Programming takes skill and knowledge. Since when has the programming community itself accepted the fact that programming is a menial task?
Now sure, if the programmer is just typing in code from a 100 page document that already has the code printed on it, then sure, they are a code monkeys. But the last time I checked, programmers still have to think and apply everything they know.
Mopping a floor is a monkey task. Cutting grass is a monkey task. How is programming like either of those tasks? I mean, you can say he is a "monkey doctor" or a "monkey lawyer." But no matter how you view a profession, it doesn't make it true.
My complaint is that there are several people on these boards who seem to take the same view of programming as business managers do. I for one still think that programming takes skill and knowledge.
So where do you work since IT is dead? I still have a job in IT and am actually going on an interview in a week for a better IT position. This is in a rural Southern town.
IT in America is much better than IT in India. For one, we speak the native language and share a similar culture. Being able to communicate effictively and quickly with each other is an important part of the client/employee relationship. I have read several articles on how a firm in America has to add managerial staff to manage the IT firm in India that they are outsourcing to. Time frames are longer, delays are inevitable, and miscommunications are natural due to being half way around the world and speaking a diffirent language. It is also important that everyone is on the same "page." The culture in India is diffirent from our culture. What might be exceptable programming practice or work ethics in India don't necessarily mesh with our ways.
You also have to consider that at the end of the day, you paying someone half way around the world for a product. If you aren't happy with the product, you can't exactly chew someone out unless you want to go all the way to India and pound on someone's desk. There is a time honored tradition in America that a boss wants to look someone in the eye when chewing them out. Wait till a few projects end up in the crapper, and managers will be begin to understand that although it is cheaper in India initally, the product is going to wind up as crap and having to be redone by a good firm.
Don't get me wrong, I think Indian programmers will be great working on projects for Indian based companies. But programming is something that will eventually be declared to be done best by those people closests to the client. I would even consider working on a programming project for someone in Iraq.
I agree. IT is no diffirent than any other sector. The problem is that the IT industry went through this idealic phase where anyone who knew how to turn on a computer was making over $50k a year as a computer programmer. So yes, compared to the 90's the industry would appear to be in a slump. But if you look at the 90's as being the result of stupidity that should never have existed, you will see that the IT industry is just like any other sector. You can make a living in whatever industry you want.
The difference being your expectations. If you are expecting a fantasy land of 20 companies offering you $70k jobs the day you graduate, then you are stuck in the heydays of the 90's. Do what you love knowing that you will always have a job somewhere in the IT industry.
If he can screw up Star Wars, think of what he could do with Star Trek.
Seriously, what is this need to create a huge backstory for these characters, with them all knowing each other? I preffer for these three individuals, Kirk, Spock and McCoy, to be three seperate individuals who led very different and seperate lives before they joined up on the Enterprise.
Maybe even have Kirk have a long history of hating the Vulcans for some reason. (Rascist perhaps.) That would lend more dramatic power to the Kirk/Spock bond many years later.
Have McCoy traveling around the universe with his parents who were entertainers. Live a life two rungs from the bottom of the social ladder. So he decides to become a doctor because everyone admires doctors. Then he turns his back on his parents, who he is ashamed of. Even have the love of his life meet his parents and take their side. She insists that McCoy should love his parents which he can not. So she lives him. At some heartbreak on top of heartbreak. (Sort of puts into perspective his "grouchiness" on the Enterprise.)
Have Spock be anything but the controlled, devout Vulcan on the Enterprise. Maybe he was a wild teen, caught up in drugs and killing people, until he one day woke up to find himself surrounded by the misery of life. He embraced the Vulcan traditions because they gave him stability in life to rise above. Maybe even add in some father-son conflict which we know existed thanks to ST:TNG.
Why in the hell do you dump these three characters at starfleet, and basically try to recreate the same show just with a different setting? Do something new and innovative. Having Kirk and Spock being friends at the academy makes no sense. It dilutes the history that they will have in the future.
Since when do IT guys care about looking nice? Wear glasses to go along with you t-shirt and jeans ensemble. It's not likely that the only thing standing between you and big promotion or that hot secretary is your eyewear.
No way contacts are as comfortable as eyeglasses. I know from exeperience.
And what value do you place on the white car with fancy incons in the navigation system? The Mac crowd will point out the fact that it would cost you a good bit of money to get that on your car. I would point out that I don't want that nor do I want to pay more .
It is a difference in approaches. PC users look at the bells and whistles and see something they don't necessarily won't or need, and something they definitely don't want to pay for. Mac users look at the bells and whistles and can't imagine living without them and thus they see the price as a "value."
That is why any debate on the value or price between a Mac and PC will never bare any fruit. The two sides have two different views of the situation. I will never understand why the Mac crowd can't understand that there are people out there who don't want to pay an extra $200 for a computer, even if it comes with incredible software. This may shock people, but many many many PC users don't use the software that comes with their computers already.
Just by adding software to a computer doesn't mean that you have added any value to customer. I am an IT guy. If the next server I buy costs $200 more than the last simply because it comes with $200 worth of stuff I don't need or won't, I am getting no value. Even if the stuff is worth $200, it is no use to me.
Any comparison of Macs to PCs will never work. The Mac crowd insists on putting an inherent value on all the extras that come with a Mac.
For example, imagine two cars that are the same make, model and year. The first car has a standard transmission, no power windows, and no sunroof. It does have an FM tuner but not a CD player. No power seats. Just a basic standard car that costs $10k.
The second car has an automatic transmission, cruise control, power windows and a sun roof. It has a 5 disc CD changer with powerful speaker system. It has power seats and a custom paint job, with spinning rims. The cost is $20k.
The PC being the standard car and the Mac being the fully loaded car. The Mac owner will point at all the extras they get. The PC owner will point at the price. At the end of the day though, both cars are the same. You strip the Mac of all the extras they charge for, you will get a computer priced similar to a standard PC. You add all the features to the PC and the price goes up to the price point of the Mac.
You can't determine "value" because even if we take it at face value that Mac is a better value, it doesn't mean that everyone has an extra $300 to plunk down on those features. Mac fans are insistent that the extra "value" is worth it. That is like saying that if you buy 10 cars at once you will get a 10% discount. That may be an awesome deal but I don't have that king of money, so that "value" doesn't mean much to me.
For instance, I just recently built a custom PC for myself using a 64 bit CPU, a PCI Express video card and 1 gig of ram. Motherboard, CPU, RAM, Video Card, and case only cost me $350. Can't do that with a Mac. Not even the Mac Mini which wouldn't be as powerful. It may be lacking a couple hundred dollars worth of software, but at least I don't pay for the stuff I don't want.
While this article sesm like a no brainer from the point of view of a search engine needing to return good results, and a surfers attention span, it also has a baring on business.
How important is it to be on the first page of a search result? Important enough to spend $100k a month?
Business speak has appearantly invaded your job title as well. What exactly does a "Systems Administrator" do anyway?
It is just an business term that stands for "the person who does whatever we need with comptuers." The same as "IT administrator", "IT Director", "Technology Administrator", "Computer Specialist" or whatever term some suit decided to give it today.
They used to be called Programmers or Computer Scientists.
This is a classic marketing ploy. Pretend to be "concerned" about the needs of a competing product. In actuality, they are attempting to "re-educate" you. Oh, you have a question about why something doesn't work with Windows? "Well such and such won't work with us. It is best to just use Windows."
True, they aren't going to be that obvious. But the attempt here is to see the concerns of users of a competitors product and best understand how to meet those needs through their own product. Don't think for one second that MS is actually looking for ways to make their products work better with Linux. They are looking for what doesn't work and see if they can turn that into a compelling reason to stay with MS based products.
Since I manage an ISP among other duties, it would be like me offering advice to AOL users, with that advice always boiling down to AOL sucks, use my product which is better. Sure, I can throw in some technical jargon to make it sound legitimate, but it is still just a sales pitch.
Having taken a hardware architecture course, I understand that increasing clock speed does not mean an effective use of processing speed. You are correct.
It is often the instruction set of a CPU that makes the difference, especially if they introduce ways to more efficiently process.
People want to do business with successfull people. People who look like they are successful will be successfull. Image is all that matters. Ask any con artist.
If you look like a million bucks people will listen to every word you say, even if it is stupid. Simply because whatever you say has to have some value, since what you know has made you money. If you dress poorly, people will think that you can't afford to do better. And the reason you can't do better is because you don't know anything useful to warrant a better salary.
Seriously, if you have to choose between Group A who look like they make millions or Group B who look like they owe someone millions, who are you going to choose to do business with.
This applies to all sectors of the market. If I enter a restaurant where everyone is wearing sweat pants and stained T-shirts, then I am going to have a negative opinion of the place. Make them all wear suits and I won't mind paying $20 for a hamburger.
Agreed. The only the that works in the business world is money. Show them where they are not using their money efficently and they will act.
Might have to also show them why the project will fail and waste all the money that was invested into it. If it takes $10k more to complete the project successfully, they are more inclined to increase budgeting. No one wants to fail.
I was going to email the guy and ask him how someone with 22 years of experience in computer engineering and operations could possibly not understand what is involved in creating a webserver. However, as paranoid as this guy is, he may call the FBI on me for harrassment.
To be honest, and this is just me, but this seems more like a marketing ploy. Asking how many employee's a company has seems like more of a survey. Try asking for solutions to your problem, not data from other companies.
Of course, you may be trying to take a corporate survey of other IT departments in order to present it to your company for comparison. If that is the case, you need to be more formal about it. A slashdot discussion board isn't exactly the best data to use and may get you laughed out of the room.
I agree with previous posters, you are a manager. You need to try as hard as you can to get your point across to managment. Use the universal manager's language of charts and reports. Use some of your contacts at other companies to discuss their staffing levels. Talk to contract firms and describe the project you are working on. Ask them to get you a quote for price and man hours. Show your bosses what other companies are charging and their timeframe. There is no way any reputable company will argue with that data.
As a manager myself in a small business I frequently argue with my boss over deadlines and expectations. Don't be afraid to say "No." They won't demote you or fire you. You have to have no fear. A lot of times, people will judge needs by how forceful you are in demanding them. If you put up passive resistance to something, they are going to logically assume that you must not need it that bad.
Just let them know up front that their demands are unreasonable and never waiver. If the project fails, at least you get to tell them "I told you so." Chances are very good they will be out of business within a year.
They scrap it, and then I come along looking for something innovative and don't find it. MMORPGs should start coming in white boxes, with black text that says MMORPG.
MMORPGs have become completly derivative of the genre as a whole. I can generically describe every MMORPG ever created as a game where you create a character, choose a class and then go out and complete missions. With the quests mostly consisting of killing monsters or some other NPC.
Sure, they have tried to throw in distractions such as housing, and guilds and different quest branches. (I.E. questing to gain a title or questing to gain an item, etc..)
I purchased EQ2 recently, because a year or so ago it was described as a unique game, with something different. By that I am referring to the class system where you pick a general class at first and specialize as you gain levels. From a magic user to a priest for example. But no, when I played it, you got to pick your class up front and that was your class for the rest of the game.
I actually think UO is the best MMORPG on the market. It make not look great, but it has way more variety. An Elder Srolls MMORPG would be incredible.
I agree. 60% of code that has to be rewritten would be a major situation at any company and there would be pink slips flying all over the place.
I am wondering what they mean by rewritten. If they mean from scratch, then we are looking at another few years of delays. (How long did it take them to code that 60% in the first place?) If they mean "debugged" or "tweaked" then that isn't so bad.
All major products need a period of testing before launch. Could just be looking at good QA here by Microsoft and not so much a complete boondoggle.
I agree with you. The whole outsourcing thing is a fad. I am not saying the jobs will come back, but the offshoring will slow and eventually halt. The reason being that eventually, the economy in India will improve to such a point that it costs almost the same to do the work over there as it will be to do the work here.
And given all things as equal, why outsource half a world away? The only reason it is done now is cost, because the wages are lower over there. However, since the US is pumping money into the economy over there, it won't be long until they start demanding higher wages to accomodate a higher standard of living. Right now, as long as someone in India has a roof over their head and food on the table they are happy. It doesn't take much money to do that. Just wait until that worker starts wanting a fancy car, a big screen TV, a PS3, a new computer and a new iPod. He will start demanding higher wages and someone in India will give it to him. Then everyone else will start wanting the same wages and eventually the cost of doing business in India is about the same. At which point we move on to the next 3rd world country with a low standard of living. When we pull out of India, it will devestate their economoy, just as it has done ours.
In the meantime, as long as you are a skilled, knowledgeable, personable employee you won't have a problem finding work. Or heck, start your own business .
I consider IT to be a "project" occupation. You stay on board about a year or two, build up your skills in an area the company can offer a lot of training in and then leave for a better deal. If your next employer asks why you left so soon, just explain that you were brought on board to manager various projects that have now completed. It may be stretching the truth, but there is an inherent nature in IT that makes it seem like a "project" based career. Most employers will buy the "project" story.
That way it seems like as long as they have work for you, you will stick around. And if they don't have work for you 2 years from now, you won't take it so badly when they lay you off, because you have been down this road before. Also, jumping ship every few years puts you in the "power" position. It makes it look like you are skilled enough to take command of your own career instead of being a desk jockey.
As well, IT is a performance industry. People don't care who you worked for and when, they only care what experience you have. IT workers are judged on what they get accomplished and what they can do. Even if you are only going to be around a year or so, any reasonable company will hire you because you are great at what you do. They aren't going to pass up one year of great IT service to find someone who will put in 10 years of average service.
Plus, if they are a good company, they will want the best and will do everything in their power to keep you. If they are so worried about "loyalty" that is usually code for "We will work you to death for low wages and then toss you aside in 10 years, just like we did the last IT person." You don't want to work for that company. You want to work for the company that will compensate you to stay around after a year.
Sure, you could do the "20 years at one company thing" but you will get so burned. 20 years of loyal service and they won't hesitate to toss you out as soon as the boss needs to cut costs to buy his new yacht.
I even forgot about the whole resistance movement. Who started the rebellion? Who was the dynamic leader who rallied everyone to the his side in battling the empire on a united front? Sure, there were people who wanted to opposse the empire, but there had to be a few individuals who inspired them to take action even against the overwhelming odds.
Also, if you played the PC games, there are great moments when the first Tie Fighter is delivered to the empiral fleet, or when the Rebels test out the prototype X-wing.
There are plenty, plenty storytelling opportunities.
I agree that the time period has the opportunity for great story telling.
For instance, how many Jedi fought hopeless fights in the name of saving a few people from the rampage of the empire? How many families were torn apart when brothers chose opposite sides in the conflict? How many great scientist and teachers died at the hands of the empire? How many Jedi became broken down old fools only to once again become heroes, if only for one day? How many romances were destroyed by the war? How many mothers lost their sons?
This has all the possibility of WWII and Civil War stories. If done right, there could be so much drama. But it shouldn't be all drama, should have some lighthearted moments from time to time. Don't want it to be too serious. But it can definitely be an engaging time period as people's lives turn from happy normal ones to dark lonely ones.
Sounds to me that it is not a "done" deal. Still room for someone to pull out of the deal. I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet.
Plus, I don't see Fox brining the show back, they already have 16 hours of animated programming, or something like that. Wonder if it will be the Cartoon Network.
Slashdot Mirror
Programming takes skill and knowledge. Since when has the programming community itself accepted the fact that programming is a menial task?
Now sure, if the programmer is just typing in code from a 100 page document that already has the code printed on it, then sure, they are a code monkeys. But the last time I checked, programmers still have to think and apply everything they know.
Mopping a floor is a monkey task. Cutting grass is a monkey task. How is programming like either of those tasks? I mean, you can say he is a "monkey doctor" or a "monkey lawyer." But no matter how you view a profession, it doesn't make it true.
My complaint is that there are several people on these boards who seem to take the same view of programming as business managers do. I for one still think that programming takes skill and knowledge.
So where do you work since IT is dead? I still have a job in IT and am actually going on an interview in a week for a better IT position. This is in a rural Southern town.
IT in America is much better than IT in India. For one, we speak the native language and share a similar culture. Being able to communicate effictively and quickly with each other is an important part of the client/employee relationship. I have read several articles on how a firm in America has to add managerial staff to manage the IT firm in India that they are outsourcing to. Time frames are longer, delays are inevitable, and miscommunications are natural due to being half way around the world and speaking a diffirent language. It is also important that everyone is on the same "page." The culture in India is diffirent from our culture. What might be exceptable programming practice or work ethics in India don't necessarily mesh with our ways.
You also have to consider that at the end of the day, you paying someone half way around the world for a product. If you aren't happy with the product, you can't exactly chew someone out unless you want to go all the way to India and pound on someone's desk. There is a time honored tradition in America that a boss wants to look someone in the eye when chewing them out. Wait till a few projects end up in the crapper, and managers will be begin to understand that although it is cheaper in India initally, the product is going to wind up as crap and having to be redone by a good firm.
Don't get me wrong, I think Indian programmers will be great working on projects for Indian based companies. But programming is something that will eventually be declared to be done best by those people closests to the client. I would even consider working on a programming project for someone in Iraq.
I agree. IT is no diffirent than any other sector. The problem is that the IT industry went through this idealic phase where anyone who knew how to turn on a computer was making over $50k a year as a computer programmer. So yes, compared to the 90's the industry would appear to be in a slump. But if you look at the 90's as being the result of stupidity that should never have existed, you will see that the IT industry is just like any other sector. You can make a living in whatever industry you want.
The difference being your expectations. If you are expecting a fantasy land of 20 companies offering you $70k jobs the day you graduate, then you are stuck in the heydays of the 90's. Do what you love knowing that you will always have a job somewhere in the IT industry.
I agree. Why not make a B5 movie instead of something that has already been run into the ground?
If he can screw up Star Wars, think of what he could do with Star Trek.
Seriously, what is this need to create a huge backstory for these characters, with them all knowing each other? I preffer for these three individuals, Kirk, Spock and McCoy, to be three seperate individuals who led very different and seperate lives before they joined up on the Enterprise.
Maybe even have Kirk have a long history of hating the Vulcans for some reason. (Rascist perhaps.) That would lend more dramatic power to the Kirk/Spock bond many years later.
Have McCoy traveling around the universe with his parents who were entertainers. Live a life two rungs from the bottom of the social ladder. So he decides to become a doctor because everyone admires doctors. Then he turns his back on his parents, who he is ashamed of. Even have the love of his life meet his parents and take their side. She insists that McCoy should love his parents which he can not. So she lives him. At some heartbreak on top of heartbreak. (Sort of puts into perspective his "grouchiness" on the Enterprise.)
Have Spock be anything but the controlled, devout Vulcan on the Enterprise. Maybe he was a wild teen, caught up in drugs and killing people, until he one day woke up to find himself surrounded by the misery of life. He embraced the Vulcan traditions because they gave him stability in life to rise above. Maybe even add in some father-son conflict which we know existed thanks to ST:TNG.
Why in the hell do you dump these three characters at starfleet, and basically try to recreate the same show just with a different setting? Do something new and innovative. Having Kirk and Spock being friends at the academy makes no sense. It dilutes the history that they will have in the future.
Since when do IT guys care about looking nice? Wear glasses to go along with you t-shirt and jeans ensemble. It's not likely that the only thing standing between you and big promotion or that hot secretary is your eyewear.
No way contacts are as comfortable as eyeglasses. I know from exeperience.
And what value do you place on the white car with fancy incons in the navigation system? The Mac crowd will point out the fact that it would cost you a good bit of money to get that on your car. I would point out that I don't want that nor do I want to pay more .
It is a difference in approaches. PC users look at the bells and whistles and see something they don't necessarily won't or need, and something they definitely don't want to pay for. Mac users look at the bells and whistles and can't imagine living without them and thus they see the price as a "value."
That is why any debate on the value or price between a Mac and PC will never bare any fruit. The two sides have two different views of the situation. I will never understand why the Mac crowd can't understand that there are people out there who don't want to pay an extra $200 for a computer, even if it comes with incredible software. This may shock people, but many many many PC users don't use the software that comes with their computers already.
Just by adding software to a computer doesn't mean that you have added any value to customer. I am an IT guy. If the next server I buy costs $200 more than the last simply because it comes with $200 worth of stuff I don't need or won't, I am getting no value. Even if the stuff is worth $200, it is no use to me.
Any comparison of Macs to PCs will never work. The Mac crowd insists on putting an inherent value on all the extras that come with a Mac.
For example, imagine two cars that are the same make, model and year. The first car has a standard transmission, no power windows, and no sunroof. It does have an FM tuner but not a CD player. No power seats. Just a basic standard car that costs $10k.
The second car has an automatic transmission, cruise control, power windows and a sun roof. It has a 5 disc CD changer with powerful speaker system. It has power seats and a custom paint job, with spinning rims. The cost is $20k.
The PC being the standard car and the Mac being the fully loaded car. The Mac owner will point at all the extras they get. The PC owner will point at the price. At the end of the day though, both cars are the same. You strip the Mac of all the extras they charge for, you will get a computer priced similar to a standard PC. You add all the features to the PC and the price goes up to the price point of the Mac.
You can't determine "value" because even if we take it at face value that Mac is a better value, it doesn't mean that everyone has an extra $300 to plunk down on those features. Mac fans are insistent that the extra "value" is worth it. That is like saying that if you buy 10 cars at once you will get a 10% discount. That may be an awesome deal but I don't have that king of money, so that "value" doesn't mean much to me.
For instance, I just recently built a custom PC for myself using a 64 bit CPU, a PCI Express video card and 1 gig of ram. Motherboard, CPU, RAM, Video Card, and case only cost me $350. Can't do that with a Mac. Not even the Mac Mini which wouldn't be as powerful. It may be lacking a couple hundred dollars worth of software, but at least I don't pay for the stuff I don't want.
While this article sesm like a no brainer from the point of view of a search engine needing to return good results, and a surfers attention span, it also has a baring on business.
How important is it to be on the first page of a search result? Important enough to spend $100k a month?
Business speak has appearantly invaded your job title as well. What exactly does a "Systems Administrator" do anyway?
It is just an business term that stands for "the person who does whatever we need with comptuers." The same as "IT administrator", "IT Director", "Technology Administrator", "Computer Specialist" or whatever term some suit decided to give it today.
They used to be called Programmers or Computer Scientists.
This is a classic marketing ploy. Pretend to be "concerned" about the needs of a competing product. In actuality, they are attempting to "re-educate" you. Oh, you have a question about why something doesn't work with Windows? "Well such and such won't work with us. It is best to just use Windows."
True, they aren't going to be that obvious. But the attempt here is to see the concerns of users of a competitors product and best understand how to meet those needs through their own product. Don't think for one second that MS is actually looking for ways to make their products work better with Linux. They are looking for what doesn't work and see if they can turn that into a compelling reason to stay with MS based products.
Since I manage an ISP among other duties, it would be like me offering advice to AOL users, with that advice always boiling down to AOL sucks, use my product which is better. Sure, I can throw in some technical jargon to make it sound legitimate, but it is still just a sales pitch.
Don't be fooled.
Having taken a hardware architecture course, I understand that increasing clock speed does not mean an effective use of processing speed. You are correct.
It is often the instruction set of a CPU that makes the difference, especially if they introduce ways to more efficiently process.
People want to do business with successfull people. People who look like they are successful will be successfull. Image is all that matters. Ask any con artist.
If you look like a million bucks people will listen to every word you say, even if it is stupid. Simply because whatever you say has to have some value, since what you know has made you money. If you dress poorly, people will think that you can't afford to do better. And the reason you can't do better is because you don't know anything useful to warrant a better salary.
Seriously, if you have to choose between Group A who look like they make millions or Group B who look like they owe someone millions, who are you going to choose to do business with.
This applies to all sectors of the market. If I enter a restaurant where everyone is wearing sweat pants and stained T-shirts, then I am going to have a negative opinion of the place. Make them all wear suits and I won't mind paying $20 for a hamburger.
While we are at, I suspect MS is successful because they paid a gognards weight in gold to the Elf King Rehudel.
Oh, and Windows is slow because the hamster inside gets tired. That is why restarting it works so well, because it gives the hamster a rest.
Agreed. The only the that works in the business world is money. Show them where they are not using their money efficently and they will act.
Might have to also show them why the project will fail and waste all the money that was invested into it. If it takes $10k more to complete the project successfully, they are more inclined to increase budgeting. No one wants to fail.
I was going to email the guy and ask him how someone with 22 years of experience in computer engineering and operations could possibly not understand what is involved in creating a webserver. However, as paranoid as this guy is, he may call the FBI on me for harrassment.
To be honest, and this is just me, but this seems more like a marketing ploy. Asking how many employee's a company has seems like more of a survey. Try asking for solutions to your problem, not data from other companies.
Of course, you may be trying to take a corporate survey of other IT departments in order to present it to your company for comparison. If that is the case, you need to be more formal about it. A slashdot discussion board isn't exactly the best data to use and may get you laughed out of the room.
I agree with previous posters, you are a manager. You need to try as hard as you can to get your point across to managment. Use the universal manager's language of charts and reports. Use some of your contacts at other companies to discuss their staffing levels. Talk to contract firms and describe the project you are working on. Ask them to get you a quote for price and man hours. Show your bosses what other companies are charging and their timeframe. There is no way any reputable company will argue with that data.
As a manager myself in a small business I frequently argue with my boss over deadlines and expectations. Don't be afraid to say "No." They won't demote you or fire you. You have to have no fear. A lot of times, people will judge needs by how forceful you are in demanding them. If you put up passive resistance to something, they are going to logically assume that you must not need it that bad.
Just let them know up front that their demands are unreasonable and never waiver. If the project fails, at least you get to tell them "I told you so." Chances are very good they will be out of business within a year.
They scrap it, and then I come along looking for something innovative and don't find it. MMORPGs should start coming in white boxes, with black text that says MMORPG.
MMORPGs have become completly derivative of the genre as a whole. I can generically describe every MMORPG ever created as a game where you create a character, choose a class and then go out and complete missions. With the quests mostly consisting of killing monsters or some other NPC.
Sure, they have tried to throw in distractions such as housing, and guilds and different quest branches. (I.E. questing to gain a title or questing to gain an item, etc..)
I purchased EQ2 recently, because a year or so ago it was described as a unique game, with something different. By that I am referring to the class system where you pick a general class at first and specialize as you gain levels. From a magic user to a priest for example. But no, when I played it, you got to pick your class up front and that was your class for the rest of the game.
I actually think UO is the best MMORPG on the market. It make not look great, but it has way more variety. An Elder Srolls MMORPG would be incredible.
I agree. 60% of code that has to be rewritten would be a major situation at any company and there would be pink slips flying all over the place.
I am wondering what they mean by rewritten. If they mean from scratch, then we are looking at another few years of delays. (How long did it take them to code that 60% in the first place?) If they mean "debugged" or "tweaked" then that isn't so bad.
All major products need a period of testing before launch. Could just be looking at good QA here by Microsoft and not so much a complete boondoggle.
I agree with you. The whole outsourcing thing is a fad. I am not saying the jobs will come back, but the offshoring will slow and eventually halt. The reason being that eventually, the economy in India will improve to such a point that it costs almost the same to do the work over there as it will be to do the work here.
And given all things as equal, why outsource half a world away? The only reason it is done now is cost, because the wages are lower over there. However, since the US is pumping money into the economy over there, it won't be long until they start demanding higher wages to accomodate a higher standard of living. Right now, as long as someone in India has a roof over their head and food on the table they are happy. It doesn't take much money to do that. Just wait until that worker starts wanting a fancy car, a big screen TV, a PS3, a new computer and a new iPod. He will start demanding higher wages and someone in India will give it to him. Then everyone else will start wanting the same wages and eventually the cost of doing business in India is about the same. At which point we move on to the next 3rd world country with a low standard of living. When we pull out of India, it will devestate their economoy, just as it has done ours.
In the meantime, as long as you are a skilled, knowledgeable, personable employee you won't have a problem finding work. Or heck, start your own business .
I consider IT to be a "project" occupation. You stay on board about a year or two, build up your skills in an area the company can offer a lot of training in and then leave for a better deal. If your next employer asks why you left so soon, just explain that you were brought on board to manager various projects that have now completed. It may be stretching the truth, but there is an inherent nature in IT that makes it seem like a "project" based career. Most employers will buy the "project" story.
That way it seems like as long as they have work for you, you will stick around. And if they don't have work for you 2 years from now, you won't take it so badly when they lay you off, because you have been down this road before. Also, jumping ship every few years puts you in the "power" position. It makes it look like you are skilled enough to take command of your own career instead of being a desk jockey.
As well, IT is a performance industry. People don't care who you worked for and when, they only care what experience you have. IT workers are judged on what they get accomplished and what they can do. Even if you are only going to be around a year or so, any reasonable company will hire you because you are great at what you do. They aren't going to pass up one year of great IT service to find someone who will put in 10 years of average service.
Plus, if they are a good company, they will want the best and will do everything in their power to keep you. If they are so worried about "loyalty" that is usually code for "We will work you to death for low wages and then toss you aside in 10 years, just like we did the last IT person." You don't want to work for that company. You want to work for the company that will compensate you to stay around after a year.
Sure, you could do the "20 years at one company thing" but you will get so burned. 20 years of loyal service and they won't hesitate to toss you out as soon as the boss needs to cut costs to buy his new yacht.
I even forgot about the whole resistance movement. Who started the rebellion? Who was the dynamic leader who rallied everyone to the his side in battling the empire on a united front? Sure, there were people who wanted to opposse the empire, but there had to be a few individuals who inspired them to take action even against the overwhelming odds. Also, if you played the PC games, there are great moments when the first Tie Fighter is delivered to the empiral fleet, or when the Rebels test out the prototype X-wing. There are plenty, plenty storytelling opportunities.
I agree that the time period has the opportunity for great story telling. For instance, how many Jedi fought hopeless fights in the name of saving a few people from the rampage of the empire? How many families were torn apart when brothers chose opposite sides in the conflict? How many great scientist and teachers died at the hands of the empire? How many Jedi became broken down old fools only to once again become heroes, if only for one day? How many romances were destroyed by the war? How many mothers lost their sons? This has all the possibility of WWII and Civil War stories. If done right, there could be so much drama. But it shouldn't be all drama, should have some lighthearted moments from time to time. Don't want it to be too serious. But it can definitely be an engaging time period as people's lives turn from happy normal ones to dark lonely ones.
Sounds to me that it is not a "done" deal. Still room for someone to pull out of the deal. I wouldn't get my hopes up just yet. Plus, I don't see Fox brining the show back, they already have 16 hours of animated programming, or something like that. Wonder if it will be the Cartoon Network.