The disadvantages of crying wolf (twice)
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
Everybody pretty much agreed that the initial Mindcraft tests were biased. This is why this test was held on neutral ground - with RH on hand, and with everything closely monitored.
The problem is that no matter how neutral the test is, if it shows ANY OS performing better than Linux in ANY category,/.ers will cry foul and hint that whoever is conducting the tests is under the pay of MS.
This is a pretty childish approach. Just looking at all the posts it's funny how many different excuses are being thought of. Face it - acknowledging fair play like a good sport and fixing shortcomings will do far more to help than simply sitting and spinning conspiracy theories.
I at least hope nobody is flaming ZD like those clever guys who smothered mindcraft with witty remarks. It would do wonders to our credibility...
L.
Re:It means what? (Was:Static page requests, BAH!.
on
NT vs. Linux: Again
·
· Score: 1
If I understand this correctly, you're implying that NT was modified to be app. specific to target a narrow purpose (web servers) whereas linux is more general purpose and has a wider application base to satisfy. Actually, the opposite is true.
MS has a far wider user base to afford making their OS better for just one app. at the sacrifice of other applications. Certainly not web servers, which makes very little money for them.
I find it annoying that people are coming up with all kinds of excuses instead of facing the facts. This reveals our own denial of reality, more than anything else.
The problem with having a degree in such subjects as web page design, game programming, or multimedia is that these are based on specific platforms that change too rapidly.
Say somebody had taken a degree in "internet site design" in 1993, imagine how useful skills such as Gopher, HTML 1.0, Archie, Veronica, etc. would be today. The goal of a degree is to impart skills that are well founded in abstract thinking and solid principles of an art/science, which do not disappear after 5, 10, or 50 years. Otherwise it's a fad.
There's also another aspect - game writing is a creative process. A degree in creative writing does not make somebody write more creatively. Similarly, a degree in game design won't make somebody who lacks imagination and programming skills into a good game designer.
If the semiconductor CPU hits the speed bump, there'll be one rather wrenching consequence: it'll throw off backward compatibility.
No matter what the chip technology used today, the underlying architechture is pretty similar, and this has resulted in a highly interlinked supportive infrastructure - not only do apps stay backward compatible, but algorithms, programs, technogies (and even technologists) continue to feed off of past groundwork.
However, quantum computing involves an entirely different form of math/algorithmic processing which is radically different from that of today's architechture. For instance, unlike sequentially forking down if/else paths, quantum machines simultaneously arrive at all solutions, which requires a different way of programming them.
If the software/logic/algorithms to run on quantum machines is unable to be backward compatible with present computers, it creates a huge gaping chasm between the two.
Check this out for Engelbart's inventions and the history of GUI, the first mouse, and multimedia.
http://unrev.stanford.edu/
While he was at it, he also created a hypertext browser, groupware, live 2-way video-conferencing, and joint document editing. It's simply mind-boggling that he did all this single-handedly in 1968, and simply sad that he's unrecognized today.
The key point is that it was non-voting stock. Essentially, it was a symbolic gesture that underlined the new relationship.
150 m. is pocket change to MS, with 12 (or is it 15 now?) billion in surplus liquid cash reserve. It's not that big an infusion of capital for Apple either, though it was making a loss at the time, so it certainly helped.
It helped Apple tremendously more as a gesture from MS of "we are now behind them and won't let them fail".
Of course, if Apple had gone bankrupt, I suspect Bill would be pretty pissed off at throwing all that money away.:)
In an article (I think it was in Byte) there's a story about Woz going back to college to continue his academic education. Of course, by then Apple was a billion dollar company so he enrolled under a false name. During an economics class, the lecturer went on a rant about how companies only try to cheat and steal from customers with bad products, and Woz stood up to disagree, but was cut down by the teacher. He says something along the lines of - "Here I was, the founder of one of the most successful companies in history, and he was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and I had to just sit there and listen." Cracked me up.
Another really good one - Woz hacked the phone to make free international calls, and as a prank, he and his buddies called up the Pope. The bishop who answered asked them who wanted to speak to him in the middle of the night.
Woz: "Henry Kissinger". Bishop (now suspicious) : "You don't sound like Henry Kissinger".
There's another story he relates about writing a spreadsheet at Apple, and being the nice guy he is, he's nervous about the deadline and worried about being fired. Woz. Worried about being fired from Apple. Well, he had some Star Wars contacts call his boss and tantalize him with some rare memoribilia. I forget what exactly it was, but it was a pretty funny trick he played.
One more story I've read (and I don't know if this is true) is that during their early days together, Jobs told Woz they'd split a payment 50-50. But he lied about the amount and told Woz it was $500, when it was actually twice that, while pocketing the rest himself. Apparently Woz found this out, and things were never the same between them again. (Can somebody confirm if this is true?).
"The best part of my job is when I find a level on which I can communicate to my co-workers where they do not think I am talking down to them."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Generally people don't talk down to others. If you think not talking down to someone is the "best part" of a conversation, then...no offense, you have really bad social skills.
In general when people try very hard to emphasize how good they are at holding a conversation, and try to portray themselves as social butterflies, it's a dead giveaway...
Out of curiousity, which one do you identify with - suit or geek?:)
In many Fortune 500 companies, the resume goes from person to person, through layers of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual decision making.
1) The head-hunting agent, who filters it and passes it on to the company's HR contact
2) Company's HR person, who passes it on to the IT dept. HR co-ordinator. Note that the company's main HR deals with hiring everyone from safety inspectors to cement mixers.
3) IT HR person, who collects a bunch of resumes and distributes it to the dept./project managers who get it next.
4) Managers (frequently non-technical and unable to understand the buzzwords) pass it on to team leads.
5) Team leads go over the resume with the local "Alpha geek" to schedule an interview. Every team has this person who is technically good and has no impressive title, but who is asked all the questions when it comes to deciding something. Frequently, this person has a line outside his/her cubicle.
6) If you make it this far, you're the final link. The info. is relayed back through all those layers, and you get contacted by the head-hunter.
Since information is lost at every communication point (like that little children's game), it causes the ridiculous results we see.
L.
Re:Resumes themselves will be obsolete
on
Feature:Geek Jobs
·
· Score: 1
This misses the point, however.
The problem is not that there isn't an efficient way to gather data, but with the humans on the other end and their priorities/attitudes.
It doesn't matter if they use web based forms, OCR scans, or paper resumes. The problem is one of harvesting tons of resumes and thrusting them into a giant databank. Ultimately this makes you a needle in a haystack, no matter what method is used. And the means of searching through that haystack ultimately depend entirely on the human doing the searching - using search fields, sorting paper, or whatever.
The problem is that these people are seriously incompetent at even such a simple job that a child could do it. I've had responses for skills that were not even listed on my resume - couldn't they even bother to look at it before contacting me? It is the only thing they are paid to do 8 hours a day. And I bet many people who were perfect for that job were ignored, like I am for skills that ARE listed on my resume.
The whole thing is sheer bureaucracy arising from the misconception that computers will do the job hunting for companies while HR sits back and relaxes.
The worst thing is that it's becoming part of the system, and nobody is questioning its meaninglessness - rather like the stiff dress code in the 50s.
"What can be done to prevent it? Nothing I guess.."
After the Mindcraft results were published, I remember reading a news story about how the Linux community immediately recognized one of the weaknesses pointed out - the lack of a tuning center. This resulted in a bunch of performance tuning sites sprouting up.
There's an error correcting algorithm built into the linux community. It's like anti-bodies banding together to respond to damage, healing and improving rapidly.
So...this episode reveals another weakness in the linux user base - the extreme wackos who lack a tad bit of diplomatic skills. Unfortunately, the extreme viewpoint sets the image of a group.
So what can be done? Just like mindcraft's earlier report cast the spotlight on the lack of tuning info, this site has highlighted our weakness in the area of responding to criticism. Frankly, PR and image is a bigger factor in software success than stability, quality, or anything else.
The way you respond to criticism is crucial in keeping a healthy and viable mindshare. We need to fix this before it's broken too badly. I'm not sure how it can be done. Judging by the personalities who wrote that stuff, it seems like a certain % will respond that way and screw up the image consistently, which makes it more difficult to fix.
If you know somebody who responds like that, calm them down gently. If everybody does this, I guess some degree of error-correction will kick in.:/
Most of the responses seem to be quite scornful of the article. Generally, the replies fall under:
1) Linux is more stable, more powerful. This is why it will beat Win2000.
2) Anybody who thinks linux is difficult is plain wrong (normally followed by some anecdotal story or reasoning)
However, you must keep in mind that these were exactly the points made by Apple and Os/2 users. People forget the reason why an OS is successful - frequently it has very little to do with its technical merits or power, and a lot to do with PR and mind share. When something mediocre (like DOS vs. Apple) or technically weak (windows 95 vs. OS/2) product succeeds, the geeks wring their hands and tear their hair, wondering why nobody gets the point.
But market reality is that PR and ease-of-use matters more, far more, than stability and flexibility.
Ask this question of yourself - do you know a single "ordinary user" who uses linux? By ordinary user, I mean someone who has never heard the word "ethernet" or doesn't know what GUI means. Sure, all of you can feverishly state that linux is as easy as windows, but do you know a real live physical user who uses linux and falls in the above category?
Well, the target audience of w2k is the current base of 200 million windows users, and guess what - most of them care as much about OS issues as you do about the technical details of your apartment's plumbing - not a whole lot. To them, it's another product, like a sony walkman or cable TV, and that's why Win2000 will very likely be a massive success, with advertising and publicity that blows away the average user (remember win95's release?).
I use linux, and I think it has its place, but I seriously doubt it will be a household OS within the next decade.
You can convince each other all you want about how powerful linux is, but again, look around and ask yourself if you know a single ordinary user (as defined above) who uses it. And that, my friends, is the advantage windows has.
You can also visit Robert X. Cringely's site at http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
He's quite witty and insightful - he's the one who made Triumph of the Nerds. The book itself is highly readable and entertaining as well - Accidental Empires.
1) He does not mention the importance of data formats. Think about it - every single digital media storage we know of has a far shorter life span than traditional musical storage.
Tape, 5 1/4 floppy, 3 1/2 floppy, HD, fat32, ext2, and so on. Conversion is required every 5-10 years if your data is to survive. This is something that ambushes people after a few years when they scramble to convert. mp3 is hip today, but its successor has already been named by lucent, and it will probably last another year.
2) Fear of new media - this article is full of it. Every time something new comes along in telecom/media, people fear it. I wouldn't call him a luddite - he uses CDs after all. I'm sure people who played LPs wrote articles like this when CDs came along.
I think they are missing the main point - mp3 vs. CD has nothing to do with physical media - it has to do with distribution mechanisms that are shaking the industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody pretty much agreed that the initial Mindcraft tests were biased. This is why this test was held on neutral ground - with RH on hand, and with everything closely monitored.
/.ers will cry foul and hint that whoever is conducting the tests is under the pay of MS.
The problem is that no matter how neutral the test is, if it shows ANY OS performing better than Linux in ANY category,
This is a pretty childish approach. Just looking at all the posts it's funny how many different excuses are being thought of. Face it - acknowledging fair play like a good sport and fixing shortcomings will do far more to help than simply sitting and spinning conspiracy theories.
I at least hope nobody is flaming ZD like those clever guys who smothered mindcraft with witty remarks. It would do wonders to our credibility...
L.
If I understand this correctly, you're implying that NT was modified to be app. specific to target a narrow purpose (web servers) whereas linux is more general purpose and has a wider application base to satisfy. Actually, the opposite is true.
MS has a far wider user base to afford making their OS better for just one app. at the sacrifice of other applications. Certainly not web servers, which makes very little money for them.
I find it annoying that people are coming up with all kinds of excuses instead of facing the facts. This reveals our own denial of reality, more than anything else.
L.
Redhat had some of its best people at the test lab when they were being run. The tests were closely monitored by MS, MC, and RH.
If the linux community keeps crying foul under these conditions, it will only hurt our own credibility.
It's time to stop whining and start fixing.
L
The problem with having a degree in such subjects as web page design, game programming, or multimedia is that these are based on specific platforms that change too rapidly.
Say somebody had taken a degree in "internet site design" in 1993, imagine how useful skills such as Gopher, HTML 1.0, Archie, Veronica, etc. would be today. The goal of a degree is to impart skills that are well founded in abstract thinking and solid principles of an art/science, which do not disappear after 5, 10, or 50 years. Otherwise it's a fad.
There's also another aspect - game writing is a creative process. A degree in creative writing does not make somebody write more creatively. Similarly, a degree in game design won't make somebody who lacks imagination and programming skills into a good game designer.
L.
If the semiconductor CPU hits the speed bump, there'll be one rather wrenching consequence: it'll throw off backward compatibility.
No matter what the chip technology used today, the underlying architechture is pretty similar, and this has resulted in a highly interlinked supportive infrastructure - not only do apps stay backward compatible, but algorithms, programs, technogies (and even technologists) continue to feed off of past groundwork.
However, quantum computing involves an entirely different form of math/algorithmic processing which is radically different from that of today's architechture. For instance, unlike sequentially forking down if/else paths, quantum machines simultaneously arrive at all solutions, which requires a different way of programming them.
If the software/logic/algorithms to run on quantum machines is unable to be backward compatible with present computers, it creates a huge gaping chasm between the two.
The consequences should be interesting.
L.
Engelbart's unfinished revolution:
Check this out for Engelbart's inventions and the history of GUI, the first mouse, and multimedia.
http://unrev.stanford.edu/
While he was at it, he also created a hypertext browser, groupware, live 2-way video-conferencing, and joint document editing. It's simply mind-boggling that he did all this single-handedly in 1968, and simply sad that he's unrecognized today.
L.
Maybe both stories are true?
L.
The key point is that it was non-voting stock. Essentially, it was a symbolic gesture that underlined the new relationship.
:)
150 m. is pocket change to MS, with 12 (or is it 15 now?) billion in surplus liquid cash reserve. It's not that big an infusion of capital for Apple either, though it was making a loss at the time, so it certainly helped.
It helped Apple tremendously more as a gesture from MS of "we are now behind them and won't let them fail".
Of course, if Apple had gone bankrupt, I suspect Bill would be pretty pissed off at throwing all that money away.
L.
In an article (I think it was in Byte) there's a story about Woz going back to college to continue his academic education. Of course, by then Apple was a billion dollar company so he enrolled under a false name. During an economics class, the lecturer went on a rant about how companies only try to cheat and steal from customers with bad products, and Woz stood up to disagree, but was cut down by the teacher. He says something along the lines of - "Here I was, the founder of one of the most successful companies in history, and he was telling me I didn't know what I was talking about and I had to just sit there and listen." Cracked me up.
Another really good one - Woz hacked the phone to make free international calls, and as a prank, he and his buddies called up the Pope. The bishop who answered asked them who wanted to speak to him in the middle of the night.
Woz: "Henry Kissinger".
Bishop (now suspicious) : "You don't sound like Henry Kissinger".
There's another story he relates about writing a spreadsheet at Apple, and being the nice guy he is, he's nervous about the deadline and worried about being fired. Woz. Worried about being fired from Apple. Well, he had some Star Wars contacts call his boss and tantalize him with some rare memoribilia. I forget what exactly it was, but it was a pretty funny trick he played.
One more story I've read (and I don't know if this is true) is that during their early days together, Jobs told Woz they'd split a payment 50-50. But he lied about the amount and told Woz it was $500, when it was actually twice that, while pocketing the rest himself. Apparently Woz found this out, and things were never the same between them again. (Can somebody confirm if this is true?).
L.
"The best part of my job is when I find a level on which I can communicate to my co-workers where they do not think I am talking down to them."
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Generally people don't talk down to others. If you think not talking down to someone is the "best part" of a conversation, then...no offense, you have really bad social skills.
In general when people try very hard to emphasize how good they are at holding a conversation, and try to portray themselves as social butterflies, it's a dead giveaway...
Out of curiousity, which one do you identify with - suit or geek?
L.
In many Fortune 500 companies, the resume goes from person to person, through layers of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the actual decision making.
1) The head-hunting agent, who filters it and passes it on to the company's HR contact
2) Company's HR person, who passes it on to the IT dept. HR co-ordinator. Note that the company's main HR deals with hiring everyone from safety inspectors to cement mixers.
3) IT HR person, who collects a bunch of resumes and distributes it to the dept./project managers who get it next.
4) Managers (frequently non-technical and unable to understand the buzzwords) pass it on to team leads.
5) Team leads go over the resume with the local "Alpha geek" to schedule an interview. Every team has this person who is technically good and has no impressive title, but who is asked all the questions when it comes to deciding something. Frequently, this person has a line outside his/her cubicle.
6) If you make it this far, you're the final link. The info. is relayed back through all those layers, and you get contacted by the head-hunter.
Since information is lost at every communication point (like that little children's game), it causes the ridiculous results we see.
L.
This misses the point, however.
The problem is not that there isn't an efficient way to gather data, but with the humans on the other end and their priorities/attitudes.
It doesn't matter if they use web based forms, OCR scans, or paper resumes. The problem is one of harvesting tons of resumes and thrusting them into a giant databank. Ultimately this makes you a needle in a haystack, no matter what method is used. And the means of searching through that haystack ultimately depend entirely on the human doing the searching - using search fields, sorting paper, or whatever.
The problem is that these people are seriously incompetent at even such a simple job that a child could do it. I've had responses for skills that were not even listed on my resume - couldn't they even bother to look at it before contacting me? It is the only thing they are paid to do 8 hours a day. And I bet many people who were perfect for that job were ignored, like I am for skills that ARE listed on my resume.
The whole thing is sheer bureaucracy arising from the misconception that computers will do the job hunting for companies while HR sits back and relaxes.
The worst thing is that it's becoming part of the system, and nobody is questioning its meaninglessness - rather like the stiff dress code in the 50s.
L.
"What can be done to prevent it? Nothing I guess.."
:/
After the Mindcraft results were published, I remember reading a news story about how the Linux community immediately recognized one of the weaknesses pointed out - the lack of a tuning center. This resulted in a bunch of performance tuning sites sprouting up.
There's an error correcting algorithm built into the linux community. It's like anti-bodies banding together to respond to damage, healing and improving rapidly.
So...this episode reveals another weakness in the linux user base - the extreme wackos who lack a tad bit of diplomatic skills. Unfortunately, the extreme viewpoint sets the image of a group.
So what can be done? Just like mindcraft's earlier report cast the spotlight on the lack of tuning info, this site has highlighted our weakness in the area of responding to criticism. Frankly, PR and image is a bigger factor in software success than stability, quality, or anything else.
The way you respond to criticism is crucial in keeping a healthy and viable mindshare. We need to fix this before it's broken too badly. I'm not sure how it can be done. Judging by the personalities who wrote that stuff, it seems like a certain % will respond that way and screw up the image consistently, which makes it more difficult to fix.
If you know somebody who responds like that, calm them down gently. If everybody does this, I guess some degree of error-correction will kick in.
L.
Most of the responses seem to be quite scornful of the article. Generally, the replies fall under:
1) Linux is more stable, more powerful. This is why it will beat Win2000.
2) Anybody who thinks linux is difficult is plain wrong (normally followed by some anecdotal story or reasoning)
However, you must keep in mind that these were exactly the points made by Apple and Os/2 users. People forget the reason why an OS is successful - frequently it has very little to do with its technical merits or power, and a lot to do with PR and mind share. When something mediocre (like DOS vs. Apple) or technically weak (windows 95 vs. OS/2) product succeeds, the geeks wring their hands and tear their hair, wondering why nobody gets the point.
But market reality is that PR and ease-of-use matters more, far more, than stability and flexibility.
Ask this question of yourself - do you know a single "ordinary user" who uses linux? By ordinary user, I mean someone who has never heard the word "ethernet" or doesn't know what GUI means. Sure, all of you can feverishly state that linux is as easy as windows, but do you know a real live physical user who uses linux and falls in the above category?
Well, the target audience of w2k is the current base of 200 million windows users, and guess what - most of them care as much about OS issues as you do about the technical details of your apartment's plumbing - not a whole lot. To them, it's another product, like a sony walkman or cable TV, and that's why Win2000 will very likely be a massive success, with advertising and publicity that blows away the average user (remember win95's release?).
I use linux, and I think it has its place, but I seriously doubt it will be a household OS within the next decade.
You can convince each other all you want about how powerful linux is, but again, look around and ask yourself if you know a single ordinary user (as defined above) who uses it. And that, my friends, is the advantage windows has.
L.
You can also visit Robert X. Cringely's site at
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/
He's quite witty and insightful - he's the one who made Triumph of the Nerds. The book itself is highly readable and entertaining as well - Accidental Empires.
1) He does not mention the importance of data formats. Think about it - every single digital media storage we know of has a far shorter life span than traditional musical storage.
Tape, 5 1/4 floppy, 3 1/2 floppy, HD, fat32, ext2, and so on. Conversion is required every 5-10 years if your data is to survive. This is something that ambushes people after a few years when they scramble to convert. mp3 is hip today, but its successor has already been named by lucent, and it will probably last another year.
2) Fear of new media - this article is full of it. Every time something new comes along in telecom/media, people fear it. I wouldn't call him a luddite - he uses CDs after all. I'm sure people who played LPs wrote articles like this when CDs came along.
I think they are missing the main point - mp3 vs. CD has nothing to do with physical media - it has to do with distribution mechanisms that are shaking the industry.
L.