Re:Stopped reading it when it got so political...
on
The Onion in 2056
·
· Score: 3, Informative
all those conservatives that BS about 'liberal media', but are convinced Fox News is without bias...
I find it extremely humorous that the same network that delivers Fox News also delivers 'The Simpsons', 'Family Guy', and that new show about the CIA Dad, with the Extra-Terrestrial live-in etc...
Without struggle existence has no meaning (see my sig).
So it is natural for people to view these moves as a struggle on various levels.
On the one hand, Steve Jobs is struggling to increase marketshare - and differentiation (e.g. struggle between the idea of what is 'right' in one computing platform versus another). To devotees of various OS's this is a struggle for the heart and soul of their computing experience.
Any way you look at it, the situation is an opportunity for something new.
If it is really too much to take, educate yourself in the finer points of hardware design and fabricate your own system that satisfies your desires.
A content management system, such as this one, I find to be a better repository of information.
For one thing additional meta-data about the items can be stored in the CMS. Secondly, the built-in search capability beats the pants off what I have to deal with in MS Outlook (100 times faster). Finally, it has the flexibility for me to extend its functionality beyond what I find out-of-the-box (e.g. to manage appointments, and link related information to those appointments).
I get so much cruft in Email, and I have so many other sources of information I use in my day to day job that a CMS is a better choice for more intelligently filtering and organizing my information.
Sadly, too many folks are enamoured with thier particular (annointed) Email systems, and force the rest of us to play in their very limited world.
I've had many of those days when I had to remove foot from mouth. No hard feelings at all. If we can't let our mind free to consider different possibilities we would become dogmatic/static in our thinking.
I try to be as reasonable as possible when I do post. To paraphrase Bertrand Russel (I believe): "Read the publications of groups as far opposite of yourself as you can find. When you start to think, 'these people are insane', gently remind yourself that they think the same of your idealogy".
My first job out of college was as a unix system admin. I've probably done just about every job you can do in IT without actually being in my company's 'IT' sub. I value those experiences and they have helped me be better as a developer.
Someone who is good at software development, network/system/database administration, and core computer science - while rare - certainly makes them eminently employable, given a good track record of course.
You read my first post! This is exactly what I am trying to say (but apparently you have said it so much better...;)
My concern is that there are many people in IT jobs that are clueless - and my thought is that having the core CS cirriculum solidified some concepts in my head quicker than would have happened otherwise. I rightfully admit that experience is also key - along with the love of the craft (hence my use of the term 'craftsmanship' which I believe is lacking in so many projects nowadays). My advice to someone new to the field would be: a) get a CS degree, b) learn as much as you can about your craft through your own studies and experience working on the job.
When I get into a position to hire developers my questions will center around those things. I am not saying 'hire only CS graduates' - I am saying hire people who have that special spark that makes them truly 'computer scientists' - in mind if not sheepskin.
I know people who are CS majors and IS majors who aren't worth a damn. I also know people who have walked in off the street with only the love of computers and computer networks and writing software who are worth their weight in gold. Nonetheless the former exceeds the latter by many orders of magnitude in practice.
When things get too insufferable for me, that is what I might do, as well (I certainly have the skills for it).
Until that time arrives I intend on producing quality software systems to meet the needs of my users the best ways I can find. Furthermore, where I can I will attempt to influence our IT subsidiary to change their ways for the better.
Glass half full/ half empty and all that rubbish...
A CS education will give you enough of a basis to become successful at learning the big picture, and experience doing development and integration will provide the rest.
I think that pretty much sums up what I thought - you either did not read, or did not understand my initial post.
P.S.
An OC12 connection is 622Mbps, equivalent to 14 T3 lines or 414 T1 lines (A T1 is a DS1) - so I was making a gross exaggeration about the carrying capacity needed for a particular application as an example. I think you attempting to cast aspersions upon me without understanding the technology yourself.
Finally, your conclusions are ridiculous - and do not follow - particularly so considering your name-calling, and the fact that you posted anonymously - rather than standing behind your words.
You need more people who have a broad base of knowledge who are also very good at all aspects of implementation. Sadly there are so few of us - of course we will maintain our employment while the rest of you 'specialists' fall by the wayside (how many Ada programming jobs have you seen lately?). Change is the norm - not the exception.
Before you go spouting out about good IT people versus mediocre IT people, pick up a copy of Fredrick Brook's The Mythical Man Month.
I read it and I own it.
Where the environment is constantly changing software needs to be able to support that change. Most systems I see built by traditional IT shops fail in this regard - and thus the companies they support lose opportunities. It doesn't work in practice - except under exceptional circumstances - which are difficult to impossible to replicate. So my thought was - this isn't working, lets find what does work (much like Bruce Lee - I use what works and discard the rest) - and have spent the last 24 years collecting and evaluating software development methodologies with that in mind.
What experience do you bring to bare on the issue that would trump my own observations? Have you built or managed any multi-million dollar software development projects and observed what transpired throughout the project? What do you bring to the table?
You must be in management. And not very good at it.
P.S. I am not 'in management', I actually work for a living as a software developer (I guess that is another arrogant jab from someone who didn't read my whole post or understand it for that matter). We have had to resort to doing our own development in-house because the IT department can not handle our needs (24/7 support for near-real time applications, spec'ing out applications correctly, building applications so they are on time and under budget, providing the network and servers to support the application effectively, changing applications quickly to support the user community's changing needs etc. etc.)
That's like saying we could replace our armed forces with about 10% as many "Special Forces."...
The crux of the problem is that most projects ARE NOT LARGE IT PROJECTS!!! Yet everything is a large problem (or becomes a large problem) to the IT department! It is wasteful and why this factory approach to software development is not successful. The number one risk involved in software development projects is the use of an inappropriate methodology. I would class the problems I see most in this category from my own independent observations. Generalists are what is needed in most cases. The IT department doesn't get it.
As an aside, I also served in the Army (combat arms - Cav Scout and Infantryman) - and studied the process of change that has been happening over the years since the cold war, and indeed the Army is becoming more generalized; with the advent of the 'light' infantry division the Army is having to do more with less. Futhermore, a 'Special Forces' unit has more general skills - being able to perform various missions on various terrain - and the intense cross-training that is accomplished in teams; I would argue that a Line Infantry unit, on the other hand, is more specialized for one task - being geared to perform a more narrowly defined set of missions on less variable terrain (for example, an Armored Infantry Battalion unit would not deploy via parachutes, whereas a special forces unit could certainly do both missions - utilize armor, or parachutes - as required). You picked a poor example as a counterpoint.
There is a place for specialization - I am not saying to discard it completely; nevertheless we are in a world where results speak louder than words - and traditional IT sweatshops are not delivering for the vast majority of medium and small projects that are out there.
The world is changing and IT needs to change or die, it is as simple as that. I see traditional centralized shops being marginalized in favor of a more dispersed model, like the one I spoke of. It is working for us now - which is where the rubber truely meets the road.
You don't need a degree in CS or anything like it to be able to do 99% of the jobs in the IT industry...
And that is why IT products by and large run over time and budgets and don't meet the needs of users on a consistent basis. Sure - writing a module as a code monkey is simple.
The problem I see is we have too many specialists - who can only grasp a narrow part of the project, and not enough folks who have knowledge to understand the big picture. A CS education will give you enough of a basis to become successful at learning the big picture, and experience doing development and integration will provide the rest.
Over and over again our corporate IT department messes up in big ways...and has the gall to tell me (a BCS) that they know better than I do what is required. I can pull many cases off of the top of my head: the system that was developed by one IT group, then handed off for deployment by another that didn't size the network or the servers correctly to handle to load - which made the app crash on its first day and require weeks of reworking and thousands of dollars to rectify. Or the group that took my specifications, said "these don't fit into our development paradigm - we'll make our own," who then preceded to munge it all up, expanding the scope of the application way beyond what was needed including many peripheral groups - ostensibly to create the be-all-end-all application. Late and millions of dollars over budget, it failed acceptance testing several times (never passed). Interestingly, they resurrected my specs and built the system halfway (many the user interface part) to what was needed abandoning 2 years worth of work; of course it still didn't meet all of our needs (and is still not depended upon today). Or the time they built a system without even talking to the primary users of it - which made it fail acceptance testing, then requiring a bureaucratic long draw-out process to get any changes added to the broken interface.
All of these issues were easily solved, yet put a needless burden on operational groups to do their jobs.
Needless to say, these IT folks, by and large were not computer scientists or have a love for computer technology, or scholarship or interest in how best to provide working software to their customers. How can they have, given their results? They have ingrained in their culture that every project must use the waterfall development paradigm (which is particularly not useful when it comes to interactive systems - most of which they build) and that they know what is 'best' for the dumb users. This arrogance is unfathomable - and your post alludes to this same arrogance.
I believe many folks saw dollar signs in their eyes when they went into the IT field, and we are reaping the results of their slip-shod craftsmanship. Sadly many hiring managers have difficulty seperating those from the few gifted individuals. Developing complex systems is not easy; even more difficult is building complex systems that have to integrate with existing systems and networks. Writing an application is one thing, understanding how that application will impact a network, other systems on that network, storage systems and the bottom line (are we going to need an OC12 between point a and point b instead of a DS1 as a result of the traffic required for this new application?)
Recognizing the problem, we have established a small group that builds or manage vendors (and we have come to treat IT as a vendor now) who build internal tools for our operational team. Before I ask my boss for a new system via IT or an outside vendor - I determine if it is feasible and then go ahead and build it myself, canibalizing surplus systems, and using open source software. With zero budget (other than our salary) we have put together several support systems that get the job done - because we have to. We also have system administrators for our production network who are not IT that we leverage for system admin s
A more correct statement might be "if it weren't for wars, and the resultant need of the military to gain advantage over our enemies during times of war, we would not have atomic energy, the internet, computers..."
A military in and of itself does not spur technology - it is the problems encountered on the battlefield that leads to new ways to solve problems (proximity fuse, radar, or the atomic bomb are all solutions to problems: how do we make artillery more effective, how do we find enemy aircraft at night and in incliment(sic) weather, and how do we end a war quickly with minimal casualties on our side) that lead to solutions that can benefit mankind (collision avoidance and detection, air traffic control, nuclear energy).
I've always been one to find unique items and integrate them. I don't want Microsoft to take that away from me too.
The hardware manufacturers are getting better at allowing their devices to integrate with other machines (usb/firewire/bluetooth etc..) - I would like to see that continue.
Is that a mere coincidence? Are we paranoid to think there is any linkage between SCO and Ms. O'Gara? Or could it be that she took his statement as the lead for a story? Who knows?
However, it is incorrect to paint the FOSS movement as a bunch of criminals. On the contrary, that community has seen how monies from the convicted monopoly Microsoft, have gotten into the SCO treasury via the Canopy Group - to fight free and open source software. We have also seen people involved with the case meet untimely death under strange circumstances.
You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Then again, it could all just be coincidental. I'll leave determination of that as an exersize for the reader...
My company gives us several months to find a new position within the company for normal layoff type situations. They have also offered folks eligible for retirement incentive packages to retire early. In most cases actual layoffs are minimized if not avoided through this method of attrition - which is seen by those of us not effected by it as a positive thing, because we know that one day that tap on the shoulder might be for us - and we would want no less consideration.
Then you can rely on the hardware detection method built into the Debian installer to allow you a diverse hardware ecology...
This is a key point for some applications - particularly in the nonprofit arena, but also in corporate entities.
For example, we have various machines that are hand-me-downs from our 'production' customer systems as time passes and we do upgrades for new capabilities. Instead of trashing these systems, we put them to use to bolster our support infrastructure. Imaging all of these systems is not useful in that context.
I had a tritium watch and a compass - in both cases they were marked 'Radioactive' and had warnings about breaking open the cases. So that is absolutely correct - the concern was for inhaling the tritium residue used in the painted on 'glow in the dark' markings - not getting burns from radioactive material itself.
Now that I no longer have a need to navigate at night - my simple watch and compass without radioactive materials works just fine.
Alan Turing went to Cambridge and earned a fellowship there. That is also where he conceived the idea of the Turing machine - the basis of all programmable computers.
Where you get your education is immaterial. More important is what you do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it extremely humorous that the same network that delivers Fox News also delivers 'The Simpsons', 'Family Guy', and that new show about the CIA Dad, with the Extra-Terrestrial live-in etc...
Criticism is to Problem Solving as Multiplication is to Factorization - given very large numbers.
Without struggle existence has no meaning (see my sig).
So it is natural for people to view these moves as a struggle on various levels.
On the one hand, Steve Jobs is struggling to increase marketshare - and differentiation (e.g. struggle between the idea of what is 'right' in one computing platform versus another). To devotees of various OS's this is a struggle for the heart and soul of their computing experience.
Any way you look at it, the situation is an opportunity for something new.
If it is really too much to take, educate yourself in the finer points of hardware design and fabricate your own system that satisfies your desires.
The proper terminology is 'Campaign Contributions'; but kickback will do.
A content management system, such as this one, I find to be a better repository of information.
For one thing additional meta-data about the items can be stored in the CMS. Secondly, the built-in search capability beats the pants off what I have to deal with in MS Outlook (100 times faster). Finally, it has the flexibility for me to extend its functionality beyond what I find out-of-the-box (e.g. to manage appointments, and link related information to those appointments).
I get so much cruft in Email, and I have so many other sources of information I use in my day to day job that a CMS is a better choice for more intelligently filtering and organizing my information.
Sadly, too many folks are enamoured with thier particular (annointed) Email systems, and force the rest of us to play in their very limited world.
I would dare say you speak/write english better than the majority of native english speakers in this forum... :)
Lodragan = Clumsy
Draoidh = Magician
I've had many of those days when I had to remove foot from mouth. No hard feelings at all. If we can't let our mind free to consider different possibilities we would become dogmatic/static in our thinking.
I try to be as reasonable as possible when I do post. To paraphrase Bertrand Russel (I believe): "Read the publications of groups as far opposite of yourself as you can find. When you start to think, 'these people are insane', gently remind yourself that they think the same of your idealogy".
My first job out of college was as a unix system admin. I've probably done just about every job you can do in IT without actually being in my company's 'IT' sub. I value those experiences and they have helped me be better as a developer.
Someone who is good at software development, network/system/database administration, and core computer science - while rare - certainly makes them eminently employable, given a good track record of course.
You read my first post! This is exactly what I am trying to say (but apparently you have said it so much better... ;)
My concern is that there are many people in IT jobs that are clueless - and my thought is that having the core CS cirriculum solidified some concepts in my head quicker than would have happened otherwise. I rightfully admit that experience is also key - along with the love of the craft (hence my use of the term 'craftsmanship' which I believe is lacking in so many projects nowadays). My advice to someone new to the field would be: a) get a CS degree, b) learn as much as you can about your craft through your own studies and experience working on the job.
When I get into a position to hire developers my questions will center around those things. I am not saying 'hire only CS graduates' - I am saying hire people who have that special spark that makes them truly 'computer scientists' - in mind if not sheepskin.
I know people who are CS majors and IS majors who aren't worth a damn. I also know people who have walked in off the street with only the love of computers and computer networks and writing software who are worth their weight in gold. Nonetheless the former exceeds the latter by many orders of magnitude in practice.
Good for you!
When things get too insufferable for me, that is what I might do, as well (I certainly have the skills for it).
Until that time arrives I intend on producing quality software systems to meet the needs of my users the best ways I can find. Furthermore, where I can I will attempt to influence our IT subsidiary to change their ways for the better.
Glass half full/ half empty and all that rubbish...
I think that pretty much sums up what I thought - you either did not read, or did not understand my initial post.
P.S.
An OC12 connection is 622Mbps, equivalent to 14 T3 lines or 414 T1 lines (A T1 is a DS1) - so I was making a gross exaggeration about the carrying capacity needed for a particular application as an example. I think you attempting to cast aspersions upon me without understanding the technology yourself.
Finally, your conclusions are ridiculous - and do not follow - particularly so considering your name-calling, and the fact that you posted anonymously - rather than standing behind your words.
You need more people who have a broad base of knowledge who are also very good at all aspects of implementation. Sadly there are so few of us - of course we will maintain our employment while the rest of you 'specialists' fall by the wayside (how many Ada programming jobs have you seen lately?). Change is the norm - not the exception.
I read it and I own it.
Where the environment is constantly changing software needs to be able to support that change. Most systems I see built by traditional IT shops fail in this regard - and thus the companies they support lose opportunities. It doesn't work in practice - except under exceptional circumstances - which are difficult to impossible to replicate. So my thought was - this isn't working, lets find what does work (much like Bruce Lee - I use what works and discard the rest) - and have spent the last 24 years collecting and evaluating software development methodologies with that in mind.
What experience do you bring to bare on the issue that would trump my own observations? Have you built or managed any multi-million dollar software development projects and observed what transpired throughout the project? What do you bring to the table?
P.S. I am not 'in management', I actually work for a living as a software developer (I guess that is another arrogant jab from someone who didn't read my whole post or understand it for that matter). We have had to resort to doing our own development in-house because the IT department can not handle our needs (24/7 support for near-real time applications, spec'ing out applications correctly, building applications so they are on time and under budget, providing the network and servers to support the application effectively, changing applications quickly to support the user community's changing needs etc. etc.)
The crux of the problem is that most projects ARE NOT LARGE IT PROJECTS!!! Yet everything is a large problem (or becomes a large problem) to the IT department! It is wasteful and why this factory approach to software development is not successful. The number one risk involved in software development projects is the use of an inappropriate methodology. I would class the problems I see most in this category from my own independent observations. Generalists are what is needed in most cases. The IT department doesn't get it.
As an aside, I also served in the Army (combat arms - Cav Scout and Infantryman) - and studied the process of change that has been happening over the years since the cold war, and indeed the Army is becoming more generalized; with the advent of the 'light' infantry division the Army is having to do more with less. Futhermore, a 'Special Forces' unit has more general skills - being able to perform various missions on various terrain - and the intense cross-training that is accomplished in teams; I would argue that a Line Infantry unit, on the other hand, is more specialized for one task - being geared to perform a more narrowly defined set of missions on less variable terrain (for example, an Armored Infantry Battalion unit would not deploy via parachutes, whereas a special forces unit could certainly do both missions - utilize armor, or parachutes - as required). You picked a poor example as a counterpoint.
There is a place for specialization - I am not saying to discard it completely; nevertheless we are in a world where results speak louder than words - and traditional IT sweatshops are not delivering for the vast majority of medium and small projects that are out there.
The world is changing and IT needs to change or die, it is as simple as that. I see traditional centralized shops being marginalized in favor of a more dispersed model, like the one I spoke of. It is working for us now - which is where the rubber truely meets the road.
And that is why IT products by and large run over time and budgets and don't meet the needs of users on a consistent basis. Sure - writing a module as a code monkey is simple.
The problem I see is we have too many specialists - who can only grasp a narrow part of the project, and not enough folks who have knowledge to understand the big picture. A CS education will give you enough of a basis to become successful at learning the big picture, and experience doing development and integration will provide the rest.
Over and over again our corporate IT department messes up in big ways...and has the gall to tell me (a BCS) that they know better than I do what is required. I can pull many cases off of the top of my head: the system that was developed by one IT group, then handed off for deployment by another that didn't size the network or the servers correctly to handle to load - which made the app crash on its first day and require weeks of reworking and thousands of dollars to rectify. Or the group that took my specifications, said "these don't fit into our development paradigm - we'll make our own," who then preceded to munge it all up, expanding the scope of the application way beyond what was needed including many peripheral groups - ostensibly to create the be-all-end-all application. Late and millions of dollars over budget, it failed acceptance testing several times (never passed). Interestingly, they resurrected my specs and built the system halfway (many the user interface part) to what was needed abandoning 2 years worth of work; of course it still didn't meet all of our needs (and is still not depended upon today). Or the time they built a system without even talking to the primary users of it - which made it fail acceptance testing, then requiring a bureaucratic long draw-out process to get any changes added to the broken interface.
All of these issues were easily solved, yet put a needless burden on operational groups to do their jobs.
Needless to say, these IT folks, by and large were not computer scientists or have a love for computer technology, or scholarship or interest in how best to provide working software to their customers. How can they have, given their results? They have ingrained in their culture that every project must use the waterfall development paradigm (which is particularly not useful when it comes to interactive systems - most of which they build) and that they know what is 'best' for the dumb users. This arrogance is unfathomable - and your post alludes to this same arrogance.
I believe many folks saw dollar signs in their eyes when they went into the IT field, and we are reaping the results of their slip-shod craftsmanship. Sadly many hiring managers have difficulty seperating those from the few gifted individuals. Developing complex systems is not easy; even more difficult is building complex systems that have to integrate with existing systems and networks. Writing an application is one thing, understanding how that application will impact a network, other systems on that network, storage systems and the bottom line (are we going to need an OC12 between point a and point b instead of a DS1 as a result of the traffic required for this new application?)
Recognizing the problem, we have established a small group that builds or manage vendors (and we have come to treat IT as a vendor now) who build internal tools for our operational team. Before I ask my boss for a new system via IT or an outside vendor - I determine if it is feasible and then go ahead and build it myself, canibalizing surplus systems, and using open source software. With zero budget (other than our salary) we have put together several support systems that get the job done - because we have to. We also have system administrators for our production network who are not IT that we leverage for system admin s
A more correct statement might be "if it weren't for wars, and the resultant need of the military to gain advantage over our enemies during times of war, we would not have atomic energy, the internet, computers..."
A military in and of itself does not spur technology - it is the problems encountered on the battlefield that leads to new ways to solve problems (proximity fuse, radar, or the atomic bomb are all solutions to problems: how do we make artillery more effective, how do we find enemy aircraft at night and in incliment(sic) weather, and how do we end a war quickly with minimal casualties on our side) that lead to solutions that can benefit mankind (collision avoidance and detection, air traffic control, nuclear energy).
'all-in-one' = VANILLA
I've always been one to find unique items and integrate them. I don't want Microsoft to take that away from me too.
The hardware manufacturers are getting better at allowing their devices to integrate with other machines (usb/firewire/bluetooth etc..) - I would like to see that continue.
Remember how successful Microsoft's 'Paladium' and 'Passport' intiatives were in the consumer market?
I give this about as much a chance of lasting as a snowball's chance in hell.
Daryl McBride makes a statement about 'exposing' the Groklaw writer for what she is (attempt to discredit) on or about the 13th of April. O'Gara carries out that attempt - but fails miserably some time afterwards - as we all saw explode in /. this week.
Is that a mere coincidence? Are we paranoid to think there is any linkage between SCO and Ms. O'Gara? Or could it be that she took his statement as the lead for a story? Who knows?
However, it is incorrect to paint the FOSS movement as a bunch of criminals. On the contrary, that community has seen how monies from the convicted monopoly Microsoft, have gotten into the SCO treasury via the Canopy Group - to fight free and open source software. We have also seen people involved with the case meet untimely death under strange circumstances.
You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Then again, it could all just be coincidental. I'll leave determination of that as an exersize for the reader...
My company gives us several months to find a new position within the company for normal layoff type situations. They have also offered folks eligible for retirement incentive packages to retire early. In most cases actual layoffs are minimized if not avoided through this method of attrition - which is seen by those of us not effected by it as a positive thing, because we know that one day that tap on the shoulder might be for us - and we would want no less consideration.
This is a key point for some applications - particularly in the nonprofit arena, but also in corporate entities.
For example, we have various machines that are hand-me-downs from our 'production' customer systems as time passes and we do upgrades for new capabilities. Instead of trashing these systems, we put them to use to bolster our support infrastructure. Imaging all of these systems is not useful in that context.
Having the ability to run a root kit does not make one 'gifted'.
I had a tritium watch and a compass - in both cases they were marked 'Radioactive' and had warnings about breaking open the cases. So that is absolutely correct - the concern was for inhaling the tritium residue used in the painted on 'glow in the dark' markings - not getting burns from radioactive material itself.
Now that I no longer have a need to navigate at night - my simple watch and compass without radioactive materials works just fine.
Alan Turing went to Cambridge and earned a fellowship there. That is also where he conceived the idea of the Turing machine - the basis of all programmable computers.
Where you get your education is immaterial. More important is what you do with it.
The survey group is a bunch of executives who agreed to provide the information. I would say that is not a very scientific survey.
There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics. I would tend to believe the former before the latter.
I guess I'm an early adopter...
Thanks for the info - Cheers!