Well, first I am partially responsible for those decisions. As a senior member of the staff, I and my colleagues pick the next processor, O/S and language. If you get to my age and you are simply a coder, then you are 100% correct. You are at the mercy of management. However, one would hope that after almost 20+ years in the business, that the developer was more of a design lead rather than a coding grunt. I've worked with Motorola, Nokia, TI and many others in their development projects as a consultant. What they're looking for are people who *understand* how things work. The specific processor is rather immaterial if you understand how registers work. The same applies to languages. Some are more restrictive than others, but if you understand the issues associated with programming constructs, Java, Python, C/C++ whatever, it really doesn't matter until you get to efficiency on the processor core. If you're always plugged into AC, then even efficiency can be ignored as long as memory constraints, fan noise, etc. don't come into play. Many of these companies that develop these systems at least *say* they would be willing to hire fresh-outs, if it didn't take so long before they could be useful on a project for more than getting coffee. That's why so many of these jobs require at least 2 years of experience. It takes about that long to learn all of the things they didn't teach you in school. So sure, there is always a possibility that I could be the next one on the chopping block. But, it's my decision to let my skills lapse and my decision to keep my head down, not pay attention to trends and let management make all of my decisions for me. I can certainly see your point, but I don't see that there are fewer embedded systems in the world anytime soon and if US schools can't produce folks who can develop these systems, then someone else will and we'll see more jobs leave the US.
Hmm... I suppose you haven't noticed the proliferation of embedded devices you come into contact with every day. Cell phones, set-top boxes, NAS appliances, printers, wi-fi access points, your car... You would make it sound as though all of those devices simply develop themselves. There are thousands of developers who make a very decent wage here in the US that are helping to develop those devices. Companies like Google, Danger, even Apple are involved with embedded development and not paying the slave labor wages you're talking about. And, as a happily employed 40-something developer, I can tell you that the biggest problem we typically encounter is finding smart folks who don't require 2 years of retraining before they can become productive on a project. If you don't want to be an embedded developer, then don't. Not everyone derives enjoyment from watching their "thought" become real and have people appreciate what they've done. But, don't assume that all embedded developers are working in sweat shops for no pay. That's simply not true.
You're having a hard time finding a job because of what's happened to the education system. It takes roughly two years to learn via on-the-job-training what the university should have been teaching you in the first place. It's a cycle that needs to be broken before it can get better. That's why the original article has a call to action of the Gov't, industry groups, and the universities to get together and discuss how to fix this before it's too late for US computer technology.
Although it would be wonderful to live in the utopianistic 23rd Century where everything is free and intellectual property doesn't exist, we've got a long way to go before we get there. Consequently, companies that build products still believe that they have secrets they would rather not have their competitors have access to. The idea of forcing all drivers to be GPL'd is insane. You'd drive away companies like Sony, Motorola, Nvidia and the like that have products that we want to be running Linux. If you force everything to be GPL, then don't you see that you're playing right into Micro$ofts hands? This is exactly the FUD that they've been spreading for years about Linux. If Linux is to be successful in the marketplace, we need the kinds of products that enourage people to switch to Linux. If we can't convince the corporate world that their CODECs and custom IP can be protected, then they won't switch to nor support Linux. Subsequently, we all lose.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, first I am partially responsible for those decisions. As a senior member of the staff, I and my colleagues pick the next processor, O/S and language. If you get to my age and you are simply a coder, then you are 100% correct. You are at the mercy of management. However, one would hope that after almost 20+ years in the business, that the developer was more of a design lead rather than a coding grunt. I've worked with Motorola, Nokia, TI and many others in their development projects as a consultant. What they're looking for are people who *understand* how things work. The specific processor is rather immaterial if you understand how registers work. The same applies to languages. Some are more restrictive than others, but if you understand the issues associated with programming constructs, Java, Python, C/C++ whatever, it really doesn't matter until you get to efficiency on the processor core. If you're always plugged into AC, then even efficiency can be ignored as long as memory constraints, fan noise, etc. don't come into play. Many of these companies that develop these systems at least *say* they would be willing to hire fresh-outs, if it didn't take so long before they could be useful on a project for more than getting coffee. That's why so many of these jobs require at least 2 years of experience. It takes about that long to learn all of the things they didn't teach you in school. So sure, there is always a possibility that I could be the next one on the chopping block. But, it's my decision to let my skills lapse and my decision to keep my head down, not pay attention to trends and let management make all of my decisions for me. I can certainly see your point, but I don't see that there are fewer embedded systems in the world anytime soon and if US schools can't produce folks who can develop these systems, then someone else will and we'll see more jobs leave the US.
Hmm... I suppose you haven't noticed the proliferation of embedded devices you come into contact with every day. Cell phones, set-top boxes, NAS appliances, printers, wi-fi access points, your car... You would make it sound as though all of those devices simply develop themselves. There are thousands of developers who make a very decent wage here in the US that are helping to develop those devices. Companies like Google, Danger, even Apple are involved with embedded development and not paying the slave labor wages you're talking about. And, as a happily employed 40-something developer, I can tell you that the biggest problem we typically encounter is finding smart folks who don't require 2 years of retraining before they can become productive on a project. If you don't want to be an embedded developer, then don't. Not everyone derives enjoyment from watching their "thought" become real and have people appreciate what they've done. But, don't assume that all embedded developers are working in sweat shops for no pay. That's simply not true.
You're having a hard time finding a job because of what's happened to the education system. It takes roughly two years to learn via on-the-job-training what the university should have been teaching you in the first place. It's a cycle that needs to be broken before it can get better. That's why the original article has a call to action of the Gov't, industry groups, and the universities to get together and discuss how to fix this before it's too late for US computer technology.
Although it would be wonderful to live in the utopianistic 23rd Century where everything is free and intellectual property doesn't exist, we've got a long way to go before we get there. Consequently, companies that build products still believe that they have secrets they would rather not have their competitors have access to. The idea of forcing all drivers to be GPL'd is insane. You'd drive away companies like Sony, Motorola, Nvidia and the like that have products that we want to be running Linux. If you force everything to be GPL, then don't you see that you're playing right into Micro$ofts hands? This is exactly the FUD that they've been spreading for years about Linux. If Linux is to be successful in the marketplace, we need the kinds of products that enourage people to switch to Linux. If we can't convince the corporate world that their CODECs and custom IP can be protected, then they won't switch to nor support Linux. Subsequently, we all lose.