IBM today is mostly a service provider - with those in the 50+ age bracket being "kicked out" there will be at least 2 groups:
(1)The ones with skills "to keep the lights on" for these services - those will be hired back as "consultants" - let's hope at twice the daily rate they worked before if they want to continue to work.
(2) The others - for them, the tax payers will pick up some of the balance, but generally, it will be dire for them to find new ways to continue.
Overall, age discrimination is a topic on which most companies and the public are mostly in denial while trying to please everybody else or demonstrate how inclusive they are.
Within many industries you will be excluded "quietly" during the selection for up to mid-level jobs when you are 50+ - quietly, because companies know that such discrimination openly could result in reputational or potential legal challenges.
On exec jobs, it is even more ludicrous - people who are much older than the candidates, block (competent) 50+ candidates based on their age to become their peers.
At the same time, often these companies also do not promote staff above a certain age e.g. when taking on new responsibilities that gets all others promoted (aka substantial pay rise / cost). As a result, while in a few countries here in Europe, 50+ workforce will have more holidays or pension contributions, the salaries of 50+ high achievers might be lower than younger staff in comparable roles. Give the above, some swallow that pill, but those that can afford leave (independent of age the old saying: good people leave, wood stays). Might not apply to most of the 50+ workforce, others might just have better employment contracts (historically), e.g. in the German car factories you have people on payroll with the company, some as contractors through 3rd party, and at the end of the food chain some with a low paid contract for work and labour with a body shop - all doing the same work at very different pay for the workers. In such setups, getting rid of the older workers might result in a higher bonus for top management, achieving KPIs for middle management, and certainly in high consultancy fees for restructuring advice from McKinsey e.a at daily rates per (senior) consultant at about the monthly salary of the worker made redundant - after these "cost" making younger or older workforce redundant becomes a marginal difference.
Overall, from what I've seen, where competence is key and valued, age and other things will not be used to discriminate the best candidates or staff. I've seen 70+ old engineers being hired by top-names for their knowledge, experience and achievements.
With aging societies in many western countries, TMK, in about 5 years the majority of the workforce will be 50+ in most of them.
In the west, during the last 40 years we have shifted from "engineering pride" to prioritising financial markets vs innovations & products. This has certainly created many activities, tasks /jobs particularly in large orgs, that will become "redundant" when the music stops or when some of these orgs fade away due to lack of product, market, leadership or competencies.
We need to look into how our "established" companies stay or become competitive and innovative again with their products and services in a global environment short / mid and long term vs. making most of their money on financial markets. Such companies don't need to care about the age of their staff - they care about skills and competencies.
With the baby boomers leaving the job market, low-birth groups / demographic change of those entering the job market plus technology advances there is now a chance that this puts pressure on companies (and employees) to re-invent themselves.
Are you not concerned that this move (relabeling the open source version different from how the product is known to the broader public) might further diminish the number of contributors that are now already down 50% / back to 2014 levels?
Those stats are wrong. The project has grown massively since 2014 and continues to grow. My guess is that you are looking at the stats for a single repo, when we have broken up the project (and its contribution flow) into many smaller repos.
To answer your question: we think this move will accelerate the growth of the project, because it addresses the two most common concerns from contributors: 1) that the project is too monolithic, and 2) that it's too tied to the Docker product and company.
They're essentially attempting to distinguish their commercial offerings from the upstream open-source project. They are cornering the name "Docker" for themselves since it has a lot of name recognition.
This has pros and cons. Red Hat and Mozilla both learned they had to be aggressive with trademarks, as people were distributing sabotaged builds under their product names.
That's why Firefox in Debian is called IceWeasel, for example; any Firefox build that incorporates external patches (or even one that is built with unofficial options, iirc) must not be called Firefox (barring a waiver from the Mozilla Foundation). This allows Mozilla to pursue people who are distributing contaminated builds of "Firefox".
Changing posture on the Docker trademark will make the arguments of Docker Inc. more persuasive should they find themselves needing to make use of the same sort of remedy. It will also make a separate upstream so that Docker will now be based off the "Moby Framework". If Docker Inc. becomes defunct, "Moby" will be an separate project that lost its primary sponsor, not a defunct project bearing the name of a dead company.
The cons are that it's probably a signal that Docker is going to continue working to monetize aggressively, potentially including spurious legal threats that limit the discoverability of competitors and vendors of alternate tooling. For example, it's possible that Kubernetes will no longer work "with Docker" but "with Moby", and the only orchestration for "Docker" will be docker-swarm.
It's also a potential signal that Docker plans to gear more of its work toward its souped-up closed-source distribution available to paying customers only.
The other pro is that Docker as a product totally sucks, so their alienating people in the community will drive users to other solutions that suck less. I keep hoping the containerization fad will go back in the bottle, and while unlikely, this diminishes faith in it since Docker == containers to a lot of people, so that's good.
I (mostly) think that people are taking it too far. "Containerization" is an old concept that has been done much better more than once (cf. Solaris/Illumos Zones and FreeBSD jails; I'll refrain from classifying classic chroots as "much better" though it's debatable).
Kubernetes is massively overcomplicated and has bitten off an offensively oversized problem space. The arrogance is staggering.
Ultimately, VMs and containers are attempting to solve the same basic problems, and while containers do have some cool features, there is no way that they justify the gross tradeoffs people are making in service of the fad.
sounds familiar - we found that one 1996 when doing system programming on NT (NuMega SoftIce was your best friend together with material published by Mark Russinovich prior of him working with MS - remember when you were doing e.g. a file system driver at that time there was close to zero documentation by MS and half of what they provided was wrong). Demonstrated then how to use it to log onto remote Windows systems over the I-Net and gain Admin rights. I thought this one with all what was published about it long ago would be well known since.
Astounded that it took so long to fix and that it passed on through generations of Windows version.
Almost certain similar can be said of other low level "bugs".
same result - only one issue like that known to me
So of course I could be wrong and this issue is not the only one in that protocol implementation / sys component(s)
SMB protocol was a well known source of bugs, lots of service packs used to patch this service (funny that it was enabled on network facing machines. I think it was because windows server needed to be ready for every use case. They could have had it easier by having a separate windows product with non essential services disabled by default)
If I look at glove & WordNet usage e.g. for topic extraction, bagging / clustering or semantic similarity would you say we would need to get rid of such a bias, e.g. create something like a Geiger counter for NLP.
Alternative view - when doing sentiment analysis / classification would you say that such a bias actually helps to identify a type of sentiment in a doc / sentence.
The Brexit is just one of key changes hitting the UK tech working / start-up / corporate environments in the moment.
Brexit, IP Act, changes to IR35 (in / out), the £ drop, announcements of major city firms to reduce staff by 30%+, slowing global economies (real not what statistics are telling), UK service price increases of 10% - 20% as seen in the last months or to come with e.g. electricity, IT and communication services in the next weeks.
All these contribute to a climate of uncertainty and making the UK less competitive.
I've been closely watching various areas of the IT contractor market for the last months - these are normally very good indicators how healthy the industry is / how positive or negative forward looking is.
In more than 15 years I have never seen these markets being as bad as they are in the moment.
This might all sound very gloomy, but if the UK government continues with their path as seen in the last months, they are burning the ground we all in the UK stand on.
Out of personal experience hiring many new staff members, this might be true for entry level to mid-level jobs with broad supply of candidates being a good match with their (claimed) skill set.
Unfortunately even that oversimplifies the actual situation - there is not one type of job and there is not one type of organisation hiring.
The higher up the ladder you go the less likely it becomes that you would get a job based on your resume / skills alone. You will need an endorsement of some kind that might come from inside the company or through a trusted external referrer (e.g. a specialised senior / executive placement agency aka head hunter used by the company for pre-selecting candidates - sometimes this is visible when the agency is advertising the role, sometimes not when the role is advertised under the company name).
Many of these roles are still advertised like other roles mainly to follow process - advertising every vacancy to the public is almost always a step to tick off in hiring processes.
While some companies - mostly fast growing or start-ups - are more open to "outsiders", in others the public advertising while still providing some transparency has long become a complete illusion.
My most extreme examples here would be with government agencies for permanent senior or above roles. This can be best demonstrated with United Nations post advertising.
The UN has a series of job boards where the public can apply to any of the jobs and all posts vacant should be on these (not sure if they still include the most senior ones - you normally find these in the Economist).
What they don't tell you is that a lot of them only take internal candidates and are not really open to external applicants - this can go that far that even staff members from other UN agencies wont through the first selection round when applying.
Other (non-professional) jobs might only be filled locally, e.g. if you would be in the UK and the job is in Switzerland don't bother...
After that, applying for senior posts when you are not "part of the system" is a completely useless endeavour. Here even skills seem to become secondary - with most of them you will have to be endorsed by your government. There might be a very small number of people that made it onto senior posts in the last 10-15 years without government endorsement, but tmk all of them had very strong internal / organisation support behind them. And most of them had an enormously hard time to fight off the "cronies" after they got the post - no surprise that even less survived the first 2 years.
Overall, job boards might be a good starting point for entry level positions or contract work. It helps you to identify potential opportunities, but there is normally no direct road to get a job from the advert alone.
Often you have a better chance to apply directly on the company web sites, or on sites like Kaggle or HackerRank.
Most importantly you need to find a way to stick out from the crowd.
Running / monthly cloud cost and comparison to other options (e.g. run on a rented dedicated machine / co-location) should already been looked at when you do even the most basic business plan.
Generally most of the time the best approach is to create solutions that can scale out independent from the HW / infrastructure they run on. With frameworks like K8s / Docker / e.a. this is now relatively easy.
With that for example you can start of with a few small cloud machines / docker containers. When you get continuous load - migrate some of them to 1-2 dedicated machines. Same with peak load - just spin up more images.
All that of course depends on what kind of application you are providing. If you are running a data intensive apps you might start directly with a dedicated machine.
Easy in, expensive out.
One cost with cloud services many forget is the cost to get out again. Have a look at the AWS / Azure price-lists.
I believe focusing on potential technical problems is the wrong approach.
What you have to look at is lock-in or no lock-in. Any responsible IT Manager should avoid lock-ins / silos as far as possible. This then allows to standardise and use multiple suppliers and much lower TCO.
Without having looked into details (but with some knowledge of the Munich IT environment), I'm sure that most of these technical issues stem from the previous lock-in situation with MS.
There are other solutions without migrating the desktops back to MS / upgrading to MS Win 10 - you could for example virtualise the apps with issues (Standard approach & working very well in large environments). But then Munich could not be locked back into the MS Stacks so easily.
And MS and Oracle are very good with locking their customers in and collecting vast amounts for that.
BTW - I've seen large government environments in the UK with completely virtualised application delivery / desktops to enable staff to work from home, BYOD, hot-desking etc while at the same time securing the organisation's data e.a
At that point which desktop OS you are using has only limited importance.
additionally relying on specific applications / services that can relatively easy singled out with DPI and by that also stick out their users for "further inspection".
With DPI hardware having dropped substantially in price while at the same time expanded functionality, TelCom providers / gov. agencies can relatively easily / quickly deploy such censorship / surveillance at the edge or in the TelCom core.
From a first cross-read, this article is bluntly discrediting UBI.
Starting with numbers: about 204M working age population in the US - hence the USD10K to each of them example would just make somewhere what is spend yearly for military and banks - the 8 times numbers cited in the article of what is spent today does not make any sense.
The linked article does not mention any amounts that Finland wants to provide to the 2k people - instead it is referring to Swiss calculations - last numbers I've heard with Finland were on par with current social security / poverty level pays (~EUR600 p/m) - this of course does not enable most of the key effects intended with an UBI (money into spending, freedom of choice for work etc) - it only continues the current system (with some potential savings within the administration).
To get a better understanding we have to at least repeat the Canadian experiments from the 1920s (proven that it is substantially beneficiary for the economy overall) - more money than poverty level, people must gain freedom by the possibility to live.
Given that soon a large proportion of people will not have a chance to find a job that will allow them to survive, we either go back to lords and serfs or actually look into potentially sustainable solutions.
(1)The ones with skills "to keep the lights on" for these services - those will be hired back as "consultants" - let's hope at twice the daily rate they worked before if they want to continue to work.
(2) The others - for them, the tax payers will pick up some of the balance, but generally, it will be dire for them to find new ways to continue.
Overall, age discrimination is a topic on which most companies and the public are mostly in denial while trying to please everybody else or demonstrate how inclusive they are.
Within many industries you will be excluded "quietly" during the selection for up to mid-level jobs when you are 50+ - quietly, because companies know that such discrimination openly could result in reputational or potential legal challenges.
On exec jobs, it is even more ludicrous - people who are much older than the candidates, block (competent) 50+ candidates based on their age to become their peers.
At the same time, often these companies also do not promote staff above a certain age e.g. when taking on new responsibilities that gets all others promoted (aka substantial pay rise / cost). As a result, while in a few countries here in Europe, 50+ workforce will have more holidays or pension contributions, the salaries of 50+ high achievers might be lower than younger staff in comparable roles. Give the above, some swallow that pill, but those that can afford leave (independent of age the old saying: good people leave, wood stays). Might not apply to most of the 50+ workforce, others might just have better employment contracts (historically), e.g. in the German car factories you have people on payroll with the company, some as contractors through 3rd party, and at the end of the food chain some with a low paid contract for work and labour with a body shop - all doing the same work at very different pay for the workers. In such setups, getting rid of the older workers might result in a higher bonus for top management, achieving KPIs for middle management, and certainly in high consultancy fees for restructuring advice from McKinsey e.a at daily rates per (senior) consultant at about the monthly salary of the worker made redundant - after these "cost" making younger or older workforce redundant becomes a marginal difference.
Overall, from what I've seen, where competence is key and valued, age and other things will not be used to discriminate the best candidates or staff. I've seen 70+ old engineers being hired by top-names for their knowledge, experience and achievements.
With aging societies in many western countries, TMK, in about 5 years the majority of the workforce will be 50+ in most of them.
In the west, during the last 40 years we have shifted from "engineering pride" to prioritising financial markets vs innovations & products. This has certainly created many activities, tasks /jobs particularly in large orgs, that will become "redundant" when the music stops or when some of these orgs fade away due to lack of product, market, leadership or competencies.
We need to look into how our "established" companies stay or become competitive and innovative again with their products and services in a global environment short / mid and long term vs. making most of their money on financial markets. Such companies don't need to care about the age of their staff - they care about skills and competencies.
With the baby boomers leaving the job market, low-birth groups / demographic change of those entering the job market plus technology advances there is now a chance that this puts pressure on companies (and employees) to re-invent themselves.