Decentralization

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.'"

Comments

Copy & Paste

[rmohr02]

Why just copy and paste the first paragraph when you could copy and paste the whole article?

This is a summary?

[Amata]

Is it just me or did the "summary" give no idea whatsoever of what the article is actually about?

Um...

[PRickard]

Is this news? Must be a slow weekend at both /. and Salon.

What's the difference?

[PhysicsGenius]

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.

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.

Re:What's the difference?

[Bendebecker]

Geeks see a need for a device/program

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.

Am I the only one...

[Erik Hollensbe]

That thought this was an opening for a Jon Katz article?

The rest of the artile

[zephc]

Something about grass being green and water being wet...

Geeks v. Suits

[MacAndrew]

Hmm, am I going too far afield here if I imagine we're supposed to pick good guys and bad guys here?

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

[rnd()]

Anyone who uses the word suits to describe people whose responsibilities are focused on the bottom line is way out of touch. Both stragegy/managerial and technical positions require intelligence, problem solving, and creativity. Anyone who thinks otherwise should try to run a company by him/herself.

Re:Geeks v. Suits

[dpt]

Both stragegy/managerial and technical positions require intelligence, problem solving, and creativity

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".

Good distinction...

[shylock0]

This is an interesting hypothesis, and in some ways it's probably correct. Consider this:

"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

Why do geeks do stuff?

[dagg]

Geeks make new stuff primarily because it's fun, because it's useful, and because others cannot. That's why most geeks become geeks. The best geeks are those who can do what nobody else can.

There's no reason why geekism's a problem.

[tgrotvedt]

At the risk of sounding like a naive geek or fanatical OSS advocate, I don't see why volunteer geeks can't exist in harmony with bussinessmen and bussiness.

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:The truth

[ryochiji]

> When it comes to putting bread on the table [...] I'd rather be a suit.

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.

Not suprising

[mao che minh]

This sentiment can be compared to many open source initiatives, especially Linux.

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.

sucking it up

[ack154]

I keep reading all these articles on the job market and the direction some businesses are going. Where do they leave me? Clueless. As I get ready to graduate PSU next summer, I leave with one question... wtf am I ever going to do for a job? Decentralization. Great, so does that mean I should try to start some business away from a business? Or is it that when I get into a business, I won't have 50 bosses? Does anyone have a plain english definition?

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

[MisterFancypants]

This article ignores the most obvious example of convergence between geekdom and businessman, not surprising since it was written by Scott Rosenberg who seems to be anti-Microsoft. And yes, I'm talking about Bill Gates. Everyone knows he is a billionaire many times over thanks to his business skills (you may not like HOW he made the billions, but you can't argue with the fact that he did make them, and therefore is a successful businessman).

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:Listen up, this is the last time I'll say this

[quantaman]

Oh come on, this is a major overreaction.
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".

Geeks and Suits have a lot of in common

[$0.02]

Geeks's model

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:Which is all well and good, for *you*

[nihilogos]

Me, I think specialization is for insects, but that's me. Your milage may vary.

Rubbish. Specialization is for specific cases in a templated function.

the distinction is NOT real...

[TheMonkeyDepartment]

as a geeky business owner, I hate to tell you that the distinction is NOT real, it is an artificial border that you have decided to draw. It is more than an "oversimplification", it is a total fabrication.

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.

Re:The truth

[Doomdark]

No. Dot-com burst wasn't due to geeks, it was... guess who? The suits. They thought there were lots of golden "business opportunities" out there. This is obvious and I feel silly even pointing that out, but geeks would have been happy just putting up a simple web site and be done (or more likely, keep on tinkering). But suits not; they needed to get 100+ employee sweat shop creating web site that gives stuff out for free, and then selling these brilliant ideas to other suits and unfortunate investors.

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.