A farmer who works a farm owned by someone else. The owner provides the land, seed, and tools exchange for part of the crops and goods produced on the farm.
Unfortunately there is little land left to start you rown business (read: software company). Perhaps you'll get a garden sooner or later, but in the end the chances are against becoming the next Microsoft plantation.
What about doing work in platform-agnostic languages and components, e.g. Perl/Apache?
ANSI-SQL databases?
The fact that information is not always physical is slightly catastrophic for this metaphor.
Where the land shall belong to the farmer
Where the system software is transparent
Where the programmer can develop without fear (of the owner)
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake
People who include licensed software in their products (i.e. Value Added Retailers) might be sharecroppers. But when the code is open sourced and owned by the community, then the developer is at best a squatter. They are working land owned by the state.
The good folks who move from business to business, and make their living installing Linux systems could be called migrant farm workers.
Boy, this is a fun game, we can insult white collar workers by comparing them to different types of farmers.
Good point. Especially today, with many farmers having Ag degrees and computerizing their operations (like everyone else). They are business(wo)men, just like in any other trade or industry.
For that matter, a lot of millionaires got their start as sharecroppers. There's a lot to be said for starting a business without using your own money, which is essentially what sharecroppers are doing. If you want to learn about finances with very little education, sharecropping is a self-owned business method which has a very low barrier to entry.
They don't make much money when starting out, but if they are smart and pay attention, they learn how the game works, and work their way into more lucrative
I thought that was the whole point of the analogy. You want to paint your enemy as something that is considered by your audience as lower class.
Thomas Jefferson and many of the founders of the US saw agriculture as the highest trade. Many had hoped to create the US as an agrarian paradise. I personally see this ideal. But the thread is about trying to create metaphors that can be used to attack one's enemies.
And as for the agrarian ideal...well the social reformers of t
Hmmm, I have to point out your false analogy: since when are the people and the state the same thing? Perhaps the point could be argued, but based upon economic revolutions of the last 2 centuries, the people ( community ) and the state have been diametrically opposed. If anything, I think one could compare the "land owners", or monopolists (ahem) to the Rockefellers and Carnegies at the dawn of the 20th century -- powers that owned thier own militias and enforcing bodies which rivalled the state.
But when the code is open sourced and owned by the community, then the developer is at best a squatter. They are working land owned by the state.
Bad analogy. They would be working land owned by the kibbutz (or any other form of commune which honors material rights), not by the state. If their work was public domain it would be like working land owned by the state.
Kewl, it could be come a tradition that sys admins have to swim across a river before installing a new system. Now, say with your best Cheech and Chong accent: "We don't need no stinkin' license"
I believe you are wrong, there is new land to sow (read: open market for software applications) in the form of the web and a new software foundation with a better licensing scheme (read: OSS, GPL, BSD, etc.).
If your objective is to build a plantation (read: monopoly) then yes you are doomed to failure. You will not be allowed to own the land (read: internet, software applications) upon which all other farmers (read: developers) are also working.
The metaphor fits perfectly, its just that you are stuck
Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately there is little land left to start you rown business (read: software company). Perhaps you'll get a garden sooner or later, but in the end the chances are against becoming the next Microsoft plantation.
Damn, need to find some better metaphors here!
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
ANSI-SQL databases?
The fact that information is not always physical is slightly catastrophic for this metaphor.
Envision the future (Score:5, Funny)
Where the land shall belong to the farmer
adapted from Rabindranath Tagore's GeetanjaliWhere the system software is transparent
Where the programmer can develop without fear (of the owner)
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way
Into the dreary desert sand of dead habit
Where the mind is led forward by thee
Into ever-widening thought and action
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake
Squatter (Score:3, Insightful)
The good folks who move from business to business, and make their living installing Linux systems could be called migrant farm workers.
Boy, this is a fun game, we can insult white collar workers by comparing them to different types of farmers.
Re:Squatter (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
Being a farmer is an insult?
Good point. Especially today, with many farmers having Ag degrees and computerizing their operations (like everyone else). They are business(wo)men, just like in any other trade or industry.
Re:Squatter (Score:1)
They don't make much money when starting out, but if they are smart and pay attention, they learn how the game works, and work their way into more lucrative
Re:Squatter (Score:1)
I was wondering the same thing. Then again, I'm a software engineer in an industrial park surrounded by cornfields, so...
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
try it. fuckin' farmer. The inflection is important though. Try different variations. Nothing cuts to the quick like being called a "fuckin' farmer".
Re:Squatters (Score:2)
Re:Squatter (Score:1)
Hmmm, I have to point out your false analogy: since when are the people and the state the same thing? Perhaps the point could be argued, but based upon economic revolutions of the last 2 centuries, the people ( community ) and the state have been diametrically opposed. If anything, I think one could compare the "land owners", or monopolists (ahem) to the Rockefellers and Carnegies at the dawn of the 20th century -- powers that owned thier own militias and enforcing bodies which rivalled the state.
The
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
Bad analogy. They would be working land owned by the kibbutz (or any other form of commune which honors material rights), not by the state. If their work was public domain it would be like working land owned by the state.
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
(Hey, this =is= a great game -- something to insult *everyone*!!)
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
Re:Squatter (Score:2)
Er, maybe not.
The metaphor fits - no more plantations (Score:2, Interesting)
If your objective is to build a plantation (read: monopoly) then yes you are doomed to failure. You will not be allowed to own the land (read: internet, software applications) upon which all other farmers (read: developers) are also working.
The metaphor fits perfectly, its just that you are stuck
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Better metaphor? (Score:1)
If, however, these options should cease to exist, then developers on propietary platforms will cease to be sharecroppers.
They will be serfs.