Re: How to perform a health check?

joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0410081058.7c92a679_at_posting.google.com>...

>
> Hmmm, something is bothering me about this (probably something like
> not dealing with SP's that long ago), but I can't put my finger on it,
> so I'll have to say, as usual, you are right.

*now* you lost me! "SP"? Be patient with this old man: just been removed from the tube, watching the local farce that goes by the name of "elections"...

>
> Elegance, yes, academia... go back and look at the
> Tannenbaum/microkernel arguments! Linux was successful precisely
> because Linus hacked out the basic stuff, and allowed distributed
> development.

Yeah, that debate is well known. But the point remains: the hallowed halls of OS development are completely immaterial to Joe Average. The developer or user interface is what counts there. Far away from the subtleties of the interrupt scheduler. The interface of Linux is exactly the same as Unix. With minor lexicaldifferences. Hence its phenomenal takeup by the hacker community: it is so easy to pick up and learn due to the enormous a-priori knowledge of Unix. Yet witess how much Red Hat yaps around about "RH certification": of course they do, when it is being promoted by their education services...

> And try to get umpteen years of unix experience past a HRhunter who
> must have linux :-(

HR hunters are the most idiotic IT people around. They have NO CLUE what they are talking about and pass themselves off as industry "experts". They are worse than the Dilbertian damager. I could tell you some stories that would positively scare you. Unfortunately, I cannot do so publicly...

> But really, I've ranted before on how stupid it is to train C
> programmers to write application code. IT as an industry is (well,
> should be) very different in purpose from academia. Now, if there
> were an academia purposed towards industry (in what we are talking
> about here), we might have something.

Let me interject here: there is no such thing, never was and never will be. There is no such thing as an industry called "calculus". Nor one called "physics". Or "chemistry".

What there is is a field of knowledge, by those names. And specific industries that can use the skills of individuals trained in such fields.

IT on the other hand has very little inclination to follow academic standards (after all it's "in" to say someone only "knows the academic view"!). We pay the price for that by having to put up with the HR animals you mentioned before: absolute idiots that in the absence of any academic guidelines and definitions just follow the "news du jour". Or whatever technology pays a bigger kickback.

It is our fault that such individuals have taken over: we have done nothing to create for our industry the same credentials and professional associations that others enjoy. And we continue to do the game of the big companies. I know it sounds "leftist" but believe me: I'am far from one.

> Maybe Daniel's way (specific training plus associations) can
>get there. Unfortunately, what I see
> happening when universities try to get too close to industry, money
> gets in the way of education.

Pause right there: why do you think that is the case? See what I mean?

> I see this happening local to me both
> in the biotech and the computer fields - you know all those rants you
> make about java developers v db types? Guess where it is coming from:
> university/business cooperation means money for buzzwords. (US)
> Universities make big bucks off of intellectual property these days.

It's not just now. It's been there for ages. And it happens in any field, not just IT. Nothing wrong with it, *if* the professionals of that technical field do not accept a dumbing down. What we have done is let HR and makers dumb down the expectations of the industry by accepting proprietary definitions.

How many times have you heard anyone here ask for membership of the ACM, or computer societies, or IEEE? Compare that with how many times you see people ask about OCP certification. Perfectly ludicrous that in a technical field a proprietary "certification" gets more discussion than a professional membership. Yet, I'd rather hear what the ACM has to say than anything the OCP dishes out, when it comes to database technology. And so would anyone with half a brain and some background in the industry.

> Good for some people, but I don't think it is good for real academia
> in the long term, it tends to create conservative cabals. But of
> course, IP is it's own ball of worms.

Yup. Very much so. I do believe it is our collective fault for it being so. Instead of showing a united front against attempts to cheap-down our professional categories, what we do is lie low and let every HR lunatic or software company ride us. In the name of not "making waves". Bingo: the result we see now.

Like I said: too depressing and I couldn't care less. But it won't go away and it will get worse. Received on Sat Oct 09 2004 - 09:14:13 CDT