[CLUE-Talk] The Microsoft penalty that isn't - Tech News - CNET.com

[Sean LeBlanc]

On 04-17 12:37, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Chris K. Chew wrote:
> 
> > I made the comment a while back at how businesses mysteriously loose their
> > common sense when it comes to computers.  Business tactics and product
> > failures that would  normally kill a company in other industries, instead
> > elevate tech companies into a larger market share.
> 
> It's not just businesses - people in general have this conception of
> computers as a mystical force that they simply will never comprehend.
> 
> I've worked at a college where people who have earned a PhD are
> frozen at a dialog box with only one possible option. When presented
> with a dialog box that tells them there's been a crash, and the only
> button available says "ok" they don't know what to do.

Hmmm. A PhD in what, though? A PhD in itself is hardly a testament to much -
there are some really dubious majors out there. If they were PhDs in
math/science/engineering, that's scary. If they were PhDs in 18th century
French Lit., well...

> > I feel as though this is a sign of our time, in that our society is
> > progressing towards a state where people work solely in a
> > "productivity-niche", becoming less of the renaissance man, and relying on
> > the experts of particular fields for service.  For example, consider the
> > dentist who knows teeth but can't work on his car and thus employs someone
> > else to work on his car for him.  I can see the benefits of this kind of
> > symbiotic system, namely greater productivity as a whole, and I support it.
> 
> I can't say that I agree entirely with this. For one thing, people are
> increasingly pigeonholed. I'm currenly looking for a full-time job.
> I'm going to have a devil of a time finding a good job because I'm
> a generalist, not a specialist. Without sounding immodest, I think I'd
> be a great person to have at any small company - I can admin servers,
> write press releases or produce marketing materials, I've been a
> manager for several years, done product purchasing and negotiation
> and production in radio and television - just to name a few. But since I
> haven't chosen to overspecialize, I don't fit any headhunter profiles.
> If I look for a job as a journalist, most publications will assume I'm
> not really a journalist because my professional experience has largely
> been writing about computers. If I apply for an admin job, companies
> will look at my resume and say "oh, but you're a writer."

I couldn't agree more with this - I've worked as a software
developer/engineer/coder/whatever the current en vogue term is for it these
days for almost eight solid years post graduation, with a smattering of
co-op and workstudy jobs before that. In other words, I'm HIGHLY specialized
esp. from a 20,000 foot view. But I can attest that even within the
relatively small niche of programming, you have this nonsense. HR and
headhunters would prefer to have someone 2 years out of school doing X
language on only one plateform than someone who has 30 years experience
coding with W,Y, and Z languages on A,B, and C platforms. It's absolutely
ridiculous. I realize headhunters have less play in this area because of
clients perceived needs, but HR people should know better.

What's even worse, in the recent past, I've had a headhunter who wanted to
submit my resume for a *QA position* for a JSP project rather than as a "JSP
developer" (a bone-headed title in itself) since she didn't see enough JSP
on my resume - for those who don't know, JSP is Java Server Pages...you code
in Java, in other words. I tried to explain that to her, but she didn't seem
to give a whit. I have 2.5 years experience of Java and a certification, but
apparently couldn't master JSP (even though, IMHO, it's easier than the
other aspects of Java I have done like Swing, EJB, etc). So, even WITHIN the
same language, and the same "platform", I still had issues trying to land
work because of some buzzword mis-compliance. And don't even get me started
on the "oh, you worked in PowerBuilder 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0, but I don't see any
6.0 on here", or the "oh, you haven't done C for over a year now" - what is
that?  I hate being classified as a "Java developer" or, "PowerBuilder
developer" or "C developer", or "PHP developer",  I prefer just "software
developer". 

Semantics, but as you say below, a huge difference. I hate to be
pigeonholed.  The sad thing is that when you are talking to some folks, it's
actually a detriment in their eyes that you worked on a variety of different
projects because you can't be pigeonholed and sold to their client or their
boss as such. It's hard to find jobs or gigs where you are finally permitted
to wear many hats. 

I find it amazing headhunters can continue to be
so bad at what they do - yeah, yeah, I know there are those out there that
know what they are doing at don't come off as used car salesmen, but they
are hard to find. When I do find them, I sure whip out the black book, I can
tell you. 

Coding is coding is coding. The older programmers who have been doing, say,
functional programming for the past 20 years can and will learn OOP if given
the chance. People writing JCL can learn event-driven programming. I can't
understand how the industry was crying for more H1-B's, and at the same time
kicking older programmers out the back door. The older programmers probably
had infinitely more to offer than the
I-just-graduated-from-highschool-and-I-know-VB folks, too. Or the
"webmasters" who knew Homesite or FrontPage, some HTML markup, and little
else.

> Not to mention that the ability to adapt and learn is no longer valued.
> Most companies want to hire someone who has done the same task over
> and over again, if you haven't done job X for ten years, they don't
> want to talk to you.

Yep. See Above. Absolutely insane. No aptitude tests have ever been given to
me on a job interview for my entire career. Anyone hiring or managing people
in software absolutely needs to read Peopleware, Mythical Man-Month, oh, the
list goes on and on... me, bitter? Nah. :) For those of you who have read
Peopleware, remember the juggler analogy? I have yet to see the
trial-by-fire anywhere.

> Obviously, not everyone can be a mechanic or dentist (self-dentistry
> would be damn scary anyway...) but we've gotten too far from the
> DIY attitude that made this country great in the first place.

Yes, people need to re-gain that sense of empowerment. I don't know how we
get from where we are now to there, though.  I'm a complete dolt when it
comes to cars, but lately I've been consciously trying to take a whack at
the things I think I can handle on my car. I wish more folks would approach
computers and especially software the same way. It's not like other fields -
in most cases, there is no possiblity of loss of life or limb.

> > But I feel that it will not work for us due to some other trends occurring
> > at the same time.  People are also losing their ability to think critically
> > and make their own solutions.  People are becoming unable to apply lessons
> > learned in the industry where they are a producer to an analogous industry
> > as a consumer.  Consequently, suave marketing campaigns have become more
> > effective than a quality product or service.
> 
> Exactly - the idea of learning something like Linux - which might
> take a while, but save major money in the long run, is eschewed in
> favor of a quick fix that is less robust and far more costly.

My favorite is the "TCO" so marketed to and touted by PHBs - the whole
message seems to be "use this, buy our product/service, and never have to
hire anyone who has advanced beyond well-trained monkey (read: expensive)".

> > It should be very important to us that people either learn about computers
> > or learn to act as responsible, thoughtful consumers.  The same goes with
> > the accounting, automobile, food, medical, and construction industries, in
> > as much as we rely on these industries for (basic) survival in this system.
> 
> I feel a little RMS-ish saying this, but...
> 
> Customers, please - not consumers. Part of being responsible and thoughtful
> is understanding that you have the power of your dollars. Consumer
> implies that you're little better than cattle lining up to the trough.
> Customers have the power to take their business elsewhere, consumers take
> what's given to them. Yes, it's a matter of semantics, but remember
> that language is responsible for the way that we think. If we think of
> ourselves as customers rather than consumers - and demand to be recognized
> as such - we'll have already won half the battle.

Yes, language defines how we think and act, there is no doubt. Good point on
your part. In the larger picture, I have always loathed the term "consumer"
myself. It's all in the semantics, though - why do you think M$ calls it a
"service pack" when it's really a set of bug fixes?

-- 
Sean LeBlanc:seanleblanc at attbi.com Yahoo:seanleblancathome 
ICQ:138565743 MSN:seanleblancathome AIM:sleblancathome 
(1) Everything depends. (2) Nothing is always. (3) Everything is sometimes.