No, but I think it would be completely accurate to say that people who urge others to release using a BSD license instead of a GPL license are more likely to expect other people to share without sharing themselves, as the major difference between the licenses is that BSD code can be taken proprietary while GPL code can not. Assuming that is the only major difference, what other reason would someone using the code prefer a BSD license over the GPL? I can see reasons for developers to possibly prefer to release code under the BSD license as it allows their code to be used in proprietary systems and therefore has a larger possible base of users. But, if you take a look at it from the point of the user of code, it's clear that those who want to take code proprietary would prefer the BSD license. So, if your a programmer and want to release your code to the "community" where "community" is defined as those who either author original works and give them to the "community" or extend/enhance existing "community" code and give it back the GPL is the only choice. If you don't mind someone taking your ideas and work and making any extensions or enhancements to them proprietary then you can't use the GPL and have to use the BSD license. The difference is that the GPL obliges those who use the "community" code, or in other words "takes from the community" to "give back to the community" while the BSD license does not. It definately allows for a "community" but does not oblige those who use community code to give back, ever.
Why would you not want to oblige others to give back to the community and instead allow them to make proprietary extensions? Anyone remember the fragmentation of Unix? Would this have been possible if the original code was released under the GPL instead of the BSD license? Do you want to see this again? I'd rather not.
But he's not, he's claiming the same right to licence his code how he chooses as others have to licence theirs, what's the problem?
Simple - if you re-read his original post (or my quote of it, for that matter), you'll see that he said:
If you would care to put forth an argument as to why I should be forced to give you my code, when you aren't willing to give me yours, I'd be happy to point out where you went wrong
In other words, he seems to feel that his altruism should be forced on others. Rather different.
No, I think you are turning it around here. He's saying that you (or whoever) would be wrong to believe that he should be forced to give away his code using a license that he does not agree with. In other words, that he should not use the GPL and should use a license which you (or whoever) believes to be more "free." His reason for saying that he would be "happy to point out where you went wrong" seems to center on the fact that you (or whoever) don't want to give your modifications back to him and the community and instead want to take the code proprietary. In effect, you (or whoever) is taking but not giving back. In fact you (or whoever) wants to charge for the results of you using "free" code. How can that be right?
And, this has nothing to do with altruism or him forcing his views on you. I don't think that he's saying you should be forced to release your code as GPL if you don't use his, is he? If so, I disagree with him. He just wants what is "fair" and balanced. To expect someone to expend effort and give it away without doing so in kind is not right. If you choose to do so yourself, then more power to you. To judge others and say that they are doing something "wrong" because they won't support people out to make a profit is wrong.
It "should" be about true altruism as opposed to compulsion. Some seem to feel that the GPL is all that should be allowed, which is what I was arguing against.
I would agree with this, that the GPL should not be the only option. I think everyone should be able to choose whatever license they want for their contributions. For some to argue that no one should use the GPL seems a little selfish, no?
I agree that the GPL doesn't force you to follow its philosophy BTW, but it's not creating this open-code paradise that some seem to want as it forces people to reimplement code if they don't want their work covered by the GPL.And I can't see that that's true freedom or a truly useful bit of work as it's forcing them to repeat someone else's labour.
I don't see anything wrong with this. If you are going to force us to "repeat" your labor for the enhancements you make to our code, then why shouldn't you be forced to do the same? I don't see the logic in it. Why do I think it necessary to "force" you to release your code if you happen to use mine? History. Plus, you (or whoever) flat out say that you won't release your code back to me and that you want to take it proprietary! (until you have a "stranglehold" over the market that is, oh, how altruistic is that!)
Well, I live in the countryside so it'll be a while before people start downloading as much as I do! Besides, in another year or two I predict that the speed of cable modems will multiply by at least a factor of 10. That's why I'm leasing the cable modem for $10/month. I can't see paying $200-$250 to own one when it will be obsolete before I get my money's worth. Plus, DSL is not available in this area yet, because it's the boon-docks, and I can always "upgrade" to that later.
I'm not aware of any programmer's livelihood, market, or end users that have been harmed by the GPL. If you have evidence of any, I'm sure everyone would like to hear it.
Man! You are one bitter person. Don't you have anything better to do that spew forth hate and loathing for the GPL? What, specifically, has got your panties in a bunch, or are you always such a mean person? Are you pissed because you can't take a GPL browser and extend it for blind people so that you can sell it for proprietary reasons? If so, you'll get no simpathy for me. The moral and ethical thing to do would be to get a job actually doing something and work on your browser enhancements in your spare time. That way, you could do the blind community a great service and still be able to support your family. Hell, do something else for your paying "job." You could be a network person, as that is tied closely to programming and in my expereince people with programming skills are very good at networking. Besides, it probably pays better than you could get programming. Be constructive, not destructive. Love, don't hate. Paraphrasing an insurance commercial I hear recently, "raise that other finger when you make a gesture. See, doesn't that feel better, now you have a peace sign!"
And what do you mean you're not spoiling for conflict! Don't you realize how hateful and inciting your comments are? Don't you know that for a person who believes it's our right to be able to do anything we want with our code and release it under any terms your comments are unbelievably objectionable? I know my comments must be objectionable to you, and you may even view them as flamebait. If you take them that way, then accept my appologies but now you know what it feels like. I think we are just sick and tired of listening to people like you, and Sun with their SCSL, and the BSD people (although most of them are O.K.), try to put us into some guilt trip and force us to release our code under a license that we fundamentally disagree with. Just accept the fact that some people have different views than you and get on with your life.
Will you go away already! You say that "Stallman, and others, attempt to fan the flames of petty jealousy" and I ask who's jealous and what do they do that makes you jealous? The only logical answer is that you are the one that is jealous, because you can't use GPL code for your own profit, and the act that they are doing that "fans the flames" is producing GPL code and giving it to their "friends." Well, get over it! If you can't accept the GPL then don't use the code. You sound like Sun, wanting everyone to write code for you so that you can integrate it into your own products and license it back to people for a fee! Well, it isn't going to work. Begone already! Leave us alone!
Well said. I was going to post a reply like this but I just couldn't think of a way to respond without going into flame mode. The guy is so clueless that it's a waste of time attempting to respond. Just let the moderators handle it.
Nick said: Good luck controling the damage on this, the thread so far is enough to convince many companies that it's not worth the trouble to go open source/GPL at this time.
And Bruce said: Well, Nick, we have Red Hat stock at over US$200 today from its original $14. That is going to convince some companies that it's worth it. I doubt there is much I can do to stop them.:-)
And I say, I agree with Bruce. While it may be "enough to convince many companies that it's not worth the trouble to go open source/GPL at this time" seems to be Nick's opinion, remember that it's exactly that, an opinion (just like mine). I was kind of shocked about the RedHat stock also, but a little digging shows that a Fool posted some articles that were referenced on the MS news section on Yahoo! after market close on Wednesday that basically regurgitated ESR's papers. Seems that the investment community, or at least a "new" part of it, is taking a look at the whole open source thing and, may be, really understanding it...
Oh come off it. If you're not over 18, in the USA, then you're not legally able to enter into a legally binding contract. That they put a clause in the license stating the obvious is meaningless. They probably wanted to protect themselves from the possibility of someone under 18 ripping off their code and making it proprietary or somesuch. Problem is, if someone is going to break the law it doesn't matter how old they are, they will do it anyway. So it's a lawyer screw up, nothing more.
In other words, all the sparc20's and ultra 1's are getting replaced by E450's or E4500's with lots of processors.
Ohh, I've got a Q for you then. In a E450/w 4 9GB drives, can you have a RAID controller controll all 4 drives and not use the on-board SCSI? I was just unpacking our new E450 Wednesday and noticed that our RAID controller didn't come with cables to hook up to the 4 drive SCSI backplane that comes with the box. The cables that come with the box are not long enough to unplug from the on-board controller and into the RAID controller. So, is there some cable we can order, or can the RAID controller only be used with the 8 drive SCSI backplanes that you can install (and, I think when you order one of the 8 drive backplanes you get a SCSI controller with it, which would be useless since we have the RAID controller)?
I guess I've had the "luck" of choosing managers that have a technical background and know what good technical work is. Since I have not been any other position, I guess we are kind of talking about two different things. Sorry for the confusion.
That wasn't Microsoft was it? I know they are in a lot of trouble because of their contract workers, some of whom have worked there for 5-6 years, who they don't provide the "benefits" of working as a Microsoft employee. In effect, Microsoft has been accused of colliding with the contractor provider to come up with a deal that, in effect, hires the employees on a full time permanent basis yet don't get the benefits of being a Microsoft employee (primarily stock) because they are, on the books, an employee of contractor XYZ Inc. Given the evidence in those cases (at least one has class action status) I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to lobby for special status for IT people.
I'd have to ask if you even discussed what you would be responsible for in your first job! Did you ask how much travel would be involved? Did you discuss the typical work week and month? Would you be traveling for a whole week or two and then have a week or two in the office, or would you be travelling every week 2-3 days? Would you be expected to stay over weekends, or would they fly you back home every Friday and back on-site every Monday? Would there be times, other than vacation or "holiday", that you could work in the office so that you had time to take care of personal business outside of business hours but in-town? You were expected to travel on the weekends?!?!?! This is unbelievable. I know that most companies don't charge for travel time to their customers, but they also don't expect employees to constantly travel on weekends and not get compensated for it!
It sounds like you had a very bad experience, but I don't believe your problems are "typical."
In my expereince if you're "good," as you appear to be, and have a "straight" salary it works much the same way you describe. The only difference may be the decision on whether to collect comp time or cash (it's usually limited to comp time in my experience). Fact it, you are on a "straight" salary. You've just been exposed to the internals of how finance actually keeps track of the expenses and paycheck and been given a few options by your manager. People who are not as "lucky" as us (the ones complaining about being salaried and forced to work ungodly hours) simply have bad managers who hide all the internals. Their managers could compensate them for overtime, either with cash or more commonly comp-time. They just don't want to.
Is it just me or do you get the impression that this person has had more jobs than average? That's one of the things that always catches my attention when reviewing resumes. If someone is constantly switching jobs year to year and shows no "staying power" then you have to wonder about a few things. Either the person is not a good as they portray themselves to be or has poor judgement in selecting employers. And I'm not talking about people who work for contracting companies. It's expected that people in those positions "switch jobs" often. I'm talking about people who actually switch employers on a regular basis.
I've been in the consulting business also, but I have this one question for you. What the hell are you going to do other than work when you go on-site to a customer. I tell ya, there aint a hell of a lot to do in Yuma, AZ. While it's nice to be able to go to a few of the local attractions at better know places, those times are few and far between.
So, speaking of on-site consulting, I'd rather be salaried where you can take off more time and, if you arrange it from the outset, can take additional "comp" time off to compensate you for any drastice overtime you may do, with pay.
Holy crap! Why would someone DO this, for that low paying job! DO the math, if he worked constantly, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, he would only be making 43,800USD if minimum wage was 5USD/hour (I have no idea what minimum wage is now, isn't that sad). Hell, double that and say minimum wage is 10USD/hour. That's still only 87,600USD per year working 24 hours a day 365 days a year! That's ludicrous. This is what makes me think that people who prefer hourly are either A) not well compensated (either due to their skill level or because they agreed to work for less than what would be reasonable for their skill level), or B) self-employed or freelance where they actually get a large percentage of the hourly rate they charge.
As I said earlier, if you find yourself in this position then it is entirely your fault. Either you didn't do an effective job of interviewing your boss, or they flat out lied to you. In the first instance, you screwed up and probably should look for another job post-haste. In the second instance your employer is not trustworthy and you probably should look for another job post-haste.
I think you took the quote wrong. He(?) said "a guaranteed minimum nr of hours you can work." I take this to mean that if you're not money obsessed and only want to work 40 hours a week then with an hourly job you have less of a chance of being forced to work outrageous hours. Now, if you don't have a family (including kids) and you're "young" and smart, "freelance" hourly work may be great for you! You can generate a nice little nest egg that you can enjoy when you do settle down. I find nothing wrong with this at all. But, to imply that people are stupid or non "*technical*" just because they have different values in their life is, IMHO, quite immature.
I think this is the difference between hourly and salaried employees. Salaried employees are expected to work until the job is done, but it also comes with the expectation that you don't have to work as many hours when things are "slow." If you're a salaried employee and you don't have this understanding with your manager then you made a mistake in your negotiations when getting your job.
Think of it like the amount of travel. If you're in a position where you travel 80% but you were told that the maximum travel expected would be 50% then you have a problem. Either you're boss lied to you during the interviews or your job description changed significantly enough to warrant a salary review. Either way something should be done about it. If you're boss lied to you, I'd look for another job. I'd also be honest with prospective new employers why you're searching for a new job.
One thing I can't stand when interviewing people is if/when they lie either on their resume or in the interview. I'm very honest with them and explain the company policy (almost all companies have it) that they are on "probation" for the first 3 months and we can basically fire them for any reason. I explain that the only reason we would do so is if they could not perform to the level they say they could. While this may "scare away" some employees, I find it weeds out the wanna bes and leaves you with people who are confident in what they do and know their own limitations.
I have the same expectations with my managers. I consider them on probation during the first three months of any new job I get. If they lied to me during my interview, or otherwise screw up royally, then they are out of luck and I'm going to be looking elsewhere. If you can't trust your boss to be honest about the amount of travel or hours you will be expected to work, how can you expect anything from them? How will they react if you have to take off for a pregnancy or medical emergency? How are they going to handle vacation, and will you always be hesitant on bringing your vacation schedule up with them? In short, how could you work for someone like that?
Now, if you knew exactly what you were getting into and understood that you were expected to work 60-70 hour weeks consistantly, and now you're complaining about it, then it's your own fault.
Ever wonder about all those massive fiber cuts that have been going on in the past few months? There was that one in New York, then I think one in Ohio or something. Then wasn't there just one in Florida or something. These massive fiber cuts are the perfect opportunity for the NSA or someone else to tap into them. Gotta wonder about that!
So, I downloaded all the notes clients and set them up on my VMware 98 partition (actually set them up on a SAMBA share on my Linux partition and did a shared install). Domino administrator connected O.K. and I was able to change the default HTTP port to 8081 instead of 80, as this is the default and conflicts with apache. With the clients we're looking at 307MB in/usr/lotus (I put the shared clients in/usr/lotus/notesclient) and 150MB in/usr/local/notesdata. Quite a chunk for just seeing what this monster can do.
Seems pretty easy to me, 128MB plus 16MB = 144MB. So the system probably has some old, slow 16MB SIMM, that is slowing the system down more than necessary.
Well that sucks. I'm getting around 250-270KBps on my Prestige cable. Sure beats ISDN, which I was paying MORE for until I switched. If I were you, I'd drop the service, it can't be worth it.
Yes, that's very "insightful!" I doubt anyone really considers the fact that the percentage of Linux users who flame people (developers, reporters, Mindcraft/Microsoft, etc) is very low. Of the multiple hundreds of thousands of Linux users who read all the press on the Mindcraft fiasco, I doubt there were more than a few hundred "flames" or insulting hatemails. I don't think a few per hundred thousand is that much of a percentage to be concerned about. If reporters/developers/whoever can't realize that times have changed and an email does not necessarily "mean" as much as a written letter (because it's so easy and non-time consuming to fire off a hatemail, where a written letter usually requires much more thought and preparation) then they obviously have internal "issues" to work out in this new age.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but I think it would be completely accurate to say that people who urge others to release using a BSD license instead of a GPL license are more likely to expect other people to share without sharing themselves, as the major difference between the licenses is that BSD code can be taken proprietary while GPL code can not. Assuming that is the only major difference, what other reason would someone using the code prefer a BSD license over the GPL? I can see reasons for developers to possibly prefer to release code under the BSD license as it allows their code to be used in proprietary systems and therefore has a larger possible base of users. But, if you take a look at it from the point of the user of code, it's clear that those who want to take code proprietary would prefer the BSD license. So, if your a programmer and want to release your code to the "community" where "community" is defined as those who either author original works and give them to the "community" or extend/enhance existing "community" code and give it back the GPL is the only choice. If you don't mind someone taking your ideas and work and making any extensions or enhancements to them proprietary then you can't use the GPL and have to use the BSD license. The difference is that the GPL obliges those who use the "community" code, or in other words "takes from the community" to "give back to the community" while the BSD license does not. It definately allows for a "community" but does not oblige those who use community code to give back, ever.
Why would you not want to oblige others to give back to the community and instead allow them to make proprietary extensions? Anyone remember the fragmentation of Unix? Would this have been possible if the original code was released under the GPL instead of the BSD license? Do you want to see this again? I'd rather not.
snip - you can just look up :)
But he's not, he's claiming the same right to licence his code how he chooses as others have to licence theirs, what's the problem?
Simple - if you re-read his original post (or my quote of it, for that matter), you'll see that he said:
If you would care to put forth an argument as to why I should be forced to give you my code, when you aren't willing to give me yours, I'd be happy to
point out where you went wrong
In other words, he seems to feel that his altruism should be forced on others. Rather different.
No, I think you are turning it around here. He's saying that you (or whoever) would be wrong to believe that he should be forced to give away his code using a license that he does not agree with. In other words, that he should not use the GPL and should use a license which you (or whoever) believes to be more "free." His reason for saying that he would be "happy to point out where you went wrong" seems to center on the fact that you (or whoever) don't want to give your modifications back to him and the community and instead want to take the code proprietary. In effect, you (or whoever) is taking but not giving back. In fact you (or whoever) wants to charge for the results of you using "free" code. How can that be right?
And, this has nothing to do with altruism or him forcing his views on you. I don't think that he's saying you should be forced to release your code as GPL if you don't use his, is he? If so, I disagree with him. He just wants what is "fair" and balanced. To expect someone to expend effort and give it away without doing so in kind is not right. If you choose to do so yourself, then more power to you. To judge others and say that they are doing something "wrong" because they won't support people out to make a profit is wrong.
It "should" be about true altruism as opposed to compulsion. Some seem to feel that the GPL is all that should be allowed, which is what I was
arguing against.
I would agree with this, that the GPL should not be the only option. I think everyone should be able to choose whatever license they want for their contributions. For some to argue that no one should use the GPL seems a little selfish, no?
I agree that the GPL doesn't force you to follow its philosophy BTW, but it's not creating this open-code paradise that some seem to want as it
forces people to reimplement code if they don't want their work covered by the GPL.And I can't see that that's true freedom or a truly useful bit of
work as it's forcing them to repeat someone else's labour.
I don't see anything wrong with this. If you are going to force us to "repeat" your labor for the enhancements you make to our code, then why shouldn't you be forced to do the same? I don't see the logic in it. Why do I think it necessary to "force" you to release your code if you happen to use mine? History. Plus, you (or whoever) flat out say that you won't release your code back to me and that you want to take it proprietary! (until you have a "stranglehold" over the market that is, oh, how altruistic is that!)
Well, I live in the countryside so it'll be a while before people start downloading as much as I do! Besides, in another year or two I predict that the speed of cable modems will multiply by at least a factor of 10. That's why I'm leasing the cable modem for $10/month. I can't see paying $200-$250 to own one when it will be obsolete before I get my money's worth. Plus, DSL is not available in this area yet, because it's the boon-docks, and I can always "upgrade" to that later.
I'm not aware of any programmer's livelihood, market, or end users that have been harmed by the GPL. If you have evidence of any, I'm sure everyone would like to hear it.
Man! You are one bitter person. Don't you have anything better to do that spew forth hate and loathing for the GPL? What, specifically, has got your panties in a bunch, or are you always such a mean person? Are you pissed because you can't take a GPL browser and extend it for blind people so that you can sell it for proprietary reasons? If so, you'll get no simpathy for me. The moral and ethical thing to do would be to get a job actually doing something and work on your browser enhancements in your spare time. That way, you could do the blind community a great service and still be able to support your family. Hell, do something else for your paying "job." You could be a network person, as that is tied closely to programming and in my expereince people with programming skills are very good at networking. Besides, it probably pays better than you could get programming. Be constructive, not destructive. Love, don't hate. Paraphrasing an insurance commercial I hear recently, "raise that other finger when you make a gesture. See, doesn't that feel better, now you have a peace sign!"
And what do you mean you're not spoiling for conflict! Don't you realize how hateful and inciting your comments are? Don't you know that for a person who believes it's our right to be able to do anything we want with our code and release it under any terms your comments are unbelievably objectionable? I know my comments must be objectionable to you, and you may even view them as flamebait. If you take them that way, then accept my appologies but now you know what it feels like. I think we are just sick and tired of listening to people like you, and Sun with their SCSL, and the BSD people (although most of them are O.K.), try to put us into some guilt trip and force us to release our code under a license that we fundamentally disagree with. Just accept the fact that some people have different views than you and get on with your life.
Will you go away already! You say that "Stallman, and others, attempt to fan the flames of petty jealousy" and I ask who's jealous and what do they do that makes you jealous? The only logical answer is that you are the one that is jealous, because you can't use GPL code for your own profit, and the act that they are doing that "fans the flames" is producing GPL code and giving it to their "friends." Well, get over it! If you can't accept the GPL then don't use the code. You sound like Sun, wanting everyone to write code for you so that you can integrate it into your own products and license it back to people for a fee! Well, it isn't going to work. Begone already! Leave us alone!
Well said. I was going to post a reply like this but I just couldn't think of a way to respond without going into flame mode. The guy is so clueless that it's a waste of time attempting to respond. Just let the moderators handle it.
Nick said:
:-)
Good luck controling the damage on this, the thread so far is enough to convince many companies that it's not worth the trouble to go open source/GPL at this time.
And Bruce said:
Well, Nick, we have Red Hat stock at over US$200 today from its original $14. That is going to convince some companies that it's worth it. I doubt there is much I can do to stop them.
And I say, I agree with Bruce. While it may be "enough to convince many companies that it's not worth the trouble to go open source/GPL at this time" seems to be Nick's opinion, remember that it's exactly that, an opinion (just like mine). I was kind of shocked about the RedHat stock also, but a little digging shows that a Fool posted some articles that were referenced on the MS news section on Yahoo! after market close on Wednesday that basically regurgitated ESR's papers. Seems that the investment community, or at least a "new" part of it, is taking a look at the whole open source thing and, may be, really understanding it...
Oh come off it. If you're not over 18, in the USA, then you're not legally able to enter into a legally binding contract. That they put a clause in the license stating the obvious is meaningless. They probably wanted to protect themselves from the possibility of someone under 18 ripping off their code and making it proprietary or somesuch. Problem is, if someone is going to break the law it doesn't matter how old they are, they will do it anyway. So it's a lawyer screw up, nothing more.
In other words, all the sparc20's and ultra 1's are getting replaced by E450's or E4500's with lots of processors.
/w 4 9GB drives, can you have a RAID controller controll all 4 drives and not use the on-board SCSI? I was just unpacking our new E450 Wednesday and noticed that our RAID controller didn't come with cables to hook up to the 4 drive SCSI backplane that comes with the box. The cables that come with the box are not long enough to unplug from the on-board controller and into the RAID controller. So, is there some cable we can order, or can the RAID controller only be used with the 8 drive SCSI backplanes that you can install (and, I think when you order one of the 8 drive backplanes you get a SCSI controller with it, which would be useless since we have the RAID controller)?
Ohh, I've got a Q for you then. In a E450
Thanks!
I guess I've had the "luck" of choosing managers that have a technical background and know what good technical work is. Since I have not been any other position, I guess we are kind of talking about two different things. Sorry for the confusion.
That wasn't Microsoft was it? I know they are in a lot of trouble because of their contract workers, some of whom have worked there for 5-6 years, who they don't provide the "benefits" of working as a Microsoft employee. In effect, Microsoft has been accused of colliding with the contractor provider to come up with a deal that, in effect, hires the employees on a full time permanent basis yet don't get the benefits of being a Microsoft employee (primarily stock) because they are, on the books, an employee of contractor XYZ Inc. Given the evidence in those cases (at least one has class action status) I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to lobby for special status for IT people.
I'd have to ask if you even discussed what you would be responsible for in your first job! Did you ask how much travel would be involved? Did you discuss the typical work week and month? Would you be traveling for a whole week or two and then have a week or two in the office, or would you be travelling every week 2-3 days? Would you be expected to stay over weekends, or would they fly you back home every Friday and back on-site every Monday? Would there be times, other than vacation or "holiday", that you could work in the office so that you had time to take care of personal business outside of business hours but in-town? You were expected to travel on the weekends?!?!?! This is unbelievable. I know that most companies don't charge for travel time to their customers, but they also don't expect employees to constantly travel on weekends and not get compensated for it!
It sounds like you had a very bad experience, but I don't believe your problems are "typical."
In my expereince if you're "good," as you appear to be, and have a "straight" salary it works much the same way you describe. The only difference may be the decision on whether to collect comp time or cash (it's usually limited to comp time in my experience). Fact it, you are on a "straight" salary. You've just been exposed to the internals of how finance actually keeps track of the expenses and paycheck and been given a few options by your manager. People who are not as "lucky" as us (the ones complaining about being salaried and forced to work ungodly hours) simply have bad managers who hide all the internals. Their managers could compensate them for overtime, either with cash or more commonly comp-time. They just don't want to.
Is it just me or do you get the impression that this person has had more jobs than average? That's one of the things that always catches my attention when reviewing resumes. If someone is constantly switching jobs year to year and shows no "staying power" then you have to wonder about a few things. Either the person is not a good as they portray themselves to be or has poor judgement in selecting employers. And I'm not talking about people who work for contracting companies. It's expected that people in those positions "switch jobs" often. I'm talking about people who actually switch employers on a regular basis.
I've been in the consulting business also, but I have this one question for you. What the hell are you going to do other than work when you go on-site to a customer. I tell ya, there aint a hell of a lot to do in Yuma, AZ. While it's nice to be able to go to a few of the local attractions at better know places, those times are few and far between.
So, speaking of on-site consulting, I'd rather be salaried where you can take off more time and, if you arrange it from the outset, can take additional "comp" time off to compensate you for any drastice overtime you may do, with pay.
Holy crap! Why would someone DO this, for that low paying job! DO the math, if he worked constantly, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, he would only be making 43,800USD if minimum wage was 5USD/hour (I have no idea what minimum wage is now, isn't that sad). Hell, double that and say minimum wage is 10USD/hour. That's still only 87,600USD per year working 24 hours a day 365 days a year! That's ludicrous. This is what makes me think that people who prefer hourly are either A) not well compensated (either due to their skill level or because they agreed to work for less than what would be reasonable for their skill level), or B) self-employed or freelance where they actually get a large percentage of the hourly rate they charge.
As I said earlier, if you find yourself in this position then it is entirely your fault. Either you didn't do an effective job of interviewing your boss, or they flat out lied to you. In the first instance, you screwed up and probably should look for another job post-haste. In the second instance your employer is not trustworthy and you probably should look for another job post-haste.
I think you took the quote wrong. He(?) said "a guaranteed minimum nr of hours you can work." I take this to mean that if you're not money obsessed and only want to work 40 hours a week then with an hourly job you have less of a chance of being forced to work outrageous hours. Now, if you don't have a family (including kids) and you're "young" and smart, "freelance" hourly work may be great for you! You can generate a nice little nest egg that you can enjoy when you do settle down. I find nothing wrong with this at all. But, to imply that people are stupid or non "*technical*" just because they have different values in their life is, IMHO, quite immature.
I think this is the difference between hourly and salaried employees. Salaried employees are expected to work until the job is done, but it also comes with the expectation that you don't have to work as many hours when things are "slow." If you're a salaried employee and you don't have this understanding with your manager then you made a mistake in your negotiations when getting your job.
Think of it like the amount of travel. If you're in a position where you travel 80% but you were told that the maximum travel expected would be 50% then you have a problem. Either you're boss lied to you during the interviews or your job description changed significantly enough to warrant a salary review. Either way something should be done about it. If you're boss lied to you, I'd look for another job. I'd also be honest with prospective new employers why you're searching for a new job.
One thing I can't stand when interviewing people is if/when they lie either on their resume or in the interview. I'm very honest with them and explain the company policy (almost all companies have it) that they are on "probation" for the first 3 months and we can basically fire them for any reason. I explain that the only reason we would do so is if they could not perform to the level they say they could. While this may "scare away" some employees, I find it weeds out the wanna bes and leaves you with people who are confident in what they do and know their own limitations.
I have the same expectations with my managers. I consider them on probation during the first three months of any new job I get. If they lied to me during my interview, or otherwise screw up royally, then they are out of luck and I'm going to be looking elsewhere. If you can't trust your boss to be honest about the amount of travel or hours you will be expected to work, how can you expect anything from them? How will they react if you have to take off for a pregnancy or medical emergency? How are they going to handle vacation, and will you always be hesitant on bringing your vacation schedule up with them? In short, how could you work for someone like that?
Now, if you knew exactly what you were getting into and understood that you were expected to work 60-70 hour weeks consistantly, and now you're complaining about it, then it's your own fault.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you:
Ever wonder about all those massive fiber cuts that have been going on in the past few months? There was that one in New York, then I think one in Ohio or something. Then wasn't there just one in Florida or something. These massive fiber cuts are the perfect opportunity for the NSA or someone else to tap into them. Gotta wonder about that!
So, I downloaded all the notes clients and set them up on my VMware 98 partition (actually set them up on a SAMBA share on my Linux partition and did a shared install). Domino administrator connected O.K. and I was able to change the default HTTP port to 8081 instead of 80, as this is the default and conflicts with apache. With the clients we're looking at 307MB in /usr/lotus (I put the shared clients in /usr/lotus/notesclient) and 150MB in /usr/local/notesdata. Quite a chunk for just seeing what this monster can do.
Seems pretty easy to me, 128MB plus 16MB = 144MB. So the system probably has some old, slow 16MB SIMM, that is slowing the system down more than necessary.
Well that sucks. I'm getting around 250-270KBps on my Prestige cable. Sure beats ISDN, which I was paying MORE for until I switched. If I were you, I'd drop the service, it can't be worth it.
Yes, that's very "insightful!" I doubt anyone really considers the fact that the percentage of Linux users who flame people (developers, reporters, Mindcraft/Microsoft, etc) is very low. Of the multiple hundreds of thousands of Linux users who read all the press on the Mindcraft fiasco, I doubt there were more than a few hundred "flames" or insulting hatemails. I don't think a few per hundred thousand is that much of a percentage to be concerned about. If reporters/developers/whoever can't realize that times have changed and an email does not necessarily "mean" as much as a written letter (because it's so easy and non-time consuming to fire off a hatemail, where a written letter usually requires much more thought and preparation) then they obviously have internal "issues" to work out in this new age.
Just a nit, but shouldn't that be LDN? It wouldn't be LinuxSoft Developer Network, it would be Linux Developer Network. The MS in MSDN is MicroSoft.