Manager-type person wants to start collecting data from which data mining should occur.
Manager-type person finds publically-available, easy-to-process data, and assumes that all data has the same attributes.
Manager-type person fails to make the distinction between qualitative and quantitative data.
Manager-type person fails to make the distinction between real data and derived data (i.e. data that can be calculated from other data).
Manager-type person fails to understand why multiple authoritative sources for data is a hard problem to solve.
Manager-type person fails to understand the chaos and destruction that ensues from changing a data model without thoroughly scouring dependent apps to alleviate dependence on the now-obsolete data model.
Manager-type person fails to understand that data reliability is only as strong as its weakest source.
...
No Profit!!!! The data is useless for any type of business activity.
Don't forget that science should continually re-test hypotheses. For instance, one could hypothesize that swallowing small, roundish, brightly-colored objects reduces fever. Statistically, this is going to turn out false. However, if your subjects swallow the right kind of small, roundish, brightly-colored object each time, the results would be different.
Perhaps this prayer study is a too general to be definitive....
This new thingy is going to kill the iPod just like Microsoft killed SPAM - they're going to redefine 'kill'. I suppose they'll put an EKG on an iPod and declare it dead.
Well, I think removing "Program Files\AppName\*" makes more sense than hunting for a bunch of different files in/etc,/usr/bin,/usr/lib and whatnot.
And your description here indicates that you understand neither the Windows nor the *nix way of doing things.
Windows: What if one of those windows applications also installs a service that's running on your box? What's going to happen when you delete "Program Files\App Name"? What about all those registry entries? What about the entry in "Add/Remove Programs"? What about dependencies? To me, this is why users shouldn't be deleting program files, and part of the reason why windows asks, "Hey, this is an executable. You really, really, REEEEEAAAAALLLY sure you want to delete it?"
Unzipping AppName.zip into a new directory in Program Files, then later removing the whole directory is quick, easy and clean.
I've never seen this done. Ever. And I wouldn't want it this way. I kinda like having stuff accessible in my Start menu. This is why installers exist - the presence of a piece of software on a system goes beyond just the executable(s) and data files. Software has to be installed into the target system. An engine that sits in the bed of a pickup truck isn't installed, and isn't going to be very useful for moving the truck around.
Linux: Did you install from source? If so, did the source installation come from a ports tree or similar? If so, it created an entry in the package database, which keeps track of how to uninstall the software. If you installed bare source outside of a ports tree, then you're responsible for either:
Keeping the source code around, so you can do a 'make uninstall'
or
Keeping track of what files were added/removed/modified manually.
In either case, you're a proficient enough user to understand how to build from source, you should be able to understand how to administer a system with software built-from-source. Talking about binary packages after all this is a moot point - you use the package manager to uninstall the package. Why would you uninstall something using a different tool than you used when you installed it?
As a for-instance, my desktop system has approximately 380 packages installed. I don't want to scour the unix manpages, makefiles, or anything else (e.g. if I was running windows, the registry) to figure out how to uninstall a program, even though I'm a comptetent, experienced system administrator on Windows, Linux, and a few Unixes. The package management tools on Windows and *nix make it possible to feasibly maintain systems with hundreds (or even thousands, if need be) of software packages installed. In your example, you think uninstalling means deleting the executables and data files. In both cases, you're missing the point - uninstalling an application should be done through an appropriate tool. When you ask the question, "How do I uninstall a program?" for a common user, the answer always is:
For windows, it's control panel\add/remove programs
For *nix, it's the standard system administration tool you've always used for everything else.
Don't go mucking around deleting files. This isn't a Linux-only idea.
Confusing and frustrating in my opinion.
What's confusing/frustrating about double-clicking on a package (.exe,.rpm,.deb) and telling the prompt, "Yes, please install this" ? What's confusing/frustrating about using add/remove programs (or a similar *nix tool) to say, "Please uninstall this"? I think the disconnect here is not the OS, it's you.
It's not Ad Hominem when the person's employment dictates an ulterior motive; e.g. the information about the person is no longer irrelevant. The person making the argument is important in this case, because there clearly is an agenda for him to push. Ad Hominem only applies to irrelevant information about the person.
This guy makes a good point. You apparently have a wonderful job. Not all of us are so fortunate. I'm certainly not a yes-man, but I don't work very hard at shooting down bad ideas unless they start venturing into the realm of the impossible. I've been bitten too many times by insecure managers who take it personally when I voice a concern.
In other words, not a good example to support your argument.
Why's that? I've never had my driver's license suspended because a non-illegal activity I performed behind the wheel of a vehicle was "suspicious". I've never had my automobile confiscated indefinitely because some terrorist somewhere used the same type of vehicle. Freezing accounts because of large transfers is baloney, and ought to be illegal.
Your analogy would only work if computer programming and IT services were as interchangable as wheat and oil between countries. India generally produces sub-par IT-related workers.
Outsourcing is promoting even more separation between rich and poor. I thought that the American Dream was centered around doing your job well and getting promoted up through the ranks so you can retire a wealthy man. Apparently, that only applies to the Americans whose paychecks get bigger as business costs get smaller, leaving all of us hourly-wage earners (or salary earners) screwed. I can't get promoted no matter how well I do because there's a Mohandas-Ghandi-sound-alike who produces crap code that meets the immediate need with no regard for the future, who also accepts a third (or less) of what i earn. I write better code than the Indians and Chinese contractors that I work with. Everyone (including my managers) knows this, yet I'm still getting passed up for monetary incentives that I've rightfully earned, because there's always someone that will work cheaper. The American Dream apparently means for me that I work an 8-to-5 plus on-the-side contracting plus pinching pennies just to get by and support my family. Wait, the potential for wealth is there for me how?
You make a convenient over-simplification. The most prominent problem in software development is short-sightedness; making rash cut-the-fat decisions that actually introduce more fat. The ROI for most corporate software projects experiences the same effect as my blood sugar after eating a candy bar: a sudden spike followed by an inevitable crash. Good software development practices ensure sound code today and tomorrow, which keeps the ROI coming in year after year. I do find it interesting that corporate obesity and gluttony is such a problem in light of this analogy.
The real software developers are the architects and the engineers. Are you going to see a skyscraper designed and built by amateurs? Probably not. Are you going to base your shipping company's transportation infrastructure on automobiles that were designed, built, and maintained by amateurs? Definitely not. However, that shouldn't keep amateurs from believing that they can (and should) take part in some DIY home remodeling and automobile maintenance.
The same thing applies to code. I know that the state agency I work for requires a maintenance log (maintained by professional mechanics) for all its vehicles. Furthermore, these vehicles have to be purchased in a particular way, they need certain types of warranties, etc. I believe that code that is depended upon in a business environment should follow the same guidelines. It needs to be professionally built and maintained. There needs to be a professional software developer accountable for the code. You can't hold a secretary responsible for the quality of code (s)he writes. However, there's nothing wrong (IMHO) with that secretary keeping her daily duties in order with some average-Joe-oriented DIY databases, spreadsheets, and forms. The only conditions to doing so are that she needs to understand that she's not an expert (e.g. can't be relied on to build multi-user business systems), and she needs to understand how to make sure that her data is backed up. Amateur is fine, as long as the amateur (and those who might rely on their work) realizes that they're creating amateur work.
The parent referred to the Access database problem. Should the department rely on the home-grown Access database solution? Probably not. Does the department have the budget to purchase development time to develop an alternative system? Again, probably not. I don't think there's a technology solution that solves the home-grown Access database problem; it's a matter of business processes.
Let me be the first to contradict this post. In the SF Bay Area right now software companies are scrambling to find good local Software Developers. There are more open positions and a steep increase in compensation as the competition heats up.
Anecdotal evidence does not a solid proof make. You'll probably find more people here who are PMs getting less than $80k, or are the poor souls under such PMs getting paid even less (myself included in the latter of those categories).
[T]he market is correcting for incorrect salaries and paying employees their real market value....
No, the market is correcting for incorrect salaries and paying employees less than market value. The market says I'm worth between $15k and $30k more than I earn now, and my situation is certainly not for lack of effort. I'm submitting resumes and interviewing all the time. I get paid the equivalent of an assembly-line auto factory worker when I should be earning what the engineers who designed the cars earn. The IT market is screwed up because companies are still squeamish to invest in IT after the bubble burst. Meanwhile, everyone in entry-level IT is getting treated like the dumbest monkey in the tree with no opportunities to prove themselves otherwise.
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm two years out of college with a CS degree, having to deal with the general incompetence of the hordes of unskilled programmers that are the norm in outsourced IT, and getting paid crap wages because the work I do has more long-term ROI than short-term.
The thing that corporations are failing to realize is that they think they want software engineers, but they really want code monkeys. When a software engineer says, "hey, that's a bad idea, let's engineer a solution that will work well," the CTO fires him and hires a code monkey with a Mohandas Ghandi accent that says, "I will code whatever you are to be liking," gets unmaintainable crap software as a result, and then gets patted on the back for saving $30,000/year because the guy from India will work that cheap. The software engineer would've taken longer, but would have produced better code that would still be in use whenever the system needed new features two or three years down the road. You can't measure that kind of ROI except in hindsight. Meanwhile, the people who should be making "the big bucks" because they're adding long-term stability to the companies that employ them (by producing quality products) are stuck in degrading, demoralizing full-time jobs and removing malware from their neighbors' PCs on the side because their 8-to-5 doesn't make all the ends meet.
So how am I, as a CS graduate with three years' experience in the software industry (I worked in software in college as well) with a 3.5 GPA and some post-graduate work, supposed to convince a potential employer that they should pay me what I'm really worth, all on the good faith that I'll produce software that will save money three years down the road, rather than hiring the guy who will work for half the salary that I'm asking and produce quick-and-dirty software that meets today's need but falls apart tomorrow? The short answer is that I don't. Nobody making the serious budget decisions in IT has the foresight to hire competent programmers and pay them enough to keep them focused and dedicated to their work. Therefore, most proprietary software in the world right now sucks, and IT budget-makers can't tell the difference between a good programmer and an idiot. Ultimately, the idiot programmers are kept around because they are the IT equivalent of yes-men and tell their employers what they want to hear.
This is hardly the point - apparently OS X (or some portion of it, at least) understands that the file is not a movie, but a shell script. It's not amongst the "safe files". It's either:
Safari's fault for attempting to execute an unsafe file (e.g. not querying the OS properly to really discover if the file is "safe" or not).
OS X's fault for executing files themselves instead of opening them in the appropriate application.
IMNSHO, the expected behavior of Secunia's demo should be QuickTime complaining that it doesn't understand the format of the.mov file. Preventing Safari from automatically opening safe files is putting your finger in the dike. It's a breach that needs to be fixed.
Never trust a skinny chef. If a chef won't eat their own concoctions(sp?), you probably shouldn't either. If knowing the scientific details of love makes it less rewarding, it's probably not that great to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
Then what the hell am I paying $80/month for?
Don't back-talk your pimp!
*smack*
... it's just this easy to break into a Kensington laptop lock.
Don't forget that science should continually re-test hypotheses. For instance, one could hypothesize that swallowing small, roundish, brightly-colored objects reduces fever. Statistically, this is going to turn out false. However, if your subjects swallow the right kind of small, roundish, brightly-colored object each time, the results would be different.
Perhaps this prayer study is a too general to be definitive....
This new thingy is going to kill the iPod just like Microsoft killed SPAM - they're going to redefine 'kill'. I suppose they'll put an EKG on an iPod and declare it dead.
For the Shadowrun fans out there, perhaps the Awakening is coming a year late?
And your description here indicates that you understand neither the Windows nor the *nix way of doing things.
Windows: What if one of those windows applications also installs a service that's running on your box? What's going to happen when you delete "Program Files\App Name"? What about all those registry entries? What about the entry in "Add/Remove Programs"? What about dependencies? To me, this is why users shouldn't be deleting program files, and part of the reason why windows asks, "Hey, this is an executable. You really, really, REEEEEAAAAALLLY sure you want to delete it?"
Unzipping AppName.zip into a new directory in Program Files, then later removing the whole directory is quick, easy and clean.
I've never seen this done. Ever. And I wouldn't want it this way. I kinda like having stuff accessible in my Start menu. This is why installers exist - the presence of a piece of software on a system goes beyond just the executable(s) and data files. Software has to be installed into the target system. An engine that sits in the bed of a pickup truck isn't installed, and isn't going to be very useful for moving the truck around.
Linux: Did you install from source? If so, did the source installation come from a ports tree or similar? If so, it created an entry in the package database, which keeps track of how to uninstall the software. If you installed bare source outside of a ports tree, then you're responsible for either:
- Keeping the source code around, so you can do a 'make uninstall'
- Keeping track of what files were added/removed/modified manually.
In either case, you're a proficient enough user to understand how to build from source, you should be able to understand how to administer a system with software built-from-source. Talking about binary packages after all this is a moot point - you use the package manager to uninstall the package. Why would you uninstall something using a different tool than you used when you installed it?or
As a for-instance, my desktop system has approximately 380 packages installed. I don't want to scour the unix manpages, makefiles, or anything else (e.g. if I was running windows, the registry) to figure out how to uninstall a program, even though I'm a comptetent, experienced system administrator on Windows, Linux, and a few Unixes. The package management tools on Windows and *nix make it possible to feasibly maintain systems with hundreds (or even thousands, if need be) of software packages installed. In your example, you think uninstalling means deleting the executables and data files. In both cases, you're missing the point - uninstalling an application should be done through an appropriate tool. When you ask the question, "How do I uninstall a program?" for a common user, the answer always is:
- For windows, it's control panel\add/remove programs
- For *nix, it's the standard system administration tool you've always used for everything else.
Don't go mucking around deleting files. This isn't a Linux-only idea.Confusing and frustrating in my opinion.
What's confusing/frustrating about double-clicking on a package (.exe,
getting "e.g." and "i.e." mixed up
/me hangs head in shame ****
You're right; I should've known better.
It's not Ad Hominem when the person's employment dictates an ulterior motive; e.g. the information about the person is no longer irrelevant. The person making the argument is important in this case, because there clearly is an agenda for him to push. Ad Hominem only applies to irrelevant information about the person.
This guy makes a good point. You apparently have a wonderful job. Not all of us are so fortunate. I'm certainly not a yes-man, but I don't work very hard at shooting down bad ideas unless they start venturing into the realm of the impossible. I've been bitten too many times by insecure managers who take it personally when I voice a concern.
Because the "professionals that know better" get fired for disagreeing.
In other words, not a good example to support your argument.
Why's that? I've never had my driver's license suspended because a non-illegal activity I performed behind the wheel of a vehicle was "suspicious". I've never had my automobile confiscated indefinitely because some terrorist somewhere used the same type of vehicle. Freezing accounts because of large transfers is baloney, and ought to be illegal.
linky
Your analogy would only work if computer programming and IT services were as interchangable as wheat and oil between countries. India generally produces sub-par IT-related workers.
Hear, hear!
Outsourcing is promoting even more separation between rich and poor. I thought that the American Dream was centered around doing your job well and getting promoted up through the ranks so you can retire a wealthy man. Apparently, that only applies to the Americans whose paychecks get bigger as business costs get smaller, leaving all of us hourly-wage earners (or salary earners) screwed. I can't get promoted no matter how well I do because there's a Mohandas-Ghandi-sound-alike who produces crap code that meets the immediate need with no regard for the future, who also accepts a third (or less) of what i earn. I write better code than the Indians and Chinese contractors that I work with. Everyone (including my managers) knows this, yet I'm still getting passed up for monetary incentives that I've rightfully earned, because there's always someone that will work cheaper. The American Dream apparently means for me that I work an 8-to-5 plus on-the-side contracting plus pinching pennies just to get by and support my family. Wait, the potential for wealth is there for me how?
So much for the American Dream.
You make a convenient over-simplification. The most prominent problem in software development is short-sightedness; making rash cut-the-fat decisions that actually introduce more fat. The ROI for most corporate software projects experiences the same effect as my blood sugar after eating a candy bar: a sudden spike followed by an inevitable crash. Good software development practices ensure sound code today and tomorrow, which keeps the ROI coming in year after year. I do find it interesting that corporate obesity and gluttony is such a problem in light of this analogy.
The real software developers are the architects and the engineers. Are you going to see a skyscraper designed and built by amateurs? Probably not. Are you going to base your shipping company's transportation infrastructure on automobiles that were designed, built, and maintained by amateurs? Definitely not. However, that shouldn't keep amateurs from believing that they can (and should) take part in some DIY home remodeling and automobile maintenance.
The same thing applies to code. I know that the state agency I work for requires a maintenance log (maintained by professional mechanics) for all its vehicles. Furthermore, these vehicles have to be purchased in a particular way, they need certain types of warranties, etc. I believe that code that is depended upon in a business environment should follow the same guidelines. It needs to be professionally built and maintained. There needs to be a professional software developer accountable for the code. You can't hold a secretary responsible for the quality of code (s)he writes. However, there's nothing wrong (IMHO) with that secretary keeping her daily duties in order with some average-Joe-oriented DIY databases, spreadsheets, and forms. The only conditions to doing so are that she needs to understand that she's not an expert (e.g. can't be relied on to build multi-user business systems), and she needs to understand how to make sure that her data is backed up. Amateur is fine, as long as the amateur (and those who might rely on their work) realizes that they're creating amateur work.
The parent referred to the Access database problem. Should the department rely on the home-grown Access database solution? Probably not. Does the department have the budget to purchase development time to develop an alternative system? Again, probably not. I don't think there's a technology solution that solves the home-grown Access database problem; it's a matter of business processes.
Aha! You've hit the nail on the head. Qualification inflation.
How can the market say otherwise when you are getting paid what you're getting paid?
Because jobs I'm qualified for, that pay $15k to $30k more than I earn now, are going to over-qualified people.
He'd be a troll if it wasn't true.
Let me be the first to contradict this post. In the SF Bay Area right now software companies are scrambling to find good local Software Developers. There are more open positions and a steep increase in compensation as the competition heats up.
Anecdotal evidence does not a solid proof make. You'll probably find more people here who are PMs getting less than $80k, or are the poor souls under such PMs getting paid even less (myself included in the latter of those categories).
[T]he market is correcting for incorrect salaries and paying employees their real market value....
No, the market is correcting for incorrect salaries and paying employees less than market value. The market says I'm worth between $15k and $30k more than I earn now, and my situation is certainly not for lack of effort. I'm submitting resumes and interviewing all the time. I get paid the equivalent of an assembly-line auto factory worker when I should be earning what the engineers who designed the cars earn. The IT market is screwed up because companies are still squeamish to invest in IT after the bubble burst. Meanwhile, everyone in entry-level IT is getting treated like the dumbest monkey in the tree with no opportunities to prove themselves otherwise.
"But there is no room for "C" students anymore."
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that I'm two years out of college with a CS degree, having to deal with the general incompetence of the hordes of unskilled programmers that are the norm in outsourced IT, and getting paid crap wages because the work I do has more long-term ROI than short-term.
The thing that corporations are failing to realize is that they think they want software engineers, but they really want code monkeys. When a software engineer says, "hey, that's a bad idea, let's engineer a solution that will work well," the CTO fires him and hires a code monkey with a Mohandas Ghandi accent that says, "I will code whatever you are to be liking," gets unmaintainable crap software as a result, and then gets patted on the back for saving $30,000/year because the guy from India will work that cheap. The software engineer would've taken longer, but would have produced better code that would still be in use whenever the system needed new features two or three years down the road. You can't measure that kind of ROI except in hindsight. Meanwhile, the people who should be making "the big bucks" because they're adding long-term stability to the companies that employ them (by producing quality products) are stuck in degrading, demoralizing full-time jobs and removing malware from their neighbors' PCs on the side because their 8-to-5 doesn't make all the ends meet.
So how am I, as a CS graduate with three years' experience in the software industry (I worked in software in college as well) with a 3.5 GPA and some post-graduate work, supposed to convince a potential employer that they should pay me what I'm really worth, all on the good faith that I'll produce software that will save money three years down the road, rather than hiring the guy who will work for half the salary that I'm asking and produce quick-and-dirty software that meets today's need but falls apart tomorrow? The short answer is that I don't. Nobody making the serious budget decisions in IT has the foresight to hire competent programmers and pay them enough to keep them focused and dedicated to their work. Therefore, most proprietary software in the world right now sucks, and IT budget-makers can't tell the difference between a good programmer and an idiot. Ultimately, the idiot programmers are kept around because they are the IT equivalent of yes-men and tell their employers what they want to hear.
- Safari's fault for attempting to execute an unsafe file (e.g. not querying the OS properly to really discover if the file is "safe" or not).
- OS X's fault for executing files themselves instead of opening them in the appropriate application.
IMNSHO, the expected behavior of Secunia's demo should be QuickTime complaining that it doesn't understand the format of theNever trust a skinny chef. If a chef won't eat their own concoctions(sp?), you probably shouldn't either. If knowing the scientific details of love makes it less rewarding, it's probably not that great to begin with.
Frist Psot?