Giving upon the RedHat distibution could be thought of as giving away potential customers.
Each RedHat user you loose to another distribution, is a potential paying customer lost.
RedHat's current success could be attributed to luring paying customers from the ranks of 'free distro' users. Selling to these users isn't too hard, they already realize the value of the OS.
Eliminating that base could be a potential disaster in that you have made your pool of potential customers smaller...
How can this be an effective business model?
One of the hallmarks of RedHat Linux is the excellent quality and stability of the installation program as well as the overall stability of the OS.
Given that Fedora will not have access to RedHat QA, how can users expect Fedora releases to be as reliable as a RedHat release?
QA is not fun to do. People have to be paid to do it well. This could be an impediment to Fedora.
1) There are MANY more Master's and BS applicants and co-workers out there. These facts could be skewing your experience. If you have had 3 or 4 bad experiences with a PhD and 30 of 40 good experiences with BS/Masters...... I could see that skewing your thinking. But I wouldn't call this much on an example.
2) I am also absoultely dumbstruck by your assertions that:
nearly all PhDs are difficult to work with
are by definition without real-world experience
US born students are by definition inferior
These generalizations are pretty unwarranted to me. I have examples abound of the converse. As well as the fact it could be that the desirable PhDs with real-world experience probably aren't interviewing with many companies.... ie they have jobs lined up.
This seems a pretty narrow view. Care to give us numbers? Unless you've seen this hundreds of times.....
What about someone who has worked full-time professionally during their PhD work, rather than as a tradtional grad student?
How does this person get past your PhD filter?
Slashdot Mirror
Giving upon the RedHat distibution could be thought of as giving away potential customers. Each RedHat user you loose to another distribution, is a potential paying customer lost.
RedHat's current success could be attributed to luring paying customers from the ranks of 'free distro' users. Selling to these users isn't too hard, they already realize the value of the OS.
Eliminating that base could be a potential disaster in that you have made your pool of potential customers smaller... How can this be an effective business model?
One of the hallmarks of RedHat Linux is the excellent quality and stability of the installation program as well as the overall stability of the OS. Given that Fedora will not have access to RedHat QA, how can users expect Fedora releases to be as reliable as a RedHat release? QA is not fun to do. People have to be paid to do it well. This could be an impediment to Fedora.
I too am doing this now...
I think your writeup is a bit idealistic. There are plenty of good researchers with a Master's, and PLENTY of PhDs with crappy ideas and skills.
Attend a conference or two. The average paper has a dozen holes in it that you don't always need a PhD to spot.
A PhD is not a mantle of superiority in anything.. you've got to earn it in your craft just like anyone else.
That said good luck, and you'll need some idealism and drive to get through what you are starting... just try to keep the idealism and ego in check.
1) There are MANY more Master's and BS applicants and co-workers out there. These facts could be skewing your experience. If you have had 3 or 4 bad experiences with a PhD and 30 of 40 good experiences with BS/Masters...... I could see that skewing your thinking. But I wouldn't call this much on an example.
2) I am also absoultely dumbstruck by your assertions that:
These generalizations are pretty unwarranted to me. I have examples abound of the converse. As well as the fact it could be that the desirable PhDs with real-world experience probably aren't interviewing with many companies.... ie they have jobs lined up.
This seems a pretty narrow view. Care to give us numbers? Unless you've seen this hundreds of times.....
So what it a person just left the PhD off the resume? And maybe fessed up during the interview?
What about someone who has worked full-time professionally during their PhD work, rather than as a tradtional grad student? How does this person get past your PhD filter?