How do mHow to Become a Professional Software Programmeren turn professional programmers? A lot of people go the "traditional" route through a computing or software applied science education and from there into professional computer programming work.
Other people become professional software programmers by chance. An individual writes a small computer program to assist at work, and their workmates report, "Oh outstanding, you can write programs! You are our computer programmer presently!"
Others commence as hobbyists and follow a more nontraditional path, not always getting an academic degree, but distinctly wanting to be computer programmers from the beginning and working actively toward that objective.
I have been a hobbyist computer programmer since I was six. I wasn't writing anything astonishing back then but I had commenced writing and soon determined it was absorbing about all of my spare time. Since I never actually finished, that gives me twenty-four years "computer programming experience" and calculating.
Initially I was into composing computer games. Later humans enquired me to write computer programs for them, and occasionally I even got paid up. From this I determined that software is always for something. Computer programs are not collected worlds of their own. Humans await things out of a computer program that have more to do with Japanese or Geophysical science or Applied science (or whatsoever they have got in mind) than with how a computing device acts. I had to acquire something about all those domains so to write computer programs for them.
At university it did not take long prior to I was a coach, and that's where I discovered I enjoy learning, and particularly enjoy instructing programming.
When I was at university I got my initial "actual" task, writing Visual C++ encode for a pecuniary database corporation. In conditions of design and possibility it was lightweight stuff. But in conditions of working with other people on a scaled project I was being interposed the deep end! They had GBs of reference code, arising cancerously by the efforts of a 12 developers of wildly differing skill rates.
Despite my computer programming skills being well above intermediate there, I discovered to settle for being a next-to-last programmer, a little fish in a great pond.
Skipping along a couple of more jobs and a good deal more years, nowadays I am a chief developer in a modest study group—a bad fish in a little pond. I've had to instruct my colleagues a lot about master computer programming, as most of them have not been in business to get that mouthful of what large code bases and diverse skill rates do to computer programs if you are not applying those "master" skills to keep everybody aimed in the equal direction.
There's quite a gap between "being able to computer program" and being a "master computer programmer." It took me fifteen years to go from beginner to superstar programmer, then additional ten years to go from superstar to professional—and I am still discovering.
Whatsoever the path we keep up to, most master computer programmers have in general the information that they discovered to code first and how to be a master later.
So what does it signify to be a professional computer programmer? What does it signify to be a master anything? Several definitions just report to be a professional is "to make income from a skill," but real professionals also have a lay of qualities frequently identified as "professionalism." In my belief, these characters are: trustiness, teamwork, leadership, communicating, ceaseless updating of skills, an interest in minimizing chances and answerability. Each of such effect the master programmer in concrete ways.
Trustiness The concept of trustiness applies in some dissimilar ways for computer programmers. Can you be believed with a job? To execute a task without someone checking up on you? Can you be believed to ask for assistance when you demand it?
If you are given customers' information or have contracted a non-disclosure arrangement, then you're being trusted to deference privacy. You're trusted to check license arrangements on third party instruments or libraries and to get licences or permit as needed. And like any master you're trusted to merely do a beneficial job.
Teamwork Will you authentically collaborate with your group mates? Will you act to reciprocal advantage and not just your ain? Can you entrust your group to act with you? Can you do your part of the work and entrust your group to do the rest? And can you admit your control (and sometimes even clients) as part of the group, everybody attempting to get the same job arranged?
Leadership demonstrating leadership implies both earning deference from others and acknowledging what to do with it. Acknowledge the skills of your group members, and make certain you can offer every person disputes and development without outdoing what they can cope with at an administrated time.
Leadership demands not always getting to do the "fun" areas of a project yourself (that shivery "delegation" word). It as well involves not demanding anybody to do a project that you would not be eager to do yourself. It's not just the directors and lead computer programmers who require to express leadership, it is any professional computer programmer. The best computer programmers to act with are the ones that acknowledge what's happening, not just their small projects.
Communicating honouring the people you act with, and your customers, sufficient to actually listen to them is a decisive part of communicating. Teamwork can't appear without good communication, nor can answerability.
Communicating is decisive for assisting customers to generate usable specs and feedback. Will you inquiry whether the specs you are given actually will serve the aim that the customer has in mind?
Communicating skills assist with making meetings well-timed and efficient. A professional's communicating is effective and pertinent, whether in-person, in e-mail, on the phone or in documents.
Software documentation at first appears like a programmer-specific interest until you regard how many men require software documentation in a severe project: other software engineers need upper-level, API level and in-code software documentationand users need software documentation on how to apply the software.
Friday, February 26, 2010
SaaS takes on business intelligence
BI-as-a-service can be a good fit for your company given the right circumstances
When considering strategic business intelligence needs, would you put your faith in the cloud? The idea made sense for Distribution Market Advantage. For Creativity Inc., not so much.
The profiles of these two companies draw a clear line between where the nascent BI-as-a-service offerings fit -- and don't fit -- in business today. At one end of the spectrum, Schaumburg, Ill.-based DMA has no in-house BI expertise and needed to rapidly develop a Web-accessible BI dashboard for a narrowly defined purpose. On the other, Van Nuys, Calif.-based Creativity has developed its own in-house data warehouse and business analytics expertise. It mines that data to develop highly customized metrics that provide a competitive edge in developing and marketing new products for the consumer crafts market.
[ Discover what's new in business applications with InfoWorld's Technology: Applications newsletter and Killer Apps blog. ]
But even Creativity's vice president of IT, Jim Mulholland, who decided to pass on BI SaaS (software as a service), sees the game-changing potential of BI as a service: its ability to rapidly deliver a standardized suite of analytics tools that give users most of what they need without the time, expense and hassle of developing a BI infrastructure internally. BI in the cloud could be "the next killer SaaS application," he says.
However, the technologies -- and the business models behind them -- are still evolving. "It's still an embryonic market," says Jeffrey Kaplan, managing director for on-demand services consultancy ThinkStrategies Inc.
BI-as-a-service offerings typically import business data in a common format (such as an XML or comma-delimited file) put a structure around it, apply the appropriate data models and generate a Web-based user interface that allows for some analysis and the creation and distribution of standardized reports and dashboards. Some services can also query data in place, either behind the corporate firewall or from other SaaS applications, such as Salesforce.com's system. And some providers offer professional services, such as data integration, ETL (extract, transform and load) and data transformation services that organize, clean and normalize data for organizations that can't do it themselves.
DMA needed those services. The supply chain logistics organization supports 50 regional food service distributors and has no in-house BI capabilities. "We are not a technology company. Our core competency is supply chain management," says Jim Szatkowski, vice president of technical and data services. With no in-house expertise, putting BI in the cloud made sense. But DMA's needs also fit the hosted model in two other ways: BI-as-a-service offerings tend to play well with other popular SaaS products, and they often have easy-to-use Web-based interfaces that facilitate collaboration with entities beyond the corporate firewall.
BI SaaS at a glance
What you'll pay
* Most customers spend $20,000 to $50,000 annually, says Brad Peters, CEO of Birst. PivotLink charges $3,000 per month for 100 million rows of data and 50 users. But users can get a small pilot project started for $100 or less per month.
http://www.infoworld.com/
When considering strategic business intelligence needs, would you put your faith in the cloud? The idea made sense for Distribution Market Advantage. For Creativity Inc., not so much.
The profiles of these two companies draw a clear line between where the nascent BI-as-a-service offerings fit -- and don't fit -- in business today. At one end of the spectrum, Schaumburg, Ill.-based DMA has no in-house BI expertise and needed to rapidly develop a Web-accessible BI dashboard for a narrowly defined purpose. On the other, Van Nuys, Calif.-based Creativity has developed its own in-house data warehouse and business analytics expertise. It mines that data to develop highly customized metrics that provide a competitive edge in developing and marketing new products for the consumer crafts market.
[ Discover what's new in business applications with InfoWorld's Technology: Applications newsletter and Killer Apps blog. ]
But even Creativity's vice president of IT, Jim Mulholland, who decided to pass on BI SaaS (software as a service), sees the game-changing potential of BI as a service: its ability to rapidly deliver a standardized suite of analytics tools that give users most of what they need without the time, expense and hassle of developing a BI infrastructure internally. BI in the cloud could be "the next killer SaaS application," he says.
However, the technologies -- and the business models behind them -- are still evolving. "It's still an embryonic market," says Jeffrey Kaplan, managing director for on-demand services consultancy ThinkStrategies Inc.
BI-as-a-service offerings typically import business data in a common format (such as an XML or comma-delimited file) put a structure around it, apply the appropriate data models and generate a Web-based user interface that allows for some analysis and the creation and distribution of standardized reports and dashboards. Some services can also query data in place, either behind the corporate firewall or from other SaaS applications, such as Salesforce.com's system. And some providers offer professional services, such as data integration, ETL (extract, transform and load) and data transformation services that organize, clean and normalize data for organizations that can't do it themselves.
DMA needed those services. The supply chain logistics organization supports 50 regional food service distributors and has no in-house BI capabilities. "We are not a technology company. Our core competency is supply chain management," says Jim Szatkowski, vice president of technical and data services. With no in-house expertise, putting BI in the cloud made sense. But DMA's needs also fit the hosted model in two other ways: BI-as-a-service offerings tend to play well with other popular SaaS products, and they often have easy-to-use Web-based interfaces that facilitate collaboration with entities beyond the corporate firewall.
BI SaaS at a glance
What you'll pay
* Most customers spend $20,000 to $50,000 annually, says Brad Peters, CEO of Birst. PivotLink charges $3,000 per month for 100 million rows of data and 50 users. But users can get a small pilot project started for $100 or less per month.
http://www.infoworld.com/
Researchers question Microsoft's botnet take-down
No change in spam volume after Microsoft claims it crippled Waledac
Computerworld - A prominent security researcher today said he doubts Microsoft's take-down of the Waledac botnet would have any impact on spam levels, as the company claimed.
"Waledac just is not a hugely prolific spammer," said Joe Stewart, director of malware analysis at SecureWorks and a noted botnet researcher. "So I don't think it's going to affect spam [volume]. What it does do lately..., what it's used for, is to install rogue antivirus software."
The U.K.-based anti-spam service Spamhaus echoed Stewart today. "If [Microsoft's take-down] did affect spam, we haven't noticed," said Richard Cox, the chief information officer at Spamhaus. Like Stewart, Cox also dismissed Waledac's threat as a spam engine.
"Waledac was not a high threat, it's less than 1% of the spam traffic," Cox said. "What we're worried about is Zeus, which is a far more damaging botnet, which is creating a substantial amount of spam."
Postini, the message security and filtering firm owned by Google, also said it had not detected any drop in spam. "The team hasn't seen any change so far," said Google spokesman Jay Nancarrow.
Earlier today, Microsoft said that the Waledac botnet, which it claimed controls hundreds of thousands of infected PCs -- is a "major distributor of spam globally." Microsoft also said that its researchers had snatched about 60,000 machines away from the botnet.
Stewart wasn't seeing any evidence of those claims, either. "I haven't seen any decrease in [Waledac's] activity, the researcher said. "To me, it looks like business as usual."
Late Wednesday, Microsoft announced it had won a federal court order that cut off 277 .com domains associated with the botnet, and said that by knocking those sites off the Internet, it would seriously disrupt Waledac's operation. "This action has quickly and effectively cut off traffic to Waledac at the '.com' or domain registry level, severing the connection between the command and control centers of the botnet and most of its thousands of zombie computers around the world," Tim Cranton, an associate general counsel with Microsoft, said in a blog entry yesterday.
But Stewart said it's very unlikely that the move had actually crippled the botnet. "Waledac uses a peer-to-peer protocol for its command and control," he said, referring to the mechanism that the most technically-advanced zombie PC commanders use to control their armies. "But the bots don't really [depend] on those domain names to communicate."
In fact, said Stewart, Waledac bots will be able to communicate "indefinitely" by using the IP (Internet Protocol) addresses that are hard-coded into the bot Trojan. To kill off a botnet like Waledac, Microsoft would have had to target not only the domains it did, but also every possible IP address coded into the malware. "I don't see how you can kill a botnet like this," Stewart said. "There's no single point of failure for these botnets."
Even so, he applauded Microsoft's move. "...This is a good start, it's a good step in the right direction," Stewart said, offering up other ways the company's resources might have been better spent. "There are plenty of other botnets where this approach might work -- any that depend on a centralized command and control server."
Waledac was created by, and is maintained by, hackers who previously flooded the Internet with the Storm bot Trojan. The people behind this botnet aren't rookies, Stewart said. "We're dealing with the same people behind Storm, and they definitely know the ins and outs."
In all likelihood, he added, Microsoft's maneuver won't stop an established botnet like Waledac. "They're attacking the very, very front end of the whole scheme of the bot," he said.
Microsoft acknowledged that its work isn't done. "[This] is not a silver bullet for undoing all the damage we believe Waledac has caused," said Cranton. "Although the zombies are now largely out of the bot-herders' control, they are still infected with the original malware."
Microsoft has targeted Waledac before. In April 2009, the company issued a version of its Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) that scrubbed the malware from Waledac-infected Windows PCs. In the second half of last year, MSRT and other Microsoft software, notably the free anti-virus program Microsoft Security Essentials, cleaned 96,000 systems of Waledac, boasted Jeff Williams, the director of Microsoft's Malware Protection Center, today.
Williams, who urged users to run MSRT and keep their anti-virus software up to date, also hinted that Microsoft had more on Waledac than it had disclosed. "We're not done," he said. "Stay tuned."
Robert McMillan, of the IDG News Service, contributed to this report.
http://www.computerworld.com/
Computerworld - A prominent security researcher today said he doubts Microsoft's take-down of the Waledac botnet would have any impact on spam levels, as the company claimed.
"Waledac just is not a hugely prolific spammer," said Joe Stewart, director of malware analysis at SecureWorks and a noted botnet researcher. "So I don't think it's going to affect spam [volume]. What it does do lately..., what it's used for, is to install rogue antivirus software."
The U.K.-based anti-spam service Spamhaus echoed Stewart today. "If [Microsoft's take-down] did affect spam, we haven't noticed," said Richard Cox, the chief information officer at Spamhaus. Like Stewart, Cox also dismissed Waledac's threat as a spam engine.
"Waledac was not a high threat, it's less than 1% of the spam traffic," Cox said. "What we're worried about is Zeus, which is a far more damaging botnet, which is creating a substantial amount of spam."
Postini, the message security and filtering firm owned by Google, also said it had not detected any drop in spam. "The team hasn't seen any change so far," said Google spokesman Jay Nancarrow.
Earlier today, Microsoft said that the Waledac botnet, which it claimed controls hundreds of thousands of infected PCs -- is a "major distributor of spam globally." Microsoft also said that its researchers had snatched about 60,000 machines away from the botnet.
Stewart wasn't seeing any evidence of those claims, either. "I haven't seen any decrease in [Waledac's] activity, the researcher said. "To me, it looks like business as usual."
Late Wednesday, Microsoft announced it had won a federal court order that cut off 277 .com domains associated with the botnet, and said that by knocking those sites off the Internet, it would seriously disrupt Waledac's operation. "This action has quickly and effectively cut off traffic to Waledac at the '.com' or domain registry level, severing the connection between the command and control centers of the botnet and most of its thousands of zombie computers around the world," Tim Cranton, an associate general counsel with Microsoft, said in a blog entry yesterday.
But Stewart said it's very unlikely that the move had actually crippled the botnet. "Waledac uses a peer-to-peer protocol for its command and control," he said, referring to the mechanism that the most technically-advanced zombie PC commanders use to control their armies. "But the bots don't really [depend] on those domain names to communicate."
In fact, said Stewart, Waledac bots will be able to communicate "indefinitely" by using the IP (Internet Protocol) addresses that are hard-coded into the bot Trojan. To kill off a botnet like Waledac, Microsoft would have had to target not only the domains it did, but also every possible IP address coded into the malware. "I don't see how you can kill a botnet like this," Stewart said. "There's no single point of failure for these botnets."
Even so, he applauded Microsoft's move. "...This is a good start, it's a good step in the right direction," Stewart said, offering up other ways the company's resources might have been better spent. "There are plenty of other botnets where this approach might work -- any that depend on a centralized command and control server."
Waledac was created by, and is maintained by, hackers who previously flooded the Internet with the Storm bot Trojan. The people behind this botnet aren't rookies, Stewart said. "We're dealing with the same people behind Storm, and they definitely know the ins and outs."
In all likelihood, he added, Microsoft's maneuver won't stop an established botnet like Waledac. "They're attacking the very, very front end of the whole scheme of the bot," he said.
Microsoft acknowledged that its work isn't done. "[This] is not a silver bullet for undoing all the damage we believe Waledac has caused," said Cranton. "Although the zombies are now largely out of the bot-herders' control, they are still infected with the original malware."
Microsoft has targeted Waledac before. In April 2009, the company issued a version of its Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRT) that scrubbed the malware from Waledac-infected Windows PCs. In the second half of last year, MSRT and other Microsoft software, notably the free anti-virus program Microsoft Security Essentials, cleaned 96,000 systems of Waledac, boasted Jeff Williams, the director of Microsoft's Malware Protection Center, today.
Williams, who urged users to run MSRT and keep their anti-virus software up to date, also hinted that Microsoft had more on Waledac than it had disclosed. "We're not done," he said. "Stay tuned."
Robert McMillan, of the IDG News Service, contributed to this report.
http://www.computerworld.com/
Ubuntu Linux Now Available to Fed Customers on GSA Advantage
Canonical's Ubuntu has become third Linux operating system approved by the General Services Administration for use by federal purchasers. It joins Linux distributions from Red Hat and Novell, already available through the GSA Advantage purchasing program.
"This gives government purchasers the option of using Canonical's Ubuntu as well as its Landscape systems management and monitoring tool," said Cole Crawford, CTO of Autonomic Resources, an IT and service integration company approved to offer the products to federal customers.
Landscape will be offered as part of Autonomic’s cloud computing platform for government customers. The infrastructure-as-a-service platform provides government customers with simplified computing power, storage and supporting infrastructure that can be acquired and utilized on-demand all from FISMA certified data centers with standard multi-factor authentication access.
"As adoption of the Cloud continues and the need for simplified infrastructure management grows, organizations will be looking for tools that work for physical and virtual assets,” Crawford said. "Landscape offers a simple, fast and secure solution enabling IT departments throughout the federal government to quickly patch and update systems."
Ubuntu is currently the most popular operating system base for developers building cloud-based computing solutions, Crawford said. The open source operating system is already used in some government agencies, including NASA, but has not been widely available as it lacked GSA schedule pricing and support.
The addition of Ubuntu isn't expected to drastically alter the U.S. government's use of open-source operating systems and tools, but does give the public sector an additional option that private industry has long enjoyed.
Crawford said he could not estimate the potential value of Ubuntu sales to the federal government. His company is also a partner with Novell and Red Hat in supporting public sector customers.
David Coursey has been writing about technology products and companies for more than 25 years. He tweets as @techinciter and may be contacted via his Web site.
www.pcworld.com/
"This gives government purchasers the option of using Canonical's Ubuntu as well as its Landscape systems management and monitoring tool," said Cole Crawford, CTO of Autonomic Resources, an IT and service integration company approved to offer the products to federal customers.
Landscape will be offered as part of Autonomic’s cloud computing platform for government customers. The infrastructure-as-a-service platform provides government customers with simplified computing power, storage and supporting infrastructure that can be acquired and utilized on-demand all from FISMA certified data centers with standard multi-factor authentication access.
"As adoption of the Cloud continues and the need for simplified infrastructure management grows, organizations will be looking for tools that work for physical and virtual assets,” Crawford said. "Landscape offers a simple, fast and secure solution enabling IT departments throughout the federal government to quickly patch and update systems."
Ubuntu is currently the most popular operating system base for developers building cloud-based computing solutions, Crawford said. The open source operating system is already used in some government agencies, including NASA, but has not been widely available as it lacked GSA schedule pricing and support.
The addition of Ubuntu isn't expected to drastically alter the U.S. government's use of open-source operating systems and tools, but does give the public sector an additional option that private industry has long enjoyed.
Crawford said he could not estimate the potential value of Ubuntu sales to the federal government. His company is also a partner with Novell and Red Hat in supporting public sector customers.
David Coursey has been writing about technology products and companies for more than 25 years. He tweets as @techinciter and may be contacted via his Web site.
www.pcworld.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
