1) People don't like to "dabble" very much. They want to just be able to use it. Some may argue that our history/education with Windows is what gives that OS the edge when it comes to usability (compared to Linux), but I would argue that it's just plain easier to use than Linux. Linux is not even in the same league as Windows or OSX when it comes to regular users doing normal things on their computers.
2) People don't want to learn an OS or customize it to make it work for them. They don't mind (too much) learning the *application* (Photoshop, Word, whatever) because that's what that is considered productive - "I made a picture", "I typed an email". Learning an OS doesn't give regular users any satisfaction at all.
I look forward to the day when geeks like us all finally figure out that learning an OS isn't fun/rewarding/useful for 99% of the population. Telling regular people to read the HOWTO or "RTFM" or whatever is not productive.
I think you should accept that Linux *is* hard compared to the alternatives available today. Once you accept that, you can move forward and help the Linux community make it less hard by getting involved...
AFAIK, most manufacturers are leaning towards the one year warranty, probably because margins are getting lower, and *also* because the HD manufacturers are often not in control of the reliability of their product.
To illustrate my point: The company I work for had about 10,000 computers in the field with Fujitsu hard drives. After a couple of years, a lot started to come back from the field. After Fujitsu *eventually* agreed there was a problem we got a settlement that was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our actual loss due to returned merchandise and associated costs was about two or three times that. What was the problem? Well, it turned out that a company called Cirrus Logic made a chip on the Fujitsu hard drive and this chip would "short out" internally after a period of time, in certain conditions, etc. So was it Cirrus Logic's fault? Well, not entirely, because they got some bad "resin" (or whatever the fuck) from a vendor of *theirs* and this caused the issue in the chip.
My point is that someone like Fujitsu, or IBM, often has little control over the overall quality of their products because they don't make all the parts any more. Maybe they used to in the old days, but no longer.
I would contend that the amount of warranty offered *mostly* bears more correlation with the additional cost of the product. If they're making more money, they can take an additional percentage hit on returns. If you buy the Best Buy "extended warranty" on a Playstation to extend the 3 month warranty to a full year, did the Playstation you just bought magically get more reliable and less likely to fail?
I think my argument would only hold any weight in a given "class" of product. i.e. comparing commodity IDE drives only to each other, and not comparing them to more expensive SCSI drives.
Are you referring to Outlook *express*? You referenced Hotmail accounts and AFAIK, regular Outlook doesn't work with Hotmail accounts. If so, I hate Express too - it's a piece of shit.
Anyway, I find the *regular* Outlook to be fast, full featured, and the only thing I don't like is the pathetic email searching. For that I use Google indexing...
"I've found the extensive customization ability of KDE makes using it the most "user-friendly" and addictive computer experience I've ever had."
This is where you differ from 99% of people. Most people would not define usability by the amount of customization that can be done. Most people want to just walk up to the computer, sit down, and *use* it. In their case, *using* a computer is about the application (email, Internet, printing pictures, etc) as opposed to customization and tinkering.
I happen to be similar to you and like to customize, but it's important that we realize that this is not a mainstream desire.
"1) The main job of IS is connectivity. Connectivity is the core of why we have IS. Anything else is extraneous, and I shouldn't be dealing with it."
I strongly disagree. The main job of IS is "Information Systems". Connectivity is there to *enable* the use of information systems - email, files, printers, databases. The network must run *because* all these systems must run so the business can run. Now, if you were a "network admin" or some similar title/department, then I would agree with your statement but you seem to be going for something bigger than that.
"2) IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved with other divisions when physical products get connected to the network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any developed piece of software (we have an in-house programmer in accounting who uses Access -- I know, I know...) should be evaluated by IS when the software is ready to install."
Again, I strongly disagree. IS/IT/whatever should be involved with the analysis and/or development of applications way before they are ever even thought of going near the network or being installed. What if this Access developer spent 6 months making some new database that was accessed over some WAN link that was in fact going to change in the near future? Or what if someone in purchasing decides on some fancy new purchasing application, spends months evaluating it, and then says "install it". Unfortunately, the application requires some server, or connectivity, or something that IS/IT does not approve of. You simply cannot expect non-computer types (i.e. MOST people in business) to make good technology decisions all the time. You need to help them and be a consultant. Granted, you may not have the time, but that's a different issue...
"3)I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different disciplines)"
One member of staff for this environment does seem very light to me. However, I recommend that you take things a little more slowly as it seems these people are resistant to change - so perhaps attempt to hire one low-level Helpdesk technician.
I'm not 100% sure of the approach you're taking but it does seem a little strong and confrontational. For example, if you're taking the approach that the company is in the dark ages and out-dated and so on, then you're telling your boss that they are incompetent and know nothing about IT/IS. That may in fact be true, but it doesn't help you get what you want. Instead, take the approach that the needs of the company have changed from what they used to be (make something up if you have to) and therefore you are suggesting these changes so that the infrastructure can address those needs for the future. Be specific and use examples. Just don't bitch or whine about the past, because the people you're talking to are the ones that set up the past! Instead, focus on the future! What the BENEFITS of the changes you propose. Try not to put your boss(es) on the defensive. Once they give a strong "NO" or strongly disagree with you, you are fighting an uphill battle. Instead, find common ground, find common sense of purpose regarding what you want the future to be like, and *then* move slowly with changes that are needed to get to that future.
I have no idea what to tell you... I get calls and interview requests all the time - companies "excited to move forward" and so on. I recommend you take a look at yourself and your resume/cover-letter. Perhaps you don't interview as well as other candidates? If you've been out of work for a period of time, do you have an explanation that works well for an employer?
Take a look at the statistics, job openings, and get a clue about the job market for software developers right now. I've also been on the hiring side of this market and work with recruiters a lot. What I'm trying to tell you is that I have experience of this current job market and how it is *drastically* different to the market a year or two ago.
"It's all downhill from here. Get out of programming/IT while you can."
It certainly is *not* all downhill from here. Even if you include outsourcing to other countries, there are still *more* jobs today in IT (programming & the rest) than there were in 1999 before the bubble burst. Look on Monster and you'll find a TON of positions for programmers and management alike.
If you're educated, experienced, a good programmer and you interview well, you will absolutely have zero trouble getting a programming job for 75K+ - as long as you're in a city that has a decent tech industry. If you're one of the seas of people that took a two week VB class in 1998 and spent a year earning a ton of money before the bubble burst and you were then exposed for what you are, then you're screwed. That's been my experience of this "bad IT business" we supposedly have these days.
"For those of you who don't know, a pension plan is much, much nicer than a 401(k)."
Do you watch the news? The reason I ask is that little things like Chapter 11 and reality are already affecting these "defined benefit" pension schemes. SO many companies are not funding their pension schemes which is why you may have heard the phrase "unfunded pension liabilities". Read about GM's 2 retirees per worker, and then make a decision about whether you'd rather be sitting on a fat 401k (your money, your account) or some piece of paper from a corporation.
I'm sure these old pensions are working for a lot of people, but I for one would rather have a 401k/IRA.
>The other problem is that the ignorant public at large still think AMD chips run hot and guzzle power when it's the inverse that is actually true
I'm guessing you'll probably find that the ignorant public is more ignorant than you imagine. I doubt that most people have even *heard* of AMD. If they have, then I doubt they have any kind of opinion on them except for that it's not the same as an Intel chip.
I started some serious learning in Turbo Pascal, and moved on to Borland C. It was at this point in my life that I decided computer software was going to be my profession, so I targeted my education in that direction. Now, it is my job and I earn great money for doing so - far more than I probably should.
The thing about cars is that most people actually LIKE CARS. There are alternatives to the car is a lot of cities, but people like their cars more. You get your own space, you can play your own music LOUD (an iPod is no comparison) and you don't have to sit next to some weird person you don't know on a seat that is too small for the two of you. The problem with public transport is that it's *public* and people generally like things to be *private*.
This is the same reason for "sprawl". People like their own space and they often prefer their space to be private. A bigger yard, a bigger grill, and a big garage. If it is available, people will often take it.
Yes, there is a place for urban density and in that environment public transportation is much more preferable. But don't pretend that just because it's more efficient that people will suddenly see the light and decided to stop liking the things that made them buy the car and suburban house in the first place.
I do however agree that gas guzzlers should be massively taxed to fund alternative and more efficient fuels and cars. I personally think a heavy gas tax is the solution as long as the proceeds go towards research and infrastructure and not some big general pot like in England (where I am from originally).
I totally agree. I've NEVER been more immersed in a game than when I played multiplayer Doom for six hours straight after smoking some non-standard plant matter.
Basically, graphics don't get you immersed - drugs do!!!!
That is the most rediculous statement I have ever read on Slashdot.
*My* belief is that there is a place for commercial programming/proprietary systems AND open-source programming. Just because something new comes along doesn't mean that the old thing automatically goes away.
I entirely agree with all you've said. It's important to be very flexible as it's a very odd way to program. However, what you *can* see in this environment is *how* people program, also under pressure (i.e. deadlines). They do it in different ways and it's interesting to watch and listen to how people solve problems. I've hired people that have done poorly on the whiteboard but I've *known* that they were good because of their thought process - they just needed more time, and a computer!
Regarding the bit-fields: I personally wouldn't regard that as an aptitude test and agree with your sentiment that it was senseless as you can just look it up almost instantly. I would classify that under knowledge instead of aptitude. Sure, programming is a mix of both, but the test you mention is almost entirely knowledge.
I have found that most receivers just have terrible DSPs on them. They give modes like "Jazz" or "Rock" which often are just glorified graphic EQs. However, if you look at the expensive DSP units, or even some software DSP stuff, you will find that you'll probably find something that makes your music sound "better". This of course is where the subjectivity comes in...
I have personally been very impressed with DFX, which is made by FXSound (www.fxsound.com). Give it a whirl on some 256Kbps MP3 and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Whatever you do, do NOT turn the settings up high - keep them LOW. If you do this, you'll find that you can indeed make the sound more vibrant (but not more trebly), more rich (but not too bassy) and have a more rounded sound. I was HIGHLY skeptical during our evaluation of this product, but I have been won over.
I don't work for FXSound, but the company I *do* work for uses this in a lot of installations and we've had excellent results. Give it a whirl...
I agree with what you say, which is why this one question is not the beginning and end of the interview. It is simply *one* part of it - not all things are black and white. I recently hired a guy who really struggled on the critical-thinking/programming test, but I hired him because I knew he was nervous and he would be the right fit for the job. He's been at the company for 9 months now and he's awesome. He's not the best critical thinker, as you describe, but he slowly and surely comes up with a good and solid solution and his code is almost entirely bug-free.
Totally! If someone lies but they can actually program really well, I don't give a shit. If they lie but then they can't program, then they don't last very long and they're out on their ear. When you make that clear in the interview process (nicely of course), most people realize that there is no incentive to saying you can do something when you can't.
Over the past 5 years I've only ever hired good programmers, and I always test them. It works. That's not opinion.
Programmers have to be "in the zone" to be highly productive and work on really difficult problems. However. ay decent programmer worth his/her salt can do simple algorithms on the spot. For example, I had a ton of people submit solutions to the simple problem I asked. They weren't in the zone either...
I wonder how much more efficient the pointer algorithm is. I suspect (but don't know) that the compiler and horrendously complicated CPU instructions will make the array indexing solution nearly as efficient as the pointer version. For example, there is a x86 instruction that accesses some memory that is a certain offset from a base pointer, so the compiler should optimize to use that. In addition, the time it takes to call the function may be the biggest overhead. Who knows...
If I could be inspired enough to get away from the sofa and laptop, and get onto my dev workstation then I could find out.:)
Do you work with a team of programmers? If so, it's quite possibly the case that some of them don't really get pointers. Some never will. We could all make the case that they *should* understand them, but they don't, and sometimes you just have to deal with that. Others will maintain your code after you're gone, and if they don't get pointers, then they could really mess things up.
Slashdot Mirror
1) People don't like to "dabble" very much. They want to just be able to use it. Some may argue that our history/education with Windows is what gives that OS the edge when it comes to usability (compared to Linux), but I would argue that it's just plain easier to use than Linux. Linux is not even in the same league as Windows or OSX when it comes to regular users doing normal things on their computers.
2) People don't want to learn an OS or customize it to make it work for them. They don't mind (too much) learning the *application* (Photoshop, Word, whatever) because that's what that is considered productive - "I made a picture", "I typed an email". Learning an OS doesn't give regular users any satisfaction at all.
I look forward to the day when geeks like us all finally figure out that learning an OS isn't fun/rewarding/useful for 99% of the population. Telling regular people to read the HOWTO or "RTFM" or whatever is not productive.
I think you should accept that Linux *is* hard compared to the alternatives available today. Once you accept that, you can move forward and help the Linux community make it less hard by getting involved...
You nailed it - it's that massive PST file! I separate my email by year and my biggest year is about 1.2GB and that's pushing it in my opinion.
To illustrate my point: The company I work for had about 10,000 computers in the field with Fujitsu hard drives. After a couple of years, a lot started to come back from the field. After Fujitsu *eventually* agreed there was a problem we got a settlement that was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Our actual loss due to returned merchandise and associated costs was about two or three times that. What was the problem? Well, it turned out that a company called Cirrus Logic made a chip on the Fujitsu hard drive and this chip would "short out" internally after a period of time, in certain conditions, etc. So was it Cirrus Logic's fault? Well, not entirely, because they got some bad "resin" (or whatever the fuck) from a vendor of *theirs* and this caused the issue in the chip.
My point is that someone like Fujitsu, or IBM, often has little control over the overall quality of their products because they don't make all the parts any more. Maybe they used to in the old days, but no longer.
I would contend that the amount of warranty offered *mostly* bears more correlation with the additional cost of the product. If they're making more money, they can take an additional percentage hit on returns. If you buy the Best Buy "extended warranty" on a Playstation to extend the 3 month warranty to a full year, did the Playstation you just bought magically get more reliable and less likely to fail?
I think my argument would only hold any weight in a given "class" of product. i.e. comparing commodity IDE drives only to each other, and not comparing them to more expensive SCSI drives.
Anyway, I find the *regular* Outlook to be fast, full featured, and the only thing I don't like is the pathetic email searching. For that I use Google indexing...
This is where you differ from 99% of people. Most people would not define usability by the amount of customization that can be done. Most people want to just walk up to the computer, sit down, and *use* it. In their case, *using* a computer is about the application (email, Internet, printing pictures, etc) as opposed to customization and tinkering.
I happen to be similar to you and like to customize, but it's important that we realize that this is not a mainstream desire.
I strongly disagree. The main job of IS is "Information Systems". Connectivity is there to *enable* the use of information systems - email, files, printers, databases. The network must run *because* all these systems must run so the business can run. Now, if you were a "network admin" or some similar title/department, then I would agree with your statement but you seem to be going for something bigger than that.
"2) IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved with other divisions when physical products get connected to the network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any developed piece of software (we have an in-house programmer in accounting who uses Access -- I know, I know...) should be evaluated by IS when the software is ready to install."
Again, I strongly disagree. IS/IT/whatever should be involved with the analysis and/or development of applications way before they are ever even thought of going near the network or being installed. What if this Access developer spent 6 months making some new database that was accessed over some WAN link that was in fact going to change in the near future? Or what if someone in purchasing decides on some fancy new purchasing application, spends months evaluating it, and then says "install it". Unfortunately, the application requires some server, or connectivity, or something that IS/IT does not approve of. You simply cannot expect non-computer types (i.e. MOST people in business) to make good technology decisions all the time. You need to help them and be a consultant. Granted, you may not have the time, but that's a different issue...
"3)I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different disciplines)"
One member of staff for this environment does seem very light to me. However, I recommend that you take things a little more slowly as it seems these people are resistant to change - so perhaps attempt to hire one low-level Helpdesk technician.
I'm not 100% sure of the approach you're taking but it does seem a little strong and confrontational. For example, if you're taking the approach that the company is in the dark ages and out-dated and so on, then you're telling your boss that they are incompetent and know nothing about IT/IS. That may in fact be true, but it doesn't help you get what you want. Instead, take the approach that the needs of the company have changed from what they used to be (make something up if you have to) and therefore you are suggesting these changes so that the infrastructure can address those needs for the future. Be specific and use examples. Just don't bitch or whine about the past, because the people you're talking to are the ones that set up the past! Instead, focus on the future! What the BENEFITS of the changes you propose. Try not to put your boss(es) on the defensive. Once they give a strong "NO" or strongly disagree with you, you are fighting an uphill battle. Instead, find common ground, find common sense of purpose regarding what you want the future to be like, and *then* move slowly with changes that are needed to get to that future.
Then quit. ;)
Take a look at the statistics, job openings, and get a clue about the job market for software developers right now. I've also been on the hiring side of this market and work with recruiters a lot. What I'm trying to tell you is that I have experience of this current job market and how it is *drastically* different to the market a year or two ago.
It certainly is *not* all downhill from here. Even if you include outsourcing to other countries, there are still *more* jobs today in IT (programming & the rest) than there were in 1999 before the bubble burst. Look on Monster and you'll find a TON of positions for programmers and management alike.
If you're educated, experienced, a good programmer and you interview well, you will absolutely have zero trouble getting a programming job for 75K+ - as long as you're in a city that has a decent tech industry. If you're one of the seas of people that took a two week VB class in 1998 and spent a year earning a ton of money before the bubble burst and you were then exposed for what you are, then you're screwed. That's been my experience of this "bad IT business" we supposedly have these days.
Do you watch the news? The reason I ask is that little things like Chapter 11 and reality are already affecting these "defined benefit" pension schemes. SO many companies are not funding their pension schemes which is why you may have heard the phrase "unfunded pension liabilities". Read about GM's 2 retirees per worker, and then make a decision about whether you'd rather be sitting on a fat 401k (your money, your account) or some piece of paper from a corporation.
I'm sure these old pensions are working for a lot of people, but I for one would rather have a 401k/IRA.
PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.
I'm guessing you'll probably find that the ignorant public is more ignorant than you imagine. I doubt that most people have even *heard* of AMD. If they have, then I doubt they have any kind of opinion on them except for that it's not the same as an Intel chip.
I started some serious learning in Turbo Pascal, and moved on to Borland C. It was at this point in my life that I decided computer software was going to be my profession, so I targeted my education in that direction. Now, it is my job and I earn great money for doing so - far more than I probably should.
Yes, they probably never will see a return. However, they MAY see a 500 million return - that's the deal with these things. It's a lottery...
The thing about cars is that most people actually LIKE CARS. There are alternatives to the car is a lot of cities, but people like their cars more. You get your own space, you can play your own music LOUD (an iPod is no comparison) and you don't have to sit next to some weird person you don't know on a seat that is too small for the two of you. The problem with public transport is that it's *public* and people generally like things to be *private*.
This is the same reason for "sprawl". People like their own space and they often prefer their space to be private. A bigger yard, a bigger grill, and a big garage. If it is available, people will often take it.
Yes, there is a place for urban density and in that environment public transportation is much more preferable. But don't pretend that just because it's more efficient that people will suddenly see the light and decided to stop liking the things that made them buy the car and suburban house in the first place.
I do however agree that gas guzzlers should be massively taxed to fund alternative and more efficient fuels and cars. I personally think a heavy gas tax is the solution as long as the proceeds go towards research and infrastructure and not some big general pot like in England (where I am from originally).
Basically, graphics don't get you immersed - drugs do!!!!
*My* belief is that there is a place for commercial programming/proprietary systems AND open-source programming. Just because something new comes along doesn't mean that the old thing automatically goes away.
Regarding the bit-fields: I personally wouldn't regard that as an aptitude test and agree with your sentiment that it was senseless as you can just look it up almost instantly. I would classify that under knowledge instead of aptitude. Sure, programming is a mix of both, but the test you mention is almost entirely knowledge.
I have personally been very impressed with DFX, which is made by FXSound (www.fxsound.com). Give it a whirl on some 256Kbps MP3 and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. Whatever you do, do NOT turn the settings up high - keep them LOW. If you do this, you'll find that you can indeed make the sound more vibrant (but not more trebly), more rich (but not too bassy) and have a more rounded sound. I was HIGHLY skeptical during our evaluation of this product, but I have been won over.
I don't work for FXSound, but the company I *do* work for uses this in a lot of installations and we've had excellent results. Give it a whirl...
Totally! If someone lies but they can actually program really well, I don't give a shit. If they lie but then they can't program, then they don't last very long and they're out on their ear. When you make that clear in the interview process (nicely of course), most people realize that there is no incentive to saying you can do something when you can't.
A good PHB can code better than you can. Most cannot though, I'll give you that. :)
Regarding the XOR part - I actually don't like it at all. I find it to be an awkward "trick".
Programmers have to be "in the zone" to be highly productive and work on really difficult problems. However. ay decent programmer worth his/her salt can do simple algorithms on the spot. For example, I had a ton of people submit solutions to the simple problem I asked. They weren't in the zone either...
When java is controlling the anti-lock braking system on my car, I will stop driving. :)
If I could be inspired enough to get away from the sofa and laptop, and get onto my dev workstation then I could find out. :)
Do you work with a team of programmers? If so, it's quite possibly the case that some of them don't really get pointers. Some never will. We could all make the case that they *should* understand them, but they don't, and sometimes you just have to deal with that. Others will maintain your code after you're gone, and if they don't get pointers, then they could really mess things up.