Actually, I for one am personally glad that we have the 2400 nukes and not Iran. Double-standard as it is, we (in the US) tend to at least have some (albeit perverted) notion of keeping the peace. I don't think the Iranian government has such a vision.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
It sounds like you are working for a relatively small company? If so, a little education is in order...
In general, when a company hires you, they are hiring _you_, not for the skills of the day, but for your potential in the future and your ability to extend into new roles. As an employee of a small firm, you are expected to wear different hats, grow with the job, be flexible, and fill in holes where they need to be filled.
You sadly view yourself, instead, as a commodity, a replaceable set of skills; a robot. Your company was hoping that they had hired an all-around joe who was able to handle multiple new responsibilities as they came up. Instead of firing you, they let go some other poor slobs, which should bolster your confidence that they like you and want to trust in your talents.
No employer is perfect when opening a new position, and the business landscape always changes. You should never expect to be doing the exact same tasks in which you were hired for. And if you do, you probably need to work for a large business or the government which can help you in your endeavor to be plugged in mindlessly to the cog.
Your employer has obviously made some tough decisions and now needs you to perform some other duties. How exactly does that necessitate a pay raise, or a new title? Just do the work that is asked of you. You do their work, you collect a paycheck. It's really that simple. Titles are stupid and meaningless. Your new set of responsibilities does not imply a pay raise.
So, work hard for your pay. Become irreplaceable. Grow in your talents. Demonstrate your continued loyalty and support of your company and its managers. And if the company is any good and values your contributions, you will be rewarded appropriately.
And if you can't do this, you can't get over taking on new responsibilities while not getting a new title or some additional pay, then good luck selling your set of wares to the next poor schlub that might decide to hire you.
From my experience, the best jobs are the ones _without_ titles. What exactly again does a title give you? Prove your worth, and a pay raise (and more) may very well come your way.
It's really simple. If an open source project benefits Oracle's bottom line, it will have continued support. If it doesn't, then it won't get support.
The "greed is good" mantra comes into play here. Oracle's responsibility is to create revenue. If an open source project does not feed into that equation, it will not be supported. Oracle is not a charity nor any sort of non-profit corporation.
So, if Open Solaris doesn't actually make any money for Oracle, there's no reason to suggest that it will survive. Hopefully, though, if Oracle decides to drop support, it will do the right thing by passing the code to a true non-profit open source foundation, like the Apache Foundation. That would be a graceful way to get out of direct support for a project while still supporting the ideals of Free Software.
No, you belong in a museum, Dr. Jones.
What, no tab-complete?!
I'm just imagining the flood of Google Image queries you've spawned.
Thus, why it's called art.
How is this any different from all big businesses right now? The fed has got their nose up everyone's skirts, especially banks, etc. And, the stocks for most all companies are at the same level as 5-6 years ago. I don't see anything that is Microsoft specific in this way.
I like your comment, because I was just reading from chapter 5 of Code Complete 2nd Edition [pdf], in which Steve McConnell writes:
Dijkstra pointed out that no one's skull is really big enough to contain a modern computer program (Dijkstra 1972), which means that we as software developers shouldn't try to cram whole programs into our skulls at once; we should try to organize our programs in such a way that we can safely focus on one part of it at a time. The goal is to minimize the amount of a program you have to think about at any one time. (pg 79)
The Linux kernel is the classic example of software which no one person can, or should, have complete knowledge of every line. The kernel has long ago grown beyond even the ability for Linus himself to keep track of everything. The point is, however, that by subdividing the code, one person doesn't need to understand every line of code.
So, I think frankly you are wrong. Or at least, you are likely the wrong person to decidedly state that "the Linux Kernel is in need of a significant refactoring effort."
There are no doubt dozens of kernel hackers that have a sound understanding of all the various subsystems and how they work together. So as for judging the kernel's supposed "complexity," that's all that matters and clearly the kernel is not so complex to justify your statement.