I guess you need some value proposition. Remember that most companies are in the business of making money, and it needs to be the case that you can give more than it takes to employ you in terms of usage of staff time, resources, training, office space. Here are a few ways you can do this:
- Offer to help with more general systems development/support as well as the security element. You might have to spend a signficant percentage of your time acting as a cheap coding monkey in order to get exposure to the stuff of relevance to you.
- Offer to train other staff free or charge, or provide audit or documentation for systems.
- Highlight the risks of security problems in terms of real monetary costs to an organisation who don't invest in security.
- Sell yourself as an independant and pro-active potential employee who won't be a drain on resources.
- Be flexible in the work and projects that you can offer. Remember that you will only be hired for the work experience if you can fill a valid required business objective.
- Cast your net wide, and speak to people on the ground in an organisation. Contacting a small group of companies via HR departments is a guaranteed way for your e-mails to end up in a black hole.
- Get on the phone or right physical letters. They're emotionally harder to discard or ignore than an e-mail.
- Remember to contact non-obvious choices such as schools, charities, NGO's, open source projects?
- Above all, be enthusiasitc and state your willingness to learn!
Why would I want to run an M$.net or any other M$ app on my Linux box??
Name me ONE good reason why I would need to do that...
I'll name you a few.
Money has already been spent designing the application for windows.
Money has already been spent training users of the application.
There is a huge base of trained developers, administrators, documentation and off the shelf software available that could be leveraged on a cheaper Linux desktop.
More web applications are likely to incorporate web controls designed for.NET (cf XAML).
The MS alternatives to corresponding Linux apps are better/faster/more mature/more stable. (Either generally, or in a specific instance.)
But the huge benefit of Mono/.NET is that you don't have to change your entire platform as you do for Java..NET uses thinly wrapped native widgets, it slips straight into IIS (mod_mono for apache), and doesn't require you to be tied into a single language like Java.
To move to Java today, most companies have to make a considerable investment to move legacy code. The reverse isn't true - COM interop is much better designed and integrated with build tools than JNI. The Java to C# switch is likeley to be simpler than the initial jump from native to managed code.
Also, ironically with the ECMA standards for.NET, it's likeley to be even more open than Java will ever be..NET is great.
The thing is, the average user is happy to trade their privacy for a service useful to them. Here in the UK for instance, most people are happy to use supermarket loyalty cards that provdes this kind of tracking data to companies for mining and targetted advertising.
It could be argued that this kind of data represents partial payment for the service. It's obviously very valuable as the companies are glad to offer certain cash-back offers in the form of rewards for it.
Off the top of my head, I also can't think of an argument against this IF you have nothing to hide in your online activities. I'm sure there is one, but again, the average law abiding user wouldn't be so concerned about this as the slashdot crowd.
Do people think it's a good thing for a C++/Java/.NET programmer to go back to the drawing board for a few months and learn stuff like functional programming? I thought about coming up with a syllabus for myself of C, Haskell, LISP and Perl (which just evades me....)
Linux hasn't made it into the enterprise yet, and its whhheeeyyyy ahead there against Linux as a home platform. A crackdown on MS piracy, Media players and P2P apps are more likely to get Linux into the home than games IMO.
I'd be surprised if any company of size would change something as mission critical as their DBMS due to this delay. To me, it says that they're going to get it right first time around.
It's also worth the effort on Microsofts' part to get this right. After all, WinFS is going to be built on the same technology.
But it's true that the new features are what sell software. I wouldn't like to pay money to upgrade to a more secure product - I'd prefer to have the already paid for, broken one, fixed.
Every post has slated the idea, speculated on ways to avoid watching the ads, or complained about the privacy issues. But get this:
Firstly, advertising has proved time and again to be a sustainable business model throughout all media sectors. Why shouldn't this work too for PC/Internet Access?
It's a great way for low income families to get online, or gain experience of using PC's - thus increasing their employability.
The masses are more than happy to trade privacy for free stuff - cf loyalty cards.
SCO distributed a version of Linux under the open-source General Public License (GPL), it can't claim that Linux software is proprietary. IBM also argues that SCO software violates four IBM patents and that the company interfered with IBM's business by saying it had terminated IBM's right to ship a Unix product, AIX.
Wow, that's enough to keep SCO's lawyers busy until the money runs out:)
Christopher Duncan has wrote a few articles over at CodeProject on similar topics. He's a great writer - I've been meaning to pick up a copy of this book.
I was thinking, decoupling Media Player is a really difficult thing for Microsoft to do. Most of home computing at the minute involves the convergance of media and the PC, and it's visible through almost everything that MS do. At some point, the two will become indistinguishable (cf Windows Media Center Edition.)
One example is how the Windows shell allows you to preview video files, shows tumbnails etc. Removing these features would detract from using the OS. Instead, they should provide the API hooks to allow these types of things to be pluggable and easily replaced. That way, they're not obstructing competition in any way.
It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law.
I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.
Probable view: If they show the code, it would be out of the kernel in 4 hours, and re-written in a day, their case would collapse.
But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...
I'm not sure where it went wrong, but litigation culture has gone too far. Fair enough IP has to be protected, but in a lot of cases the suits seem to be against the spirit of the law, if not the letter. Maybe something is fundamentally wrong in the way in which software is protected.
If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.
On the contrary, I think there's a real niche for something like this if executed correctly. The current generation have grown up around file sharing and electronic media, and for some being able to set up a system out of the box with no fiddling is an attractive and more natural proposition against a CD player seperate (which is it's likeley competitor, rather than a PC.)
I guess the important thing is the price point. These devices can mainly add value in their convenience, something which we're only likely to pay a certain amount for....
Exactly. It doesn't serve a purpose. PDA's are already small enough to carry around all of the time. This offers nothing new other than less battery life, a smaller screen and extra potential for repelling the opposite sex:)
As long as companies make their customers aware of what they are doing, I don't see a problem with anything like this. The market dictates that if people don't like it, they'll vote with their wallet and shop at a different supermarket.
Even if these guys meet the definition of "customers", (which they don't), if they equal a net loss to the industry then I'm sure they would rather not have these customers around.
Thought of an interesting point. P2P is more damaging than copying a CD for personal use. Copying the CD results in no direct loss to the Industry (though they still have the right to uphold their copyright.) HOWEVER, if you download a song on a P2P network, your actions might result in a direct loss as you are then facilitating piracy for other people who *may* have subsequently purchased the music.
But from the RIAA's point of view, this is probably the best tactics they could adopt (assuming all PR efforts have gone out of the window.) They will always be one step behind trying to compete on technology, and if they stick to the biggest offenders then this gives the smaller guy the idea that they are safe. As P2P networks are constituted of many smaller traders, worrying those seems to be the most efficient way of making a big impact.
Reading this, it makes me think we're lucky here in Britain. When NTL spoke of capping the most prolific users, people were sooooo not happy. BT of course also have a lot to answer for with their tactics of delaying local loop un-bundling...
It does seem though that until the T&C's are relaxed these companies won't reach the critical mass to make profit. Maybe the telcos should look at making the investment to expand their pipes. People would jump on board and I'm sure the investment would pay for itself many times over, and almost simultaneously with the upgradees.
This is especially relevant for a nationalised company (not sure if the ISP in the article is), the country would realise the benefits in increased productivity etc.....
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you need some value proposition. Remember that most companies are in the business of making money, and it needs to be the case that you can give more than it takes to employ you in terms of usage of staff time, resources, training, office space. Here are a few ways you can do this:
- Offer to help with more general systems development/support as well as the security element. You might have to spend a signficant percentage of your time acting as a cheap coding monkey in order to get exposure to the stuff of relevance to you.
- Offer to train other staff free or charge, or provide audit or documentation for systems.
- Highlight the risks of security problems in terms of real monetary costs to an organisation who don't invest in security.
- Sell yourself as an independant and pro-active potential employee who won't be a drain on resources.
- Be flexible in the work and projects that you can offer. Remember that you will only be hired for the work experience if you can fill a valid required business objective.
- Cast your net wide, and speak to people on the ground in an organisation. Contacting a small group of companies via HR departments is a guaranteed way for your e-mails to end up in a black hole.
- Get on the phone or right physical letters. They're emotionally harder to discard or ignore than an e-mail.
- Remember to contact non-obvious choices such as schools, charities, NGO's, open source projects?
- Above all, be enthusiasitc and state your willingness to learn!
And of course you are overlooking the fact that Windows has something like more than 80% market share.... Might just have a little to do with it!
Seems a little bit slow to me. Maybe due to being ./ed....
Name me ONE good reason why I would need to do that...
I'll name you a few.
Money has already been spent designing the application for windows.
Money has already been spent training users of the application.
There is a huge base of trained developers, administrators, documentation and off the shelf software available that could be leveraged on a cheaper Linux desktop.
More web applications are likely to incorporate web controls designed for .NET (cf XAML).
The MS alternatives to corresponding Linux apps are better/faster/more mature/more stable. (Either generally, or in a specific instance.)
That'll do for now.
But the huge benefit of Mono/.NET is that you don't have to change your entire platform as you do for Java. .NET uses thinly wrapped native widgets, it slips straight into IIS (mod_mono for apache), and doesn't require you to be tied into a single language like Java.
To move to Java today, most companies have to make a considerable investment to move legacy code. The reverse isn't true - COM interop is much better designed and integrated with build tools than JNI. The Java to C# switch is likeley to be simpler than the initial jump from native to managed code.
Also, ironically with the ECMA standards for .NET, it's likeley to be even more open than Java will ever be. .NET is great.
You might also like to take a look at MonoDevelop, a related IDE. Google will help you find it.
MS Sez Hailstorm To Play Nice With Others
Hailstorm: Open Web Services Controlled by Microsoft
MS Passport: "All Your Bits Are Belong To Us"
It could be argued that this kind of data represents partial payment for the service. It's obviously very valuable as the companies are glad to offer certain cash-back offers in the form of rewards for it.
Off the top of my head, I also can't think of an argument against this IF you have nothing to hide in your online activities. I'm sure there is one, but again, the average law abiding user wouldn't be so concerned about this as the slashdot crowd.
Do people think it's a good thing for a C++/Java/.NET programmer to go back to the drawing board for a few months and learn stuff like functional programming? I thought about coming up with a syllabus for myself of C, Haskell, LISP and Perl (which just evades me....)
Linux hasn't made it into the enterprise yet, and its whhheeeyyyy ahead there against Linux as a home platform. A crackdown on MS piracy, Media players and P2P apps are more likely to get Linux into the home than games IMO.
It's also worth the effort on Microsofts' part to get this right. After all, WinFS is going to be built on the same technology.
But it's true that the new features are what sell software. I wouldn't like to pay money to upgrade to a more secure product - I'd prefer to have the already paid for, broken one, fixed.
Firstly, advertising has proved time and again to be a sustainable business model throughout all media sectors. Why shouldn't this work too for PC/Internet Access?
It's a great way for low income families to get online, or gain experience of using PC's - thus increasing their employability.
The masses are more than happy to trade privacy for free stuff - cf loyalty cards.
Stop looking for the faults in everything!
Wow, that's enough to keep SCO's lawyers busy until the money runs out :)
Pro Developer: Creating Your Dream Project
Pro Developer: Throwing Money Out the Window
Pro Developer: Improving Your Career In Any Economy
Pro Developer: This is Business
Pro Developer: Delivering Quality Software
I was thinking, decoupling Media Player is a really difficult thing for Microsoft to do. Most of home computing at the minute involves the convergance of media and the PC, and it's visible through almost everything that MS do. At some point, the two will become indistinguishable (cf Windows Media Center Edition.)
One example is how the Windows shell allows you to preview video files, shows tumbnails etc. Removing these features would detract from using the OS. Instead, they should provide the API hooks to allow these types of things to be pluggable and easily replaced. That way, they're not obstructing competition in any way.
It is not THAT much money, and I don't have to worry about being sued or breaking the law. I'm not sure if this comment is tongue in cheek, but a large company (for whom Linux only represents a small percentage of their install base), might consider paying up to remove any potential or perceived liability. Dirty tactics by SCO, but i'd guess in most situations, it's easier to pay the $700 rather than taking on an unlimited liability in terms of future costs.
But the binaries of the kernels in question are still out there on thousands of machines. Removing the code would of course cancel out any claim they had to licensing revenues for further kernel builds, which I guess is not a hand they would willingly give up...
If they all just got on with building software instead of legal wranglings, everyone would be better off. It just seems that almost anyone can kick up a fuss half expecting to be bought off, just because it's easier and cheaper than lititgation.
I guess the important thing is the price point. These devices can mainly add value in their convenience, something which we're only likely to pay a certain amount for....
Exactly. It doesn't serve a purpose. PDA's are already small enough to carry around all of the time. This offers nothing new other than less battery life, a smaller screen and extra potential for repelling the opposite sex :)
As long as companies make their customers aware of what they are doing, I don't see a problem with anything like this. The market dictates that if people don't like it, they'll vote with their wallet and shop at a different supermarket.
Thought of an interesting point. P2P is more damaging than copying a CD for personal use. Copying the CD results in no direct loss to the Industry (though they still have the right to uphold their copyright.) HOWEVER, if you download a song on a P2P network, your actions might result in a direct loss as you are then facilitating piracy for other people who *may* have subsequently purchased the music.
But from the RIAA's point of view, this is probably the best tactics they could adopt (assuming all PR efforts have gone out of the window.) They will always be one step behind trying to compete on technology, and if they stick to the biggest offenders then this gives the smaller guy the idea that they are safe. As P2P networks are constituted of many smaller traders, worrying those seems to be the most efficient way of making a big impact.
It does seem though that until the T&C's are relaxed these companies won't reach the critical mass to make profit. Maybe the telcos should look at making the investment to expand their pipes. People would jump on board and I'm sure the investment would pay for itself many times over, and almost simultaneously with the upgradees.
This is especially relevant for a nationalised company (not sure if the ISP in the article is), the country would realise the benefits in increased productivity etc.....