The Rise and Fall of the Geek 358
chilled writes "Tom Steinberg has posted this guest editorial on The Register bemoaning the decline of the Geek. He suggests that geeks in their alignment against for example RIP and Microsoft are losing their voice. I think he's right but the emergence of a common set of goals should be recognised as a very good thing. The geeks amongst us should use this commonality to rise up and use our voice for progress and not petty squabbling."
A Counter Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of geeks out there who want nothing to do with Linux, prefering the tools of Sun, Apple and even (gasp!) Microsoft. The first article seems to make the case that all geeks demand open source exclusively, because if you don't make such demands, you're not a geek. (A classic falacy of logic).
I would even go so far as to say that the majority of geeks that I have known are aware of open source & Linux, and use both at least some of the time (particularilly some of the better GNU tools), but are not married to the Stalmanist ideology that all software should be free, and spend most of their time working with various closed applications. There are those who fit the description of these articles, but I don't believe they don't even represent the majority of geekdom, let alone a consensus.
The whole debate is downright Katzian, in that it assumes a cultural development that isn't actually happening.
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:5, Funny)
I would even go so far as to say that the majority of geeks that I have known are aware of open source & Linux, and use both at least some of the time (particularilly some of the better GNU tools), but are not married to the Stalmanist ideology that all software should be free, and spend most of their time working with various closed applications. There are those who fit the description of these articles, but I don't believe they don't even represent the majority of geekdom, let alone a consensus.
I think the register is so closely tied to slashdot (at least in some way, probably not officially) that it assumes that the slashdot collective = how to define the way a geek should be. In fact, a lot of sites are looking at slashdot as the source of what geeks/nerds think is important (look at google news!)
Sadly, the term geek is becoming a pop-culture phenomenon. Dare I say it, but slashdot itself IS becoming pop culture (if it's not already).
That's the media for you. What really gets me is, once they get something they run with it. So what about all us poor geeks who don't fit the slashdot collective? A year from now if I go around calling myself a geek, people will automatically think they know what I stand for. Stereotypes, blech.
So I propose a new term to avoid this confusion. I henceforth will no longer call myself a "geek". Those of you who feel the same way can join with me and start using the term "gump". Similar to geek, it once had a negative connotation to it. However, it's time to break away from the soon-to-be-stereotypical geek term and embrace this new one.
Then, when "gump" gets to be a stereotype in a few years, we can change it again to something like "gork" or "gonk" which is a made up word that sounds very silly.
Let's get "gumpy". Kind of has a nice ring to it, huh?
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:2, Funny)
RUN FORREST RUN!
Does not sound to appealling. Back to the drawing board would be my suggestion.
MrSnivvel
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:2)
Sounds good to me, I like boxed chocolates!
OT: Begging the Question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:OT: Begging the Question (Score:2)
Actually that's perfectly valid (assuming that to be "against" something is not to like it). It's just not necessarily sound because the first premise is in doubt.
Valid means all the logic connects together. Sound means making a formally valid argument with true premises.
Circular reasoning is the act of restating of one of the premises as the conclusion. It's invalid because it simply makes the point of the argument one of your items of proof.
(the preceding was circular reasoning)
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most absurd thing I've read in a mod 5 post yet.
The first article seems to make the case that all geeks demand open source exclusively, because if you don't make such demands, you're not a geek
The author is a good journalist, and he's very impartial...but he doesn't understand the basis of the problem.
He started the article by saying that in the "good ol days" like the 1980's geeks disagreed on many things, but they all had one common characteristic...a love, a fascination with technology. The author seems to think that we've fallen from our true cause...and now are just a bunch of whining 2nd rate hippies.
My response to the author is this: There is no way to have a geek world with DRM. It is fundamentally impossible. There is no happy median, there is no compromise, it is impossible. Why? Because being a geek is about taking a general purpose set of tools(wires, capacitors, an instruction set, a programming language, etc) and casting those tools into something new. Show me one good classical geek "hack" that wasn't about doing something new and creative with ordinary hardware? That's the whole point; that was always the whole point.
DRM will only be effective by removing this capabilty from all technologies...not just computers, but all of them. There is no such thing as 99% DRM, or 50% DRM. If I find a way to hack my toaster's MPU to resonate the heating coils at sonic frequencies, and then play MP3's with it, then the DMCA has failed. What that means is that every microchip must be crippled into a "special purpose" device. There is no longer any need for a programming language...just hardwires "allowing" the appropriate functionality for the consumer. And ultimately excluding any other function.
If this happens, everything any of us have ever loved about technology will be finished...done. Sure you can still microwave your popcorn, check your e-mail, and order your pay-per-view...but that is all you will ever be able to do(and it's all your grandchildren will ever be able to do). It's the end of technological progress, period.
There is no middle ground on this issue.
Wow! (Score:3, Interesting)
Imagine if DRM existing in the 1960s, or even the 1980s - the Internet would not exist. People would never have been able to build the little pieces needed to form the net (Almost every protocol was originally just a "hack". DNS was a shortcut so you didn't have to remember IPs, telnet was a shortcut so you could control a machine remotely, the web browser was a shortcut to locating information anywhere.)
That's why there's no differing in arguing against this. We don't exist without it. It'd be like having different opinions about whether we should allow oxygen in our atmosphere. "Well gee, maybe if they give us a bunch of money, we can give in on that oxygen requirement."
DRM turns us all into slaves.
Re:A Counter Opinion (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is the same with other issues. When it comes to disliking Microsoft, in my opinion, there is no middle ground here either. I'll explain why.
Geeks, by my definition and that of the parent poster, are about doing what they want to with their own equipment. We like to play with technical gear in a fashion that suits us. This is why I agree that DRM is bad.
Microsoft, to a lesser extent than DRM (for now?), has generally proven themselves to want to control your system, as opposed to an OS like Linux or *BSD. From EULA swapping, silently re-enabling auto-update, forcing IE to visit microsoft.com and report an id number (from what I'm told of early versions of 98), and restrictions on what you can and cannot do with their products, I think it's obvious. This is not as clean-cut of an argument as that of geeks vs. DRM, but I think it makes sense.
In my experience, there are no technically-literate arguments for Microsoft (in its entirety) simply because to anyone who knows their history, what they've attempted to do and what they have done, it seems obvious that it's impossible to find Microsoft innocent.
I would love any response to this so long as it isn't a troll. Respect my view, and prove me wrong by logic, or agree with me and state why.
Not every programmer is a 'geek' (Score:2)
I can speak only for myself, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stranger still is the lack of consistency amongst these beliefs. Many values, such as the love of privacy and free speech come from a broadly libertarian tradition evolving from the philosophy of Mill and Locke. Others, such as the hatred of Microsoft and the loathing of Spam come from a quite reverse philosophy - a principled distain of the side-effects of capitalism, betraying socialist ancestry. Still others come from a strong defence of certain rights (notably fair use of copyrighted materials) which seem to be primarily based on rational self-interest, rather than any particular ideology. From Tom's op-ed.
By way of reply:
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values--be they religious, ethical, social, or political--have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. From the Humanist Magazine.
Which is, it seems to me, totally consistent with the three things he names. The first two are obvious, but humanistic opposition to DRM needs some explanation. The RIAA/MPAA are trying to prevent the emergence of a new, popularly empowered culture from which they won't be able to make as much money.
Uhhh... (Score:2)
Ever see Revenge of the Nerds? Or one of its trillion sequels? This would not be a pretty sight.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:2, Funny)
Any killer new games in the pipeline?
Re:Uhhh... (Score:5, Funny)
And no, the itching wasn't there before, no matter how much you wanna believe it was.
Is it bad (Score:2, Interesting)
There are still plenty of issues to fight and flame and be different over, but there are now some points that we all share together. It makes us a closer knit community and will hold us together
Re:Murder is bad. (Score:2)
Re:Murder is bad. (Score:2)
This is just not true. (Score:5, Funny)
As a big-name physicist (Score:4, Funny)
Ever since the days of the caveman and the invention of the fire and wheel by the First Geek, Man has been arguing and warring. All arguments are based on misunderstandings, which indicates that two suitably intelligent people would always get along. For too long we have been trying to educate the stupider among us to reach this ideal state and I say that now is the time to give up.
Geeks! Abandon your non-geek wives/husbands and friends! Come with me into the wilderness where we will forge a new society based on intelligence and anime! We will eat naught but pizza and drink naught but Mountain Dew! We may be smelly, but dammit, we won't need tech support numbers either! You have nothing to lose but your dignity!
Re:As a big-name physicist (Score:2, Funny)
Re:As a big-name physicist (Score:2, Funny)
Re:As a big-name physicist (Score:2)
And your heterosexuality I'm afraid...
Re:As a big-name physicist (Score:2)
I can't imagine that anyone can get the idea that 'geeks' agree on almost everything from reading slashdot or anything else for that matter. The range of opinion may be considerably different than the mainstream, but there certainly isn't any unity.
It is interesting that a pretty strong consesus is developing about a number of issues. Just because most scientists agree that Darwin or Hubble were right (not withstading refinements to follow) doesn't mean they agree an everything. Once the data is in, some conclusions are obvious to everyone.
Re:As a big-name physicist (Score:2)
No you're wrong.
No more petty squabbling? (Score:2, Interesting)
evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:evolution (Score:2)
But when techno-ignorant politicians threaten my chosen form of creative expression, I have to take an interest.
I basically want two things out of my elected officials:
One, don't mandate any hardware standard that prevents me from being creative. Basically, don't turn my multi-purpose computer into a DVD-player. Stop passing TCPA-like measures and limit the scope of a EULA and I'll be happy.
Two, don't make me a criminal for being creative. If others choose to do something immoral/illegal with my creations, that's their business and it should be taken up with them. Stop passing DMCA-like measures, and I'll be happy.
Re:evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Daniel
Re:evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
I've thought about this recently, and I strongly disagree. I work on information technology that tends to make us more free, such as encryption. Geek politics isn't about politics; geek politics is about freedom, which is much more important than science and engineering. At least in my book.
I'd absolutely love to be able to just work on technology, but the laws are limiting my ability to do that, and I'm less free because of it (look at the DMCA and similar laws).
Freedom comes first. Information technology tends to provide freedom by empowering persons. I've noted that geek politics tend to resist those who resist empowering technologies, such as encryption and information-sharing; such persons wish to maintain the status quo, which always benefits the incumbents.
It's not about life being too short that you shouldn't 'waste' it on politics; politics is what decides our freedom.
Evolution of political geeks (Score:2)
Yep, even the world's finest newspaper just ran an article about democracy geeks [theonion.com].
As for the big distinctions between the current geek and the aboriginal geek, I agree. The people hanging out in computer labs would hardly be recognized by the early primitve neolithic hunter-geek. We forge email using holes in sendmail and tools such as prebuilt rootkits; they forged email using a hot fire and tools of chipped stone, and later, bronze and iron.
As others have pointed out, it was the development of agriculture that allowed the hunter-geeks to change from a nomadic lifestyle to a more stationary one, resulting in both an interest in the world around them (politics, opposite sex, etc) and often a tendency to be slightly overweight.
Re:evolution (Score:2)
If only geeks used computers and the Internet, the political ramifications would be insignificant. But, it's not 1986 anymore, and the technology created by geeks has become commoditized. Computers and the Internet have become mainstream components of Western culture, and, inevitably, also become political fodder.
Re:evolution (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh, and here I thought most geeks from 20 years ago were people that worked either directly or indirectly for the defence industry, and had probably seen time in the service. If you're trying to tell me that such a lifestyle equates to political indifference I've got some shares of LinuxCare to sell you...
Re:evolution (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:evolution (Score:2)
Whoops, I meant to punch in slashdot.org, but I must have mistyped it and here I am at anthropologydot.org. So tell me of your travels, dear friend.
Of course geeks will decline (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Of course geeks will decline (Score:2, Funny)
Steven
"geeks" are being defined. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't like the fact this this person believes we had strict boundaries. I don't like the fact that he calls us "pasty, long haired, UN*X t-shirt wearing" individuals.
I am against things that are wrong. Microsoft, the DMCA, and recent US policies are WRONG.
I don't have a pasty complexion, I don't have long hair, I don't live on pizza and Mountain Dew, and I certainly don't wear Unix related t-shirts.
He is the one setting boundaries on us, not the group.
Geeks stand up for what they believe in. We are typically young and brash and want to see change made. We are the protesters of the new millenium. We use a different medium than was used before. We are who we are, not what someone labels us as.
Please forgive the rant. He was just wrong for creating a false label for the "geek".
Re:"geeks" are being defined. (Score:5, Insightful)
No they don't. They stand up and bitch to each other on geek-only websites about how no one else will stand up for them.
Re:"geeks" are being defined. (Score:2)
Re:"geeks" are being defined. (Score:2)
Hmmm... I need to go get a tan, get a haircut, and toss out my RSA in Perl t-shirt. Stupid stereotypes!
Re:"geeks" are being defined. (Score:5, Insightful)
Geeks have become a clique
That is the problem. Just like some people who don't ride skateboards are called Skateboarders, and people who are into Anne Rice are called Goths, Geeks are now a "culture". This is the fundamental problem.
I don't know about you, but I AM NOT A GEEK. I am a highly paid, moderately liberal computer professional. I do not have a ponytail, I do not wear t-shirts with political slogans (most of my shirts are free vendor handouts with software or hardware logos), and I most certainly am not going to say that I belong to any particular cultural group.
However, I might be classed (by another individual) as a geek, since I can program in dozens of languages, configure routers, wire hubs, build servers, manage workstations, hand-edit the Windows Registry, and still remember the PET. I am against the DMCA, against harsh limits on fair use (while being for reasonable limits), and against an Orwellian future.
Does that make me a geek? Do I care? No. I think that is the problem. Geeks used to be just about anyone who was technical (in anything from Art to Circuitry), and had "fallen out of society" at some point. I have miserable social skills, for example.
Perhaps those of us who seem to be the former geeks should just go back to ignoring these morons, and especially anyone who claims to have geek pride. Or, perhaps we should just be more assertive in saying "F@#K You!" when people try to classify us.
My views probably don't agree with your views in lots of ways. Good. Keep it that way. Be yourself, and to hell with anyone else. Just don't forget that "Geek" apparently is now a culture that was built around the people, not the other way around.
-WS
Re:"geeks" are being defined. (Score:4, Funny)
I don't know about you,
But if it looks like a duck:
" can program in dozens of languages, configure routers, wire hubs, build servers, manage workstations, hand-edit the Windows Registry, and still remember the PET."
Sounds like a duck:
"I am against the DMCA, against harsh limits on fair use (while being for reasonable limits), and against an Orwellian future."
And walks like a duck:
"I have miserable social skills".
Odds are....
you're a duck.
Re:"geeks" are being defined. QWZX (Score:2)
I happen to find /. amusing, and something fun to read while waiting for something else. I find the opinions to be interesting, and occasionally, funny. Yours is funny.
If you are arguing against my sig (which is off-topic, BTW), then argue against it with your intellect. If you are arguing against (or for) my comments, please do the same.
If that is all you have to say, than I feel sorry for you.
Apologies for the offtopic, but this really needed to be said at some point :)
-WS
Control of Government (Score:2)
And the Government is becoming more corporate-controlled. The combination of these two is the source of the current mess.
Get on with the real issues (Score:5, Funny)
The sooner we can put our petty squabbling aside the sooner we can get move on to the real issue.
Which is better Star Trek or Star Wars?
Re:Get on with the real issues (Score:2)
Re:Get on with the real issues (Score:2)
(this is me, being a slow cowboy)
--
Re:This answer your question? (Score:2)
You forgot to move the case statements to the same indentation level as the switch statement.
Did he proofread? (Score:5, Insightful)
He says geeks used to argue over the standard stuff, vi vs. emacs, keyboard vs. mouse, X vs. console, PC vs. microcomputer. Fair enough. Now he says that nobody argues against DRM, the DMCA, and invasions of privacy.
I suppose Soviet Communists in the olden days would argue about whether rubber or leather boots were better in springtime, but nobody felt justified saying, "Those capitalists aren't that bad!" Likewise, these days in America, there is plenty of talk about whether N'Bizkit is better than Limp Korn, or whatever retarded ear-shit people listen to. Yet nobody stands up and says, "You know, we really should let the state run all of our industry."
So big surprise, we're all in agreement about things that threaten the foundation and definition of the group. What an insight, you might as well go write an internet editorial about it and get Michael to post on Slashdot.
Ya know, it really is telling when I got halfway through this post and thought to myself, "Well goddamn, this must have been another piece of drivel that Micheal thought was really clever, like that time he shared with us the story about adjusting your TVs brightness control to play PS2." What crap.
The larger problem is the new crowd. (Score:5, Insightful)
High school kids coming out with MCSE's, places you can get a CCNA quick, or A+ certification that just seems like a joke to any old-school type. These people are the "new geek chic" and they're anything but.
Re:The larger problem is the new crowd. (Score:4, Interesting)
> High school kids coming out with MCSE's, places
> you can get a CCNA quick, or A+ certification
> that just seems like a joke to any old-school
> type. These people are the "new geek chic" and
> they're anything but.
After having RTFA, the Standard editorial giving rise to this item on
"Geeks are now a special interest lobbying group, whereas before they were a cultural phenomenon."
To me, this accounts for the coalescing of what had been a cultural phenomenon around a sort of common themes and political aspirations. There is an established culture. It is primarily anti-capitalist in economics and pro-libertarian vis-a-vis individual rights.
Summarizing the geek culture in general terms of course does not sweep every individual into lockstep with those ideas, but the broad cultural trends are undeniably there. We all know which way the wind blows on
As far as the geek chic thing goes, I don't see it as a cultural phenomenon. People look for opportunity and "e" anything seemed like the land of milk and honey for a while. That is going through a natural (and welcome) correction right now through typical economic feedback loops. Hopefully, the wheat will be separated from the chaff. Unfortunately, there are lots of human and political costs that result from the upheaval of a boom/bust cycle like we just had. Sorry if you got laid off, but many IT jobs just shouldn't have existed in the last several years.
The prior poster bemoans certifications as diluting the geek culture that predated and gave rise to what he/she/it termed "geek chic." Let me Cliff Claven that for a minute, too:
Certification is useful as a specialized population of knowledge workers grows -- personal contact no longer serves to differentiate dedication to a craft. Certification provides a rough proxy to the dedication aspect (i.e. "I am willing to spend beaucoup bucks on cram courses and tests") but it does not dictate that one with a certification is qualified for pouring piss out of boots.
In many respects, even a four year college education falls into this category -- you need to have it, but it doesn't mean you can do anything after you get it. It is a exclusionary qualification -- if you don't have it, you're fucked. If you do have it, you have doors opened.
In a general reply to your post, I think your underlying assumption is wrong: geek chic never existed. It was all about the money and trying to avoid looking like a poseur. On the bright side, the reversal of IT's economic fortunes may slow some of the changes you bemoan. Unfortunately, I don't see that genie ever going back into the bottle.
As for myself, when I stopped seeing fat guys with beards, suspenders, and flannel shirts at trade shows, I knew the sharks were in the water and something more pure and carefree had been lost. I'll miss it.
guac-foo.
RIP (Score:5, Funny)
Just what exactly do geeks have against the Routing Information Protocol [faqs.org]?
Re:RIP (Score:5, Funny)
Let's start with the usual.
1) True distance routing protocols, like RIP, are inherently flawed. It requires a table of the entire network to be stored on each router, requiring precious hard drive or flash memory space.
2) RIP broadcasts its entire table every thirty seconds.
3) The maximum size of a RIP packet is 512 bytes, so any reasonably sized network will have RIP updates sent as multiple packets. This, combined with 2, can add up to a lot of data transfer FAST.
4) Extremely slow convergence
5) Lack of VLSM support in RIP1 (which too many campuses are still using).
6) Lack of configurability where route summarization is concerned.
Oh wait.. were you joking?
Re:RIP (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly enough while we are talking about UK specifics, I do think this sort of "geek groupthink" the article complains about is becoming more detectable, and one of the symptoms of it I have run into locally a couple of times are UK "geeks" who spout off about the DMCA and illegality of decss and other US specific tech legalities, seemingly ignorant of the fact that they don't actually apply to their own national jurisdiction. Generally they then move on to tell me that OpenBSD is more secure by design, RMS is a lunatic , emacs/vi/KDE/GNOME sucks , X11 is bloated, windows crashes a lot , all the other 2nd hand opinions you see on sites like this every day, blah blah. I have a name for these people, and it isn't "geeks". But I'm not sure that its anything sinister. You could probably chalk it up to the fact that the sort of people who use their computers a lot are nowadays exposed to a wider pool of consensus due to the increasing penetration of the internet. This always happens as something moves from the fringes,to a trend and then into the mainstream.
Lets face it, in 2002 there isn't anything terribly "geek"-ish, or whatever you want to call it, about having linux on a home( or even work ) computer, using the web,and being aware of DRM issues ( at least napster and DVD region coding ) and buying T-shirts online that reference these things. In fact there hasn't been for a good few years now. Sturgeons Law, people. As always, look to the fringes for the voices of dissent, of course those fringes are always being redefined. Thats how social evolution works, I've always thought. Celebrate diversity for sure, but don't forget elitism sucks.
I'll be damned... (Score:3, Funny)
Jesus next we'll have a tech website that champions free speech but fails to run stories about itself.
*sniff* whatever happened to Jon Katz?
He still doesn't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
geeks are misfits, not some social group you can mobilize, the more mainstream the issue the more support you will lose and the more fragmentation you will see. The authors' failure to understand, just highlights the fact that he's not a geek but a suit trying to be cool. The sub-culture WAS NEVER tied together by commonality but by opposition of the homogenization of culture. Here this 'guest' editor is bemoaning the lack of just such a thing....
The counter culture is STILL there they've just shunned the icons proposed for them by the 'man' and those that would make a buck of them.
TGIF, and rant off......
The Geek Party? (Score:4, Insightful)
If being a geek means I'm some kind of political activist hippie, count me out.
Sorry, I don't buy it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, whatever. My hatred of Microsoft comes from the lack of stability in their operating systems, and their predatory, monopolistic practices (which have been confirmed in a court of law, thank you very much)
And Spam? Do I even have to address this point? I hate it because it wastes my time, it wastes internet bandwidth and storage space, and the people sending it don't even really have to pay very much to inconvenience the entire email reading planet. It's unbalanced.
"If none of this is making sense to you, try the following mental exercise. Could you sit in a pub with a group of geeks, defend the RIP Act, and convince them that you were still one of them?"
Yes I could. Perhaps I have more open minded friends than you, who are willing to entertain an argument without ostracizing someone with an alternative viewpoint.
I'm a geek because I've loved fooling with computers my entire life, have a profound desire to see technology used to improve the world, and have developed quite a bit of hardware, software, and programming expertise. My political affiliations don't enter into it. Neither do my race, sex, nationality, or religous beliefs.
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (Score:2)
that it would be a very good thing is no one
had any privacy, provided that applied to
goverments, companies, politicians etc as well
as citizens.
Its a theme that been explored in stories
occasionally, for instance in "The light of
other days".
But if its the goverments and companies with privacy and me without it, then no thanks.
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it.....yes, you do (Score:2)
Spam is a direct capitalistic, commercialistic creation. Again, the problem becomes the fact that a shouting match ensues to see who can get the loudest, most ubiquitous voice to the consumer for the least amount of money...well, nearly free e-mail multiple times a day seems to be working in that regard.
There are plenty of other reasons to hate these two things, some of which you named, but it seems a good portion of your views are still in line with the author's analysis.
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it.....yes, you do (Score:2)
When I curse Microsoft because Windows crashes, it's not because I have "disdain of the side-effects of capitalism, betraying socialist ancestry." That's a load of over-analytical, pedantic nonsense.
When I curse the spam-merchants because I have to manually go through multiple email accounts daily and methodically delete tons of crap, once again, it's not because I have "disdain of the side-effects of capitalism, betraying socialist ancestry." I don't hate advertising. I have no problem with TV commercials, billboards, banner ads, or whatever. It's the physical act of having to spend time dealing with it that I hate. And Geeks are not alone in that.
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (Score:2)
Interesting that you mention stability first over your other reasons. The last two releases from Microsoft, Windows 2000 and Windows XP have been very stable for me at home and in the office. I can't really speak for Linux since I don't use it as a workstation and give it the beating that I give XP. As far as servers go, aside from an occasional hardware failure I've seen no difference in stability among Win2k, HP/UX, or Solaris.
I see an aweful lot of people on slashdot complain about Windows stability. Either they're running older versions of Windows, have some really shitty or misconfigured hardware, or are overclocking.
Re:Sorry, I don't buy it. (Score:2)
Some of this just happened to them, forced by the market demands for backward compatibility which made it hard to get rid of previous decisions that had caused instability. But there was so much that was well-known about how to do things that they ignored - a friend of mine described trying to teach them about caching when he gave a talk there in the mid-80s ("How come Unix is so much faster at handling files - the hardware isn't much faster?") And some of it was trying to simultaneously look Just Like A Macintosh without looking like a lawsuit-attracting cheap knockoff of the Mac knockoff of the Xerox Star. And some was deadline pressure, and all that. But it was still so inexcusably bad.
Geeks aren't Marketeers, so we aren't listened to. (Score:2, Interesting)
By pointing out a limitation or flaw the ones who understand the most are deemed "too negative" by managers and marketeers.
If you are too negative, too often, you will be pigeon-holed as a nay-sayer; even if you turn out to be right.
Geeks aren't marketeers so we lack the euphemisms to use when speaking to marketeers. Instead of saying: "Technology doesn't permit." or "This system is inadequate" the words escape us to reword this into something that can be spun positively.
In essence: Geeks are excluded because we know too much.
This response probably pretty extreme, but it sure feels true.
Quite a bit of the time I find myself not having the necessary time to get buy in to certain designs and architectures. It takes longer to get buy in, than to just implement the architecture.
I dare any one of you to attempt to explain the following paragraph to a marketeer / managerial type who is still struggling with how to buy a book from Amazon:
I haven't found a manager friendly way to say that yet. Any suggestions?
read it earlier (Score:2)
"Geeks" aren't becoming "homogenous" or any such thing. The only thing that's going on is many (not all even!) are up in arms about recent abridgements of their freedom from legislation and Microsoft's new tactics. This has nothing to do with homogenity, it simply has to do with a (a couple actually) common enemy.
And to say that all geeks get upset whenever MS does anything is simply ludicrous, and ignorant of the facts. There are a ton of geeks who are perfectly happy with MS products, but usually not with MS's current drive towards DRM and Palladium et al., which is perfectly understandable and reasonable considering the affect those types of things will have on them.
This is just stupid...
Geek have one politics for one reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike other groups, geeks (i still
hate the term) are defined by
intellegance, reason, and the scientific method.
While other groups will always contain members
that will hold mad, bad and obviously wrong
beliefs not matter what, a geek will always
change beliefs based on evidence and a solid
reasoned argument based on axioms they share.
If most geeks are in argeement in belief of something its probably because its (if
not true) at least as close to true as we can
get in the limit current knowledge.
Re:Geek have one politics for one reason (Score:2)
While other groups will always contain members that will hold mad, bad and obviously wrong beliefs not matter what, a geek will always change beliefs based on evidence and a solid reasoned argument based on axioms they share.
Then how do you explain all the geek socialists?
Here's how: The typical "geek" likes rationality, but is generally very bad at understanding human relationships. This is why geeks often make very bad managers, and in fact often have bad experiences with managers.
So when you go to a geek and say, for example, "We have poor people. How do we solve the problem?" The natural, geek-oriented solution would be to say, "Clearly we need the government to give these people money so that they can subsist long enough to find gainful employment. And clearly, this should be done at the highest levels of government, since a central authority is bound to more efficient than a bunch of non-organized, local governments that will have variable levels of quality".
The solution is simple, easy-to-understand -- and a dismal failure. Because of the lack of understanding of human nature, which geeks very rarely can factor in. They think everyone strives to do the best they can to "solve the problem once and for all, and move on the next problem". Unfortunately, this is a rare trait.
A geek cannot even concieve of people who would go out and try to keep people in poverty so that they will continue to have a job and a budget. Yet, those people exist.
They call them geeks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They call them geeks (Score:2, Insightful)
I think 20 years ago, yeah, being a "geek" was a bad thing. But, in the past several years, "geek" has become tres chic, especially after the rise of the Internet and the personal computer invading everyone's home. Hell, now if I call myself a "geek", I'm Mr. Popular with people coming up to me asking me all kinds of stupid computer questions, and in gasp of the stuff I have on my computer (such as 6 CDs worth of MacGyver episodes).
And, "geek" is only a word. It has the meaning you give it. If you take offense to the word "geek", then that's something you have to deal with yourself. To me, I am a proud "geek"
Pet Peeve (Score:5, Insightful)
"Geeks may argue about which Linux distro is best
I would classify myself as a geek and I never felt terribly comfortable using Linux. I've dabbled here and there, kept Linux boxen lying around, but have never used any as my primary machine. I've been a devout BSD fan...until OS X came along.
"...but they all know that a Good OS Has to Be Free. "
bullshit. A good OS has to be good. I'll pay for an operating system that I think is solid. I had no problems paying $129 for Jaguar a few weeks ago.
Geeks are people who are curious about technology and make a living and a hobby out of utilizing technology different ways. Oh wait.... I forgot what site I was posting on. Long live Linux and down with those imperial Microsuck bastards
Re:Pet Peeve (Score:3, Insightful)
Blockquoth the poster:
Not quite. Geeks can have an obsessive interest in just about anything: computers, movies, games, comics, math, politics, cars, whatever. It is the obsession itself, and the behavioral quirks resulting from it, that defines us as geeks.
Sure, geeks are often also technologically literate, but that is because we are more willing and eager to use new technology to satisfy our individual obsessions. Outside of the Slashdot / Register / Ars Technica crowd, most geeks still see the computer as merely a tool.
Re:Pet Peeve (Score:2)
Re:Pet Peeve (Score:3, Funny)
And outside of the Slashdot / Register / Ars Technica crowd, most people still see the geek as merely a tool. ZING!
Monoculture? (Score:2)
Yes, there are unifying forces at work, but there always has been and hopefully always will. It's this solid foundation which allows the community to discuss, argue and explore just about any idea which we feel we want, from god knows how many viewpoints and angles. We are an open and evolving community, one which has a greater role to play in society and a greater voice than ever. This is probably why people know about the pro-open, anti-infringement stances that are taken on many subjects. It does not mean that there isn't diversity, it just means that some of the more important messages _are_ getting across to the wider world.
If someone wants to take this as something which it is not (no names mentioned) then that is their right. If someone (no names mentioned) wants to start another lively debate, then this is certainly the way to do it
viva la revolution!
Problem with their reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
This is perhaps one of the greatest dangers to "geek politics".
No lack of consistency (Score:2)
Right, those are the only two possible rationales for moral theory or public policy. (And Mill, a libertarian? Does he mean John Stuart Mill, the utilitarian? WTF is this guy smoking--his assumptions are completely different from Locke's. In fact I'd say all of the positions stated in this guy's passage can be justified in utilitarianism, AKA the greatest good for the greatest number.)
"Geek politics" follow a really simple direction--more power for individuals, less power for businesses and governments. (It brings to mind Distributivism or micro-capitalism, actually.) Any inconsistancy or hypocrisy this guy sees is simply not there.
Bullshit (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a significant difference between fighting for a cause and standing up for what's right, and attempting to force your beliefs on other people. We bemoan the strong-arm tactics employed by big business but we turn around and essentially declare "you're either eith us or against us". Not true? You haven't been reading Slashdot the past four years. We've been clapping in delight every time the house of one of our enemies collapses but we've been ignoring the termites gnawing away at our own basement.
Simply stopping internal squabbling is not going to do it either. How can we expect to 'dominate the world' when Eugenia Loli has trouble configuring the premier commercial Linux distro? When the most visible end-user Linux company (Lindows) does nothing but stumble in their tracks every time they come up with a new strategy for stealing market share from Microsoft?
No, what we need is more attention to the realities of the world. Stallman-esque idealism is nice but has gotten us exactly nothing. Radicalism is obviously not working, either. Let the technology stand on its own, and let it cater to the same type of people we attack and disparage for using 'an inferior OS', as if that was somehow indicative of terrible genetic deficiencies.
We can either break out of this vicious cycle or continue to wallow in our own little pool of muck while we shake our fists at the nice rich beautiful people that walk by.
Petty Squabbling (Score:2)
The geeks amongst us should
He's right, you know. People in the computer industry need to rise up and use our voice for progress, not petty squabbling! Death to Microsoft!
That was sarcasm, you see? Rather than using our voices for progress, slashdotters engage in petty squabbling with Microsoft. An I the only one who finds this ironic?
Michael
Petty squabbling (Score:2)
We should yeah, but this is Slashdot, right? Did I take a wrong turn?
Er, maybe we should be working toward a model that emphasizes free wheeling discourse and a respect for dissent rather than idealizing unanimity of purpose. Something scientific-methodish, as geeks generally are in sympathy with the world of science?
I'm not seeing this supposed "monoculture," to use the article's word. Rather that trying to exploit a unanimity that isn't really there except in opposition to The Bad Guys, maybe we should try to build a culture around curiosity.
Take a look at any /. story on the environment, and tell me if you see more informative posts -- "I read such and so about Greenland ice cores" -- or more whining about the supposed arguments of straw man "environmentalist" views. When curiosity gets superceded by hackneyed political views, geeks are just as tedious as the next person.
not a Geek monoculture (Score:2)
Similarly he says we are unified in our hatred of Microsoft and loathing of Spam. Does anyone know anybody who likes spam? In my experience, many non-geeks hate Microsoft more than we do. You don't have to be a geek to dislike directly or indirectly the RIAA.
The traits he points out referencing geeks as a monoculture are really just traits of individual humans in general. It's like saying we're a monoculture because we all want to vote or because we dislike junk mail. While it's true that we tend to be a little more evangelical about these things, it's usually just because we know a little more about the situations than the average joe.
what drivel (Score:2, Insightful)
Others, such as the hatred of Microsoft and the loathing of Spam come from a quite reverse philosophy - a principled distain [sic] of the side-effects of capitalism, betraying socialist ancestry.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist; their actions are not a "side-effect of capitalism", their actions have been anti-competitive, anti-free market and, arguably, anti-democratic.
Spam, too, is theft of service--a crime--not a "side-effect of capitalism". I pay for my mail bandwidth, and most of it is taken up by stuff I didn't pay for. Big companies can have anybody prosecuted who as much as connects to their server in a way they don't like, why do I have to put up with megabytes of spam every day?
Geeks understand the machinations of power, influence and money a lot better than Steinberg gives them credit for, and apparently a lot better than Steinberg himself does. The difference between geeks and other participants in the political process is that geeks often won't shut up about it and they take a long-term perspective and won't accept expedient short-term compromises that only make the situation worse in the long term. The opposition of geeks to Microsoft, the RIAA, and spam doesn't derive from a hypothetical "socialist ancestry", it arises out of a concern that high technology can only prosper in a democratic society, in a free market, and in a country where people can discuss and exchange ideas free from private or public interference.
Maybe geeks won't be able to prevent the destruction of free speech, free markets, or democratic and constitutional principles in America, but we are certainly not going to shut up about it. If the rest of the country ignores us, that's their loss. We are doing all we can by speaking up.
To beat a tired cliche... (Score:2)
The reason I'm a geek in the first place is that I place very little trust in the activities of groups and crowds. I think people tend to lose IQ points the more they place themselves in a situation where you get hats, or uniforms, or armbands, or chants, or fucking political agendas, for that matter.
I'm not particularly misanthropic, but I do think that taking a sociological phenomenon based on an inability to easily conform, then asking them to come up with a coherent platform is an exercise in futility, if not stupidity. There are plenty of geeks in this world that I couldn't stand 10 minutes in a crowded elevator with much less stand side by side in a political rally. That doesn't mean we can't swap tips on router programming.
Besides, have you seen some of our political beliefs? I know I personally hold a few that could be used to scare chickens to death as a less cruel means of slaughter.
Geeks Squabble By Nature (Score:2, Interesting)
Geeks are either afraid to admit any kind of ignorance to any subject, especially technical, or very quick to abmonish someone for asking a question and (how dare he/she) admit ignorance.
This fear of showing any sign of weakness, as well as the know-it-all attitude, makes it difficult for open discussion and compromise to occur on even trivial issues, thus squabbling is rampant. This is the same in other realms as well of course, but it is an aspect to the geek regime.
I'm not saying I'm not part of this -- I am a geek as well -- it's just one of our weaknesses.
Evidence Here on Slashdot: Community Becomes Cult (Score:4, Insightful)
When identification with a community becomes more important to each community member than the goals or shared behaviors of the community, that community is well on the way to becoming an irrelevant cult. Why? Because an individual need only adopt the accoutrements of the community to claim membership. The need to actually make a substantive contribution to furthering the community's objectives, goes away. In fact, the community's objectives fade away until the sole objective becomes reinforcing each individual's association with the group. In other words, it dissolves into a "us versus them" scenario, where the only thing defining "us" is "not them" status.
The evidence is here on Slashdot every day: Few expressions of commitment to do anything about DMCA/RIAA/DRM except pen denunciatory posts; Use of "lusers" in reference to "users" (if your an admin, they're really your "customers"); assertions that Unix users are more intelligent than users of other operating systems; unwillingess to consider other points of view; readiness to censor dissenting voices (known as "moderation" around here); a dogmatic belief that everything the "enemy" says and does is a lie and, therefore, unworthy of a second's thought; and, in the obvious case of many posters, an adopted posture of cynicism lacking the credibility of real experience.
I am a geek....and I am conservative...... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I am a geek....and I am conservative...... (Score:2)
Re:I am a geek....and I am conservative...... (Score:2, Insightful)
It only seems like you are alone because the editors have a way of spinning a cotton-candy haze of pro-piracy, anti-MS floss about much of the news they disseminate. In turn, the younger participants (and, boy, doesn't it seem like there's an awful lot of high school and college kids on this board?) who are still in the process of forming opinions/having opinions formed for them, hop on the bandwagon -- which is built rather low to the ground to facilitate this.
Geeks/nerds are defined -- such as we need defining -- by our love for and affinity with technology, not by our politics.
Some of the geekiest people I have ever met are those who work "behind the scenes" in the entertainment industry, whose jobs center around securing their employers' assets from piracy. I've also met quite a few "Big Brother" geeks for whom the latest surveillance gear was like a newest distro of Linux. Nice guys. 110% Geek. Suffice to say I identified a lot more with them than I do with the juvenile dollar-signs-in-place-of-esses UseNet cast-offs that populate so many of the "political," uhh, discussions, on this board.
Geeks do not have a common politic, as Marketing Executives, Creative Designers, and athletes do not. I resist SlashDot's heavy-handed Hive-Think attempts to tell me how "we" should think.
Microsoft engineers are geeks too... (Score:2)
They don't get all riled up about freedom and capitalism, they just sit in their offices and write code. They found a benevolent master that will gives them mountain dew and gives them free pizza.
Politics are for liberal arts students, not computer geeks.
Geeks didn't unite -- (Score:2)
Homogeniety (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at any issue of politics that arises in this forum. I see plenty of my fellow "tax-and-spend" liberals and hordes of reactionary libertarians. Hardly a herd of like-thinkers. Look the the flamewars that emerge between Windows/Linux advicates, Linux/BSD advocates, GPL fans/GPL opponents, hell, emacs/vi. "Geeks" are not some sort of monoculture. And people who claim they speak for the "geek community" are doing so because they want to take a position in front of it. In other words, they are trying to gain power from association with a perceived collective of people.
But we aren't a monoculture. We aren't even a culture -- we're a shared enthusiasm for techie things. There are communities within geekdom, but there isn't a single community, a single outlook, a single political stance. I'm tired of people speaking for me. This guy doesn't know me, he doesn't speak for me, and there mere accident that we might agree about one or many things does not give him license to claim my voice.
Katz (Score:2)
Imagine:
Has the day of the geek gone the way of feelings of Security Americans feel on their home soil? As we survey the post-columbine waste land that is the New Order of the world, we find that more and more, geeks are losing touch with their roots. Gone are the days of vi versus emacs, while now we stand upon the precipice of disorder over the the likes of the DMCA and DRM. Why is our beloved order of geekdom crumbling around us? Has September 11th ripped our geek hearts and souls out, as Columbine did previously. Please read on as I follow the path of the Ruination of Geeks in HellMonth PI: Tragedy over X vs Windows.
sigh, I miss Katz.
The Tron Metaphor (Score:2, Interesting)
There's Alans and there's Flynns.
The Alans of the world go to a nice, salaried job and have a professional background in Windows APIs, C#,
Then there's the Flynns, the guys deeply devoted to the Gnustic mysteries. These guys have good weed, a prodigious mp3 collection, and know every nook and cranny of their
Many of us fall somewhere on this spectrum. But the future of the system depends on how they work together to fight Dillinger and the MCP. Some Alans will join the dark side. But not all by a long shot, because the limitations imposed on systems by things like the DMCA or (god forbid) palladium run counter to the needs of the Users. And we all believe in the Users, don't we?
Shouldn't be the Fall and Rise of the Geek? (Score:2)
Neither Tom nor John quite get it... (Score:2)
Without the kind of consensus Tom complains about, the possibility to organize to achieve our goals in the political arena simply would not exist.
As for his complaints about our community losing its purity because we've been forced to take a interest in politics, I could say historically that political newsgroups were among the first things to appear on Usenet. But the fact of the matter is, that the integrity of our computer networks now depends just as much on what the politicians will let us do legally as on our technological skills.
In the case of the DMCA, if vendors use it to suppress information about exploits and don't bother to patch, the bad guys get to hammer us and we don't get to figure out why.
If we want to be free to use our own computers as we will, not as a Hollywood content provider community incapable of securing their own Website dictates, we don't have a lot of choice about getting political.
Uniting against the common enemy (Score:2)
-emacs vs. vi
-liux distro A vs. linux distro B
-bsd vs. linux
We have no end of things to argue about amongst ourselves. The monoculture this article speaks about has mostly to do with how technology has become more a part of mainstream culture and thus drawn the interest of powers that have not normally cared about what us geeks were doing. Most of us stand against the MPAA and the RIAA, etc, because we see them trying to limit what we as geeks have always been able to do. We all want to have the freedom to do what we want with our toys and we don't take kindly to people messing with that freedom.
loose geek, adapt otaku (Score:3, Funny)
in the '90s geek became bill gates (yeah, i know it's ironic anthony michael hall played bill gates in that tv docupic opposite noah wiley's steve jobs). rich. older. strictly technology-associated and more specifically computer-associated. probably getting something in the bedroom now.
i wonder what the meaning of geek will be in the '00s? either way, it drifts further away from what i think it should be.
i like the japanese word "otaku".
otaku carries all the obsessive weight of the american geek, but overemphasizes the social outcast part, and certainly none of the technophillic rich part. maybe we should disregard the waterdowned term geek in a world where business school dot com scammers could don the adjective in the late '90s to give them some sort of retrohip social cachet.
face it folks. the word "geek" is dead. real geeks should abandon the term.
from now on, refer to me as otaku.
please note, the word otaku must loose an association with a scary underside [geocities.com] first though.
here are some sites which i guess could define obessive "otaku" best
car otaku [metropolis.co.jp]
anime otaku [umbc.edu]
fish otaku!? [dti.ne.jp]
etc...
The otaku, the passionate obsessive, the information age's embodiment of the connoisseur, more concerned with the accumulation of data than of objects, seems a natural crossover figure in today's interface of British and Japanese cultures. I see it in the eyes of the Portobello dealers, and in the eyes of the Japanese collectors: a perfectly calm train-spotter frenzy, murderous and sublime. Understanding otaku-hood, I think, is one of the keys to understanding the culture of the web. There is something profoundly post-national about it, extra-geographic. We are all curators, in the post-modern world, whether we want to be or not.
-William Gibson
Re:BUSH = RECESSION (Score:2, Funny)