__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 16 March 2007 08:32 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ cc ] on Thursday 15 March 2007 23:34 \__
>>
>>>
>>> Not only that, but also to impress co-workers, bosses, customers, etc.
>>> It will depend on where you work naturally. In an environment where
>>> rewards are based on something other than the quality of the work then
>>> of course people would have a tendancy to skimp. But that's any
>>> profession. You guys are assuming that because it's closed source, no
>>> one sees it.
Another important issue is owenership. With CSS you write code to be owned
only by your employer. When you leave the company, say farewell to your
'baby' -- the very same code that you wrote. Oh. Now that I read the text
below I see that Mark addresses the same point.
In conclusion, I refuse to write code which is fruits of my own
work/intellect and then block it out of mind/sight despite the fact that
it's free to replicate. All the code I have been writing remains my property
and, given pursuit for the right job, you are able to convince the
employer/client that sharing of the work with others does not necessarily
impede progress or increase competition for that one person/company. In
fact, the company/client gets attribution, credit, and exposure. If free
software is involved, the paying party will also appreciate reciprocity,
realising that what goes around comes around. You get and you give.
Everybody wins. Everyone is happy and progress is made more quickly owing to
reuse, low entry barriers ($), and sometimes a community (volunteers).
> Not remotely what I said. What I *said* was that when you contribute a
> small part to a larger whole in the proprietary world, you do not get
> credit for it from the wider audience. It is frustrating at times, for
> sure, and certainly has a damaging effect on just how much effort you're
> prepared to put in. Your work is merged with that of others and your
> part is now neither distinct nor discernible. Thus ownership is
> removed. This is standard practice in *all* proprietary companies. I
> know, I've worked for a few.
>
> Of course, the full impact of this does not necessarily become clear to
> everyone until they've been poorly rewarded for their work a few times,
> failed to get credit, or had a project killed for purely political
> reasons, or whatever. The keen youngster will soon realise that no
> matter how many extra hours he or she puts in, there is a significant
> set of limits to how much they will be paid.
Ask a Microsoft employee to provide a sample of code, or a fork of software
s/he worked on. These people spend their entire lives gaining nothing but
cheques (depleted to maintain a balanced bank account). There's no sense of
self improvement, no legacy, nothing to establish a startup with.
Subordinates by 'religion' (and choice).
> <snip>
>>
>> For security reasons (IP), Microsoft is very compartmentalised. One
>> devision is not allowed to see the code of another. And they don't exactly
^
Oops.
>> use open standards to collaborate. I will happily back this with articles
>> I've read, but it could take a while to find.
>>
>>
>
> This is an additional problem with large companies. In fact, it's quiet
^^
Rare typo from Mark. I feel better now. *grin*
> clear that the open-source world manages internal communications far
> more effectively than major corporates do.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: the buttocks is the largest muscle
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
9:20am up 4 days 17:23, 7 users, load average: 1.48, 0.79, 0.56
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
