Decentralization 281
jamesgregory writes "'Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because they can. Suits make new stuff primarily because they hope to earn a profit. Yes, that is an oversimplification, and there's overlap between the two types -- there are plenty of profit-seeking geeks and geeky business folks. Still, the distinction is real.'"
Copy & Paste (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copy & Paste (Score:2)
plus it would probably be about trains if we did...
This is a summary? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is a summary? (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember, this is Slashdot. It's not the editors' jobs to make sure that the story summaries actually summarize the story. Really, why should we know what the story is about, when we could click on the link to find out and generate revenue for the target site (assuming that site hasn't already been slashdotted, in which case it's impossible to have any idea what the story is about)? Really, come on! Editors doing editorial duties? What are you going ask for next, that they use a spell checker? Or that they actually read their own site to make sure they don't duplicate stories?
Remember, Slashdot is just Rob's personal site that happens to enjoy a large audience. Or so the line goes when someone has a gripe with the way it's run. To parrot the trolls, if you don't like it, leave. (I don't subscribe to that view, as it's a downward spiral leaving slashdot with nothing but first posters and trolls, but hey, if that's what they want ...)
And now for the karma whoring -- That wooshing noise is the sound of a thousand moderators clicking "troll" and/or "flamebait" (guaranteed to get me modded up to at least +4).
Re:This is a summary? (Score:2)
Re:This is a summary? (Score:3, Funny)
*rim-shot*
Re:This is a summary? (Score:3)
Re:This is a summary? (Score:2)
I couldn't say anything up in the subject line, because, well -- they might be watching.
We in the underground of the One Good Site support you. When the rising up of the Quality Posts is upon Us, you will be asked to make a Sacrifice.
Until then, keep the Faith.
Re:Ok, I'll dumb it down for you. (Score:2)
1. Make new stuff.
2. Karma whore.
3. Profit!
Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what? That's a load of crap, and you know it. I don't even care that you tried to cover your blatant generalization up in the next sentence of the write-up. If someone tells a racist joke, are they not a racist regardless of if they were "just joking"?
I'm sick of these "it's either this way, or that way" people. The computing field is full of a ton of smart people who have more than one ability. I can code with the best of 'em but still am confident that, if necessary and so desired, I could run a group of a dozen or two programmers, system administrators, etc.
The reason I get so upset sometimes is that people pigeonhole themselves into a specific career (major in computer engineering OR major in management OR major in English, etc.) before thinking "Hey, ya know, maybe I'm gifted enough to do both coding and project management and testing, and hey, maybe even a few interviews."
I love to see other fellow men and women reach their highest potential, but that can't happen when you segregate folks into one specific area.
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2, Informative)
This happens to be Microsofts current vision statement or mission statement or motto, or whatever it is that appears on their commercials.
I do agree with you though. There's absolutely no reason to pigeonhole ourselves into a specific career. At the University of Michigan business school the highest percentage of students (27%) have an undergraduate degree in engineering.
Plenty of geeks are out there getting MBAs or Law degrees.
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2)
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2, Insightful)
How many programmers dedicate their programming time to caring intentions such as making software to help people? They do exist, but I think the generalisation that programmers do programming for fun is more or less true. Or else there'd be far more sites like arachnoid.com on the internet.
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2)
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sick of these "it's either this way, or that way" people.
Well the poster wasn't one of those people, perhaps I should include the next sentence which you mentioned and yet completely ignored.
Yes, that is an oversimplification, and there's overlap between the two types -- there are plenty of profit-seeking geeks and geeky business folks. Still, the distinction is real.'"
And he's right, can you honestly tell me there isn't a bit of truth to that statement. The fact is that he made a statement that in general that held true. Of course it isn't this way or that way. He wasn't thinking that when he wrote it I didn't think that when I read it and I'm sure that you were perceptive enough to realize it. This has nothing to do with any form of discrimination. It really irritates me when people make that mistake. The truth is that some groups are more prone to crime and to be less productive. Why? It has nothing to do with culture or ethnic backgrough. It's simply the fact that they have been placed in socio-economic circumstances that make it very hard to succeed. Too often because of political correctness people ignore these problems and nothing gets done. Meanwhile people who hold discriminatory views continue to hold them because they don't know better since no one who knows better is willing to discuss the situation. Of course I don't know if you fall into any of these categories but I will mention a couple things in closing. One if you don't make generalizations it's very difficult to have any sort of higher level conversations and two, if you are criticising the generalizations the poster made I will point out that you made more generalizations about him than he did about "suits" and "geeks".
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2)
And I'm sick of knee-jerks who go into spasms of rightous indignation every time they see a generalization.
The reality is that what the guy said is true a lot of the time, so what'cha bitchin about?
You could have made the simple point that some people are polymaths without the overheated accusations and spitting frenzy.
"Don't have a cow, man"
Rocky J. Squirrel
Re:Agreed! (Score:2)
I am also sick of the mentality of "it's either this way, or that way". I'm also very, very sick of the 'win/loose' people. Frankly, there are a lot of problems in society which simply cannot be solved with such a narrow minded, simplistic viewpoint as that. I agree completely with your comments!
Right on regarding pigeonholing and careers!
Damn. SteweyGriffin, I'm a fan.
Re:Agreed! (Score:2)
Yeah, I wish I had something better going on in my life that I didn't have so much time to procrastinate by posting to slashdot. Ah well. The glass is always half full, right? I'm improving by web authoring skills... (yeah, right...)
Re:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey you're young, smart and multi-talented right and you can do anything right? Perhaps, but you are in a distinct minority. VERY few people will actually be happy writing code OR managing coders. I've worked with a LARGE number of people over 18 years in this business and I've met virtually no one who is both a good engineer and a good manager. The personalities that do well in these two different roles are VERY different (for one, engineers tend to be introverted and managers extroverted).
I'm with the original post - it is a fairly accurate generalization. There are those who make and there are those who shuffle papers, go to meetings and play politics. Believe it.
Which is all well and good, for *you* (Score:2, Insightful)
The American "job system" is really just a form of fuedalism in disguise. YOU do not provide for yourself and your family, your "Lord" does, although he wraps it in a pretty package to artfully disguise the true relationship.
This is no particular surprise. The system evoloved directly out of the British Fuedal system which merely replaced the agricultural Lord with a mine manager. The "workers" were, and are, serfs in everything but name anyway. The only added "freedom" is the right to change allegience to another "Lord," or starve.
Or make one's own way.
There are coders who are perfectly comfortable at the workstation AND in the board room. I can think of a particular example off the top of my head who is world famous for being a coder *and* a positively *rapacious* businessman. You may have heard of him. His name is Bill something or other.
And if you work for him you are *his,* and *he* makes the money in your paycheck.
There are even a few odd coders here and there who are good enough at business that they've managed to put a good many dollars in their pocket producing "free" code. The two are *not* incompatible.
Me, I think specialization is for insects, but that's me. Your milage may vary.
You may, as far as *I* am concerned, manage to find a living in any lawful ( and perhaps even a few select *unlawful*) means available to you that works for you.
This does not invalidate the point of the parent poster that the differentiation between "coders" and "businessmen" is bullshit. This is true even when the differentiation is between the production of "free" vs. propriatary software.
*People* ( as opposed to *you*) are more diverse than that.
KFG
Re:Which is all well and good, for *you* (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. I'm impressed that you have time to code at all -- much less post to slashdot -- what with all the farming and milling and weaving and such that you must be doing.
Oh, wait. You mean you buy food from a market and clothes from a store, rather than growing or making your own? Gasp! It sounds like you've specialized a tad
The usual and current rant against "specialization" is just as much a load of crap now as it was when Thoreau screeched "Simplify, simplify, simplify" while using a printing press (a pretty complicated piece of machinery).
Re:Which is all well and good, for *you* (Score:5, Funny)
Rubbish. Specialization is for specific cases in a templated function.
Um... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Um... (Score:2)
Re:well (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd have to agree... (Score:2, Informative)
I know my website (www.sometimes.org (which is currently down for a redo, will return January 1st, 2003)) is much along the same lines. It's mostly an open forum for people to discuss and display their "art" (for which I have a very loose definition [there is a programming section, for example]). I am going to be spending tons of money on this venture in the next few months in particular, and although I have very vague plans in the back of my head to eventually turn a profit from this, I figure I'll figure that out when I get there.
In the mean time, I'm doing it for fun.
Re:I'd have to agree... (Score:2, Informative)
I also like to write poetry, short stories and novels. Why? I find it fun and relaxing.
With any venture, you have to do it for the hell of it in the beginning. Worry about making money once you got all the details sorted out. Until then, have fun!
What's the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
As if that was somehow a lesser goal. They are isomorphic, in that they both consist of informational efficiency gains. Here's what I mean.
Geeks see a need for a device/program. They function as a evolutionary force to fill an "ecological" niche. The niche is the need, the device is the thing that exploits the niche. "Suits" do the same thing. They see a financial or economic inefficiency and they create a "device" (a financial instrument or business, say) to exploit it. They are money hackers. Profit is just another way of saying efficiency which everyone here knows is related to elegance.
Sure, suits don't care about the elegance of YOUR crap--but you don't care about yours, so why should they. And they are rightly in charge, since their feet are on the ground. Now if only those damn liberals in Congress would understand that people like Ken Lay should be praised for increasing efficiency instead of castigated.
I agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I agree (Score:2)
Re:I agree (Score:2)
I think he meant to say "A liberal like Nader..." and since Nader seems to want a strong benevolent paternal government, I can only assume that the anonymous poster was making an attempt at sarcasm.
Re:I disagree (Score:2)
Lol, at least the "damn liberals" aren't racist. (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess there will be no excuses (terrorism, or terraism/tourism as the president would say) when everything is still shitty in 2 years. Oh well, I guess they cut my taxes.
No one wants anything from the govt (society) until they are in need (ie medical healthcare), then every pathetic "racist" that lost their ass in the great stock market crash of 2000-2002 comes whining that they cannot afford to pay for health care. Fuck'em is what I say.
Since when did the "religious/racist" party give a shit about being hypocrites. Going to church every sunday and talking about how good you are and how you help so much (by giving to your "church/cult") for another activity center. When the fucking public school across the street doesn't have textbooks newer than 1983 and the building is falling apart. I fucking hate "conservatives/cocksuckers"
Notice my state of utterly moronic people. We voted all conservatives on the national level but all liberal on the local level. How the fuck does that happen? Welcome to DipShit USA. If I hear one more person say "I voted for him based on his character and I liked him better." I'm going to puke. All that means is "His commercial was more appealing than the other guy." Unbelievable.
Can't wait for my Flamebait.... so mod away assholes.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
"Suits" on the other hand create to fill a niche. They fill needs. Big fat obvious example: Gates (also a geek) filled a need: Software to make PC's accessable to the masses. Linux is created just to be created. It doesn't fill any needs that aren't already met. Most people don't have any compelling reason to use it. It's there because it's there. MS is there because people *wanted* it there.
What are you talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What's the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not always true, the orginal personal computers could do basically nothing and, as many pointed out at the time, no one really needed one. Many of the orginal programmers and engineers built them anyway though, not because they needed them but because they thought they would be fun to play around with. They had no interest in 'exploiting' the technology, they just wanted to have fun with it.
Sure, suits don't care about the elegance of YOUR crap--but you don't care about yours, so why should they
I do care about the elegance of my programs. If my programs were inefficent (or just plain crap) I would be ashamed to say I wrote them. I take pride in what I write as every programmer should. Our programs are a reflection of our abilities. We care about the quality of what we produce, suits should care about the quality of what they are trying to sell. If your selling crap, then maybe you should reflect on the ethics of what your doing.
You also seem to be trying to rationalize your drive to make money(aka greed) by fooling yourself into believing that everyone else is only interested in the same thing. Making a good program that ppl can use is not the same as designing a means to exploits others' needs (which is what you seem to be doing.)
We program becuase it is fun. We create things to help people, not exploit them. You sell our programs becuase you seem to just want to make more money. You exploit others needs for your own personal gain. If people don't need something, you try to trick them into thinking they do. You help no one but yourself. That's the difference.
Re:What's the difference? (Score:2)
Please explain to me how Big Mouth Billy Bass makes the world more efficient and/or elegant.
I disagree (Score:3, Interesting)
Characterizing it like that is a blatant attempt to make the suit-geek dichotomy go away, and its not working. For one thing, everyone understands money, geeks included. When a suit is concerned with the bottom-line, we can at least understand where he's coming from. The converse is (often) not even remotely true. In the extreme, suits understand money, and money alone. Geeks, on the other hand, hold the position that while money is important, in some circumstances, elegance trumps money. So while geeks understand both the ephemeral "elegance" AND the more obvious bottom line, suits usually only understand money.
Therein lies the problem. If anything, the Geek is more dedicated to the bottom line than the Suit, because a more elegant solution is a part of or even the foundation of a sound business model, especially in the long run. However, a Suit who typically has little or no understanding of the domain, or the humility to take the advice of those who do often cuts technological corners (like hiring MSCEs) with deleterious effects on the bottom line. A geek suggesting the use of free open-source software will get modded down in the board room because "Everyone uses Microsoft." The reason for the stereotype of the Pointy Haired Boss is because it is unfortunately common. Not the pointy hair part, the inept technological aptitude part.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only one... (Score:2)
The rest of the artile (Score:5, Funny)
Because they can... (Score:3, Funny)
Because they can is essential for making anything at all. I've personally never made anything that I can't make.
Re:Because they can... (Score:2)
I take great joy in doing things I can't do. (Okay, if you want to pick nits, it's stuff I couldn't do and learned in the process of doing, but it sounds better to phrase it the other way.)
I've been thinking about writing an app to quiz me on Koine Greek (very similar to Attic Greek spoken in the Helenistic erra). I'm leaning towards writing it as a Zope Python script, but PHP is also a strong option.
Do things b/c you can't, not b/c you can.
Geeks v. Suits (Score:5, Insightful)
The geeks here sounds like creative types who still live with their parents and maybe have a nice car; the suits genderless soulless drones with 401(k)'s and more likely have a nice car.
If anything this article illustrates the uselessness of stereotypes. As soon as the writer concedes the existence of hybird strains, the binary distinction loses value. Better to talk about these different qualities and identify people who have interesting mixes. Someone else here mentions race; I wouldn't be so melodramatic, but yes it's analogous. Geek and suit are superimposed social abstractions that, as individuals, we should reject.
Now I feel like I'm working a little hard to make something interesting of a humdrum article that reads like something written on a deadline and a hangover. How come they never take my submissions?
Re:Geeks v. Suits (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geeks v. Suits (Score:4, Insightful)
As soon as someone displays these three qualities, they cease being a "suit" in my opinion. It's just that there are so many climbers who don't actually produce *anything*, have *never* done anything, have no skills at all, and in fact continually make utterly stupid decisions that cause costly damage. The good thing about a recession, of course, is that the middle managers are weeded out pretty rapidly.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should try to run a company by him/herself
See, there's your problem right there. Most managerial positions *aren't* running the company! What exactly they are doing, no-one seems to know. I try to only work in organizations with relatively "flat" structures, and where everyone works to produce things that can be seen and have actual value, not "synergy", or "pro-active visions for win/win scenarios", or corporate theme songs, or dolls of the CEO, or whatever else they spoon feed people in MBA "school".
Re:Geeks v. Suits (Score:2)
Well, "Suits" do have the problem that they are human beings.
When I thing about the "suits" I've had big problems with they fall into two catagories (me having a big problem is my definition of evil of course):
1. idiots who're faking their way through their jobs, and making a big mess
2. intelligent, capable people who are insecure and neurotic (read - "great big, egotistical assholes")
Since most people aren't brilliant and since pushy neurotic people are the ones who push themselves to the top while the sane people send out their resumes to get away from the carnage, these problems are common as water.
So there's enough bad blood between "suits" and everyone else based on the fact that we're all unfortunately human to justify the use of all sorts of epethets.
Rocky J. Squirrel
Good distinction... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Suits" -- i.e., Microsoft, Sun, Apple -- create operating systems and software which appeal to wide swaths of people. They have to; they have something to sell and money to make.
"Geeks" -- i.e., most of the GPL community -- write software for the purpose of writing software. The end result is pure art in a way.
A good analogy would be the world of photography. Professional photographers take pictures for magazines and newspapers, or at weddings, etc. They need to be product-driven, they have something to sell, and it shows in their work.
Artistic photographers, on the other hand, are driven by purity. They strive for an artistic goal, which is very different from the commerical one.
The same thing could go for music -- say the wide world of "artistic music" and artists (okay, okay, that's a sensitive one here on /.) and studio bands.
Questions and comments welcome. Flames ignored. Post resonsibly
Re:Good distinction... (Score:2)
It's not true that anyone can look at and edit the code of a GPL product. It's anyone who knows how to program in the language in which the producted was written in who can work with the code. "If a feature you want isn't there, add it yourself" is not a model that can go very far.
Those who try to commecialize GPL products, such as Red Hat and Lindows, act as a bridge between the common user and the programmer's universe. If it weren't for the people who are motivated by money do dumb things down to the lowest common denominator, would anybody who can't program in C be able to use Linux?
Re:Good distinction... (Score:2)
"Geeks" -- i.e., most of the GPL community -- write software for the purpose of writing software. The end result is pure art in a way.
Well apart from being slightly offensive to commercial programmers this is both historically and currently incorrect. I know from personal experience that a large number of the people working at and running Apple very much do it for the love of programming - particularly creating exciting products. Apple was founded by geeks and dreamers.
From people I know who work at Sun the same spirit of geekdom and innovation exist there.
There certainly are many people in any large organization whose motives are more oriented towards profit and business. The strength of these companies is they combine both approaches to produce excellent products that people actually want.
Creating software for its own end is ultimately a waste of time and talent. The true test of good software is that it solves real problems and real people want to use it.
Re:Good distinction... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are plenty of "true artists" working in commercial realms out there. You tend to end up bringing your methodologies to your workplace, and learning things from the workplace to use in your pursuit of "pure art" in your spare time.
If you're rich or live with your parents/on welfare you can stick to "pure art" alone, but some people feel better working, paying taxes and eating something other than instant noodles...
Why do geeks do stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why do geeks do stuff? (Score:2)
What about.. (Score:2)
Profits? who needs it! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think for things like software and web servers, profit will be secondary. Yes, I've witnessed the .com crash, but here me out:
Free software applications have to replace all common off the shelf softwate (except for stuff like games, which is more "content" than application). Simply put, time is on free software's side. Maybe not now, maybe not soon, but eventually, someone will have written a free replacement for every commercial off-the-shelf application.
Similarly, many web sites and web services seem to be too simple (from an application complexity point of view) to demand any kind of real subscription fees to users. People won't pay them, for the most part, so sites have to slim down and make due with ad revenues.
(shameless plug, check out the site on my sig for an example of such a web service)
There's no reason why geekism's a problem. (Score:5, Interesting)
A geek writes some software/builds some hardware that takes off, and starts to become recognised as good/cool via word-of-mouth. Geeks everywhere start to chip in and help him, because that's by nature what geeks do. A bussinessman sees an oppourtunity to provide a service of some sort that will enhance the geeks' new toy. The bussinessman makes money, the geek gets recognition (and job offers), the consumers/users win.
While this is very simplistic, I can't see why this process can't be applied to most good, cool, or useful things. No matter what anyone says, if something is useful or entertaining, it is profitable, directly or otherwise.
So all technologists with or without dayjobs, make time to help/start geek projects. After all if you're a real geek, this sort of work doubles as play.
Re:There's no reason why geekism's a problem. (Score:2)
Also, often a geek will allow themselves to be "bought out" by a Bill G entrepreneur type because they think that it will be best for that particular project. On the other hand, the Bill G type could mislead the geek, or change their approach to the product/service later on, but that's life. You sell something to someone, they are going to be able to screw it up. That's life.
Not suprising (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't worked in many companies (I'm only 23), but, there is an example here that I can draw from my tiny experience: web related technologies and their associated databases, and how that relates to Linux and open source.
In a large company like mine, database clients, the OSs to run them, and the databases that they serve are, together, big business indeed. To serve about 700 people of all manner of trade using one unified client system is tough. You have people that need to make hundreds of transactions a day, and people that need to use this data to connect to yet other clients to arrange services from yet other clients. You need increased IT staff that must manage it and use it themselves, and automation people that must keep it running and add needed and unforseen features. For such a solution, both my previous company and the one I work for now chooses PeopleSoft.
Companies like PeopleSoft and their associated vendors love Microsoft and other proprietary vendors. They push Win2k for the desktops, .NET for the developers, and SQL for the database. This is because with this combination, they can force you into a static model (predictable and simple for them) that is easy for them to control. The assured future upgrades of more Microsoft technologies will keep them involved, because their solution only works with it, and will "evolve" with it (I.E. they make their new products more efficient with future Microsoft technologies). They can also sell you these MS products and the consultation needed to implement them because they are vendors of them themselves. No need to go to the Microsoft salesman for "the latest and greatest" when PeopleSoft can just "throw it all in together".
My previous company was ready to spend 1.5 million on PeopleSoft, 500k for Microsoft technologies needed to run it, and hire three programmers and admins to keep it all going for the next 3 years. I saved them about 500k by showing them how I could replace the PeopleSoft "solutions" to run on Linux terminals and simple PHP/mySQL clients that could be used from a web browser. Many Win2k licenses were avoided, many PeopleSoft licenses were avoided, many SQL licenses were avoided, and any 1rst year CS student could tailor my code in the future (I.E. out source a programmer for a week at a time).
The reason why I only saved them 500k and not the full 2 million (plus new staff)? Because the PeopleSoft salespeople have very slippery tongues, and talked the suits into using it at about a 60-65% distribution model (compared to the old 100% model). The local PeopleSoft guy still hates me for showing my old bosses that, with just a little know how and open source, you could replace their crap with highly efficient and simple tools at a fraction of the cost. In this case, nothing, since I didn't recieve any extra money for my time - only my usual salary.
Such is life.
Re:Not suprising (Score:2, Insightful)
This has absolutely nothing to do with open source vs. commercial software. It is the age-old buy vs. build debate. You could just as easily built the same system with Active Server Pages/SQL Server or JSP/Oracle instead of PHP and mySQL and still saved your company a boatload of money.
There are a lot of cases where building your own software is less expensive in the short run than buying a commercial package. The real test will be over the next 5 or 10 years when the total cost of your solution becomes apparent. What happens when somebody comes out with something better and PHP becomes a "legacy" system? Will a 1st year student still be able to fix your code? What happens if mySQL isn't widely supported any more? Will you still be able to outsource development? Sure the same thing might happen to Microsoft's technology and Peoplesoft's applications, but I think the odds are a little more in their favor.
The Peoplesoft people may hate you now, but there's also the risk that your bosses will hate you down the road for locking them into supporting custom software when a widely-used commercial solution was available.
Re:Not suprising (Score:3, Informative)
There is no way you can kill opensource software. Many companies who have bought into os/2, paradox, borland, lotus, and other things that were hot 15 years ago got burned. What if Microsoft decides to directly compete with peoplesoft and they go under because of it?
Its this reasoning why CIO's buy all or mostly microsoft products. They buy out of fear. Microsoft is already entering the crm market and will likely prevail because they are Microsoft.
Opensource software can not be bought out, file for chapter 11 bankrupty, or be cancelled due to lack of demand or a new direction by a CEO.
The only argument agaisnt opensource software is the fact that pallidium might kill it since only visual c++ can sign "trusted code" and I would not be supprised to see a eula forbidding to compile gnu licensed code therefore killing anything non proprietary on %99 of the world's computers. Scary shit.
I am a strong believer in custom software because its best suited for your needs and more flexible. Everything becomes obsolete eventually and upgrading it makes more sense then buying later and later versions and hoping it still works for your needs. Needs change and sometimes your software does not have the ability to adapt to your change. With something in-house created you know it fits your needs and will always do so best and is cheaper in the long run.
Nothing commercial can ever come close.
Re:Not suprising (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a valid point. I am constantly dealing with employees of companies that hire me as a conusltant(GASP).
This week I was called into an orginization that has genius programmer. Mr. PHP, KING Database, the kid has skills I would give a testicle for(really). But he cant see the big picture. He can see the OSS pic, but not around it.
His answer always is to build instead of buy. We are always locking horns because he never realizes.
1. Although you might be out of more cash intitally, you get a product that functions out of the box, has been tested, and has support.
2.You build, you have to go through alpha, beta, testing, and then it works. SO you extend the time frame by a factor of 20 just so he could roll his own.
He hates me because they usually end up outsourcing projects to me.
Two examples.
1. Company sells a product that they have had on the market for 50 years. They sell a lot of said product. They want eccommerce because people are asking for it. Their in house IT kiddie tells them he can write a store ground up in six months and cost them nothing but a 5 grand as a bonus to him.
They call me for an opinion. They ask me me if they offered me the same money what would i do and in what kinda time frame. I said 5 grand? 3 weeks complete eccommerce. Turnkey. I send them a contract. They sign.
They get hosting that comes with a miva merchant. I build a complete site with 300 products in the three weeks time. I make it pretty, you dont even know its miva. And in three months they have netted 20 grand off the website. 5 grand solution, three weeks time. The client loves it. The IT guy hates it.
2. Second problem. Customers want knowledgebase. Inhouse it says he can develop in three months. Guess he knew they would call me. They want forums where customers can ask questions and company members can respond. How much and how soon. 1500 dollars and two days I say. The IT guy tells me impossible and I will not make them happy. I tell the company I will do it free and they do not have to pay me if they dont like it. They say go for it.
I buy Vbulletin. 165 bucks. Customize the look, put their logo. Create forums. 1 day.
The customers and the owners love it. Instant forums, instant knowledgebase.
The great thing is all the products i used were inexpensive, plenty of info for them all over the net. And if for some reason they get mad at me. It wont be hard to find someone to tinker with them.
I sell the solution that will not lock the customer into a corner. Namely me. And I keep customers because I sell proven things.
Puto
sucking it up (Score:5, Interesting)
When I think centralized companies, I think back to my Managing Quality prof from this semester saying how a lot of companies are flattening out their structures from having tall hierarchies to wide bases with a few upper people. Meaning, less people telling you what to do, but more people around you trying to work with you on everything...
Are the two totally related? Probably not. But when you're soon to be entering the job market, its food for thought, and leaves me more confused than ever... What do I want to do, and who do I want to do it for?
Article ignores most obvious example (Score:5, Interesting)
Many people these days tend to forget that Gates IS also a geek. Whether you want to admit it or not he was hacking some pretty good assembler code back when a large portion of the Slashdot readship was still wearing diapers.
Re:Article ignores most obvious example (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't forget about the rest of the company. Three of the smartest, most technical people I have worked with are now employed by Microsoft. Outside the vast wastelands of the marketing and legal departments, I'd bet a large percentage of Microsoft employees fit the flimsy "geek" definition in this article a lot closer than the one for "suits".
Re:Article ignores most obvious example (Score:2)
Paul Alan was hacking code. Gates was the promoter. He may have done some minor stuff here and there. But I assure you that Gates was a suit all the way.
yes, but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If he was as good (a geek) as you claim, he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to buy it.
Re:yes, but.... (Score:2)
That was the first good business decision. He bought it for 50 grand, hired the guy who wrote it originally, then licensed it out to IBM who were looking for an OS for their new 'PC' thing.
But, it was his BASIC implementation that got IBM talking to him in the first place. He was one of the original authors of that.
Geekery got him in the game. Business sense got him the rest of the way.
different strokes (Score:2)
Too bad no one around him gets any of the credit....must be something in the coolaid.
Ok, lest I didn't make myself clear...you guys are defending/idolizing a criminal. I don't admire him for anything...zero. You're free to laddle on the adoration, but I don't have to get in the same reception line. Talk to the hand.
Re:yes, but.... REal History of Dos Fools (Score:3, Funny)
DOS vs Windows vs OS/2 vs... then READ IT.
How It Came To Pass...
Long ago, in the days when all disks flopped in the breeze and the
writing of words was on a star, the Blue Giant dug for the people the
Pea Sea. But he needed a creature who could sail the waters, and would
need for support but few rams.
So the Gatekeeper, who was said to be both micro and soft, fashioned a
Dosfish, who was small and spry, and could swim the narrow sixteen-bit
channel. But the Dosfish was not bright, and could be taught few new
tricks. His alphabet had no A's, B's, or Q's, but a mere 640 K's, and
the size of his file cabinet was limited by his own fat.
At first the people loved the Dosfish, for he was the only one who
could swim the Pea Sea. But the people soon grew tired of commanding
his line, and complained that he could be neither dragged nor dropped.
"Forsooth," they cried. "the Dosfish can only do one job at a time, and
of names, he knows only eight and three." And many of them left the
Pea Sea for good, and went off in search of the Magic Apple.
Although many went, far more stayed, because admittance to the Pea Sea
was cheap. So the Gateskeeper studied the Magic Apple, and rested
awhile in the Parc of Xer-Ox, and he made a Window that could ride on
the Dosfish and do its thinking for it. But the Window was slow, and
it would break when the Dosfish got confused. So most people contented
themselves with the Dosfish.
Now it came to pass that the Blue Giant came upon the Gateskeeper, and
spoke thus: "Come, let us make of ourselves something greater than the
Dosfish." The Blue Giant seemed like a humbug, so they called the new
creature OZ II.
Now Oz II was smarter than the Dosfish, as most things are. It could
drag and drop, and could keep files without becoming fat. But the
people cared for it not. So the Blue Giant and the Gateskeeper
promised another OZ II, to be called Oz II Too, that could swim the
fast new 32-bit wide Pea Sea.
Then lo, a strange miracle occurred. Although the Window that rode on
the Dosfish was slow, it was pretty, and the third Window was the
prettiest of all. And the people began to like the third Window, and
to use it. So the Gateskeeper turned to the Blue Giant and said, "Fie
on thee, for I need thee not. Keep thy OZ II Too, and I shall make of
my Window an Entity that will not need the Dosfish, and will swim in
the 32-bit Pea Sea."
Years passed, and the workshops of the Gateskeeper and the Blue Giant
were overrun by insects. And the people went on using their Dosfish
with a Window; even though the Dosfish would from time to time become
confused and die, it could always be revived with three fingers.
Then there came a day when the Blue Giant let forth his OZ II Too onto
the world. The Oz II Too was indeed mighty, and awesome, and required
a great ram, and the world was changed not a whit. For the people said,
"It is indeed great, but we see little application for it." And they
were doubtful, because the Blue Giant had met with the Magic Apple, and
together they were fashioning a Taligent, and the Taligent was made of
objects, and was most pink.
Now the Gateskeeper had grown ambitious, and as he had been ambitious
before he grew, he was now more ambitious still. So he protected his
Window Entity with great security, and made its net work both in
serving and with peers. And the Entity would swim, not only in the Pea
Sea, but in the Oceans of Great Risk. "Yea," the Gateskeeper declared,
"though my entity will require a greater ram than Oz II Too, it will be
more powerful than a world of Eunuchs.
And so the Gateskeeper prepared to unleash his Entity to the world, in
all but two cities. For he promised that a greater Window, a greater
Entity, and even a greater Dosfish would appear one day in Chicago and
Cairo, and it too would be built of objects.
Now the Eunuchs who lived in the Oceans of Great Risk, and who scorned
the Pea Sea, began to look upon their world with fear. For the Pea Sea
had grown, and great ships were sailing in it, the Entity was about to
invade their oceans, and it was rumored that files would be named in
letters greater than eight. And the Eunuchs looked upon the Pea Sea,
and many of them thought to immigrate.
Within the Oceans of Great Risk were many Sun Worshippers, and they
wanted to excel, and make their words perfect, and do their jobs as
easy as one-two-three. And what's more, many of them no longer wanted
to pay for the Risk. So the Sun Lord went to the Pea Sea, and got
himself eighty-sixed.
And taking the next step was He of the NextStep, who had given up
building his boxes of black. And he proclaimed loudly that he could
help anyone make wondrous soft wares, then admitted meekly that only
those who know him could use those wares, and he was made of objects,
and required the biggest ram of all.
And the people looked out upon the Pea Sea, and they were sore amazed.
And sore confused. And sore sore. And that is why, to this day, Ozes,
Entities, and Eunuchs battle on the shores of the Pea Sea, but the
people still travel on the simple Dosfish.
two different things bubba :) (Score:2)
bg has loads of one and shards of the other.
Live at home? No, I moved in with your daughter....ooops...I promised not to tell. She says hi!
oh yes....very impressive (Score:2)
"BASIC
A programming language, originally designed for Dartmouth's experimental timesharing system in the early 1960s, which for many years was the leading cause of brain damage in proto-hackers. Edsger W. Dijkstra observed in "Selected Writings on Computing: A Personal Perspective" that "It is practically impossible to teach good programming style to students that have had prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." This is another case (like Pascal) of the cascading lossage that happens when a language deliberately designed as an educational toy gets taken too seriously. A novice can write short BASIC programs (on the order of 10-20 lines) very easily; writing anything longer (a) is very painful, and (b) encourages bad habits that will make it harder to use more powerful languages well. This wouldn't be so bad if historical accidents hadn't made BASIC so common on low-end micros in the 1980s. As it is, it probably ruined tens of thousands of potential wizards. "
2 easy (Score:2)
laugh...it's funnnnnnny....
"Decentralization" or Unrestriction (Score:2, Interesting)
It is probably a mistake to try to relate this "balance" to the future of Silicon Valley or our economy for the following reason: There must be tangible financial benefits for there "home-brewed" or "geek-driven" applications to really be exploited and capitalized on.
That was the case for the internet's early days (before the web) and still is the case for P2P; it isn't the first person who manages to come up with something new that benefits from it, it is the first person who figures out how to make a profit from it... and has incentive to market, etc...
Re:"Decentralization" or Unrestriction (Score:2)
2. IBM markets.
3. IBM profits. Geeks still live in parents' basement.
"Why? Because we can..." (Score:2, Funny)
yes, much the the annoyance of receiving a $120 electric bill for a 810 sq. ft. apartment, where the air conditioning has to be run in the winter time to keep all of the equipment cool enough...
Geeks and Suits have a lot of in common (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Make cool thing
2. ???
3. Profit
Suit's model
1. ???
2. Market, Advertise, Sell
3. Profit
Yeah, they have a lot of in common. It's step 3.
Re:Geeks and Suits have a lot of in common (Score:2)
"Manufacturer", not "Geek" (Score:3, Interesting)
In the first half of the 20th century, when mass production really got going, this was a clear distinction. Understand, throughout all of history up to then, making stuff took a lot of work on each item. Even simple items were expensive. Suddenly, in one lifetime, that all changed. Machines were developed for stamping, moulding, glassblowing, punching, rolling, and the other operations of manufacturing. Those machines got faster and more powerful. For the first time ever, the world was awash in manufactured goods.
The relationship between manufacturers, who put the machines and plants together to make stuff, and the financiers, who put deals together, was much like the "geek" and "suit" distinction today.
umm so? (Score:2)
Success. (Score:2)
Geeks tend to be successful because they know they will be.
Businesses tend to look successful because they have been successful.
1-p is as valid a metric as p.
Two kinds of business (Score:2, Insightful)
You can make goods, or provide services, because you can make money doing it. Or you can do it because it's what you like to do, and making money doing it is just the best way to pay the bills while you keep doing it.
Whatever the business is, computers, sailboats, farming, medicine -- if you're doing it because you love it, then you're a geek; if you're doing it to make money, you're a suit.
Clearly the two (geeks & suits) can exist in a symbiotic relationship. The suit can use the geek's love of building widgets to make money; the geek can use the suit's ability to manage finances in order to keep his operation funded.
Public corporations are primarily suit-driven. Sole proprietorships and family businesses are probably mostly geek-driven.
What color is your suit? (Score:2, Interesting)
The truth is, both types are firmly entrenched in our humanity. Half a century of various failed or struggling communist social models bear out that there will always be those motivated by greed. Half the art hanging in MOMA bears out that there will always be those who couldn't care less about the vote of the common Joe's greenback.
Most of us have a little "suit" in us, even if we pretend not to. Developing GPL software, for example, is often just a form of apprenticeship, or self-teaching. Most people who develop GPL software would not be satisfied with working the stamp at a steel factory forever to support their hobby. Those who would are rare (but, notably, valuable to the world; while artists often only end up living a hard, poverty stricken life, they populate the cutting edge of human thought.) On a similar vein, one likely would do the world much more good by devoting their life to a project such as world hunger, as opposed to taking classes in electronic engineering and wiring up the l33test battle bot this side of TNN. Only with world hunger, you get to meet mankind, not Mankind.
The base problem here (if you call it that) is human greed and self-interest. Remove that and the ocasional division between art and usefullness is no longer relavent. Unfortunately, remove that and most of humanity dies of starvation and dolphins take over the world. Which is mostly like it is now, except with more dolphins.
Crisis... in decent articles maybe (Score:2, Insightful)
In an economic slowdown would you expect innovation to also be stifled? That would be the best time to innovate since a truly good idea would be successful when others would die as they should. The whole dotcom era let every silly idea live for a while, with venture capital, and now the good ideas from the dotcom era are being sorted out to the top (XML, Java) and the 2nd generation will be the result.
From what I see it is a good thing. Head over to Apache.org and you will see lots of very useful projects which leverage lots of good ideas. This article is just crap.
the distinction is NOT real... (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many hardcore geeks who are also trying to make a profit -- so many that it creates an infinitely blurred line. You are trying to invent a definition of "geeks" and "suits." In real life there are billions of different people, all with infinitely differing shades of motives and values. I hope you get some more experience with real life very soon.
But Profit == Useful (to someone) (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking about making things because it's fun... (Score:3, Insightful)
In general, a good chindogu solves a real problem but creates a new one at the same time.
Like one of my favorites: The solar powered flashlight.
Business and e2e (Score:2, Interesting)
The two-page Salon report wonders what the business models for e2e are, and what the consequences of greater commercial interest in e2e technologies might be. The quoted introduction (and high-rated comments) are not very representative of the story. It doesn't say anything very surprising, but there's more there than the dubious geek/suit dichotomy.
--Anthony.
The truth (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to putting bread on the table - something that geeks are intrinsicly poor at - I'd rather be a suit. What the geek culture fails to recognise is that there is a time and a place for this sort of thing, and this behavior is useless in the work environment. That's why the entire dot-com bubble burst, remember?
Re:The truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe I shouldn't be speaking since I'm a college student and only have myself to feed, but I sure hope I don't ever say "I'd rather be a suit." Maybe it sounds immature and naive when I say this, but to me, it sounds an aweful lot like admitting defeat and submitting to the norm.
Personally, I'd like to give my software away for free and still put bread on the table. I don't know if it's possible, but I like to think it is. And I'll be damned if I don't at least try.
Re:The truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it does.
Personally, I'd like to give my software away for free and still put bread on the table.
I run a store. I'd like to give away my products *and* pay my mortgage. It ain't gonna happen. Not on this planet.
- A suit
Re:The truth (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, it happens (on this planet too). Phone companies give away cell phones and cell service. Gilette gives away disposable razors and sells replacement blades. Radio stations give away music and sell air time for commercials. It's actually a well known business model. The tough part, at least for me, is to apply the same for my software [ilohamail.org].
Re:The truth (Score:3, Interesting)
For Software, the model of giving something away to make a profit is the halmark of the 90's and early 00's. The reason is thoretically when support is factored in software can have an infinate cost to the company that produces it. For most propietary software, where the software support cost is bundled with the cost of purchasing the product, the actual support cost is unknown. For some products after the second or third call, the income from the sale of the software has already been eaten up. Many companies have moved to giving the software away for free and selling the content, the service, support or all three.
A good example is Redhat. They give away, their brand of linux every day. Thousands of people download their product off their website for free. Yes free. What they sell is service and support subscriptions. Also beyond the scope of actual products, Redhat gives away a lot of code and integration time, back to the community. Things like gcc development, kernel code etc.
Yahoo, AOL and MSN all give a way product every day. Yahoo has tons of games, content, free e-mail, all for the minimal price of looking at some advertising. They also have a number of upsells to improve the quality of the free product, but the key is they give it away first. AOL and MSN do simmilar things.
Slashdot, while albiet questionable, provides content that get thousands of comments a day. All for the price of watching the pretty banner add at the top of the screen.
Re:The truth (Score:2)
Re:The truth (Score:2)
So, how are you paying for college?
"Putting food on the table with money I think I might have next week/month/year" doesn't quite cut it.
Re:The truth (Score:2)
I work. But I spend most of my time working on my own project because it only takes me 10% of the alloted time to do what they tell me to do.
Re:The truth (Score:2)
Personally, I'd like to give my software away for free and still put bread on the table. I don't know if it's possible, but I like to think it is. And I'll be damned if I don't at least try.
oh... you can do this; but in limited areas. If you're talented enough or lucky enough to end up in an R&D lab of a big coporation (ie: AT&T) that lets you share your achivements with the community you're in. Or perhaps if you're a professor at a university that promotes research you're good to go.
Fact of the matter is though, if you work in the private sector the only way that you'll do this is by coding "dipshit" stuff at your day job to get the job done then going home to have fun with your code and experiment with stuff. I only say "dipshit" above because you'll often see yourself forced into writing sub-par solutions in an attempt to meet near impossible deadlines.. all to do it over again because you never had the time on the previous project that was 80% similar to what you're doing this time around to do it right the first time and make it extensible. It happens.. and it's the reason IT is often blamed for writing crap -- becuase we have to. Yes... I'm bitter.
Re:The truth (Score:2)
I lost 60lb since leaving home 5 years ago. If I trim down any more, I'm afraid I might start floating!
Re:The truth (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The truth (Score:5, Insightful)
And you say geeks are intrinsically bad at earning living, but suits not? And then point at dotcom bubble as an example. Oh boy.
Of course it's worth pointing out that it was epidemic of "green suits", not seasoned pointy-haired ones, that kept trainwreck going... at least initially; towards the end even normally level-headed people joined the party. And then it all imploded.
Re:FUCK SUITS (Score:2)
C'mon, I'm right arent I?