and what he won't, but one doesn't get that far without balancing the idea of 100% open source with questions like how the bills should be paid.
And my point is that is something most of the purists simply do not understand. You can explain it until you're blue in the face, but it's something they don't want to understand because it means learning more in a field they think they're already experts in.
I'm not disagreeing with you -- I have to say I wasn't even thinking in terms of market share (I have a business that doesn't have to worry about advertising, market share, or most of the marketing stuff most businesses have to face -- I am VERY lucky!). I was just thinking in terms of income. I could have saved a LOT of time by writing my software so it is all command line based, 100% open, and using something like Blackdown. But that would mean my customers wouldn't even use my service (and no, most of them don't have someone else to turn to). I directly improve their bottom line, but if they had to keep looking up references and using the command line, they'd drop it, or I'd spend hours a day on the phone for tech support (my clients hardly ever need to call me for tech support!).
I was thinking more along your point about ordinary customers. That's where, to me, it's not even a market share question. It's about whether anyone will buy or nobody at all. Yes, OOo can go for 100% open source, but I'm sure using Java for many functions saves months of programming time over C or C++, and lets them put out a better product.
Another point: Life is a process. Sun is talking about opening Java. The purists here are like people in PETA -- especially the ones that threw a fit and said the city of Fishkill should change its name because it had violent conotations, then later found out kill means stream, and that's where the "Kill" came from. These people are so full of anger and frustration, they have to take it out on others, so they hold everyone to a really stupid and high standard, so they can always criticize others for not meeting THEIR standards.
Open source is a process. Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight, so it is important to understand that it is more important to be a supportive part of the change than someone pissing and moaning because it's not exactly what they want -- instead of trying to help the process along.
Perhaps it's a process. Sun's considering opening up Java. Maybe some of us, who live in the real world, are open to being part of the process of seeing things open, instead of hiding behind our keyboards, not having to make decisions that effect a companies bottom line.
There are many shades of grey between the black and white you paint it to be. Perhaps if you had more real world experience, or had to do more than sit in your cube and piss and moan about your boss -- like having to make real decisions about how to keep the company's income continuing -- then you might understand that.
As much as I wish I could be a purist, I have to agree with this simple statement. I started my business on softare that originally used Abiword and was controlled by Perl (Abiword was only called from the command line through Perl), but when OOo reached 1.0, I converted, which meant I had to learn Java (which I don't regret), and I had to base the entire program on Java and the Java interfaces with OOo. And, unlike command line purists prefer, my software is used in the real world, by real people who pay good money every month for my company's services (and I don't mean some measly 29.95/month -- they're paying enough to expect an easy to use program. I can't run it on Blackdown, or other forms of Java that don't have a GUI.
If OOo changed, I, and I'm sure, thousands of other developers, would have to re-write a ton of programs. Such a change would make me seriously re-think OOo, since it would make me wonder when they'd do that again.
I know we all make jokes about how those of us on Slashdot don't have lives or girlfriends, or have poor social skills, but it seems to me those who are pitching a hissy fit over this need to get their heads out of the ground, look around, and try living in the real world for a change. Instead of complaining about their bosses and cramped cubes, maybe they should try to run the business and find out just how hard it is to make sure they have an income if they insist on staying purists.
I don't see how anyone who has had to make decisions based on what customers want and will pay for could seriously expect a product like OOo to dump Java. People like that are the real 100% geeks, like Harold on Red Green, who have no life, no girlfriend, and no concept of what it's like to interact with the rest of the world.
He's talked about it on Usenet. He, like many of us, was heavily influenced in his youth by Trek. He has a love for it, if not for what has happened to it. He sat down with another writer (can't remember the name), and, ON THEIR OWN, developed a series bible, a 5 year story arc, and a whole new concept that he said would completely revitalize the whole thing. He's not talking about sticking with the all the stuff that's boxed it in more and more.
It may sound like a big boast, but I was online, on GEnie, when he let out his first "eep" (for those that don't know, when he's had good news, but can't reveal what it is, he's traditionally posted "eep" to GEnie, then, later, to USENet) about B5. I've kept up with his posts and comments since then. He is proud of his reputation and makes sure he doesn't promise what he can't deliver, and does not say something unless he can back it up.
So why would he do Trek? Because he wants to, he doesn't like what's happened to it, and he thinks he can turn it around and bring it back to what it once was.
Personally, if he wants to do it, I want to see what he can do, since he has an excellent track record.
So they'll listen to crap like this, and not even let J. Michael Straczynski pitch? I really hope the next Trek series is the one he already planned out on his own. He's proven and has done fantastic work with B5 and Jeremiah (and more), and understands how to tell character driven stories (which was a major strength of the original Trek, even if the characters were overdrawn). It'd be nice if they let real writers like him run the show.
(Okay, so they let Manny Coto run Enterprise for one season, and he's a real writer, unlike Braga or Berman, but they gave him only 1 year, even saw an improvement, but wouldn't give him an extra year after giving Braga 3 years to tank it.)
Not only get the on-call stuff in writing (if you decide to do it at all), but also make it clear to them (and make sure this is in writing), that your new job takes priority, so you are not available when you are at the new job, whether it's regular hours, overtime, or even on-call time. Also make it clear if this old boss pages you, and while working on their systems, you get paged by the new company, that the new company takes priority.
I get $60 an hour for doing psychic readings. For this kind of service I'd think he should be charging at least $85 or $100 an hour, probably more like $150. If the boss doesn't like it, he doesn't have to pay it. This guy is moving on, having to learn new systems and deal with a lot of other things in life. To have to be on call like that when he's trying to get out is a big weight to carry.
If the boss doesn't like it, he doesn't have to call him and pay the $150/hour.
The above post says about 90% of what you need to know. They had at least 3 people (you, the head dev, and the other guy), lost one, kept going, lost another, kept going, and suddenly you're doing the work of at least 3 people. Oh, boy I bet the boss was happy! He paid you 1x for 3x the work! He took advantage of you for a good long while.
So it's his fault. He did not plan ahead. No employee is forever, and by keeping only one developer on, he made you indespensable. If he had treated you like you were indespensable, you would have better working conditions and better pay.
He looked out for himself by working you as hard as he could and not hiring anyone to work with you. Now it's time for you to look out for yourself. He can ask for all he wants. He's just covering his ass and I don't blame him for it. That doesn't mean you have to give it to him. He should be down on his knees thanking God you are willing to give him more than 2 weeks, or that you didn't just walk out on him.
It doesn't work that way. If they're paralyzed, it lets them move their wheelchair forward, slightly backward, and lets them flash a light once for yes and twice for no.
Unless, of course, the paralyzed person is on Talos IV.
This Makes Me See How Important FOSS Is To Me
on
Nero Burning for Linux
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I misread this the first time through and thought it was saying a free version was available for Linux -- and didn't see the part about you had to have a registered Windows version. Even without the extra gotcha, this made me realize how important free (as in speech) software is to me.
I started using Linux somewhere around 1998, and moved everything (except compatibility testing) around 2000/2001. Since then I learned how to add almost any program or game I wanted with rpm -ivh {package_name}, then urpmi {package_name}, and now apt-get install {package_name}. It's not just the ease of use, but knowing that it is available, to me and anyone who wants it, that I can modify it or pay to have it modified, that I can help debug it, and even suggest new features.
I (mis)read this story and my first thoughts were, 1) Why bother, I've got programs that do almost all, to 2) But it's hard to do some of the DVD authoring that Nero will help with, to 3) But Nero controls it.
That's when I realized how important FOSS is to me and my company. I hadn't realized that I actually avoid commercial software now, and prefer FOSS, since I can make bug reports, make suggestions, and even modify if I need to. I also realized I do NOT want software (any more) that another company controls and can decide to remove from the market, or bastardize so it's no longer the program I liked. If it's FOSS, I know I'll almost always be able to find an older version if I need it, and that I can always locate it and re-install it easily if it gets horked.
So let Nero do what they want. I know in a year or two we'll see better DVD authoring under Linux (and eventually even see professional video editing in FOSS). This story helped me realize I can no longer deal with paying for software with fewer freedoms than that which apt-get installs for me. I don't want software someone else has total control over. (Okay, well maybe Myst and it's sequals, but we all know games are another story...)
I agree -- that they should listen to their user base, but there's more to it than that. It's not like they're selling Gnome or making profit off it, so there is really no reason to please users or to do anything other than program the kind of DE that Gnome developers want.
That being said, I dropped Gnome years ago because I felt it was focused more on programmers doing what they wanted and giving other programmers cool programming stuff, and KDE was much more focused on an easy to use experience.
And before I get the usual flames from someone with no life that thinks anyone who doesn't use a console is a a loser, I have a small business I run that is based on software I wrote. I was using command lines back in the late 1970s when I was lucky to get time on a paper terminal and excited when I could use a VDT.
I spent years in between teaching special ed and learned that people actually think in different styles, so many people will always do better with a GUI. My experience is that KDE has always been focused on creating a good GUI for the end user, wereas Gnome was more focused on a GUI with great APIs and everything programmers want, without a reall awareness of what helps end users.
I have to agree with this. My cable supplier (Comcast) has On Demand. While it is nice to catch up on Monty Python when I feel like it, only a few episodes are available, and I have no idea if one day they'll drop it as a choice.
I like a lot of foreign and art films. Even for a director like Alfred Hitchcock, there are a lot of his films I can't get from On Demand or haven't been shown on cable (unless hacked up and notably abridged on commercial networks) in years. I'll keep buyin DVDs as long as I can get films like "La Strada" on DVD, but have trouble finding it on cable. While this may be a small market, I think the overall idea is a reason why people will always by some type of physical media, even if it's a memory stick with music or video on it. If you buy it, you've got it forever, and aren't dependent on a cable system or other content provider for it.
A few years ago, Hurrican Isabel hit and many people in our area had no power for 2 weeks (it was 9-10 days for me). I spent a lot of time doing yard work I hadn't had time to do (I do programming at home, as part of my own business, so my hours are funky), and in the evenings I'd go out to bookstores, just so I could go some place with lights that felt civilized. For me, being able to put a CD in my boom box during the day and hear music I liked was a small part of what kept me sane. If I had only downloaded music to my hard drive, I would have had a much smaller selection to listen too.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I know I really like having a physical media that my music and movies are on, so I can play what I want when I want.
The really funny part is that all the advise he's going to get will come from the clueless dweebs (like you and me) who have absolutely no idea what a business does or how it might do it.
I've been running my own business for several years based on software I wrote (and am still, to a small extent, revising). We're making enough that the profit is being redirected into starting a new business (video/digital film production). If I'm a clueless dweeb, then I'm doing pretty well in my ignorance.
That's part of the reason for my post. I had to stop and plan out what I was going to do. My goal was (and still is) to be able to write my own scripts, then produce them for video or digital film. I started by carefully planning out what kind of business I could create that I could start without much upfront cost, on my own, and would, as time went on, take less and less time, but generate more and more profit.
My goals sounded not just like what most of these "Ask Slashdots" talk about, but even more so. I wanted step 2 to include not spending much time on the business and step 3 to include more than enough profit to start a new business. I spent a good amount of time analyzing the situation and working it out, before deciding to do what I did to start the business. I had to come up with a way to make money, a way that would sustain itself when the original programming was completed, a way that could include more and more customers, and a way that would not require customers to need hours and hours of help from me.
I had to work it out on my own, which is only fair, since it's my business. Maybe I'm being a curmudgeon, but from what I see, if someone doesn't have the imagination to come up with his own business model, I don't think he has the imagination and critical thinking skills to run a business. I hear, all the time, people telling me they could run a business like mine, or other big ones, but none of them have the backbone to take the risk and put in the blood, sweat, and tears to build it -- which is why *I* am running one and they aren't.
It's the same with a lazy, clueless bum like the person who asked this. Sure, he thinks he could run a company, but if he's not smart enough to figure out what to do to make the company, he's not smart enough to ever get to the point where he's running one. If he can't answer THAT question (how do I make money doing this), then he shouldn't be doing it.
Okay, it's been 2 weeks guys, so we have another programmer who wants to make money programming, but has no idea how to create a solid business model, so let's all put in some work and tell this guy how to make money with FOSS instead of those of us who have figured it out running our own businesses.
I switched to a natural keyboard while I was doing a lot of writing. All the wrist pains were gone in a few days.
It's one change I am glad I made. I'm not about to go back to the old style. It's just not comfortable anymore.
I also had to make changes regarding my mouse. Logitech, and almost every other company out there, sticks with designs that force your wrist to bend backwards, which has given me a lot of pain. Even a number of trackballs do this. I've found I almost have to have a wrist pad to keep my wrist high enough that it doesn't have to bend backward.
While I'm writing, my concern is the keyboard, when when I'm installing systems, or doing graphic work, or other work that makes heavy use of a mouse, I find most mouse designs have serious problems for a really heavy user (meaning I'll be at the computer for 20 hours at a stretch, with short breaks).
I can't comment on this design, though, since the page has already been/.ed and the picture won't load.
Sorry. My bad (I just found out I'm running a 101 temp, so maybe I'm having trouble focusing). Infineon hired the New York firm. Rambus hired the one from the Southwest.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a good point. I left out quite a bit, since it wasn't all related to the topic, but one point is to arrange your own financing at a bank instead of going through the dealer. If you know what you're doing, you can find the VIN for the car you want, get a loan, then call up the manager, negotiate a deal for only hundreds over their invoice price, instead of paying just a little under the sticker price. That can be a difference of thousands.
Before I learned this (from an AAA book, btw), I would look at what they had, look at the sticker, figure out a fair price and interest rate, and just keep saying, "No," over and over. Each time they run the numbers, they like to look like they're waiting for them and talking with the manager and finance guy, but they're really stalling, to make you impatient. If you're going to dicker like that, take a book to read while the salesman is out of the closing room.
And, since it's been mentioned, once you get terms, you'll talk to someone who just seems to be an innocent person entering your data into the computer. That's the F&I (Finance and Insurance) person. They will suggest all kinds of insurance, special coverage, dealer prep (which is absolutely nothing, but they get paid hundreds for it). Their job is to add as much onto the price and loan as possible -- and they get commission on it.
I have a small company that provides data for lawyers and other professionals. At first I would wear a suit, but was telling them what my product could do. They knew I started the company and had designed and written most of the software. In short, my "agent" had pre-sold me, as well as my product, and he had sold me as an uber-geek. When they saw me in a suit, they were't sure how to react (and this isn't just techies -- this is the lawyers, too).
When I started wearing a simple collared shirt with a company logo on it, and made sure I looked more like a computer geek, I found I was treated with much more respect by all concerned. It reminded me of when I was invited in to pitch to Ron Moore at ST:TNG. My agent told me about one of her writers who went to an interview in a 3 piece suit and it almost cost him the job (the producer said he was used to writers in moth eaten sweaters).
I think a lot of it has to do with people's expectations, as well as who you are. I think the lawyers could tell I wasn't a suit and that writer didn't own a suit (bought it for the interview). If you are comfortable as you are, you will show more comfort and confidence.
You're being too literal in interpreting what the other poster says. I think his point is that he's making it clear, by not wearing a suit, that he is being natural, and not fronting for the other tech people he's talking to. Perhaps they respect him because his attitude and clothes are in sync with who he is and how he acts.
That's a good point, but there is a difference in how you judge others and how others judge you. His point is that people are more likely to form a positive opinion if you do things like stand up straight and make eye contact.
If you think about it, a lot of what he suggests are simple things that show pride in one's self and self confidence. Maybe we're just subconsciously looking for clues that a person feels good about him/herself -- after all, if they don't like themselves, why should we?
Which is why I alwyas go car shopping wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt (and, if it's warm enough, sandals). If I'm buying a car, I've researched it, I'm not going to dicker in person (if you do it over the phone and do it right, you can 1) dicker with a manager and NOT a salesman, 2) let them think you're "in the biz", and 3) sometimes dicker from their price and go up, instead of starting at the sticker and go down). Once a salesman sees you on a car lot, you don't get a moment of peace, so I like to look grungy for them. I've also found that some smart salesman won't judge, and the ones that'll come up to you even if you're dressed grungy are more professional and easier to deal with.
I think of grungy clothes as a deflector shield for Lesiure-Suit-Larry type car salesman.
I have also had experiences where I've been snubbed by one salesman because I looked grungy, and another treats me real well, and I made sure the one that snubbed me sees me paying the other with a large wad of cash. This works great at stores where they get paid in commission. I've even been known to make a comment on my way out, like, "I tried to get everyone to help me, but he's the only who did, so I made sure he got the commission."
I don't see what your comment has to do with my post. My point is that someone who has to make decisions about more than just, "How do I make sure I use ONLY 100% pure FOSS" will realize that it isn't that simple. It's a lot easier to be a purist when it doesn't get in the way of paying the bills AND when you're not responsible for maintaning a business's or departments income so you don't have to start firing people.
Yes, sticking with 100% FOSS is nice, but there is room in this world for all types of software, and I, for one, would rather maintain my business's income than have to look someone I know and have worked with while we built things up and tell him that I can no longer pay him, but it's okay, because we're using 100% FOSS, so I'm sure he won't mind losing his (or her) job.
I provide services to mostly lawyers. My system uses OOo, and that means they have to use OOo at least a tiny bit to use it. I've had several clients ask me more about it and if they could use it on other computers. They're shocked when I tell them how much OOo costs, what kind of licensing it's under, and what open source is.
I know at least one of my clients decided to start rolling it out in his offices because he liked it, liked the pricing, and felt it was a good alternative.
That's the point. A lot of purists have never been in a position where they had to make decisions about how they can keep the profit margin up.
Yes, they'd be willing to live in a card board box, but it's not the people in the boxes who make the changes. It's not the people who sit in their cubicles and piss and moan about purity, or who aren't the ones making decisions that make the changes. One CEO who has worked his way up, and decides what technology a large company will use will have an effect when he lets a sales person know what he'll buy and what he won't, but one doesn't get that far without balancing the idea of 100% open source with questions like how the bills should be paid.
And my point is that is something most of the purists simply do not understand. You can explain it until you're blue in the face, but it's something they don't want to understand because it means learning more in a field they think they're already experts in.
I know this sounds flip, and I'm not trying to treat you with discrespect, but...
Do you think they really care about that?
I'm not disagreeing with you -- I have to say I wasn't even thinking in terms of market share (I have a business that doesn't have to worry about advertising, market share, or most of the marketing stuff most businesses have to face -- I am VERY lucky!). I was just thinking in terms of income. I could have saved a LOT of time by writing my software so it is all command line based, 100% open, and using something like Blackdown. But that would mean my customers wouldn't even use my service (and no, most of them don't have someone else to turn to). I directly improve their bottom line, but if they had to keep looking up references and using the command line, they'd drop it, or I'd spend hours a day on the phone for tech support (my clients hardly ever need to call me for tech support!).
I was thinking more along your point about ordinary customers. That's where, to me, it's not even a market share question. It's about whether anyone will buy or nobody at all. Yes, OOo can go for 100% open source, but I'm sure using Java for many functions saves months of programming time over C or C++, and lets them put out a better product.
Another point: Life is a process. Sun is talking about opening Java. The purists here are like people in PETA -- especially the ones that threw a fit and said the city of Fishkill should change its name because it had violent conotations, then later found out kill means stream, and that's where the "Kill" came from. These people are so full of anger and frustration, they have to take it out on others, so they hold everyone to a really stupid and high standard, so they can always criticize others for not meeting THEIR standards.
Open source is a process. Have any of these purists thought about what a BIG step it is that Sun is even considering open sourcing Java? It's a big step. It's not perfect, but it is a big move in the right direction. It won't get there overnight, so it is important to understand that it is more important to be a supportive part of the change than someone pissing and moaning because it's not exactly what they want -- instead of trying to help the process along.
Perhaps it's a process. Sun's considering opening up Java. Maybe some of us, who live in the real world, are open to being part of the process of seeing things open, instead of hiding behind our keyboards, not having to make decisions that effect a companies bottom line.
There are many shades of grey between the black and white you paint it to be. Perhaps if you had more real world experience, or had to do more than sit in your cube and piss and moan about your boss -- like having to make real decisions about how to keep the company's income continuing -- then you might understand that.
As much as I wish I could be a purist, I have to agree with this simple statement. I started my business on softare that originally used Abiword and was controlled by Perl (Abiword was only called from the command line through Perl), but when OOo reached 1.0, I converted, which meant I had to learn Java (which I don't regret), and I had to base the entire program on Java and the Java interfaces with OOo. And, unlike command line purists prefer, my software is used in the real world, by real people who pay good money every month for my company's services (and I don't mean some measly 29.95/month -- they're paying enough to expect an easy to use program. I can't run it on Blackdown, or other forms of Java that don't have a GUI.
If OOo changed, I, and I'm sure, thousands of other developers, would have to re-write a ton of programs. Such a change would make me seriously re-think OOo, since it would make me wonder when they'd do that again.
I know we all make jokes about how those of us on Slashdot don't have lives or girlfriends, or have poor social skills, but it seems to me those who are pitching a hissy fit over this need to get their heads out of the ground, look around, and try living in the real world for a change. Instead of complaining about their bosses and cramped cubes, maybe they should try to run the business and find out just how hard it is to make sure they have an income if they insist on staying purists.
I don't see how anyone who has had to make decisions based on what customers want and will pay for could seriously expect a product like OOo to dump Java. People like that are the real 100% geeks, like Harold on Red Green, who have no life, no girlfriend, and no concept of what it's like to interact with the rest of the world.
Ask JMS.
Or: Because he wants to.
He's talked about it on Usenet. He, like many of us, was heavily influenced in his youth by Trek. He has a love for it, if not for what has happened to it. He sat down with another writer (can't remember the name), and, ON THEIR OWN, developed a series bible, a 5 year story arc, and a whole new concept that he said would completely revitalize the whole thing. He's not talking about sticking with the all the stuff that's boxed it in more and more.
It may sound like a big boast, but I was online, on GEnie, when he let out his first "eep" (for those that don't know, when he's had good news, but can't reveal what it is, he's traditionally posted "eep" to GEnie, then, later, to USENet) about B5. I've kept up with his posts and comments since then. He is proud of his reputation and makes sure he doesn't promise what he can't deliver, and does not say something unless he can back it up.
So why would he do Trek? Because he wants to, he doesn't like what's happened to it, and he thinks he can turn it around and bring it back to what it once was.
Personally, if he wants to do it, I want to see what he can do, since he has an excellent track record.
I agree.
So they'll listen to crap like this, and not even let J. Michael Straczynski pitch? I really hope the next Trek series is the one he already planned out on his own. He's proven and has done fantastic work with B5 and Jeremiah (and more), and understands how to tell character driven stories (which was a major strength of the original Trek, even if the characters were overdrawn). It'd be nice if they let real writers like him run the show.
(Okay, so they let Manny Coto run Enterprise for one season, and he's a real writer, unlike Braga or Berman, but they gave him only 1 year, even saw an improvement, but wouldn't give him an extra year after giving Braga 3 years to tank it.)
So who would write the books?
No, really, who would write them for Shatner?
Not only get the on-call stuff in writing (if you decide to do it at all), but also make it clear to them (and make sure this is in writing), that your new job takes priority, so you are not available when you are at the new job, whether it's regular hours, overtime, or even on-call time. Also make it clear if this old boss pages you, and while working on their systems, you get paged by the new company, that the new company takes priority.
$50 an hour????
I get $60 an hour for doing psychic readings. For this kind of service I'd think he should be charging at least $85 or $100 an hour, probably more like $150. If the boss doesn't like it, he doesn't have to pay it. This guy is moving on, having to learn new systems and deal with a lot of other things in life. To have to be on call like that when he's trying to get out is a big weight to carry.
If the boss doesn't like it, he doesn't have to call him and pay the $150/hour.
The above post says about 90% of what you need to know. They had at least 3 people (you, the head dev, and the other guy), lost one, kept going, lost another, kept going, and suddenly you're doing the work of at least 3 people. Oh, boy I bet the boss was happy! He paid you 1x for 3x the work! He took advantage of you for a good long while.
So it's his fault. He did not plan ahead. No employee is forever, and by keeping only one developer on, he made you indespensable. If he had treated you like you were indespensable, you would have better working conditions and better pay.
He looked out for himself by working you as hard as he could and not hiring anyone to work with you. Now it's time for you to look out for yourself. He can ask for all he wants. He's just covering his ass and I don't blame him for it. That doesn't mean you have to give it to him. He should be down on his knees thanking God you are willing to give him more than 2 weeks, or that you didn't just walk out on him.
It doesn't work that way. If they're paralyzed, it lets them move their wheelchair forward, slightly backward, and lets them flash a light once for yes and twice for no.
Unless, of course, the paralyzed person is on Talos IV.
I misread this the first time through and thought it was saying a free version was available for Linux -- and didn't see the part about you had to have a registered Windows version. Even without the extra gotcha, this made me realize how important free (as in speech) software is to me.
I started using Linux somewhere around 1998, and moved everything (except compatibility testing) around 2000/2001. Since then I learned how to add almost any program or game I wanted with rpm -ivh {package_name}, then urpmi {package_name}, and now apt-get install {package_name}. It's not just the ease of use, but knowing that it is available, to me and anyone who wants it, that I can modify it or pay to have it modified, that I can help debug it, and even suggest new features.
I (mis)read this story and my first thoughts were, 1) Why bother, I've got programs that do almost all, to 2) But it's hard to do some of the DVD authoring that Nero will help with, to 3) But Nero controls it.
That's when I realized how important FOSS is to me and my company. I hadn't realized that I actually avoid commercial software now, and prefer FOSS, since I can make bug reports, make suggestions, and even modify if I need to. I also realized I do NOT want software (any more) that another company controls and can decide to remove from the market, or bastardize so it's no longer the program I liked. If it's FOSS, I know I'll almost always be able to find an older version if I need it, and that I can always locate it and re-install it easily if it gets horked.
So let Nero do what they want. I know in a year or two we'll see better DVD authoring under Linux (and eventually even see professional video editing in FOSS). This story helped me realize I can no longer deal with paying for software with fewer freedoms than that which apt-get installs for me. I don't want software someone else has total control over. (Okay, well maybe Myst and it's sequals, but we all know games are another story...)
I agree -- that they should listen to their user base, but there's more to it than that. It's not like they're selling Gnome or making profit off it, so there is really no reason to please users or to do anything other than program the kind of DE that Gnome developers want.
That being said, I dropped Gnome years ago because I felt it was focused more on programmers doing what they wanted and giving other programmers cool programming stuff, and KDE was much more focused on an easy to use experience.
And before I get the usual flames from someone with no life that thinks anyone who doesn't use a console is a a loser, I have a small business I run that is based on software I wrote. I was using command lines back in the late 1970s when I was lucky to get time on a paper terminal and excited when I could use a VDT.
I spent years in between teaching special ed and learned that people actually think in different styles, so many people will always do better with a GUI. My experience is that KDE has always been focused on creating a good GUI for the end user, wereas Gnome was more focused on a GUI with great APIs and everything programmers want, without a reall awareness of what helps end users.
I have to agree with this. My cable supplier (Comcast) has On Demand. While it is nice to catch up on Monty Python when I feel like it, only a few episodes are available, and I have no idea if one day they'll drop it as a choice.
I like a lot of foreign and art films. Even for a director like Alfred Hitchcock, there are a lot of his films I can't get from On Demand or haven't been shown on cable (unless hacked up and notably abridged on commercial networks) in years. I'll keep buyin DVDs as long as I can get films like "La Strada" on DVD, but have trouble finding it on cable. While this may be a small market, I think the overall idea is a reason why people will always by some type of physical media, even if it's a memory stick with music or video on it. If you buy it, you've got it forever, and aren't dependent on a cable system or other content provider for it.
A few years ago, Hurrican Isabel hit and many people in our area had no power for 2 weeks (it was 9-10 days for me). I spent a lot of time doing yard work I hadn't had time to do (I do programming at home, as part of my own business, so my hours are funky), and in the evenings I'd go out to bookstores, just so I could go some place with lights that felt civilized. For me, being able to put a CD in my boom box during the day and hear music I liked was a small part of what kept me sane. If I had only downloaded music to my hard drive, I would have had a much smaller selection to listen too.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I know I really like having a physical media that my music and movies are on, so I can play what I want when I want.
The really funny part is that all the advise he's going to get will come from the clueless dweebs (like you and me) who have absolutely no idea what a business does or how it might do it.
I've been running my own business for several years based on software I wrote (and am still, to a small extent, revising). We're making enough that the profit is being redirected into starting a new business (video/digital film production). If I'm a clueless dweeb, then I'm doing pretty well in my ignorance.
That's part of the reason for my post. I had to stop and plan out what I was going to do. My goal was (and still is) to be able to write my own scripts, then produce them for video or digital film. I started by carefully planning out what kind of business I could create that I could start without much upfront cost, on my own, and would, as time went on, take less and less time, but generate more and more profit.
My goals sounded not just like what most of these "Ask Slashdots" talk about, but even more so. I wanted step 2 to include not spending much time on the business and step 3 to include more than enough profit to start a new business. I spent a good amount of time analyzing the situation and working it out, before deciding to do what I did to start the business. I had to come up with a way to make money, a way that would sustain itself when the original programming was completed, a way that could include more and more customers, and a way that would not require customers to need hours and hours of help from me.
I had to work it out on my own, which is only fair, since it's my business. Maybe I'm being a curmudgeon, but from what I see, if someone doesn't have the imagination to come up with his own business model, I don't think he has the imagination and critical thinking skills to run a business. I hear, all the time, people telling me they could run a business like mine, or other big ones, but none of them have the backbone to take the risk and put in the blood, sweat, and tears to build it -- which is why *I* am running one and they aren't.
It's the same with a lazy, clueless bum like the person who asked this. Sure, he thinks he could run a company, but if he's not smart enough to figure out what to do to make the company, he's not smart enough to ever get to the point where he's running one. If he can't answer THAT question (how do I make money doing this), then he shouldn't be doing it.
Couldn't we have summarized this as:
Okay, it's been 2 weeks guys, so we have another programmer who wants to make money programming, but has no idea how to create a solid business model, so let's all put in some work and tell this guy how to make money with FOSS instead of those of us who have figured it out running our own businesses.
I switched to a natural keyboard while I was doing a lot of writing. All the wrist pains were gone in a few days.
/.ed and the picture won't load.
It's one change I am glad I made. I'm not about to go back to the old style. It's just not comfortable anymore.
I also had to make changes regarding my mouse. Logitech, and almost every other company out there, sticks with designs that force your wrist to bend backwards, which has given me a lot of pain. Even a number of trackballs do this. I've found I almost have to have a wrist pad to keep my wrist high enough that it doesn't have to bend backward.
While I'm writing, my concern is the keyboard, when when I'm installing systems, or doing graphic work, or other work that makes heavy use of a mouse, I find most mouse designs have serious problems for a really heavy user (meaning I'll be at the computer for 20 hours at a stretch, with short breaks).
I can't comment on this design, though, since the page has already been
Sorry. My bad (I just found out I'm running a 101 temp, so maybe I'm having trouble focusing). Infineon hired the New York firm. Rambus hired the one from the Southwest.