> I highly suspect very few will ahve to tear it out. It'll cost more money to replace than it would to pay license fees for many companies. Developer time costs money.
That is the strategy companies are using to monetize these sort of projects. Give it away for free and then charge when a company has to make the choice of spending money to get rid of it and to replace it or to just pay for it. The lesson to take away is that any open source supported by a company will potentially become something that will have to be licensed commercially, so if anything will create an incentive to not use open source.
> If they're not just homebody introverts in the first place, they may already have a pretty saturated schedule/network without many suitable people around to pair off with.
Then they really don't have the time for a relationship. Maybe they just want a hook-up, but that also takes time to connect with people and build relationships for something casual. It's all just work, at the end of the day, and a lot of people are unsatisfied with that answer. Things like being on the high-end of attractiveness are like cheat codes, but those people still have to put in effort to connect with people before they get to the fun part.
The problem with these articles is that they never go into exactly what parts of the message and metadata is actually encrypted. It can't all be encrypted (or at least I'm not aware of how that would work in practice), so it would be useful to know that, for instance, while the message is encrypted, the sender and receiver metadata is not, which certainly wouldn't make information about who is communicating with who private.
Well, given how many people Zynga is buying vs. the mass exodus that seems to be happening in S.F. from them, I'd be interested in seeing their recruitment numbers.
Facebook played the Friend card in their press release, and did it really well. If you are giving up your Facebook password, you're not just giving up your information, you're also giving up your friend's information as well.
If any potential employer asks for your Facebook account information, just inform them that your social network would not appreciate giving out their information to a 3rd party, and you think it would be a violation of their trust in you.
The reason that this sort of legal action is necessary is because the kind of people who are being asked this aren't the kind of people who can walk into any company in the valley and get another job. In those situations, the employee doesn't have any cards to play.
I understand your point completely, and I agree with you. It still doesn't change the fact that when you give up your Facebook account information, you are not just surrendering up your personal information, you are giving up the personal information of everyone in your network that has chosen to share with you. It's a breach of trust with that network.
If an employer asks for my Facebook password (or equivalent, as I don't use Facebook), I plan to tell them that I don't appreciate being asked to give out my information. I don't want to work for a company where I need to put spin on an argument to have them not violate my privacy.
It's also about law enforcement jobs where they might hold it against you if you refuse. You have a right to refuse, but then they can just deny you the job because you "obviously" have something to hide.
Agreed. At this point he needs to start looking at SOA designs and figuring out if he can break this application out into services that can be individually tuned and managed.
I took a professional ethics class in college, and the professor was a personal friend of Roger. The whole class was about Challenger, and the incredible failure of judgement around it's demise. Roger came into one of our classes and spoke to us late in the semester.
After listening to tapes of the trials, interviews, reading transcripts, and reading articles it was very apparent to me that this was a failure of management. The lead engineer, during the discussions of whether to launch the night before, was arguing that the engineering evidence did not support a launch under the temperature conditions projected for the following morning. He was told by Morton-Thiokol business reps to "take off your engineer hat, and put on your manager hat".
Evidence points to this failure happening because NASA needed a PR boost for funding, and M.T. wanted to continue doing business with them delivering solid-state boosters.
Because Roger Boisjoly spoke to Congress during the hearings he was black-listed from his industry. At no point during the decisions leading up to that disaster did good engineering practices that could have prevented this destruction come into play.
I find it a little annoying when anyone promises something like this in the headline, and then provides no direct action to take on it.
I was basically ready to open my wallet and at least try it for a few days, but just throwing a signup form means I'm pretty much going to forget about and never look again having been let down once already.
I'm not in love with the design, or how big and out of place it feels just appearing in the top left corner, but it's a great start and I hope they keep pushing it forward.
I hope developers of Alfred for OS X look at this and try to apply some of those ideas going forward. App-specific, contextual Alfred would be great.
There are plenty of examples to counter your argument in the startup community. FriendFeed is an easy one. It was built while each of its founders had day jobs until they had a viable product to shop around.
I take issue with these kind of quotes because, to be quite frank, they are completely out of context and make no sense in the myriad of ways people try to make them apply to unrelated contexts. It sounds like nothing more than marketing hype, as opposed to a message of substance.
This isn't a counter-example if the FriendFeed guys all worked part-time on the startup.
The point isn't that only full-timers can be founders, but rather that all founders should share a roughly equal level of commitment. If some of the founders are full-time, and some are part-time, then you've got a really severe imbalance in terms of contributions to the company, not to mention risk.
This will cause huge bitterness later on, so it's totally reasonable to say "We're all going in full-time, so if you want to be a founder, you are too. If not, that's fine, and we'll make you hire number one when we can afford to pay you a salary, plus back-pay for hours worked as an IOU."
But how about all the other examples of people leaving work to work full-time on their startups. Remember that YC expects to not leave work but relocate to SV for three months.
The quote is, of course, over the top, after all we're not fighting for our lives in a foreign land. But I don't think it's that out of context: I'm 42, have a child, pay a high rent and support my larger family. For me to quit my daily high-paying job to pursue what mat turn out to be a dream does require a huge amount of courage. If the company doesn't succeed, say, after 2-3 years, I may not be able to find another job like this. That's why quotes like that resonate with me.
Please understand that not all would-be founders are 25 year-olds with little to lose.
Wait, so do you agree that co-founders with day jobs should be treated as first employees equity-wise or not? Your original comment seemed like you did, but this comment makes it seem like you don't.
Personally, I believe that having a day job while working on a startup should not be held against you. If everyone agrees that you're a co-founder, then you deserve co-founder equity.
Do you have less work to do because you have a day job? No, not necessarily. Were you there from the beginning? Yes. Are you involved in founder-like meetings and decisions? If yes, that should be qualification enough.
I co-founded my first company @ 30. It was pretty scary, but me and my co-founder kept working on our day jobs until we felt like we had the momentum to go raise some money. As soon as we did, we both quit and went to work full-time.
It was scary, but we did specifically did not burn our bridges. We kept in touch with all the people we could so that if we needed to have some bridge funding via consulting work, it was always on the table for us.
The strongest counter-argument I can make for saying "You need to be doing X,Y,Z to succeed" is that the failure rate for startups is over 90%, so no-one knows what really works or doesn't. There's a combination of execution, luck, and recognizing good timing that comes into play. I've seen companies/individuals hit it big with the most laid back attitude toward the product because they found the right thing at the right time (PlentyOfFish), and people who work insanely hard who just disappear (the list is huge here...).
That is the strategy companies are using to monetize these sort of projects. Give it away for free and then charge when a company has to make the choice of spending money to get rid of it and to replace it or to just pay for it. The lesson to take away is that any open source supported by a company will potentially become something that will have to be licensed commercially, so if anything will create an incentive to not use open source.