1) When did geek become chic? I'm a geek and still can't get a date. I see a lot of poser geeks who think it's cool because heroin-chic is no longer in. They can get dates. I can't.
2) Open sourced as dick slinging? Umm. No. Matt hit the nail on the head with the reasons and benefits of Open Source. It's better, you can see what is there, you can modify it, you can improve it and send it off for the next folk to improve it. Dick slinging... or more aptly pride in ones work ... will factor into it, but such a base metaphor is inappropriate.
3) The origins of Geek? This seemed to be quite obvious. Geeks were the freaks who bit heads off chickens. The socially outcast 'freak' in school soon came to be known as a 'geek' along with dweeb, nerd, dork, whatever. I've known a few true computer geeks. One kid I knew lived in a closet in the basement (I kid you not, it was a little larger than a walk-in closet. It was not a 'room'.) He did this by choice. He had four computers surrounding a mattress on the floor that had ants crawling on it. He was one of the best programmers I knew at the time. Others I knew were stoners, manic-depressives, social outcasts. They were attracted to computers because computers are an accepting hobby. Once data-communications and BBS came along, they found a new outlet to pair up with people like themselves. Then somewhere along the line when these kids started making shitloads of money, and now everyone wants to become a 'computer geek'. They think because they watched an episode or two of Star Trek:TNG and managed to install DOS they qualified to be the next billionare. They dont. In the next decade when bio-technology takes off everyone will want to be a Genetic Mad Scientist
4) Programming is both an art and science. Art is something that is creative, elegant and thought provoking in design. Something that is appreciated, stimulative, and emotional to others. I can show you two sets of code that do the same task. One will be so elegant that once you see it, and realize the creative approach to the problem, and you smile appreciatively at the sheer simplicity of the solution, you will see the art in code.
5) Those who think the paper-clip is too condescending need to get into the trenches and work with some real computer users. I'm not talking geeks, I'm talking the secretaries and executives of the world. The paper-clip is like a fucking genius compared to them. Microsoft made it condescending because, in fact, a lot of computer users these days are complete blithering idiots who go ape-shit when they can't do something and have absolutly no mental capacity to do the remotest amount of trouble shooting for themselves.
6) In defense of the blithering idiots, I will say that the Software/Computer industry does in fact suck. I've been in this racket for some X years now and it just fucking sucks big god-damn donkey balls. No other industry can get away with the amount of crappy products they dump on the market and over-charge for and then provide piss poor support on.
Imagine if the airline industry when you get on the plane they announce they will be flying to Toledo instead of New York because the runways at JFK were incompatible and they didnt know that, then lose your baggage and charged you $150 per bag to find it, and are pissed at you because you couldn't find it yourself. Then they announce it will be a $500 upgrade if they want to go from Toledo to JFK as you originally wanted. The sad thing is ... people not only pay but they fly the same airline again and again!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> [mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of John Kawakami
> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:16 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: geek
>
>
> Programming might be "art" in college, and it might have art in it
> when you're on a very small machine like an Apple II, but -
> Enterprise Java Beans on a well stocked Sun server isn't Art. It
> barely qualifies as a craft. I've also seen some Visual Basic code
> that's more like "outsider art" than the real thing. I'm working on
> a PHP project which reminds me of Jackson Pollock. (That's not to
> say I'm not enjoying myself.)
>
> It seems to me that much of the art of software engineering is in
> finding a consonance with the business needs of the corporation. Hit
> that sweet spot, and you'll be blessed with short days and easy
> updates to your code. Miss the mark, and you'll pay in tight
> deadlines and difficult relations with your managers.
>
> This, I suppose, is the situation of many technical intellectuals in
> the First World....
>
> perldiver
>
> >kelley <kwalker2 at gte.net> wrote
> >
> ><
> >also, my sensors are cued to this b/c as i expl'd to peter, this is one
> >of
> >the fundamental signs of an unorganized set of practices (an art)
> >becoming
> >professionalized and formalized. i'm not blowing smoke here--this is
> >well
> >documented in the literature. to make this critique is not to render
> >the
> >object of critique insignificant, sinister, or even disingenuous. it
> >is
> >to point out the contradictions and problems with the discourse and to
> >make
> >connections and analogies with other examples in recent history to ask,
> >"what direction is this taking? what's at stake? who has a stake?"
> >etc.
> >>
> >
> >Here, we are in agreement, and this paragraph is the heart of the
> >matter. In the last post you referenced Noble's _America by Design_.
> >Indeed. That is exactly the case of the programmer in my career.
> >I would also cite Joan Greenbaum's _In the Name of Efficiency_,
> >(about 1980) which is in the same vein, but very specific to
> >programmers.
> >
> >IMO, the reason corporations want to make programming into
> >software engineering from art is the issue of who owns the work.
> >The work is at once both art and property; art for me and
> >property to the corporation.
> >
> >I once was pulled off code I considered very important to
> >the product, and forced to insert copyright statements into
> >the source and object of every module:
> > (C) XYZ Corp, 1985
> >and then it hit me. My God, this is a claim of *ownership*!
> >
> >No wonder this mindless work was more important than what I
> >believed in.
> >
> >I always considered the code mine, somehow. I was proud of the
> >product, I wanted it to succeed, if only management would let
> >me. And here I was in mindless work refuting my own feelings.
> >It sure took the wind out of my sails.
> >
> >So long as it is art, there is a moral ownership the artisan
> >has to the product as opposed to the legal ownership the
> >corporation has to the property. In my career, I saw
> >programmers changed from artists or artisans to software
> >engineers. First in school, where students are attracted
> >by a well-paying job, not by work they love. If you
> >succeed in school by getting a CS degree, you have
> >proven that you can complete assignments you do not enjoy,
> >which is the perfect qualification for working in a corporation.
> >
> >The issue is, who owns the work.
> >
> >--
> >John K. Taber
>
> --
>
> --------------------------------------
> John Kawakami
> johnk at cyberjava.com, johnk at firstlook.com
>