Re:Seems you already have enough of your own.
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
An inventor is VASTLY more important than a laborer. Laborers are a dime a dozen. Truly brilliant people who can innovate and think up new ideas are very very rare. Thats why those who invent get paid the big bucks while those who impliment and build what the inventors invent get paid peanuts. Either you understand this or you don't.
Owe I do understand this and that is only serves to prove why people who develop software should get royalties. This is because each new program that is developed is in itself an invention.
The programmer writes the blueprint(code) and the compilers/computers do the labor of making it into machine code. No two programs, are ever exactly the same, unless someone copies someone else's code. The end-result may appear simular but the blueprint for each program is unique. Invention is creating something new and wholy unique. Programs are unique inventions of not the investors or management but the developers.
Just feeling scammed isn't the same as legitimately being scammed. The employer is upfront and honest at the start. They tell you how much you will be paid BEFORE you take the job. If you then accept the job how can you honestly say you were scammed?
Not many employer's that I am aware of are ever fully upfront about what they can and should be paying but try to hide it. Instead they choose to only pay the minimum amount a qualfied person is willing to work for. Most corporations tell you not to discuss your salary with other workers and the executives try to avoid the question always.
Based on your line of reasoning alone some cashier at McDonalds is being scammed simply as long as he feels he is.
I have no doubt that McDonalds execs make far more than they are worth and pay a lot less to their workers than they should. The trouble is that people need to earn a living, they know this and exploit people to get rich.
If you are not satisfied with the amount of compensation you are getting for your labor you are free to quit and try to find more compensation elsewhere. If that does not work within the same industry then you have the option of training yourself for a new job/industry that offers higher pay.
I never said that I was unsastified personally. More money is always nice but what I'm really after is better way to make software development work for everyone. Lets make doing software development worthwhile again. Do away with the overpaying of executives and bring on the royalties to improve the industry as a whole.
What I am trying to get across to you is that this is no longer the dot.com 1990's. Programmers are no longer thought of as "A Special Class of Worker". Due to the influx of comp-sci and EE students they're now a dime a dozen, and this isn't even counting the overseas IT counterparts. Supply and demamd. When there is more supply (and there is) of techies, their compensation will decline. There is also less demand for techies then there used to be. This ALSO lowers compensation for the IT field.
No doubt there are plenty of people who know a little about programming, computers and other techie stuff. Like you said, the people who can invent new ideas are very very rare. Software developers, the good ones, are also very rare. It's no coicindence because the best software developers are amoung the best inventors.
Apparently you are one of the last people to get over the initial shock of the crash in the year 2000. YOU ARE NOT WORTH WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE. I'm not even trying to be an asshole about this anymore. A lot of people have royally screwed themselves over because they couldn't get over their own dot.com inflated egos and eat some humble pie.
I'm amoung the most humble of the technical peers. When the job loss came I didn't draw unemployement, I took a lower paying job. I've been underemployed for over 3 years. I have no illusions about myself. I am a fairly good software developer/inventor but would'nt go as far as too say that I'm even in the top 20%. Th main reason being that I haven't "cashed-in" on it yet. Occasionaly I'll get a spark of and idea then try to implement it or atleast do the initial design work. What incentive is there for me to work for overpaid executives though? Why should my ideas go to make someone else rich?
Re:Seems you already have enough of your own.
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
The founders and investors come up with the idea and the money. Programmers are replaceable and largely interchangeable.
The founders only come up with the base idea for the business and the product they want to sell. The investors only come up with the money, sometimes the founders are also the investores. People who actually do the work of the business make the most critical investment, their time, their ideas and their ability to take a concept and make it into a finished product.
The developer's interest in finshing a quality product should be his continued employment...
Unproductive workers can be eliminated via annual code and performance reviews and a policy to terminate the bottom %2-3 percent of employees.
So your saying that all you need to do is work better than the bottom %2-3 percent of employees to keep getting a good salary. This is why only 20% of the people do 80% of the work.
How can someone feel they are being scammed if they are earning a SALARY for the labor they give to the company?
Because they know deep down that their salary is only a tiny amount in comparision to that of management. Thus they are likely only to do minimal work to keep their job, just have to stay above the bottom 2-3%.
Is a plummer an artist? No. Is an electrical engineer an artist? No. Is an architect an artist?
Plummers do manual labor. There is some artistic ability required to lay-out the plumbing, some planning abiltiy but it's mostly just doing a repeatative task. Little creativity required. Electrical engineers are slightly different that pumblers but they usually can prove a design works before actually commiting to building it. Architects are artist in many ways but are willing to accept a % of total construction cost as payment. Custom blue-prints are generally only used once, so paying a % of the total construction cost is a lot like paying a one-time royalty. If the architect uses the same blue-print with some modifications on another project, it is much like copying and so recieves a royality from it.
Those guys like John Romero or Carmack are artists. Someone who designs CRM software or web portals or embedded software isn't.
Guys who design games are artist but people who design things we actually need are labor? What kind of reasoning is that? That is like saying the guy who paints cartoons is an artist but the kind that paints portraits is general labor.
Will the supposed "art" of a programmer be set up in a museum next to a Mozart masterpiece or Leonardo painting? I doubt it. It is NOT art. It is grunt work. Mental labor but labor all the same. And until they start putting factories in museums I don't see why programming should be called art.
There are stranger "works" in museums now. Lots of people think things like a bunch of broken glass or splatterings on a canvas are not art. Guess what, someone things they are. Someone who has gone from conceptualizing software to releasing the finished product knows full well that what they did was a work of art. If it ever gets put in a museum is irrelavant to that fact.
Sometimes, for sake of blissfulness, it would be nice if I didn't ever realize half of the shit that I have. A prime example is the realization that for over 99% of the people on the planet, they will never achive the same success as the top 1% no matter what they do.
Why do you think company executives don't like to discuss their salaries with the people who actually do the work but get little of the reward? Because if most of the workers knew what such a low percent of the profits they earned, they would all walk out. Ignorance is bliss, no doubt about it. An ignorant slave is a happy slave but one who knows that better life is out-there is not going to be content for long. The problem with information is that once it is out of the bag, there is no way to put it back in.
We should welcome Bhutan to the information age. They may try to outlaw cable-TV there, limit programming or whatever else but it won't make any difference now. It's much too late for that.
On a side note, I do believe that children that are exposed to porn early in life are more likely to think that it's the normal way to be when they grow-up. Which will, in fact, be a problem in society caused by information received through the media. Just something to think about.
Re:It seems you already have plenty to go around.
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
I'm not talking about just the guy pounding out code, though most developers should be able too. I'm talking about the creativity, knowledge and skill required to build a good software application. It is a never ending cycle of design, implement, test and fix until it's released and even after that you still have to maintain it. It is an Art not a general "labor" job.
I never said any specific percentage of the profits as royalties. As an example suppose a software company wanted to higher a good software developers and was offering 60k per + standard benefits as compensation for each one. In that case the majority of people 80% or so only need show up for work to get paid. Only about 20% of the people do about 80% of the work in such situations. Now lets say the company offered 30K + standard benefits + (25% royalties/number of developers on each project you work on). The 30k is enough to live on when your just starting out along with the standard healthcare benefits. Your employee ID/SSN is associated with every project you work on, along with everyone else on it, including project management. When the project is finally ready for release, each person that contributed to the project gets a equal share in 25% of the profits.
Advantages to this system include:
-Each developer has a interest in the quality of the finished project.
-Unproductive people are quickly indentified and elminated.
-Since the developers who contribute actually share in the profits, they don't feel like they're being scamed.
-Less disgruntlment, increased productivy, everyone who contributes wins.
Now exactly what would be the problem with that?
I my humble opinion, it is the executives who do that are overvaluing themselves and underating their software developers. They may have had the intial startup capital, the base idea for the business but it's the developers who make it happen and come up with most of the innovations.
Another thing you might want to take note of is that there are a lot of people who know a little about programming but don't fully understand what takes to go from concept to finished product. Many only copy what other's have done before.
I've worked with people from India and other countries. They are a nice bunch of people. Any of them that wishes is welcome to join in is more than welcome. Those who contribute are just as worthy as anyone else who contributes.
You should also be aware that software has a limited self-life. It is unlikely you would collect royalties on software you did today, 25+ years from now. It would've become obsolete in 5-10 years.
Seems you already have enough of your own.
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
I'm not talking about just the guy pounding out code, though most developers should be able too. I'm talking about the creativing, knowledge and kill required to build a good software application. It is a never ending cycle of design, implement, test and fix until it's released and even after that you still have to maintain it. It is an Art not a general "labor" job.
I never said any specific percentage of the profits as royalties. As an example suppose a software company wanted to higher a good software developers and was offering 60k per + standard benefits as compensation for each one. In that case the majority of people 80% or so only need show up for work to get paid. Only about 20% of the people do about 80% of the work in such situations. Now lets say the company offerer 30K + standard benefits + (25% royalties/number of developers on each project you work on). The 30k is enough to live on when your just starting out along with the standard healthcare benefits. Your employee ID/SSN is associated with every project you work on alone with everyone else on it, including project management. When the project is finally ready for release, each person that contributed to the project gets a equal share in 25% of the profits.
Advantages to this system include:
-Each developer has a interest in the quality of the finished project.
-Unproductive people are quickly indentified and elminated.
-Since the developers who contribute actually share in the profits, they don't feel like they're being scamed.
-Lets disgruntlment, increased productivy, everyone who contributes wins.
Now exactly what would be the problem with that?
I my humble opinion, it is the executives who do that are overvaluing themselves and underating their software developers. They may have had the intial startup capital, the base idea for the business but it's the developers who make it happen and come up with most of the innovations.
Another thing you might want to take note of is that there are a lot of people who know a little about programming but don't fully understand what takes to go from concept to finished product. Many only copy what other's have done before.
I've worked with people from India and other countries. They are a nice bunch of people. Any of them that wishes is welcome to join in is more than welcome. Those who contribute are just as worthy as anyone else who contributes.
Re:Just one of many companies with the same proble
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
My apologies, cut & paste without built-in html formating often end up this way. Gift noted.
Just one of many companies with the same problem..
on
Sun's Last Stand
·
· Score: 1
I believe the root cause of most software companies is in the way they pay their development staff. It's old, it's tired, it's time for a change.
Here is an article I wrote to address this issue.
"Why arenâ(TM)t developers paid royalties?â
Currently many software development projects fail, are over budget or the end product is of low quality. One reason for this could be the current business practice, which is to pay the developer a flat rate for their time with the idea that the company doesnâ(TM)t have to pay royalties later. This same concept has been used ever since the early days of programming. Many failed entrepreneurs had what I term the âoeBilly Gatesâ mindset, with the idea of paying little to the developers and then cashing-in big later. Today, most developers arenâ(TM)t naÃve as some may think. It isnâ(TM)t very difficult for them to see through the scam. They can quickly become disgruntled, which means less production, lower quality and higher cost for the company. The only leverage companies have right now is the bad economy but that wonâ(TM)t last long.
Most people who have been in software development have come to understand that the role of the developers is more along the lines of being an artist rather than an engineer. Structural engineers use many different physics principles in the design of structures they are planing. The design is proven to work before any construction ever begins. Given that the budgeting planners know the amount of materials and time it will take to complete the project, they can set a reasonably accurate completion date. Artist usually donâ(TM)t set deadlines, instead they take a âoeItâ(TM)s done when itâ(TM)s doneâ approach. If software developers are more like artist then why arenâ(TM)t they treated more like artist? Artists are paid royalties from the copyright holder for their work. Sometimes an advance is paid to allow them to pay their bills while the art is being created.
I believe that the royalty based business model would work much more effectively than the current flat-rate model. The developers would have more incentive to care about their finished work because their income would depend on the quality of the finished product. Instead of milling about most of the way during the process then working extreme overtime hours during âoecrunchâ time, they would have more incentive to contribute everyday they came to work. This would encourage more of the developers to take an active role in all phases of the development process. Any unproductive members of the team can and should be voted out of the team by a group of their peers with involvement of management. Instead of having 80% of the work done by 20% of the people you would have more like 99% of the work done by over 80% of the development team. Imagine a world where software is relatively bug-free when it is first released and the cost to maintain it is negligible. I believe with a royalty based business model that is not only possible, it is more likely. How many developers constantly complain that they only get a small amount of the end profits through bonuses? What incentive is there for anyone getting a flat-rate salary to contribute on daily bases? With a royalty based model they would share the profits equitably with other productive members of the team and have a lot of incentive to contribute. It is time entrepreneurs started treating software developers more like the artist they are instead of like engineers. Why not pay royalties instead of a flat rate, itâ(TM)s a win-win situation for everyone.
Every Software project that I've been a part of has always been a battle between adding more features or just keeping things stable as possible. The problem you run into with just keeping everything stable is that your competition is usually willing to sacrifice stability to add more features. When the consumer goes to buy a peice of, the first consideration is the number features is claims to have. You don't find out how stable it is until you break the seal and try it out.
While it is true that there are languages that don't allow you to directly access memory, banning those can do wouldn't of much help really.
Like most problems, computer crashes are usually because of human error. Hardware based crashed are caused by someone involved with the original design, manufacture or assembly of the hardware. Software based crashes are the most common and are caused by sloppy programming or incomplete desing/testing phases.
The language you use can affect the amount of freedom the programmer has but if the programmer is good and is given adequate time to throughly test and debug then it really shouldn't matter that much. There's the rub. Management usually wants software produced within a specific time frame because time is money. Not every programmer is at the top of their game. Most are average programmer's at best. It's just another typical case of asking too much for too little.
I'm not sure if proprietary programs would do well after releasing the source. Even if that source was targeted at another platform. The really value of programming lies in the logic, not the source langauge syntax or platform specifics (usless you use assembly). All someone else has to do port it their platform of choice and use it for free. Even worse, make it freely available to the platform your trying to sell it on, ruining your business in the process.
Solo projects are a good place to start but don't underestimate the power of collaboration. There is probably a curve to it but adding a few good people can make a big difference. You need to find people that are good and willing to work together. It should shorten development time, provide innovations you wouldn't have thought about and it also helps to do group reviews.
The key to working together is getting everyone focused on same project.
Good luck with it, whatever you decide to do.
Open-source was never about making money. Most of those projects are geared toward Linux users because most of the people doing them are Linux users. A few will become successful authors by writting books and some get paid by doing tech-support and/or consulting. The most positive aspect of working on open-source is that it gives you experience and the feeling that you made a contribution to the community. It's much like doing volunteer work. The big draw-back is figuring out how to pay the bills and do open-source at the same time. It's ideal for a young person, still living at home, that wants to work in the software industry. For people out on their own, supporting yourself is going to take prority over doing volunteer work.
Windows development is better suited toward making profits but it is difficult to find good people who can work together on the same project. Most people have their own ideas that they want others to work on. I once tried to team-up with some folks but there were too many chiefs, no investors outside the group and everyone had their own agenda. Eventually we just went our separate ways.
Starting a business is always a risky endevour.
Ideally, you want to be doing something that has little to no real competition, easy to get started and has good market value.
There is company that I found on the internet is a pretty good model for doing a startup.
Start with just enough highly-skilled people that are all dedicated toward the same goals. Have people at all levels who are willing to devote all their efforts to producing the same product or service. You do need leadership but rather than just calling the shots they will need to do just as much work as everyone else, if not more, until the company is well established.
Their website is www.pyrontechnologies.com
Unfortunely, this is has become the common trend in business. That sad fact is that there will always be some poor smuck programmer who gets railroaded into it. Do you think it's any coincedence that they are trying to incourage the teaching of CS in lesser developed countries like India and Pakistan? They want these guys to become programmers so that they can get cheap labor in order to turn over even bigger profits.
There are some success stories of programmers who managed to win big. One such story is found at:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
After reading it, Lisp seems like an interesting language to learn. Guys like Paul Graham should be the norm, not the exception. His success is proof, not only of his exceptional programming talent, but also his ability to out fox the business crowd.
At one time, I was going for my Master's degree in CS. My degree is actually called CIS not CS. They are both related to software development but are really two different things. I like to atleast think that I learned something of CS, even if it wasn't degree that I earned. Teaching does have some appealing aspects too it. It's worth looking into.
I think the problems with corporate greed go well outside the bounds of the IT industry. It just seemed like every manager that I ever dealt with was a Bill Gates wannabe. Someone who pays little to the programmer and then cashes in big on the programmer's work.
I went to a technical school for about 30k total. The focus was mainly on the fundamentals, syntax, coding standards, etc. There was very little in the way of them teaching you complex algorithyms or a variety of other things you might get at a university. Their OOP class was a joke.
On my own, I mainly studied stuff that I downloaded off the net and computer science books from the library. The tutorials that came with my student C/C++ complier where pretty helpfull too.
I also made the mistake of joining a huge corporation, in a division bent on making huge amounts of money. Some other divisions of the corporation where more geared toward R&D but those jobs only when to people who had Masters in CS or Phds. We did have a few Phds in our department though.
I'm considering giving up on the software industry and taking up something completely different. Thinking about all the things what I've went through in the software/IT industry, only invokes some very negative feelings.
I had nearly perfect attendance and even made the Dean's list. A far cry from being "retarded."
My post was not to put-down secondary education. College does serve a useful purpose. It gives you the peice of paper that qualifies you for a number of entry-level jobs. My intent was rather to save the poster of the original message from a life of disappointment and disillusionment.
No doubt, with decent grades and good references, most IT grades will find work. Just wanted to point out that it will probably not be everything that had hoped for. It is not utopia of idealist but rather a cesspool of greedy people.
You remind me of me back when I was in college. Just mainly wanted to do it because I loved programming. Most of the other people in my class just wanted "easy money." The majority of them did only the minimal amount of programming needed to pass whatever class they were taking at the time.
The really sad part is that even thogh you may not be "in-it-for-the-big-bucks" you can bet just about anyone else in the software industry is. In one talk with a former IT manager, he scorned my reasons for being a programmer and was flabergasted that I didn't care about is mult-thousand dollar bonus, he was planning to get upon the projects completion.
If you just love to do programming, you really don't need college for it. Looking back on my college days, I feel like I got scammed. Most of what I learned was on my own, between work and classes. The college degree is a costly ticket to IT slavedom, where your day is spent making some jerk at the top rich.
My advice to you is work a good-paying day-job and program in your sparetime doing open-source or something that helps your day-job. The ideal setup would be to own your own business and do your own web development and information management.
The problem with people burning out isn't the fault of the technology but instead it is because of the mindset of people in power. Even if you are working smarter instead of harder, they want to see quantifiable results. I had one manager try to evaluate me by the lines of code that I written when my primary duty was to optimize and elminate as much unecessary code as possible.
Java isn't necassarily less verbose in the way you write the code but there should be a lot less to write because most of work is done for you.
I've done little with Perl so I'll use C and C++ as an example.
This is taken directly from the book "Java Essentials for C & C++ programmers" by Barry Boone.
In C and C++ the Programmer is responsible for for the following:
Good, creatively written code.
Memory management
Thread synchronization
Platform specifics
Error-handling protocals.
In C and C++ the language only takes care of grammer and syntax.
In Java the programmer is responsible only for writting creatively written code.
In Java the language is responsible for the following:
Grammar and syntax
Memory management
Thread synchronization
Platform specifics
Error-handling protocols.
"Your wrists starting to ache? The young coders can burn through five years before their carpal tunnel syndrome gets really bad. Now you're older and know how much pain it can cause, are you prepared to burn your body up like they are?"
I think that the days of coding thousands of lines of code per week are coming to an end. Now, it's all about putting more time into the initial design, object-oriented programming, reuse and doing visual programming, mostly point and click. We may one day get to the point of voice programming like in the Star Trek movies.
Look at Java, for example. It is still a type-written language but has taken out the need for vast amounts of code needed by other less modern langauges. Imagine if we were still stuck in the days of assembler. Thousands of lines just for one simple task of todays compilers. We need to move forwards, not backwards folks. No offense to the older crowd because we owe a lot to them. The new stuff will be learned quicker by fresh minds that haven't developed a particular set of habits. That doesn't mean older folks shouldn't try to learn it or aren't deserving of those jobs, it's just more likely to goto a younger person. I'm 32 and to some people that might even be too old to begin learning the next new thing, but it won't keep me from trying.
If I were still in college, I think that a job doing coding would be my least likely aspiration. Instead, I would probably try to get into either software design, engineering or even project managment as early as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Owe I do understand this and that is only serves to prove why people who develop software should get royalties. This is because each new program that is developed is in itself an invention. The programmer writes the blueprint(code) and the compilers/computers do the labor of making it into machine code. No two programs, are ever exactly the same, unless someone copies someone else's code. The end-result may appear simular but the blueprint for each program is unique. Invention is creating something new and wholy unique. Programs are unique inventions of not the investors or management but the developers.
Just feeling scammed isn't the same as legitimately being scammed. The employer is upfront and honest at the start. They tell you how much you will be paid BEFORE you take the job. If you then accept the job how can you honestly say you were scammed?
Not many employer's that I am aware of are ever fully upfront about what they can and should be paying but try to hide it. Instead they choose to only pay the minimum amount a qualfied person is willing to work for. Most corporations tell you not to discuss your salary with other workers and the executives try to avoid the question always.
Based on your line of reasoning alone some cashier at McDonalds is being scammed simply as long as he feels he is.
I have no doubt that McDonalds execs make far more than they are worth and pay a lot less to their workers than they should. The trouble is that people need to earn a living, they know this and exploit people to get rich.
If you are not satisfied with the amount of compensation you are getting for your labor you are free to quit and try to find more compensation elsewhere. If that does not work within the same industry then you have the option of training yourself for a new job/industry that offers higher pay.
I never said that I was unsastified personally. More money is always nice but what I'm really after is better way to make software development work for everyone. Lets make doing software development worthwhile again. Do away with the overpaying of executives and bring on the royalties to improve the industry as a whole.
What I am trying to get across to you is that this is no longer the dot.com 1990's. Programmers are no longer thought of as "A Special Class of Worker". Due to the influx of comp-sci and EE students they're now a dime a dozen, and this isn't even counting the overseas IT counterparts. Supply and demamd. When there is more supply (and there is) of techies, their compensation will decline. There is also less demand for techies then there used to be. This ALSO lowers compensation for the IT field.
No doubt there are plenty of people who know a little about programming, computers and other techie stuff. Like you said, the people who can invent new ideas are very very rare. Software developers, the good ones, are also very rare. It's no coicindence because the best software developers are amoung the best inventors.
Apparently you are one of the last people to get over the initial shock of the crash in the year 2000. YOU ARE NOT WORTH WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE. I'm not even trying to be an asshole about this anymore. A lot of people have royally screwed themselves over because they couldn't get over their own dot.com inflated egos and eat some humble pie.
I'm amoung the most humble of the technical peers. When the job loss came I didn't draw unemployement, I took a lower paying job. I've been underemployed for over 3 years. I have no illusions about myself. I am a fairly good software developer/inventor but would'nt go as far as too say that I'm even in the top 20%. Th main reason being that I haven't "cashed-in" on it yet. Occasionaly I'll get a spark of and idea then try to implement it or atleast do the initial design work. What incentive is there for me to work for overpaid executives though? Why should my ideas go to make someone else rich?
So your saying that all you need to do is work better than the bottom %2-3 percent of employees to keep getting a good salary. This is why only 20% of the people do 80% of the work.
How can someone feel they are being scammed if they are earning a SALARY for the labor they give to the company?
Because they know deep down that their salary is only a tiny amount in comparision to that of management. Thus they are likely only to do minimal work to keep their job, just have to stay above the bottom 2-3%.
Is a plummer an artist? No. Is an electrical engineer an artist? No. Is an architect an artist? Plummers do manual labor. There is some artistic ability required to lay-out the plumbing, some planning abiltiy but it's mostly just doing a repeatative task. Little creativity required. Electrical engineers are slightly different that pumblers but they usually can prove a design works before actually commiting to building it. Architects are artist in many ways but are willing to accept a % of total construction cost as payment. Custom blue-prints are generally only used once, so paying a % of the total construction cost is a lot like paying a one-time royalty. If the architect uses the same blue-print with some modifications on another project, it is much like copying and so recieves a royality from it.
Those guys like John Romero or Carmack are artists. Someone who designs CRM software or web portals or embedded software isn't.
Guys who design games are artist but people who design things we actually need are labor? What kind of reasoning is that? That is like saying the guy who paints cartoons is an artist but the kind that paints portraits is general labor.
Will the supposed "art" of a programmer be set up in a museum next to a Mozart masterpiece or Leonardo painting? I doubt it. It is NOT art. It is grunt work. Mental labor but labor all the same. And until they start putting factories in museums I don't see why programming should be called art.
There are stranger "works" in museums now. Lots of people think things like a bunch of broken glass or splatterings on a canvas are not art. Guess what, someone things they are. Someone who has gone from conceptualizing software to releasing the finished product knows full well that what they did was a work of art. If it ever gets put in a museum is irrelavant to that fact.
Sometimes, for sake of blissfulness, it would be nice if I didn't ever realize half of the shit that I have. A prime example is the realization that for over 99% of the people on the planet, they will never achive the same success as the top 1% no matter what they do. Why do you think company executives don't like to discuss their salaries with the people who actually do the work but get little of the reward? Because if most of the workers knew what such a low percent of the profits they earned, they would all walk out. Ignorance is bliss, no doubt about it. An ignorant slave is a happy slave but one who knows that better life is out-there is not going to be content for long. The problem with information is that once it is out of the bag, there is no way to put it back in. We should welcome Bhutan to the information age. They may try to outlaw cable-TV there, limit programming or whatever else but it won't make any difference now. It's much too late for that. On a side note, I do believe that children that are exposed to porn early in life are more likely to think that it's the normal way to be when they grow-up. Which will, in fact, be a problem in society caused by information received through the media. Just something to think about.
I never said any specific percentage of the profits as royalties. As an example suppose a software company wanted to higher a good software developers and was offering 60k per + standard benefits as compensation for each one. In that case the majority of people 80% or so only need show up for work to get paid. Only about 20% of the people do about 80% of the work in such situations. Now lets say the company offered 30K + standard benefits + (25% royalties/number of developers on each project you work on). The 30k is enough to live on when your just starting out along with the standard healthcare benefits. Your employee ID/SSN is associated with every project you work on, along with everyone else on it, including project management. When the project is finally ready for release, each person that contributed to the project gets a equal share in 25% of the profits.
Advantages to this system include:
-Each developer has a interest in the quality of the finished project.
-Unproductive people are quickly indentified and elminated.
-Since the developers who contribute actually share in the profits, they don't feel like they're being scamed.
-Less disgruntlment, increased productivy, everyone who contributes wins.
Now exactly what would be the problem with that?
I my humble opinion, it is the executives who do that are overvaluing themselves and underating their software developers. They may have had the intial startup capital, the base idea for the business but it's the developers who make it happen and come up with most of the innovations.
Another thing you might want to take note of is that there are a lot of people who know a little about programming but don't fully understand what takes to go from concept to finished product. Many only copy what other's have done before.
I've worked with people from India and other countries. They are a nice bunch of people. Any of them that wishes is welcome to join in is more than welcome. Those who contribute are just as worthy as anyone else who contributes.
You should also be aware that software has a limited self-life. It is unlikely you would collect royalties on software you did today, 25+ years from now. It would've become obsolete in 5-10 years.
I never said any specific percentage of the profits as royalties. As an example suppose a software company wanted to higher a good software developers and was offering 60k per + standard benefits as compensation for each one. In that case the majority of people 80% or so only need show up for work to get paid. Only about 20% of the people do about 80% of the work in such situations. Now lets say the company offerer 30K + standard benefits + (25% royalties/number of developers on each project you work on). The 30k is enough to live on when your just starting out along with the standard healthcare benefits. Your employee ID/SSN is associated with every project you work on alone with everyone else on it, including project management. When the project is finally ready for release, each person that contributed to the project gets a equal share in 25% of the profits.
Advantages to this system include: -Each developer has a interest in the quality of the finished project. -Unproductive people are quickly indentified and elminated. -Since the developers who contribute actually share in the profits, they don't feel like they're being scamed. -Lets disgruntlment, increased productivy, everyone who contributes wins.
Now exactly what would be the problem with that?
I my humble opinion, it is the executives who do that are overvaluing themselves and underating their software developers. They may have had the intial startup capital, the base idea for the business but it's the developers who make it happen and come up with most of the innovations.
Another thing you might want to take note of is that there are a lot of people who know a little about programming but don't fully understand what takes to go from concept to finished product. Many only copy what other's have done before.
I've worked with people from India and other countries. They are a nice bunch of people. Any of them that wishes is welcome to join in is more than welcome. Those who contribute are just as worthy as anyone else who contributes.
My apologies, cut & paste without built-in html formating often end up this way. Gift noted.
I believe the root cause of most software companies is in the way they pay their development staff. It's old, it's tired, it's time for a change. Here is an article I wrote to address this issue. "Why arenâ(TM)t developers paid royalties?â Currently many software development projects fail, are over budget or the end product is of low quality. One reason for this could be the current business practice, which is to pay the developer a flat rate for their time with the idea that the company doesnâ(TM)t have to pay royalties later. This same concept has been used ever since the early days of programming. Many failed entrepreneurs had what I term the âoeBilly Gatesâ mindset, with the idea of paying little to the developers and then cashing-in big later. Today, most developers arenâ(TM)t naÃve as some may think. It isnâ(TM)t very difficult for them to see through the scam. They can quickly become disgruntled, which means less production, lower quality and higher cost for the company. The only leverage companies have right now is the bad economy but that wonâ(TM)t last long. Most people who have been in software development have come to understand that the role of the developers is more along the lines of being an artist rather than an engineer. Structural engineers use many different physics principles in the design of structures they are planing. The design is proven to work before any construction ever begins. Given that the budgeting planners know the amount of materials and time it will take to complete the project, they can set a reasonably accurate completion date. Artist usually donâ(TM)t set deadlines, instead they take a âoeItâ(TM)s done when itâ(TM)s doneâ approach. If software developers are more like artist then why arenâ(TM)t they treated more like artist? Artists are paid royalties from the copyright holder for their work. Sometimes an advance is paid to allow them to pay their bills while the art is being created. I believe that the royalty based business model would work much more effectively than the current flat-rate model. The developers would have more incentive to care about their finished work because their income would depend on the quality of the finished product. Instead of milling about most of the way during the process then working extreme overtime hours during âoecrunchâ time, they would have more incentive to contribute everyday they came to work. This would encourage more of the developers to take an active role in all phases of the development process. Any unproductive members of the team can and should be voted out of the team by a group of their peers with involvement of management. Instead of having 80% of the work done by 20% of the people you would have more like 99% of the work done by over 80% of the development team. Imagine a world where software is relatively bug-free when it is first released and the cost to maintain it is negligible. I believe with a royalty based business model that is not only possible, it is more likely. How many developers constantly complain that they only get a small amount of the end profits through bonuses? What incentive is there for anyone getting a flat-rate salary to contribute on daily bases? With a royalty based model they would share the profits equitably with other productive members of the team and have a lot of incentive to contribute. It is time entrepreneurs started treating software developers more like the artist they are instead of like engineers. Why not pay royalties instead of a flat rate, itâ(TM)s a win-win situation for everyone.
In this life you are an Overlord, slave or freelancer.
PKWare charges outrages prices for something that is obsolete. WinRar (www.rarlabs.com) gives much better compression, especially for graphics.
Every Software project that I've been a part of has always been a battle between adding more features or just keeping things stable as possible. The problem you run into with just keeping everything stable is that your competition is usually willing to sacrifice stability to add more features. When the consumer goes to buy a peice of, the first consideration is the number features is claims to have. You don't find out how stable it is until you break the seal and try it out.
While it is true that there are languages that don't allow you to directly access memory, banning those can do wouldn't of much help really. Like most problems, computer crashes are usually because of human error. Hardware based crashed are caused by someone involved with the original design, manufacture or assembly of the hardware. Software based crashes are the most common and are caused by sloppy programming or incomplete desing/testing phases. The language you use can affect the amount of freedom the programmer has but if the programmer is good and is given adequate time to throughly test and debug then it really shouldn't matter that much. There's the rub. Management usually wants software produced within a specific time frame because time is money. Not every programmer is at the top of their game. Most are average programmer's at best. It's just another typical case of asking too much for too little.
I'm not sure if proprietary programs would do well after releasing the source. Even if that source was targeted at another platform. The really value of programming lies in the logic, not the source langauge syntax or platform specifics (usless you use assembly). All someone else has to do port it their platform of choice and use it for free. Even worse, make it freely available to the platform your trying to sell it on, ruining your business in the process. Solo projects are a good place to start but don't underestimate the power of collaboration. There is probably a curve to it but adding a few good people can make a big difference. You need to find people that are good and willing to work together. It should shorten development time, provide innovations you wouldn't have thought about and it also helps to do group reviews. The key to working together is getting everyone focused on same project. Good luck with it, whatever you decide to do.
Open-source was never about making money. Most of those projects are geared toward Linux users because most of the people doing them are Linux users. A few will become successful authors by writting books and some get paid by doing tech-support and/or consulting. The most positive aspect of working on open-source is that it gives you experience and the feeling that you made a contribution to the community. It's much like doing volunteer work. The big draw-back is figuring out how to pay the bills and do open-source at the same time. It's ideal for a young person, still living at home, that wants to work in the software industry. For people out on their own, supporting yourself is going to take prority over doing volunteer work. Windows development is better suited toward making profits but it is difficult to find good people who can work together on the same project. Most people have their own ideas that they want others to work on. I once tried to team-up with some folks but there were too many chiefs, no investors outside the group and everyone had their own agenda. Eventually we just went our separate ways. Starting a business is always a risky endevour. Ideally, you want to be doing something that has little to no real competition, easy to get started and has good market value. There is company that I found on the internet is a pretty good model for doing a startup. Start with just enough highly-skilled people that are all dedicated toward the same goals. Have people at all levels who are willing to devote all their efforts to producing the same product or service. You do need leadership but rather than just calling the shots they will need to do just as much work as everyone else, if not more, until the company is well established. Their website is www.pyrontechnologies.com
Unfortunely, this is has become the common trend in business. That sad fact is that there will always be some poor smuck programmer who gets railroaded into it. Do you think it's any coincedence that they are trying to incourage the teaching of CS in lesser developed countries like India and Pakistan? They want these guys to become programmers so that they can get cheap labor in order to turn over even bigger profits. There are some success stories of programmers who managed to win big. One such story is found at: http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html After reading it, Lisp seems like an interesting language to learn. Guys like Paul Graham should be the norm, not the exception. His success is proof, not only of his exceptional programming talent, but also his ability to out fox the business crowd.
At one time, I was going for my Master's degree in CS. My degree is actually called CIS not CS. They are both related to software development but are really two different things. I like to atleast think that I learned something of CS, even if it wasn't degree that I earned. Teaching does have some appealing aspects too it. It's worth looking into. I think the problems with corporate greed go well outside the bounds of the IT industry. It just seemed like every manager that I ever dealt with was a Bill Gates wannabe. Someone who pays little to the programmer and then cashes in big on the programmer's work.
I went to a technical school for about 30k total. The focus was mainly on the fundamentals, syntax, coding standards, etc. There was very little in the way of them teaching you complex algorithyms or a variety of other things you might get at a university. Their OOP class was a joke. On my own, I mainly studied stuff that I downloaded off the net and computer science books from the library. The tutorials that came with my student C/C++ complier where pretty helpfull too. I also made the mistake of joining a huge corporation, in a division bent on making huge amounts of money. Some other divisions of the corporation where more geared toward R&D but those jobs only when to people who had Masters in CS or Phds. We did have a few Phds in our department though. I'm considering giving up on the software industry and taking up something completely different. Thinking about all the things what I've went through in the software/IT industry, only invokes some very negative feelings.
I had nearly perfect attendance and even made the Dean's list. A far cry from being "retarded." My post was not to put-down secondary education. College does serve a useful purpose. It gives you the peice of paper that qualifies you for a number of entry-level jobs. My intent was rather to save the poster of the original message from a life of disappointment and disillusionment. No doubt, with decent grades and good references, most IT grades will find work. Just wanted to point out that it will probably not be everything that had hoped for. It is not utopia of idealist but rather a cesspool of greedy people.
You remind me of me back when I was in college. Just mainly wanted to do it because I loved programming. Most of the other people in my class just wanted "easy money." The majority of them did only the minimal amount of programming needed to pass whatever class they were taking at the time. The really sad part is that even thogh you may not be "in-it-for-the-big-bucks" you can bet just about anyone else in the software industry is. In one talk with a former IT manager, he scorned my reasons for being a programmer and was flabergasted that I didn't care about is mult-thousand dollar bonus, he was planning to get upon the projects completion. If you just love to do programming, you really don't need college for it. Looking back on my college days, I feel like I got scammed. Most of what I learned was on my own, between work and classes. The college degree is a costly ticket to IT slavedom, where your day is spent making some jerk at the top rich. My advice to you is work a good-paying day-job and program in your sparetime doing open-source or something that helps your day-job. The ideal setup would be to own your own business and do your own web development and information management.
The problem with people burning out isn't the fault of the technology but instead it is because of the mindset of people in power. Even if you are working smarter instead of harder, they want to see quantifiable results. I had one manager try to evaluate me by the lines of code that I written when my primary duty was to optimize and elminate as much unecessary code as possible.
Java isn't necassarily less verbose in the way you write the code but there should be a lot less to write because most of work is done for you. I've done little with Perl so I'll use C and C++ as an example. This is taken directly from the book "Java Essentials for C & C++ programmers" by Barry Boone. In C and C++ the Programmer is responsible for for the following: Good, creatively written code. Memory management Thread synchronization Platform specifics Error-handling protocals. In C and C++ the language only takes care of grammer and syntax. In Java the programmer is responsible only for writting creatively written code. In Java the language is responsible for the following: Grammar and syntax Memory management Thread synchronization Platform specifics Error-handling protocols.
"Your wrists starting to ache? The young coders can burn through five years before their carpal tunnel syndrome gets really bad. Now you're older and know how much pain it can cause, are you prepared to burn your body up like they are?"
I think that the days of coding thousands of lines of code per week are coming to an end. Now, it's all about putting more time into the initial design, object-oriented programming, reuse and doing visual programming, mostly point and click. We may one day get to the point of voice programming like in the Star Trek movies.
Look at Java, for example. It is still a type-written language but has taken out the need for vast amounts of code needed by other less modern langauges. Imagine if we were still stuck in the days of assembler. Thousands of lines just for one simple task of todays compilers. We need to move forwards, not backwards folks. No offense to the older crowd because we owe a lot to them. The new stuff will be learned quicker by fresh minds that haven't developed a particular set of habits. That doesn't mean older folks shouldn't try to learn it or aren't deserving of those jobs, it's just more likely to goto a younger person. I'm 32 and to some people that might even be too old to begin learning the next new thing, but it won't keep me from trying.
If I were still in college, I think that a job doing coding would be my least likely aspiration. Instead, I would probably try to get into either software design, engineering or even project managment as early as possible.