Agreed, I worked for a bank too and the IT projects they did were not all core business. Some projects were just interactive websites. But one of the projects I did was core business and if they would outsource that then this outsourcing company would get inside information on how this particular bank works. Then again, so did I, but they can sue me or the consulting firm I work much easier than they could sue a company in some 3rd World country.
IT projects within this bank were very disorganized with shifting and vague requirements ("Requirement 1. We need a webapp that does all the things we want"). So almost all projects have huge overruns.
True enough, you say, it's not their core business at all, so this was to be expected. But how would they expect to do succesfull projects with an Indian firm? A friend of mine was doing a project there where the actual work was going to be outsourced. But he and his team had so much trouble to get the requirements in a workable form, and then they had to do the actual technical design themselves. The only thing the Indians would have to do was playing code monkeys: implement stuff other people already worked out. And even that they did badly.
I asked my friend if he thought that it would've been done quicker if he did it himself. His answer was yes. Coordinating between a shifting Business and some Indians a quarter of a world away (I'm in Europe) was a lot of work.
Like I said elsewhere, outsourcing is bad for companies in the long run, because they give away important knowledge:
Outsourcing is a big problem. I can't imagine why a smart thinking company with any common sense would export intimate knowledge of his core business processes and pay for it too!
So because every CEO and his goat is tripping over himself to do exactly the same as all his competitors are already doing, all these companies are flushing their corporate secrets to third world countries.
Might as well do law school then, because that will be the only business model that generates any revenue at all in the years to come. If only to sue all these outsourcing shops who suddenly decide that your (local) competitor, or your foreign competitor pays better for their (read: your) knowledge.
Outsourcing is a big problem. I can't imagine why a smart thinking company with any common sense would export intimate knowledge of his core business processes and pay for it too!
So because every CEO and his goat is tripping over himself to do exactly the same as all his competitors are already doing, all these companies are flushing their corporate secrets to third world countries.
Might as well do law school then, because that will be the only business model that generates any revenue at all in the years to come. If only to sue all these outsourcing shops who suddenly decide that your (local) competitor, or your foreign competitor pays better for their (read: your) knowledge.
Real life programming jobs stink. They're usually not that interesting, but just flat business apps without depth, but with time constraints, byzantine politics, incompetent project managers and bizarrely generic business requirements.
So what do you do in your spare time? You work on your pet project, in which you can apply all the knowledge and nifty things you learned and/or you ever read about. And hey! It looks good on your resume too, because your real job doesn't give you the experience in those new technologies that your future employer/customer wants/needs.
And besides, Open Source is good for everyone, because the guys who do use your stuff can concentrate on delivering value to their customers, ie. writing boring business apps that implement the functionality that their customer asks for in their bizarre and overly vague requirements. And they also save time, so they can meet the deadline that their horse ass project manager has set all on his own.
Everyone wins with Open Source I think. It gives you the opportunity to start programming at a higher level of functionality.
When it is called 'culture', everybody agrees that it's been a good thing for ages.
PS. That's why software patents are bad. They block this culture, this incremental growth in knowledge.
- The java bytecode format is so specific that it is impossible or rather hard (there was once a java backend for egcs, admitted) to get other languages like C/C++ to run on it. Why does one have to chose the platform java with the language java? I don't know.NET, but from what I heard, multiple frontends for arbitrary languages are possible.
There are several languages with which you can write Java bytecode programs, like Jython.
See here, so it is possible with Java bytecode as well.
Then again, previous poster was correct when he said that just 'standardizing' the language is not worth much. 80% of Java's functionality comes from it's libraries. Modern programming languages are defined more by their libraries than their syntax and language constructs.
So, if MS standardized C#, good, but you can only do so much with just a language. If the rest is still under MS' control, then yes, you can use the language, but no, you can't expect the same functionality as you'd get from the.Net framework.
And standardized or not, MS is still the only party that can change anything in C#, or the.Net platform, while Sun accepts comments and ideas from a whole community. And initiatives from the community get promoted to a standard part of Java. Look at Log4J, Java's logging is based on that, as is the whole XML-parsing stuff.
Interesting. What are the differences between both languages? I've been on holiday in Norway last year. I understand some spoken Swedish but I couldn't even make out individual words in Norwegian. Funny thing, we met a woman who suddenly spoke Norwegian that I *could* understand. It appeared she was Dutch (like me) and she has a Norwegian husband, so she learned Norwegian.
Then Europe has the 'mosaic' model too. No blending in, assimilating, but living in different parts of the city and still generations of immigrants who don't speak the language of their new fatherland.
Yesterday we joked that the Mars rover probably is crawling around in the Sahara.
So this news is really hilarious! Because this can mean two things: 1. This rock somehow travelled from Mars to the Earth. or 2. The rock has the same composition as rocks the Mars rover found, because the Mars rover IS crawling around in the Sahara!!
Apply Occam's razor and see which of the two is more probable....
The reason I said that didn't have anything to do with whether it's understandable, or even right, but just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe and that it creates even more distance between the general population and the people who make up the rules.
Problem is that our governments are not democratic anymore: they don't act in the best interest of the population. OOTH most of the population are sheep that will accept anything as long as they're fed and entertained.
So, the solution is not to install *another* government that thinks it knows best what good is for the people, but to raise the political awareness of the general population. And I think that the EU, with it's byzantine rules and centralized and ideological rule-making is not going to help. It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France can apparently do whatever they want and won't even hold their own promises. This will only lead to more detachment and desinterest.
One thing I don't understand, I thought the deal was that the lawyers would get a percentage of the money that SCO would get. But now it seems that they get paid by the hour.
What if this is just a way to drain money? A short theory: Say that I have an old friend who is a top lawyer. Say that I acquire a firm and I see it is beyond help. Now I can't use a pump and dump scheme, because the SEC will be all over me. I contact my old friend and hire his firm to represent me in a court case I start. Then I can legally pay him lots of money, perhaps even more than my firm actually earns, without violating SEC rules.
I'm not saying this is true, not even saying that this is my opinion. It's just a theory. Could this work? Is it legal? And would it be legal if, when all this is over, my old friends lets me get a share of the money he earned while representing my case?
It's not the stock price they're after. I think they're financing the lawyers. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that the law firm was behind this all: after all, they are the obvious ones who profit from this whole mess.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, I worked for a bank too and the IT projects they did were not all core business. Some projects were just interactive websites. But one of the projects I did was core business and if they would outsource that then this outsourcing company would get inside information on how this particular bank works. Then again, so did I, but they can sue me or the consulting firm I work much easier than they could sue a company in some 3rd World country.
IT projects within this bank were very disorganized with shifting and vague requirements ("Requirement 1. We need a webapp that does all the things we want"). So almost all projects have huge overruns.
True enough, you say, it's not their core business at all, so this was to be expected. But how would they expect to do succesfull projects with an Indian firm? A friend of mine was doing a project there where the actual work was going to be outsourced. But he and his team had so much trouble to get the requirements in a workable form, and then they had to do the actual technical design themselves. The only thing the Indians would have to do was playing code monkeys: implement stuff other people already worked out. And even that they did badly.
I asked my friend if he thought that it would've been done quicker if he did it himself. His answer was yes. Coordinating between a shifting Business and some Indians a quarter of a world away (I'm in Europe) was a lot of work.
Like I said elsewhere, outsourcing is bad for companies in the long run, because they give away important knowledge:
Outsourcing is a big problem. I can't imagine why a smart thinking company with any common sense would export intimate knowledge of his core business processes and pay for it too!
So because every CEO and his goat is tripping over himself to do exactly the same as all his competitors are already doing, all these companies are flushing their corporate secrets to third world countries.
Might as well do law school then, because that will be the only business model that generates any revenue at all in the years to come. If only to sue all these outsourcing shops who suddenly decide that your (local) competitor, or your foreign competitor pays better for their (read: your) knowledge.
Outsourcing is a big problem. I can't imagine why a smart thinking company with any common sense would export intimate knowledge of his core business processes and pay for it too!
So because every CEO and his goat is tripping over himself to do exactly the same as all his competitors are already doing, all these companies are flushing their corporate secrets to third world countries.
Might as well do law school then, because that will be the only business model that generates any revenue at all in the years to come. If only to sue all these outsourcing shops who suddenly decide that your (local) competitor, or your foreign competitor pays better for their (read: your) knowledge.
No, it makes it possible for YOU to raise The Bar (TM) because you can build on the works of others.
Darn, I already posted in this thread, otherwise I'd modded you Insightful!
Real life programming jobs stink. They're usually not that interesting, but just flat business apps without depth, but with time constraints, byzantine politics, incompetent project managers and bizarrely generic business requirements.
So what do you do in your spare time? You work on your pet project, in which you can apply all the knowledge and nifty things you learned and/or you ever read about. And hey! It looks good on your resume too, because your real job doesn't give you the experience in those new technologies that your future employer/customer wants/needs.
And besides, Open Source is good for everyone, because the guys who do use your stuff can concentrate on delivering value to their customers, ie. writing boring business apps that implement the functionality that their customer asks for in their bizarre and overly vague requirements. And they also save time, so they can meet the deadline that their horse ass project manager has set all on his own.
Everyone wins with Open Source I think. It gives you the opportunity to start programming at a higher level of functionality.
When it is called 'culture', everybody agrees that it's been a good thing for ages.
PS. That's why software patents are bad. They block this culture, this incremental growth in knowledge.
There are several languages with which you can write Java bytecode programs, like Jython
See here, so it is possible with Java bytecode as well.
The wheel is already patented. I'm too lazy to look it up, but someone in Australia patented it to show that patents are patent nonsense.
ROFLMAO!!
So the Rovers are not in Morocco/Sahara after all...
FW800 probably not, but FW400 is pretty common. Every PS2 has it, except Sony calls it i.Link.
Then again, previous poster was correct when he said that just 'standardizing' the language is not worth much. 80% of Java's functionality comes from it's libraries. Modern programming languages are defined more by their libraries than their syntax and language constructs.
.Net framework.
.Net platform, while Sun accepts comments and ideas from a whole community. And initiatives from the community get promoted to a standard part of Java. Look at Log4J, Java's logging is based on that, as is the whole XML-parsing stuff.
So, if MS standardized C#, good, but you can only do so much with just a language. If the rest is still under MS' control, then yes, you can use the language, but no, you can't expect the same functionality as you'd get from the
And standardized or not, MS is still the only party that can change anything in C#, or the
Not true, you only have to change things *after* the judge says you were wrong.
No, because a German judge told SCO to shut up.
Interesting. What are the differences between both languages?
I've been on holiday in Norway last year. I understand some spoken Swedish but I couldn't even make out individual words in Norwegian. Funny thing, we met a woman who suddenly spoke Norwegian that I *could* understand. It appeared she was Dutch (like me) and she has a Norwegian husband, so she learned Norwegian.
Define Norwegian? I understood there are 2 Norwegian languages. And one of them doesn't have a very strcitly defined spelling, or so I heard.
Then Europe has the 'mosaic' model too. No blending in, assimilating, but living in different parts of the city and still generations of immigrants who don't speak the language of their new fatherland.
Yesterday we joked that the Mars rover probably is crawling around in the Sahara.
So this news is really hilarious!
Because this can mean two things:
1. This rock somehow travelled from Mars to the Earth.
or
2. The rock has the same composition as rocks the Mars rover found, because the Mars rover IS crawling around in the Sahara!!
Apply Occam's razor and see which of the two is more probable....
The reason I said that didn't have anything to do with whether it's understandable, or even right, but just that it destroys the believe in a common Europe and that it creates even more distance between the general population and the people who make up the rules.
Amen.
Problem is that our governments are not democratic anymore: they don't act in the best interest of the population.
OOTH most of the population are sheep that will accept anything as long as they're fed and entertained.
So, the solution is not to install *another* government that thinks it knows best what good is for the people, but to raise the political awareness of the general population.
And I think that the EU, with it's byzantine rules and centralized and ideological rule-making is not going to help. It get's even worse when countries like Germany and France can apparently do whatever they want and won't even hold their own promises. This will only lead to more detachment and desinterest.
Note: I'm not from the UK, but from NL.
Too bad, a conspiracy is more fun ;-)
One thing I don't understand, I thought the deal was that the lawyers would get a percentage of the money that SCO would get. But now it seems that they get paid by the hour.
Thanks for the reply!
But would it be a likely scenario?
Heh, maybe there is not even a SCO-MS connection.
What if this is just a way to drain money?
A short theory:
Say that I have an old friend who is a top lawyer.
Say that I acquire a firm and I see it is beyond help. Now I can't use a pump and dump scheme, because the SEC will be all over me. I contact my old friend and hire his firm to represent me in a court case I start. Then I can legally pay him lots of money, perhaps even more than my firm actually earns, without violating SEC rules.
I'm not saying this is true, not even saying that this is my opinion. It's just a theory. Could this work? Is it legal?
And would it be legal if, when all this is over, my old friends lets me get a share of the money he earned while representing my case?
It's not the stock price they're after. I think they're financing the lawyers. It wouldn't surprise me if it turned out that the law firm was behind this all: after all, they are the obvious ones who profit from this whole mess.
Darn. So CS is bad for your health too, now :-(