scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >  You should know who Richard Stallman is.

> No.  But I looked up his website and decided I don't like him anyway. ;-) 

  You don't have to like someone to know who he is. I don't like Steve
Ballmer, but I know who he is.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

>> History has never been something that really interests me, that's all.
> 
> Well, perhaps you should expand your horizons a little bit. Knowing how 
> things came to be is more than often very illuminating, even from a personal 
> perspective. You're missing a lot.

Perhaps.

People have told me I'm missing a lot by not liking jazz music. I'm sure 
I'll get over it. ;-)

> Of course, from a professional perspective, be very careful about displaying 
> your ignorance of trade matters. An employer just looking for some anonymous 
> codemonkey may not care, but if you're looking for something a little more 
> ambitious, not knowing who Steve Jobs and RMS are could be downright lethal 
> in an interview, because it would reveal a deep lack of curiosity and 
> interest *** in your own trade ***.

Well, that's what it comes down to. You keep mentioning the "trade". I 
have no interest in the "trade" at all. I am interested in abstract 
theoretical concepts, not mundane practicalities. This is a statement of 
fact; as to what an employer would want - well that is an entire other 
question...

[This is the big reason why I see myself as a programmer - not as, say, 
a sales person, product designer or manager. I don't have the necessary 
knowledge or motivation to do those jobs.]

> For instance, not knowing about Stallman 
> means that you never wondered and read about open source software licenses 
> and the world of issues surrounding them.

False.

I'm aware of the GPL. I'm one of the [I hypothesize] very few people to 
have read it end to end. I've looked at the things it allows you to do. 
And the things it doesn't allow you to do. I'm aware that some people 
consider it far too liberal, and others consider it cripplingly 
restrictive. I just wasn't aware of who wrote it. And if you're trying 
to pick a licence, or trying to use some software released under a given 
license, does it matter who wrote it? Not really. What matters is what 
the license actually says.

[I can't claim the same familiarity with, say the BSD license - although 
I hear BSDish licenses are the other popular group.]

> Not knowing about Steve Jobs means 
> that you never got remotely interested and read anything about Apple 
> software and hardware, even in mainstream newspapers.

False.

I'm curios about Apple hardware and software. [Altough I've never 
actually met any.] I'm aware their current OS is based on Unix, and that 
their hardware was originally M68k, then PPC, and now plain Intel Core 
2. [But with custom chipsets, BIOS, etc.] And I'm aware that Apple is 
rare but has a niche following in some parts. I just don't know who this 
Steve Jobs person is... (Does it matter?)

> Nothing wrong with that of course, but even if these particular points 
> wouldn't interest me as an employer, I'd be wondering about the many other 
> basic trade issues you'd be ignorant and unwilling to learn about, and that 
> would drastically decrease your employability - once I'd picked my jaw up 
> from the floor and sent a witty note my coworkers about the strange chap who 
> just left my office ;)

If you want somebody who knows about "trade issues", then no, I'd be 
completely useless for that. If you want somebody who knows technical 
stuff... well I probably know it or can learn it. And that's a good 
start. :-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 16:38:39 +0000, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>>> History has never been something that really interests me, that's all.
>> 
>> Well, perhaps you should expand your horizons a little bit. Knowing how 
>> things came to be is more than often very illuminating, even from a personal 
>> perspective. You're missing a lot.
>
>Perhaps.
>
>People have told me I'm missing a lot by not liking jazz music. I'm sure 
>I'll get over it. ;-)

You are right about jazz but listen to Giles he is talking sense and not down. 
On a personal not if you broaden your horizons then you have more chance of
finding friends. Try it as an intellectual exercise, I don't see how it could do
any harm.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, that's what it comes down to. You keep mentioning the "trade". I
> have no interest in the "trade" at all.

look, I'm brazilian and I know Gilles didn't employ the word in the way it's
generally used.  Call it your craft or whatever.

> I am interested in abstract
> theoretical concepts, not mundane practicalities.

No, I don't think you really are interested in "abstract theoretical concepts".
If you truly were interested, you'd really seek how they came to be in the first
place: the breakthroughs, old techniques not used anymore, etc.

Post a reply to this message

478f848f$1@news.povray.org...
> False.

Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who has done a minimal 
amount of reading on Apple or OSS never saw those names on screen or on 
paper. Stallman is cited *** 13 times *** in the GPL article in Wikipedia. 
Jobs is cited *** 55 times *** in the Apple article. These guys are legends 
in computing, warts and all. And the names don't ring any sort of bell to 
you?

> 2. [But with custom chipsets, BIOS, etc.] And I'm aware that Apple is rare 
> but has a niche following in some parts. I just don't know who this Steve 
> Jobs person is... (Does it matter?)

Jobs and Stallman have been major influential figures in your area of 
business/trade/expertise/whatever for more than 20 years. What they say and 
what they do has a direct influence in what you (and millions of other 
people, developers or not) do and on the way you work. Understanding (or 
trying to understand...) the philosophy that drives Stallman is a key to 
understand the GPL and the open source movement. Ditto for Jobs and what 
drives Apple. So yes, it does matter. I mean, I'm a specialist in cow and 
pig feeding and it matters to me.

In any case, the point is that showing your ignorance about things as basic 
as those can make a potential employer wonder about your overall technical 
and learning abilities, no matter how good those abilities actually are.

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:

> Frankly, I have a hard time believing that anyone who has done a minimal 
> amount of reading on Apple or OSS never saw those names on screen or on 
> paper. Stallman is cited *** 13 times *** in the GPL article in Wikipedia. 
> Jobs is cited *** 55 times *** in the Apple article. These guys are legends 
> in computing, warts and all. And the names don't ring any sort of bell to 
> you?

I ignore people's names when I read about stuff?

[Most Wikipedia articles I completely skip the "history" section. It's 
just not a part that interests me very much.]

FWIW, I'm not really good with names anyway. I watched virtually the 
whole of the world darts championship this year - but I couldn't tell 
you the names of any of the players. I just watch the darts... [I'd 
probably recognise their faces though.]

> Jobs and Stallman have been major influential figures in your area of 
> business/trade/expertise/whatever for more than 20 years. What they say and 
> what they do has a direct influence in what you (and millions of other 
> people, developers or not) do and on the way you work. Understanding (or 
> trying to understand...) the philosophy that drives Stallman is a key to 
> understand the GPL and the open source movement. Ditto for Jobs and what 
> drives Apple. So yes, it does matter. I mean, I'm a specialist in cow and 
> pig feeding and it matters to me.

Interesting. I tend to think that actions rather than thoughts are what 
gets things done. I might for example look at what products Apple have 
on sale, but I wouldn't sit down and analyse "hmm, now why did they put 
an ATI card in here rather than an nVidia one? What was the underlying 
philosophical idea behind this move?" I'm just not that sort of person.

> In any case, the point is that showing your ignorance about things as basic 
> as those can make a potential employer wonder about your overall technical 
> and learning abilities, no matter how good those abilities actually are.

Allow me to put my argument concisely.

If you're saying "employers want people who know who Stallman is", then 
maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't got a clue what employers 
actually look for. You probably know more about this than I do.

If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman 
is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being 
"morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in 
which year, and why they did it.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman
> is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being
> "morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in
> which year, and why they did it.

it's not "morally wrong" being clueless.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman
>> is", then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being
>> "morally wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in
>> which year, and why they did it.
> 
> it's not "morally wrong" being clueless.

And not knowing every fact that can possibly be known isn't "clueless". ;-)

Nobody knows everything, so some people know some things and other 
people know others. I know things that many people don't know. Many 
people know things that I don't. It's part of what makes everybody 
different...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Nobody knows everything, so some people know some things and other
> people know others. I know things that many people don't know. Many
> people know things that I don't. It's part of what makes everybody
> different...

....and the world not too boring. :)

Nice discussion!

I *have* to join: :)

--Yes, if you are very motivated and want to show that (or not), it's very good
to know the people, who invented those things of your field (IT, trade,
science, etc) [and why and how]. You are showing interest, more than only
telling someone "it's just the way it is".
--If you "just" know the way, how and why they did come up to their theory and
you can use it for your special case/problem, it's also good.
 --But it is quite bad only to learn names, because you want to show that you
know quite a lot about a topic (but are not really interested in).
I really know, why we had to learn that Mr. X did things Y. in the year of XY,
where the people didn't have the comfort, which we are having now. But I really
can't figure out a reason, why we should learn, that Mrs. X. with name X and
surname XX pushed her man Mr. X. with Xx and helped him that way to do XXx? Or
at least I can't figure out any other reason than showing respect to that great
inventors, whose theories and technologies improved our lives...
So far to your problem of only knowing a few peoples names. :)

Regards
               bluetree

Post a reply to this message

478f9c21$1@news.povray.org...
> Interesting. I tend to think that actions rather than thoughts are what 
> gets things done.

Because there are actions that are not backed by thoughts? Apart sex and 
digestion? You really think that people like Gates or Jobs or Ellison just 
started doing random stuff and built their little empires by chance, never 
thinking about it? And Stallman is fundamentally an ideologue. He didn't 
call the GNU Manifesto a manifesto for nothing.

> If you're saying "employers want people who know who Stallman is", then 
> maybe you're right. I don't know. I haven't got a clue what employers 
> actually look for. You probably know more about this than I do.

You still don't get it. Having a job with a certain level of qualification 
implies that you maintain a some awareness of what's going on in your area 
of expertise. Keeping track of major trends and what drives them and knowing 
who is who in your trade is part of being a professional. This is *** 
expected *** in any job that entails expertise.

>If you're saying "you're a ****ing idiot for not knowing who Stallman is", 
>then I'm afraid I must disagree with you. I don't see it as being "morally 
>wrong" to know of a technology and not know who invented it, in which year, 
>and why they did it.

The problem is not about *** being *** a idiot, it's about not *** sounding 
*** like one. I can understand your total lack of interest in certain 
matters, but don't expect the same sort of benevolent complacency from your 
professional peers, including potential employeers. Of course if you want to 
keep saying the darnest things, just do it.

G.

Post a reply to this message