Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 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.
>
> 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
Which is way they are paid real salaries you dimwit. They get bonuses,
perks and pay rises for good work.
> 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.
Ownership is *supposed* to be removed. There is nothing more dangerous
than "ownership" - thus it is in the interest of the company as a whole
to train other people in those specific ares too so they have
cover. Hence the need for good design & documentation.
>
> 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
Maybe your own experiences have a little to bear on your views?
> 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.
Of course. Advancement takes time. Hours are not everything.
>
> <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 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
> clear that the open-source world manages internal communications far
> more effectively than major corporates do.
In some areas posibly. In all? No way.
|
|
