|
Home | Adults | Youths | Toadies Our Program | Our Post | Our Members | Scouting | The ExpNews |
(C) Wed Mar 26 10:10:42 EST 1997 Explorer Post 369
Our Floor is a foot!
Calendar of Events:
|
Micro$oftOff the Net A helicopter was flying around Redmond, Washington, and got lost in the fog. The pilot pulled close to a building where he saw people in the window. He asked his copilot to write "Where are we?" in big, block letters on a piece of paper, and display it for the people in the building to see. The people in the window nodded, then held up a similar sign that said "You're in a helicopter." Without further instruction, the pilot proceeded to the airport and landed. The copilot asked, "How did you figure out where we were?" The pilot replied, "They gave me information that was 100 percent correct and totally useless. I figured it must be the Micro$oft building. I knew my way from there." Quote of the MonthDelaying Destiny Delights the Devil The secret of Leadership is, to consider the team more important than the product. Remember, a good team can develop many products. |
Who makes more money Windows or UNIX Programmers?James D. CorderBased on your personal experience and statistics, where can a good programmer can make more money - in Windows or Unix arena? Unix appeals more to me and is more advanced technically, but I am afraid that it is losing the market share to Windows 95. I want to be in the consulting field. I am a recent college graduate in NYC and have offers to work in both fields. Your insighfull observations are appreciated. Remember that all fields of work are a pyramid! There are more Jrs. on the Bottom and very view Srs. on the top. There is more money in servers than in desk tops: Face it; if one desk top crashes then one employee is out of work. However, if the Server goes down 100s or even 1,000s of employes can not do their job. Now there are more desk tops than servers. Therefore, there are more jobs for developing desk top interfaces than servers. It takes less time to learn Windows than UNIX. But UNIX is more powerful than Windows. You buy the system to fill your needs:
Now think of it as a tool. All of them can deliver a gallon of milk. But some are over kill. All can deliver 6 gallons of milk. But the Moped has to make six trips and others are still over kill. Now lets deliver 1,000,000 gallons of milk: It is time for the freight Train. Ok, the Moped can still do it but it will take 1,000,000 trips. Now how many people in your neighborhood own a moped? Car, Truck, Mac Truck, and/or Train. Ok, not many people are have a moped, those who have them love them, but there just isn't a moped shop on every corner. Now Car Garage/Gas station is on every other corner. Ok, how many places do you see on a daily basis to repair Mac Trucks or Freight Trains? Ok, UNIX vs. Windows: Ok, the average Windows Desk Top Environment Programmer that I have worked with makes about $25,000.00 fresh out of college and will make up to $35/40,000.00 a year. The Average Novel Admin makes between $45/50,000.00 a year The top I have seen: $55,000.00 The average UNIX Jr. System Administrator fresh out of College makes $32,000.00: SA = $55,000.00 Lead SA = $70,000.00 Sr. SA = $104,000.00 As a contractor I bill my services at $125.00 an hour plus expenses. In short: Supply and Demand: There is more of a demand for Windows people but there is a far greater supply than demand. On the other hand there is more of a demand for UNIX dudes than there is a supply... |
The UNIX System AdministratorJames D. CorderSomeone who is a UNIX SA is probably already going to be "good" (at least good enough to hire) right off the bat... Now, I don't know if I would go that far. It depends on what you are going to sell them for:-) I ran into problems where so-an-so had been the "top" System Administrator for company X and therefore, they thought they where a Sr. SA... Or they are good a one large system with hundreds of dumb terminals attached but have never had any time on a "network"... The "single" system SA, the network of under 150 systems, the network of 150 to 1,000 systems and the network of over 1,000 systems are all different... The gig I just left had 15,000 systems. over 1,000 UNIX [Sun] stations. Then the size of the servers one work on is of major importance. I just designed an $8,000,000.00 UNIX Computer. Even if there are 2,000 users poking away at the data base. You could reload the operating system while they where using it. Even if the building was wiped out by a tornado people in another state wouldn't even know that the system was gone. They could still enter the data... (anyone who calls himself a system administrator on his resume must know what he's talking about, I haven't come across any hoaxsters yet) This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Not because they are "fibbing" but because management lumps the "pay" for the System Administrator into one category. This causes a high turnover... If you are a "Lead SA" why should you make the same as a Jr.? When you have been with a company 8 years and are making $45,000.00 and you start a new dude out of school at $32,000.00... I was impressed with AT&T's willingness to allow the "technical" staff to grow alongside of the management. It was possible for a Sr. SA DMTS to make as much as the VP while still be reporting to a Unit manager.
The above is how the Pay should be broken up. A company should have about as many Leads as Unit Managers, Sr. SAs as Officers... The technical pay branch should be the same as the Management branch. However, it usually doesn't happen that way. Far to many companies want to pay all of the "employees" below their Management. However, out of the dozens of resumes... only a few are worth scheduling a interview with... We never received "dozens" of System Administrators' resumes. However, we did get over 150 for the "intern" position. What was sad is the fact that colleges do not teach their students any thing about getting a job. Schools tend not to teach them anything about the field they are going to enter. Or at least this is true in the UNIX System Administration field. Face it: Schools are just a big business. They are after money like everyone else. If you don't believe this, have a student not pay their tuition and see how long they stay in college... If Schools are business then they must go after income. Therefore, [using the company I just left] would they want to teach a program for the 15,000 personal computer users, 3,000 programmers, or 18 UNIX System Administrators... Hence, schools do not teach UNIX system administration. Ok, some students may pick it up on their own while at school... These are the ones that I am looking for. With this as a foundation: I never looked at their college endeavors when highering them. It was useless... I enjoyed reading your note:-) It is nice to find someone that thinks alike. |
Our FloorJames D. Corder $1,200.00
The rest of the room should cost us about an additional $3,800.00. |
More about our Classroom |
Summer CampThe cost for the 1997 Summer camp, if paid before April 1st will be $125.00: There will be an additional $15.00 fee for paying after April 1st. 369 will be attending Camp Chief Logan June 29th through July 5th. Chief Logan Reservation is located in the rolling hills of Southern Ohio, on U.S. Route 35 between Chillicothe and Jackson. Established in 1962, the camp includes wetlands, miles of hiking trails, a lake and acres of evergreen and hardwood forests. In 1978, Chief Logan adopted a radical new program for its summer camp. It started to offer merit badges on an open and flexible schedule. In such a program there are no merit badge classes. The average day has nine hours during which a young Scout can go to any area he wishes to accomplish the advancement goals that he has developed with his troop leaders. They only exception is at areas such as the Waterfront and Rifle Range that offer times when everyone can participate in their programs. The staff is here to work around your schedule. You don't have to work around ours! As an Explorer you get to set your own schedule and activities. There is no need to follow any set progressions. You can work towards your Palms, help the younger Scouts do their advancement, or just lie in a hamic all day! For other information about camp this summer, check out the official homepage |
1997 Scout ShowJames D. CorderExplorer Post 369 has chosen not to attend the 1997 Scout Show. I will be at a business function the day of the event. The majority of the Adults will be helping the Troop. Explorer Post 369's New Classroom Floor Plan! It is our goal to have the funds to build the floor by the end of April and have with new classes in it before school is out! Post Finances
Financial Needs
|
Exploring Recognition DinnerThe Scouter You are cordially invited to the annual Exploring Recognition Dinner: Thursday, May 1, 1997. The program will include a keynote speaker. Induction of the 1997-98 Exploring Officers' Association Officers, and Presentation of awards to the recipients of: Project of the year, outstanding service project of the year, post president of the year, Roger W. Kerkman Post of the year, gold award, district Award of Merit, Hall of fame award, Explorer Leadership award, & Young American Award. I hope we have already turned in our nomination forms. Up-an-Coming Post Expenses12/01/97 Post Charter $30.00 12/01/97 Post Insurance $85.00 Monthly ExpNews $75.00 Up-an-Coming Member ExpensesRegistration 11/01/97 $15.00 |
MIS is like a KitchenJames D. CorderJust as there are more than one type of operating environment within the MIS department, there is also more than one pot to boil in the kitchen. On one burner there is water boiling to cook the vegetables while on another burner there is boiling oil to deep fry the fish. So to is the world of the UNIX workstation and the Personal Computer. Far to often the inexperienced backyard barbecuer enters the gourmet kitchen and offers up to the chef the space saving idea of combining the Boiling oil and water. They both are on a burner [network]. They both are to be consumed [employees]. They both are in a stainless steal pot [Computer]. But we all know what happens when you mix boiling oil and water. They explode. Asking a UNIX System Administrator to work on a PC is like asking a gourmet chief to work at McDonalds! The best chiefs will quit. This will leave the restaurant with only a McDonalds menu. |
Standardizing the Enterprise: Countering Productivity?Andy P. Drake"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." -Ralph Waldo Emerson Emerson could have never predicted that his famous quote would apply so readily in the business world more than 100 years after he said it. Indeed, business today is rapidly seeking solutions to increase productivity and get the most bang for every dollar spent on software, hardware and office solutions. But is this coming at a price? Quite possibly. Many businesses, especially large companies with diverse software needs and many users to support, are looking for "all in one" software packages to standardize on in order to reduce training costs and provide some kind of order on the desktop. Products like Lotus Smart Suite, Microsoft Office, and Corel Office are all absorbing the traditional market for individual applications like Word, Word Perfect, FrameMaker or 1-2-3. By integrating the software product together, the idea is that businesses receive the products they want, all in one package, all from one vendor, and with one source for sales and support. This may seem like a great idea, afterall, with one vendor to deal with, there shouldn't be a problem with buying in bulk or getting the necessary commitment that large organizations need for training or end user support. However, there are serious consequences with "standardizing," including losing much of the productivity and flexibility gained from different vendors. First, by its very nature, the issue of multiplatform standardization is a difficult one to solve. Many firms standardize on a software package or bundle that simply may not be available on all machines across an enterprise, or may require extra software to run correctly. This is the first fallacy of standardization, the thinking that the greatest common denominator of machines is the dominant architecture in an enterprise and therefore a package that runs one set will run on the rest. Moreover, even if a particular machine exists in greater numbers than another, the real question comes down to money. If a minority of machines earns the majority of profit, standardizing on an application suite that isn't available on the most profitable machines can seriously cripple the idea of an overall enterprise solution. As well, there is the "monopolistic vendor" concept to deal with. Although the software vendor is eager to get the sale, it isn't until after the paperwork is signed that the reality sets in: once you've committed in a major fashion to one particular product, no matter how solid or feature laden, the vendor has you at their mercy for support. It is an idealistic situation to think that one company's software problem translates into immediate action on the part of the software firm as other firms may not use a feature or experience problems at all, and your sale, while important, may not warrant huge upgrades or bug patches. Even more problematic is productivity among employees when a "one size fits all" product is purchased. Quite simply, employees in one section of a business may not like using a particular software application for one reason or another, and this in itself impedes productivity. If a particular spreadsheet for example, takes too long to calculate, is too hard to program, or crashes on a given set of hardware, its overall enterprise value is diminished even though other business units may find it satisfactory. This leads to the second great fallacy of standardization: although marginal productivity may increase across a business by standardizing, what is foregone are improvements in productivity in individual units. As an aggregate, individual business unit productivity increases vastly outperform standardized solutions taken as a whole. A basic solution to all the above problems is dispelling pointless standardization and allowing employees some freedom to tailor their own requirements, as long as they meet the great business functions of the unit or enterprise. The MIS staff should make sure that employees are brought in early on in the software evaluation phase, and asked to use a couple of different options, rating them for positives and minuses on various points of normal operation. This does not have to be all consuming, as the MIS staff should do most of the weeding out well before options are ever presented to employees. The MIS staff can narrow down packages which do or do not generally meet the requirements of a particular operation, and then come up with a set of packages which do, and meet budget guidelines. From there, employees can then be given the chance to work in an evaluation mode with a couple of different solutions to determine the best fit. Won't this only fuel the original problem of too many software packages? The answer is a simple yes and no. Yes in the sense that the number of packages running on machines across an enterprise many go down only a little, or not at all. No in the sense that what multi-application deployment does is "rightsize" the packages to a particular unit, rather than a hit or miss implementation of one package. At the same time, most packages, at least in the desktop productivity sense, have file format compatibility supporting packages from competitors or previous versions. This point is critical to the whole notion of productivity and cost effectiveness, The overall goal in a large enterprise is to let employees be productive using widely available and inexpensive tools, and by standardizing on a file format, instead of a package, this allows employees to find packages that suit them, yet remain compatible with data on other machines. For example, a NeXTstation running Lighthouse Designs "OpenWrite" can save data in its own format, but also that of FrameMaker, Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, and AmiPro. Naturally, a Sun SPARC with FrameMaker, a Macintosh with Microsoft Word, and many other platforms and packages all can save data in a variety of formats. The idea that data interchangeability is paramount now suddenly seems less so, and this cross package compatibility means a real boon for flexibility (packages, machines, OS's, and people included), and the gateway for employee centered deployment of software packages. The overall goal is to increase productivity and lower costs. Clearly, lots of coordinated experimentation on the part of the MIS staff should occur very early on, and problems with management of one package, let alone several will inevitably crop up. The key is to find solutions to specific business unit problems, rather than creating new ones by "enforcing" a package that may simply be a wrong fit. The cost issue is critical too, because if a group of employees only uses the word processor in a large productivity suite, what is the point in paying for the whole productivity suite? Rather, the job of the MIS staff is to supply applications that are the right size for the job, neither too bulky nor too lightweight to get the job done. In the end, file format compatibility and "employee centered functionality" are more important than standardizing on one package, and by allowing employees to choose from limited range of suitable options, this allows some freedom of movement to pick the solution that fits best, which thereby increases productivity overall. This in turn lowers costs and benefits the entire enterprise. What would seem to be the easy choice of one "do-it-all" package, in fact impacts productivity in critical ways, ones which should be carefully weighed and considered. |