You're forgetting the flip side to proprietary work. In a proprietary environment, if the company doesn't like your work, there's very little recourse for them. They either have to retrain you, or fire you and find another developer (all of which takes time and money). In the Open Source world, if your code doesn't meet the project's standards, its simply rejected. At that point, either you improve the code, or someone else steps up.
Finally, you're forgetting the element of passion. Money isn't the only (or even the most important) motivation for people. All successful software projects (proprietary and open source) understand this. By maintaining high standards, successful projects allow people to have a sense of accomplishment when their code makes into a release. This challenge keeps people from feeling as if their contributions are meaningless additions to a hairball of code.
To be fair, this is where working at small companies that are willing to give references helps. Too often, if a prospective employer calls a previous employer's HR department, all they'll get is a simple confirmation that you worked there, with no other details. However, if you work at several smaller companies, you're likely to get real reviews - maybe giving you the "in" that you need with the current prospect.
An employee that is 10x better than others CAN be replaced; by 10 others.
Even if the employee can't be replaced by 10 others, management isn't going to fire the 10 people they just hired and rehire the old employee at his or her previous salary. Doing so would be a blatant admission of failure by whoever did the original firing and replacement.
Lets be honest here. How many of us are actually "top-flight"? I'd be willing to bet a whole lot less than the number of people who respond in the affirmative. Given that we're not likely to be top-flight, no matter what we think, your advice has relevance for only a vanishingly small number of admins, most of whom probably don't need to hear it anyway. As for the rest of us, we do need to worry about the job market. There are going to be fewer jobs, as companies find that they're able to limp along with two or three fewer developers and sysadmins than is optimal.
Do you live in outback Australia, where the nearest neighbor is 30 miles away? If so, the GPS probably isn't available anyway.
Actually, given the lack of terrain obstacles, like tall buildings, mountains, and the like, GPS would probably be more accessible in the Australian Outback than in many other places in the world.
I think you're the one who needs the map. India is pretty far east. West Asia (or the 'Near East') is Turkey. The 'Middle East" is Iran (Persia), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. and the Far East is India, China Japan and the rest.
Even in the '70s there were many computer and electronic systems that were pretty fundamentally hostile to user interaction. If you read 'The Design of Everyday Things', you'll find numerous examples.
I agree with your point about commercial tools having better user interfaces than open source tools, but I totally disagree with the specific example you used. I and many others have found Apache's text-based configuration easier to navigate than the multi-tabbed mess that is the configuration tool for IIS. For example, you can open up httpd.conf in any text editor and use the find function to immediately skip down to the setting you want to change. To do the same with IIS requires you to click through any number of tabs and wizards, searching for the one drop-down, radio-button, or checkbox that controls the feature you want to enable.
As for documentation, I disagree there as well. There are many commercial tools (especially from smaller companies) that have much worse documentation than their open-source counterparts. Open-source software, simply by virtue of being available for everyone to try and experiment with, tends to have many online tutorials as users write about the steps they took to accomplish a task. Commercial software needs to become nigh-ubiquitous (like Photoshop, or Microsoft Office) before people start doing the same.
I agree with your point about commercial tools having better user interfaces than open source tools, but I totally disagree with the specific example you used. I and many others have found Apache's text-based configuration easier to navigate than the multi-tabbed mess that is the configuration tool for IIS. For example, you can open up httpd.conf in any text editor and use the find function to immediately skip down to the setting you want to change. To do the same with IIS requires you to click through any number of tabs and wizards, searching for the one drop-down, radio-button, or checkbox that controls the feature you want to enable.
As for documentation, I disagree there as well. There are many commercial tools (especially from smaller companies) that have much worse documentation than their open-source counterparts. Open-source software, simply by virtue of being available for everyone to try and experiment with, tends to have many online tutorials as users write about the steps they took to accomplish a task. Commercial software needs to become nigh-ubiquitous (like Photoshop, or Microsoft Office) before people start doing the same.
It also helps if you don't treat your operating system as a core part of your belief system. If show the IT department that you're not just being a zealot and there's some reason behind your wanting support, they'll be much more likely to make attempts to meet you halfway.
It also helps to skip the first-line helpdesk entirely and contact someone higher up in the IT department. The helpdesk workers (usually being trained students working for pocket money) may not know how to deal with Linux, but a higher level developer or manager usually will. If you can get through to them, your chances of getting an arrangement are much better. E-mail and in-person visits work better here (in my experience).
And, as far as parental consent is concerned, the company already has it. After all, it was the *parent* that installed this software, implicitly consenting to said data gathering about their child.
There's a reason these stereotypes exist. Its because, in a large number of cases, they're actually true. If nothing else, the success of these companies proves that. The success of "Think of the children!" legislation proves it too.
No one in power is standing up to the parents of America and saying, "Hey, the reason your kids are fat and emotionally maladjusted is because you're too scared to let them go out on their own and make their own decisions." So, its up to people like us to make that point and hammer away at it until it sinks in.
No its not. Presumably, you're still paying for the Exchange seats for those users. Its true that you'll save by not having to buy copies of Entourage for those users, but you're not totally free economically.
That's true, but that's hardly being *free* of Microsoft. You've still got Microsoft in your server room.
And, as I've stated in response to sibling posts, there's little stopping Microsoft from changing the protocol between Outlook and Exchange to make Apple's Mail client obsolete.
Its true that Outlook *currently* uses MAPI and DAV. However, that doesn't have to remain the case. If Microsoft adds a feature to Exchange and Outlook that requires the use of some other protocol, Apple's mail client (and all other clients) will be locked out.
As I said above, unless Microsoft guarantees that the Exchange API will always be fully documented, there's always the chance that new features will use some other protocol (or a modified version of the current protocol). In other words, as long as the protocol remains proprietary, one can never be "free" of Outlook while using Exchange.
Even so, it still doesn't guarantee access to any enhancements that Microsoft may make to Exchange/Outlook. If Microsoft adds a feature that only Outlook can access (e.g. a feature that cannot be accessed via MAPI or Exchange Web Services), then Apple is still frozen out from that feature. So, unless Microsoft commits to completely separating Outlook and Exchange, and making the interface between the two fully documented, now and into the future, there's still the possibility (or, rather, probability) that Apple's mail clients will fall behind Outlook in features.
I'm not sure I understand the article's contention that Exchange support frees Apple users from Microsoft. After all, the Exchange protocol is still proprietary and under exclusive control of Microsoft. As long as this is the case, Microsoft is free to change the Exchange protocol to freeze out third party clients.
Yes, Apple's increased support for the Exchange protocol may improve the user experience when dealing with Exchange servers. However, it does nothing to actually free users from Microsoft.
The problem with that scenario is that, well, it takes 30 days. Even if the cost comes early in the project, that sort of disruption can only be had once or twice before you start incurring significant delays in the final ship date. That's ignoring the fact that you might have to clean up the messed up code that the guy wrote for you during the 30 day trial period.
Unfortunately a bigger sensor needs a bulkier and more expensive camera body. Then you run into the limitation that I described above: a 2 MP camera in your hand is better than the 12 MP camera you left at home.
Slashdot Mirror
You're forgetting the flip side to proprietary work. In a proprietary environment, if the company doesn't like your work, there's very little recourse for them. They either have to retrain you, or fire you and find another developer (all of which takes time and money). In the Open Source world, if your code doesn't meet the project's standards, its simply rejected. At that point, either you improve the code, or someone else steps up.
Finally, you're forgetting the element of passion. Money isn't the only (or even the most important) motivation for people. All successful software projects (proprietary and open source) understand this. By maintaining high standards, successful projects allow people to have a sense of accomplishment when their code makes into a release. This challenge keeps people from feeling as if their contributions are meaningless additions to a hairball of code.
To be fair, this is where working at small companies that are willing to give references helps. Too often, if a prospective employer calls a previous employer's HR department, all they'll get is a simple confirmation that you worked there, with no other details. However, if you work at several smaller companies, you're likely to get real reviews - maybe giving you the "in" that you need with the current prospect.
An employee that is 10x better than others CAN be replaced; by 10 others.
Even if the employee can't be replaced by 10 others, management isn't going to fire the 10 people they just hired and rehire the old employee at his or her previous salary. Doing so would be a blatant admission of failure by whoever did the original firing and replacement.
Lets be honest here. How many of us are actually "top-flight"? I'd be willing to bet a whole lot less than the number of people who respond in the affirmative. Given that we're not likely to be top-flight, no matter what we think, your advice has relevance for only a vanishingly small number of admins, most of whom probably don't need to hear it anyway. As for the rest of us, we do need to worry about the job market. There are going to be fewer jobs, as companies find that they're able to limp along with two or three fewer developers and sysadmins than is optimal.
You'd have thought that Texas Instruments would have learned when the Blu-Ray consortium tried to stop the spread of the '09 F9 ...' key.
Do you live in outback Australia, where the nearest neighbor is 30 miles away? If so, the GPS probably isn't available anyway.
Actually, given the lack of terrain obstacles, like tall buildings, mountains, and the like, GPS would probably be more accessible in the Australian Outback than in many other places in the world.
Hey, I write with a fountain pen too, and I greatly prefer print/italic handwriting to the baroque curliqueues of cursive.
I don't use cursive. Yet, I can take notes just fine on paper. Maybe you should realize that there are other ways of writing quickly than cursive.
I think you're the one who needs the map. India is pretty far east. West Asia (or the 'Near East') is Turkey. The 'Middle East" is Iran (Persia), Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. and the Far East is India, China Japan and the rest.
Microsoft may screw their customers, but it does not blame them afterward :/
Even in the '70s there were many computer and electronic systems that were pretty fundamentally hostile to user interaction. If you read 'The Design of Everyday Things', you'll find numerous examples.
I agree with your point about commercial tools having better user interfaces than open source tools, but I totally disagree with the specific example you used. I and many others have found Apache's text-based configuration easier to navigate than the multi-tabbed mess that is the configuration tool for IIS. For example, you can open up httpd.conf in any text editor and use the find function to immediately skip down to the setting you want to change. To do the same with IIS requires you to click through any number of tabs and wizards, searching for the one drop-down, radio-button, or checkbox that controls the feature you want to enable.
As for documentation, I disagree there as well. There are many commercial tools (especially from smaller companies) that have much worse documentation than their open-source counterparts. Open-source software, simply by virtue of being available for everyone to try and experiment with, tends to have many online tutorials as users write about the steps they took to accomplish a task. Commercial software needs to become nigh-ubiquitous (like Photoshop, or Microsoft Office) before people start doing the same.
I agree with your point about commercial tools having better user interfaces than open source tools, but I totally disagree with the specific example you used. I and many others have found Apache's text-based configuration easier to navigate than the multi-tabbed mess that is the configuration tool for IIS. For example, you can open up httpd.conf in any text editor and use the find function to immediately skip down to the setting you want to change. To do the same with IIS requires you to click through any number of tabs and wizards, searching for the one drop-down, radio-button, or checkbox that controls the feature you want to enable.
As for documentation, I disagree there as well. There are many commercial tools (especially from smaller companies) that have much worse documentation than their open-source counterparts. Open-source software, simply by virtue of being available for everyone to try and experiment with, tends to have many online tutorials as users write about the steps they took to accomplish a task. Commercial software needs to become nigh-ubiquitous (like Photoshop, or Microsoft Office) before people start doing the same.
It also helps if you don't treat your operating system as a core part of your belief system. If show the IT department that you're not just being a zealot and there's some reason behind your wanting support, they'll be much more likely to make attempts to meet you halfway.
It also helps to skip the first-line helpdesk entirely and contact someone higher up in the IT department. The helpdesk workers (usually being trained students working for pocket money) may not know how to deal with Linux, but a higher level developer or manager usually will. If you can get through to them, your chances of getting an arrangement are much better. E-mail and in-person visits work better here (in my experience).
And, as far as parental consent is concerned, the company already has it. After all, it was the *parent* that installed this software, implicitly consenting to said data gathering about their child.
There's a reason these stereotypes exist. Its because, in a large number of cases, they're actually true. If nothing else, the success of these companies proves that. The success of "Think of the children!" legislation proves it too.
No one in power is standing up to the parents of America and saying, "Hey, the reason your kids are fat and emotionally maladjusted is because you're too scared to let them go out on their own and make their own decisions." So, its up to people like us to make that point and hammer away at it until it sinks in.
The response to that will be, "Yeah, our EULA is on our web site. If you want to read it there, you can."
Companies know that the number of people who'll actually go to the website and read the EULA before buying the software will be vanishingly small.
No its not. Presumably, you're still paying for the Exchange seats for those users. Its true that you'll save by not having to buy copies of Entourage for those users, but you're not totally free economically.
That's true, but that's hardly being *free* of Microsoft. You've still got Microsoft in your server room.
And, as I've stated in response to sibling posts, there's little stopping Microsoft from changing the protocol between Outlook and Exchange to make Apple's Mail client obsolete.
Its true that Outlook *currently* uses MAPI and DAV. However, that doesn't have to remain the case. If Microsoft adds a feature to Exchange and Outlook that requires the use of some other protocol, Apple's mail client (and all other clients) will be locked out.
As I said above, unless Microsoft guarantees that the Exchange API will always be fully documented, there's always the chance that new features will use some other protocol (or a modified version of the current protocol). In other words, as long as the protocol remains proprietary, one can never be "free" of Outlook while using Exchange.
Even so, it still doesn't guarantee access to any enhancements that Microsoft may make to Exchange/Outlook. If Microsoft adds a feature that only Outlook can access (e.g. a feature that cannot be accessed via MAPI or Exchange Web Services), then Apple is still frozen out from that feature. So, unless Microsoft commits to completely separating Outlook and Exchange, and making the interface between the two fully documented, now and into the future, there's still the possibility (or, rather, probability) that Apple's mail clients will fall behind Outlook in features.
I'm not sure I understand the article's contention that Exchange support frees Apple users from Microsoft. After all, the Exchange protocol is still proprietary and under exclusive control of Microsoft. As long as this is the case, Microsoft is free to change the Exchange protocol to freeze out third party clients.
Yes, Apple's increased support for the Exchange protocol may improve the user experience when dealing with Exchange servers. However, it does nothing to actually free users from Microsoft.
The problem with that scenario is that, well, it takes 30 days. Even if the cost comes early in the project, that sort of disruption can only be had once or twice before you start incurring significant delays in the final ship date. That's ignoring the fact that you might have to clean up the messed up code that the guy wrote for you during the 30 day trial period.
Unfortunately a bigger sensor needs a bulkier and more expensive camera body. Then you run into the limitation that I described above: a 2 MP camera in your hand is better than the 12 MP camera you left at home.
Yeah, and American's say that the Japanese have strange tastes in their portrayal of sexual acts. Pot meet kettle, I say.