Slashdot Mirror
Update on Alan Cox's Sabbatical
seymansey writes "ITWales, a company which resides on the Swansea University Campus has posted an interview with Alan Cox regarding his progress of his MBA. It also mentions his opinions on some legal matters that he shows interest in, as well as his plans for the future, and of course for Linux itself."
Time for a new slashdot poll..
Who would you like to see (temporarily) fill cox's position.
Look at the picture and ask yourself: Can you see this man as a CEO? Would you even buy a used car from this man?
Yes, yes, I know, the man is brilliant. But what I don't understand is: if geeks are so smart, why can't they realize that appearance counts in the business world?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Surely the brains of the company should be everywhere? Techheads that understand marketing/sales/strategy are important, as are executives that appreciate engineering - otherwise you get a silo mentality in your company where marketing overcommits and blames the programmers, and where the engineers just want to play and find the customer a distraction.
Based upon my experience, I would disagree. As someone with both EE and MBA degrees, my observation is that you need brains in all areas within a company. By brains, I mean more than know-how, but also the willingness and capability to do the right things right. An organization necessarily exists because one person can't do it all, thus brains are required in all functions. Just my humble opinion--would like to entertain other's thoughts and experience as well.
What the hell would /. do if Linus spent an evening partying in a whorehouse?
Be jealous, sigh, and compile the laterst 2.6 kernel?
Alan Cox did a lot of work on the "Alpha Linux" stuff for redhat. He always seemed to have the answers when those of us that used Alpha based machines ran into problems. His "online diary" can be found at http://www.linux.org.uk/diary/ and when he was deeply involved in the kernel, I used to read it constantly because the stuff he was working on was the stuff that interested me. This interview just confirms one thing for me. I owe him a great big Thank You, his help to Linux over the years has been invaluable. Should I ever meet Alan, he's going to get a beer on me.
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
psxndc
The emacs religion: to be saved, control excess.
Tom--
Alan's pulled off some gnarly stunts with the 2.2ac series; some definite hackworhty brilliance. Remember, hacker isn't a prejorative, any more than soldier is. I do understand the distinction you're trying to make, but it's pretty likely that Alan would call himself a kernel hacker.
I should point out they weren't talking about lines of code as much as public respect. Who's the lead coders of Samba? I know Tridge and Jeremy, but most don't. How bout Apache? KDE? Even if you can name them, they don't compare to Alan and Linus for not only coding so much themselves, but so successfully managing those hundreds of other kernel developers.
Yes, you need devtools to build a kernel. That doesn't make the kernel unimpressive.
It's very interesting what would have happened had Linux not shown up. I expect BSD would have forked into what Linux became. Had AT&T's lawsuit not slowed things down for years, Linux would not have happened, as BSD would have been far more mature at the appropriate time. How strange is that?
--Dan
I wonder if Mr. Cox has read the article on the 235,000 Fewer Programmers by 2015. Maybe this is why he is getting an MBA?
Supporting minority languages on our favourite Open Source OS is about accessibilty to all. Essential in multi-cultural Europe. At least 500,000 people would be interested in welsh so still a very good audience.
Even Ron Jeremy needs a rest from time to time.
>> There's a je-ne-sais-quoi that makes
>> a geek a geek regardless of his/her
>> outside appearances.
The likelyhood of a besuited geek showing his geekiness to a hardcore suit on IRC is a big fat 0.
I am a part-time suit, and we're explicitly taught to act somewhat superficial and semi-moronic because in most settings this IS the most effective long-term way to extract the best out of fellow humans.
In a way, a suit is complementary to a semi-Asperger type, with a focus switched away from the mechanics of things, and into the mechanics of humans. Not surprising that most suits come across as semi-moronic. They are, just not in the same way as geeks.
If you want to "fool" a suit, or at least not to antagonize hir, it's actually quite easy to pretend you're one, and also eventually to become one. Gates did it very effectively for almost 20 years, even if some claim he's a mild Asperger.
The opposite (suit->geek) is nary impossible, as it involves a lot more cerebral hardwiring that has to be developed over the years, preferably from a tender age.
I thoroughly applaud Alan's choice to get an MBA. An MBA'ed second-in-command in the Linux camp can't but help.
Think of this: Who will dare accuse a masterized AC of being a communist, anti-business, anti-western, anti-American, anti-copyright, or a child eater for that matter?
Adopting a radical hair control policy might be a good idea. Steve Jobs did that when it became necessary to attract capital from Republican-leaning sources. But he wasn't that famous at the time.
This just has to be wrong. I've seen many a project bloat because my fellow coders have no sense of economics and think something will be fun to work on. I think it is good that everyone has the idea that the reason we get paychecks and can support our wives and kids is because as a whole the company adds value by selling things for more than they cost us. This entrepreneurial spirit might be something that helps differentiate small companies from big ones. I saw in software developer magazine that the MBA is growing as a choice of graduate degree for developers. I think this is a good thing... in a lot of ways, the software industry is inefficient. Having a bit more of an idea about the goals and costs and strategies that other industries have used is a good thing for all of us.
Sorry, but I've never respected that attitude. It's idealistic, wasteful, and is more often rationalization than action.
Firstly, what should and shouldn't be is irrelevant in the real world. Idealistic attitudes will get you nowhere but the gutter, and if you don't like it, tough. This is a society - "social" being the same root. Your ideal situation doesn't matter, the actual happenings in the social (interpersonal) world do. I don't think looks should matter either (to an extent), but I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and declare "if it's not the way I think it should be, I'll boycott it" with respect to society (buying CDs and software is a mainly a personal matter, so it's a different story). You're free to hold your belief, you're free to hold yourself back by clinging onto it, and we're free to not care. Sorry, but your theory will have only one immediate outcome: you will make less money, get worse jobs, and all the trickle down effects of monetary issues will follow. Cheers.
Societal change is a bigger issue than one man/woman looking like a slob; if you want it not to matter, try having intelligent discussions about it with people, and if you're put in the position to hire/fire, do your best.
Secondly, looks have to matter, but to a different extent than current. An unkempt person is a clear sign of an unkempt lifestyle; if you don't take the time to do your laundry, why would I think you'd take the time to do your job well? Throwing on whatever clothes are available suggests you'll do the minimal amount of work necessary for any task - not exactly the person I'd want working for me. Being tall you can't control - that shouldn't matter. If you are willing to invest the energy and time to stay/get in good shape to improve your health (and appearance), it suggests that you're also likely to go beyond the call of duty to present a nice finished product at your job. Your appearance is the simplest reflection of your mind; it's the easiest thing to see when meeting someone, and can tell a lot (though for the most part only negatives). Most people can dress nicely, but very few are willing to look like a slob. Take your pick, but don't blame society when you really just need a haircut.
In my experience (including my own history), the whole 'society shouldn't care so I'll just do my own thing' stance is usually just rationalization. It's an easy way to make your own laziness or hatred of fashion into a righteous crusade. That may not be the case for you, but it is for many (most commonly seen in the goth/punk communities today). It's no surprise that there are far fewer punks/goths/etc over the age of 25 than under. People mature, and when they do, they realize that they're only hurting themselves by shunning societal norms.
(I'm not pointing the finger at you, psxndc, so don't take it personally.)
G
I've always found the People-magazine like fawning over the "stars" of Open Sourcedom alternately nauseating and amusing.
I'm not trying to take anything away from the accomplishments of Alan or anyone else. And there are times where features of people are worthwhile, but only when they've done or said something noteworthy. "Alan Cox went to class today" isn't one of them. "Alan Cox gets a crew cut", however, would be..
If you don't take the time to do your laundry, why would I think you'd take the time to do your job well?
If you have a bunch of free time to do laundry, you must not stay late or go to work early.
Throwing on whatever clothes are available suggests you'll do the minimal amount of work necessary for any task - not exactly the person I'd want working for me.
Spending all that time and money on cloths means you'll be more worried about damaging your clothes than in getting the job done. If I wanted a model, I'd have advertised for one.
That said, there is some room to compromize. Showing up for a meeting sporting long hair pulled back and braided (on a man) can be a show of confidence and authority. Grooming shows that there is care, non-comformity shows that the person is certain that their contribution will speak for itself (better be able to back that up, or it won't work). At other times, merely decent-ish grooming can be OK. It can project that there is a lot of work being done and no time for niceties.
The real key is knowing the difference.
Personally, I never wear a suit. The only image I project in a suit is that I'm not comfortable. In business casual, I tend to project a much more credible image.
For day to day work, I tend to be more casual. The impressions have been made and now I'm there to WORK, since I'm not an actor, I don't need a costume.
AC or RMS's appearance is likely appropriate to what they are doing. RMS is not running a company and meeting with investors, he is encouraging programmers and sysadmins to support free software. AC was leading a kernel dev team, and is now going to school. Presumably, should he decide to use his MBA later, his appearance will change to suit the occasion.
I suppose I'm not exactly agreeing or disagreeing with you, just putting things in context.
Maybe you need to read the true definition of a "hacker", instead of the NYT definition?
Second, Linux Torvalds is by far not the largest OSS contributor in the world. First off, there are 100s of Kernel developers.
Linus' biggest contribution, IMHO, is coordinating the whole kernel thing. They should give him a f'in Nobel just for that. Don't believe me? Try coordinating a small group of programmers in a company. See how difficult it is. Now, imagine doing the same with
- 100s of developers, each of whom has a sizable ego, and is a prima donna in his/her own mind (no offense meant)
- 100s of developers, who are spread out all over the world, each working at his/her own schedule
- 100s of developers, who aren't paid, which means you can't even hold the "you're fired" axe over their heads
just to name a few.Believe me, managing hackers is quite hard. Someone once rightfully said, it is like herding cats. And Linus is the best damn cat-herder in the world today.
I saw in software developer magazine that the MBA is growing as a choice of graduate degree for developers.
Unfortunately the only problem with this so far appears to be the current crop. I have thus far met 9 developers who went and got themselves MBA's. Unfortunately every single one of them was not only pretty pathetic at coding, they were even more useless around a boardroom table.
This has led to a quite widely held perception in our corporation that developers who try to "break" into management are the useless types who should be shunned at all costs.
This is very sad, as I have conversely seen a lot of developers who are natural leaders (note - not managers) who were perfectly capable of running projects but were never given the opportunity because they didn't have the "credentials".