Slashdot Mirror


Tech Geezers vs. Young Bloods

Lam1969 writes "Robert Mitchell talks about how technology is dividing him from younger generations: "The technologies I've watched grow have shaped an entire culture of which I am not a part." Adds Dinosaur: "Ask them [members of the younger generation] HOW the things work, and they have no idea. They are really riding on the backs of the 'old folks' like us that built the goodies they enjoy.""

38 of 768 comments (clear)

  1. In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The average 15 year old doesn't know how his IM works behind the scenes? Well no fucking shit -- point to me at some point in the last 100 years where your average person knew to any degree of certainty how their tech worked.

    Aside from that, anyone who is actually surprised that people who grew up using a given piece of tech will have different attitudes towards it than the people who've had to adapt to it needs to be locked up someplace where they won't pose a threat to their own well-being. It should be obvious to anyone who hasn't spent their entire life in a coma that this is just how it works.

    I'm not trying to post flamebait here, but honestly I can't even concieve of another reaction to this...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by dlefavor · · Score: 5, Insightful
      point to me at some point in the last 100 years where your average person knew to any degree of certainty how their tech worked

      I don't think it's the average user, the author is bothered by, it's the average technology person.

      I'm often unpleasantly surprised with some of my supposedly technical colleagues' ignorance as to how computers work.

    2. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Regardless, I think there's value in knowing *how* technology works independent of why you use it. The more convenient things become for you, the more is going on behind the scenes that can potentially screw you.

      The way to keep from getting screwed is to know what's going on. The author of TFA is in danger of not knowing how the next-gen tech is going to screw him. The next-gen users are in danger of not knowing how their tech works so that they can fix it or live without if it breaks. Or even recognise a better alternative when they see it. (I guess that last one depends on your definition of "better", which is part of that generation gap thing. . .)

      Maybe it's old-fashioned or apocalyptic of me, but I still see a burgeoning Morlocks vs. Eloi dystopia in the making here, especially when insubstantials are involved such as data access and communication methodology.

    3. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by garcia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm often unpleasantly surprised with some of my supposedly technical colleagues' ignorance as to how computers work.

      You only need to know about your own little world. "Jack of all trades" are irrelevant in just about every other community these days what makes computers different?

      Yeah, I like to know a little bit about everything but I'm not a guru in anything. I can putter along in whatever I'm faced with (PHP, perl, Linux, BSD/OS X, Windows, networking, DNS, SMTP, whatever) but I'm not a guru in any. That's not a good thing. I'd be better paid (and possibly less happy) if I was.

      I know plenty of geniuses in multiple fields that don't know shit about other stuff and you know what? It doesn't matter in the long run.

      What I'm more bothered by is that the average tech person still desires to be above everyone else in some way or another.

    4. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by Himring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know. Personally, it seems things are changing a bit regarding how my generation is viewed vs the now-young. I "grew-up" in the era of up-and-coming personal-computers. My first was a ti994a wherein I learned basic at age 13. DOS, Wolf3d, Doom, Windows 3.x, Netware, Lotus Notes administration, NT, Sendmail.... Now, I'm in a half-tech/half-paper-pusher role where I still have my Linux box here, my unix there my windows (terminal) ... here, and I have a team of younger techs, in their early and mid-20s, that I work with and lead.

      My uncle was my mentor who is a backbone switch guy -- to this day -- for a big telco running nortel racks and keeping big stuff going -- cool as hell when he takes me to "the node." He can barely use windows and relies on me for everything, but he can build a tv and actually puts a wafer board to use and, yes, he looks like froheki. I respect the hell out of him. The guy who taught me routers and switches and cisco is now in his 60s and also can't use windows, but he'll keep your damn network running smooth. He lives in telnet and writes everything down on a legal pad. I think he's a god -- always have. The guys under me tend to laugh at anyone older, treat them like their idiots and scoff at any supposed technical aptitude -- both the nortel and the switch guy and myself. They seem to presume to know more out-of-the-box on anything that comes up, but they are windows xp centric, college guys. I love 'em and relate to them and not all are like that, but more often than not they are. They couldn't setup a netware 3.x box if they had to or bang out a quick grep command to find something, but they can play wow, explain the latest tech on the latest nvidia card and hook up a shuffle -- things that the two ancients I mentioned would and could never do, but they know they can't....

      It just seems there is a loss of respect for the pioneers and the level 60 wizards that were doing technology while the new generation was in diapers or even born. Again, my personal opinion....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    5. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by MayonakaHa · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "1905? Horse & buggy... yup, know how that works... Coal fired boiler... yup, know how that works... Gas stove, yup... Kerosene Lamp, yup... Pen & inkwell, yup... Water pump, yup... ..."

      How was the buggy assembled, piece by piece? What metals did the boiler use and now was it smithed? Where did the gas feed come from and how was it processed? Where does kerosene come from? What is the formula for the ink in the inkwell? What is actually going on in the water pump to make it pull water up from the ground?

      What you're answering is how to operate. What the question was is how exactly does it work. That usually includes how to make it, where the materials come from and what they do. I can use a ballpoint pen, and I have a vague idea of how it gets the ink on the page, but I have no idea how the ink is made that completes the device and makes it work. Without that type of ink the pen doesn't work right, but does that matter to me?

      I never quite understood why generations of tehnological developers get so upset when the fruits of their labor are available to regular folks while the whole time they're developing it most of them are thinking how they can make things that do more and are easier to use. The computing industry seems to be the worst of it all.

    6. Re:In other news, water found to be wet, fire hot. by Gonarat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but even 100+ years ago, the average Joe didn't totally know how their technology worked. For example, the Horse -- hay goes in one end, horse poop comes out the other. If the horse gets sick, take it to the local vet. When the horse needs shoes, take it to the smithy. Yes, there were people who were able to take care of their horse completely (medical care and shoeing), especially on the frontier, but that knowledge was not required for non-frontiersmen.

      The same situation developed when cars were invented. Early on, anyone who had a car HAD to know everything about it from changing tires to rebuilding the motor, but as time went on, mass produced cars, service stations, and the AAA came along and the average Joe no longer HAD to know how a car worked. There still were/are amateur mechanics who can rebuild a car, but that became a hobby instead of a necessity.

      The same thing is occurring starting to occur with computers now. Even though (in my opinion) we are not completely to the point where the computer is an appliance, eventually the average Joe will be able to buy a computer out of the box and use it without having to know what exactly is "under the hood." At this point, OSX is the closest thing we have to that, followed by some Linux distros, and last, but least, Windows. Win XP is better, but there is still too many problems that the user needs to address to say it is totally ready for the average Joe (a topic for another post).

      Every new technology starts out the same way, the first adapters HAVE to be experts to get it to work and keep it working, then eventually the technology matures and gets to the point where anyone can use it without knowing how it works. Then a new technology comes along and the cycle starts anew...

      --
      Beware of Sleestak
  2. The knowledge will be passed along. by CyricZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eventually the knowledge will be passed along to the younger generations. They'll pick up where us oldies have left off. Indeed, it is often said that it is more difficult for them. We have left them with systems that are far more complex than were left to us when we all started. I trust in our younger generations. They'll be able to advance our technological knowledge. And the best thing is that we're now drawing from the most creative and brilliant minds of India, China, Korea and many other nations. We're bound to make tremendous discoveries just because we now have so many talented people working in the technology field.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:The knowledge will be passed along. by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He sites examples

      cites. Sites are places. Cites are citations, things that you write or otherwise communicate.

      Sorry, but I'm a grammar troll today.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  3. Old people are just as stupid. by CyberBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Ask them [members of the younger generation] HOW the things work, and they have no idea. They are really riding on the backs of the 'old folks' like us that built the goodies they enjoy.""

    Do the same thing to the old folks. They dont know either. Of course some punk ass kid on a skateboard doesnt know how stuff works, hes retarded. A generation does not invent, select individuals do. Remember, people are stupid.

    --
    -Bill
  4. That's how it's supposed to work by gamer4Life · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many people can produce a fire out of just sticks?

    Fact is, our society is becoming increasingly specialized, and it's no surprise that some people won't understand the technology behind it even though they use it frequently. They're just specialized in other things, that's all.

    As long as *somebody* knows how the technology works (engineers and scientists), there isn't a need to worry.

  5. Re:Grumpy Old Man by biryokumaru · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You always get this kind of attitude when a technology reaches a divergent point. I would hazard that many people know how to build CPUs and how the internal workings of a system function as ever, it's just that the hardware and the software have slowly diverged over the past twenty years. No longer do you need to know the particulars of a video card to communicate with it, etc. It isn't necessary for software people to know hardware, and visa versa. Both fields have become complex enough to function independently.

    Thanks to standardization of system design and function, this isn't really a problem. And I'm certain that AMD and Intel take very careful consideration of the software demands their hardware will face (as do Crucial, ASUS, et al).

    There may be a few remaining niches where the software and the hardware remain inextricably intertwined, such as small consumer devices, (iPod Nano, palmtop computers, etc).

    It's the modern dilemma: there is too much to know. Two or three hundred years ago, you could read every book ever written. Now you can't even read every book ever written about computing.

    It's the old joke: How many software engineers does it take to change a light bulb?

    That's a hardware problem.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  6. Cry me a river. by doubleyewdee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Adds Dinosaur: "Ask them [members of the younger generation] HOW the things work, and they have no idea. They are really riding on the backs of the 'old folks' like us that built the goodies they enjoy.""

    Okay, go explain how the Cotton Gin, steam locomotion, automobiles, electricity, the telephone system, the over-the-air broadcasting system you use to watch Wheel of Fortune, etc work. Oh, you can't? Then shut up and stop whining.

    --


    you can take the road that takes you to the stars...
  7. But what's truly more complex? by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's take your example of assembly versus C++ versus some other language. Consider the software that was written in assembly back in the 1950s and 1960s. Sure, there were some pretty impressive pieces of work. Various compilers, OS/360, and whatnot. But compared to software today, such items are of a level of complexity often expected from first or second year undergraduate Comp. Sci. students.

    Sure, we're not using assembly today, but even some of the more minor systems implemented in C++ are far more complex than anything that was written in pure assembly several decade ago. I mean, look at something like an optimizing JIT Java virtual machine or a .NET runtime. Those are fairly complex motherfuckers. Far more complex than anything that was even conceived a few decades back.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:But what's truly more complex? by suitepotato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing my point (and maybe I wasn't clear). The core of all higher languages is in the end the basic logic of binary circuits. Understand AND, NAND, OR, NOR, XOR, etc., and binary math, and that everything devolves to those foundations and you have a better grasp on what you can do with the higher concepts. I rather think the explosion of applications on every platform with crappy memory management and bloat is directly related to this. Coders of today do not understand anything about stacks and registers and limitations. Frugality, Occam's Razor, and other important principles are ignored and heck, never even learned. Just throw everything you want in there and since you don't know why any of the snippets does what it does in machine code, you won't know when a compiler is going to do its designed thing and result in problems. If you did know, you would have written things differently. The law of unintended consequences can be hemmed in by understanding the finer grained lower levels of any complex system. It isn't for nothing that the people who design and build engines have to know something of metallurgy, mechanical engineering, materials engineering, machining, etc. What the little tiny bits of metal will do in response to the doings of the big complex engine is important. So too is it with programming.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    2. Re:But what's truly more complex? by suitepotato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. In the same way that BASIC programmers had bad tendencies to not combine their loops and do the math to make it so and thus created nine thousand repeats of essentially the same routing, today's programmers on C++, etc. tend to look at the coolness of what they are doing and not at the things that code represent to the machine. Instead of their code generating the smallest most correct executables, they generate massively wonky ones which unnecessarily replicate basic operations over and over, which may generate stack, register, buffer, etc. issues in concert with other processes, etc.

      I'm NOT arguing that they need write in assembly or binary. I AM arguing, I guess, that the traditional CS foundations of logic and math are important to understanding the bigger picture in the most meaningful way. Even if you never take a CS course, being able to go through an old compiler theory textbook and grasp what they mean is a good way to find new understanding in C at which point you understand that there was deeper meaning to Kernighan's and Ritchie's guide than just how C worked. Any language needs to base itself around those core principles and insist on the programmers understanding them.

      Which is why I get that shaking head and rolling eyes thing whenever I see an explosion of interest for a new language whose very structure looks to me like spaghetti before anything is written with it and all the praise revolves around it being new, cool, object oriented, or some other buzzphrase. Maybe the languages before were'nt in need or replacement, just the people using them or at least a refresher in the basics.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    3. Re:But what's truly more complex? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The difference is that in Ye Olde Days, a programmer had to understand all of that complexity because he had to code it himself. Today's systems are more complex, but the average programmer only has to understand the interfaces presented by various pre-packaged APIs and components that hide the complexity -- which was presumably understood by the specialist programmers who designed those components.

      The sad truth of the matter is that both the oldbies and the newbies are wrong. Contrary to what the oldbies think, the field is now sufficiently large that it's not possible to understand all of the complexities, and you don't need to understand all of them. The newbies, on the other hand, are so wrapped up in their reflexive sophomoric belief that new = better that they miss the valuable point that their predecessors are making: sometimes, you can write better software if you know what's going on inside the black box.

      This reminds me of the pointless flamewar that erupts from time to time between hard-core assembly language programmers and the users (but seldom the developers) of optimizing compilers. There is a popular but mistaken belief that today's optimizing compilers can outperform hand-coded assembly. Even for some fairly trivial cases, this is simply not true, but you have to be an experienced assembly language programmer to even make the comparison between human-generated and machine-generated code.

      What I think the oldbies are really lamenting -- at least *I* am lamenting it, having been programming since the punch-card era -- is the declining level of skill necessary to write software. In the old days, it had to be not only good, but actually excellent code, because the hardware wasn't fast or capacious enough to handle the kind of code that's the norm these days. No one -- well, very few of us -- wrote code in assembly language because we wanted to; we did it because we had to. And from this, there was the usual pride that arises from what amounted to fine craftsmanship. Nowadays, the economics of software development have shifted so that it is just too goddamn expensive to build code that way, not that it's more expensive than it ever was, but because it's so much cheaper to throw some fresh junior college grads at it and call it good. That they come complete with the arrogance of ignorance only adds insult to injury.

      This is not the first time this has happened. You heard similar complaints from all of the craftsmen who were put out of work by the industrial revolution. Fine, hand-crafted furniture is stronger, longer-lasting, and (arguably) more attractive than the particle-board and veneered junk that comes out of industrial furniture factories, but no one can afford the "good" stuff anymore, and the cheap junk is good enough.

      The difference in quality is not imaginary. Compare the old MS-DOS editor, QEdit, with the trivial and ubiquitous Unix editor, PICO. QEdit, which was written in assembly language and is completely statically linked, weighed in somewhere around 48k and included vastly more capabilities as well as a fairly sophisticated macro language. PICO, which doesn't have much in the way of capabilities at all and is written in a high-level language, weighs in at 171k and then dynamically links in some more libraries, occupying over a meg of RAM before it has even loaded a file.

      Would the average user notice any difference in performance if all code was written the old way? Yes, especially -- but not exclusively -- on older machines. The problem is that the average user couldn't afford to buy software built that way, any more than the average person can afford to furnish their entire home with fine handcrafted furniture.

      What surprises me, however, is that in the free software world, where such economic considerations do not apply, the free apps are often not much better than the equivalent commercial apps. OpenOffice and MS Office, for example, are both big, lumbering, resource-hungry hogs whose resour

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
  8. It isn't like this is unexpected by PReDiToR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After all, SciFi writers have been predicting this for many years, haven't they?

    I have read many stories where there are generations of knowledge passed down to an elite class of society that are revered by the rest as demigods for their knowledge of how to keep machines running that provide the world with food, air, heating and all the comforts of life.

    --

    Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
  9. Stupidity? by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why should the average person understand how their cell phone works?

    Seriously, how is it stupidity to simply be ignorant of things that you don't need to know? I don't know how my digital camera works beyond a few of the basics (light shines on CCD, then... er... picture ends up on my flash card), that doesn't stop me from being a reasonably good photographer. I know how to use my camera, how to manipulate the aperture and the shutter time and the ISO to get the picture that I want. Isn't that what counts?

    No person can be an expert on everything, and in my experience the people who try tend to be the real useless ones...

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  10. Riiight... by Rallion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this older generation, they did everything themselves, from scratch! They started out by learning how to mine and refine metals, to create copper wire. Then they discovered electricity. They invented the resistor and the capacitor. They learned how to machine parts....

    Standing on the shoulders of those who came before is the definition of progress. So, please, unless you make your own wiring and screws and capacitors and what have you, shut up and stop whining.

  11. Screw new technology... by Morgalyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    .. most people still don't know how a flushing toilet works. It's something most everyone uses every single day. It's a very simple machine. But apparently I was some sort of female plumber superhero in college because I knew how to fix it.

    Some people will just never become curious about the things they use from day to day. Others will. That's the difference.

    --
    You say you got a real solution
    Well, you know
    We'd all love to see the plan
    (The Beatles)
  12. Why do we need to know how things work in the US?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not like we actually PRODUCE anything over here. Let the Chinese figure out how things work while we enjoy all the benefits of US society and culture. Like reading a magazine about celebrities while we wait in the unemployment line.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  13. Re:Grumpy Old Man by Monkelectric · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More then that, it is now impossible to completely understand a computer. I used to program in assembly, and I understood how every chip on the motherboard worked, and all of their little quirks. That is now impossible, and programms must rely on the makers of the chips to make them accessable through drivers.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  14. I think the same thing every time I see this stuff by ifwm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    GOOD!

    I'm a smart, technically savvy individual, who generally knows how ALL of his technology works. In fact, I make it a point to do so most of the time.

    And as long as that's the case, that means that I WANT the younger generation to be ignorant, so I can reap the rewards of their ignorance.

    As long as they're still ignorant, I'm still getting paid.

  15. Ah, the joys of an object oriented universe... by Asprin · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Ah, the joys of an object oriented universe. Nah, you don't need to understand the internals of *how* it works, you just need the API docs.

    Do programming courses in college still teach actual algorithms (prime number sieve, sorting, searching, etc.) or just how to program to APIs? I know OOP makes development easier precisely because you don't have to understand the object internals, but it's like a pocket calculator -- there are real lessons to be learned from putting it away and doing the work manually.

    Also, I realize that I'm picking on programmers here, but the truth is that IT mindshare eventually follows them, so the disinterested attitude that found its way into the ranks of the developers eventually got around to everyone else.

    I am also somewhat alarmed at how many IT people I have met who do not program, never have programmed and never plan to program.

    BTW, present company (probably) excepted, of course.

    --
    "Lawyers are for sucks."
    - Doug McKenzie
  16. Social issue not a tech issue by p7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This isn't anything new. 20 years ago teenage girls would spend all night on their families landline. They would also make radio mix tapes. The only difference is they can now take all of this stuff out where you can see them doing it. How many minutes you spend on your cell phone doesn't equate to tech culture. I don't use many minutes on my cell phone either, but it isn't because I am old school. It is because it is a tool for me, not a social outlet.

  17. System performance tuning by winkydink · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One thing I have noticed over time, is that fewer people (I'll leave age out of the equation) seem to understand how to tune a system or how to identify where the bottlenecks are. More frequently, I see sysadmin-types say that we need a new computer computer when what we need is more memory or faster I/O.

    --

    "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

  18. Down with ageism. by Pinback · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After racism and sexism die out, maybe we can go after ageism. Making arbitrary distinctions based on age is just as bad as doing so based on race or sex.

  19. Not really. by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the modern dilemma: there is too much to know. Two or three hundred years ago, you could read every book ever written.

    But committing to memory all of the oral tradition even in one culture would have a similar education to what we have today. I think it was Pliny who said that the Druids had something like 20 years of training. And it doesn't take a professional Linguist to read something like "How to Kill a Dragon" and realize the depth of these traditions. Or how easily can one commit the entire Rig Veda to memory (it was originally memorized, you know).

    In other words, the required knowledge in specialized fields really isn't a new phenominon.

    The second issue is that most of this stuff isn't really that conceptually complex. It can easily be explained in Contemporary Standard American English without using jargon. The problem is that people have so much ego invested in broken analogies (OSI model used to "explain" how TCP works, for example, with few people even remembering that OSI was supposed to be a competitor to TCP and built along fundamentally different assumptions).

    In short it is not that there is too much to know, but that it is hard to winnow it down so that you know what information to consume. The problem is compounded by broken requirements like knowing the OSI model which is not only dead but broken.

    (I always tell people to memorize the OSI model for exams and then don't ever worry about using it after.)

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  20. This isn't a problem. by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's simply not necessary for people to know how everything they use works. I know how to series-wind an AC motor, but there's no reason why everyone who wants to vacuum their floor should have to. It's called the social division of labor. I don't really know how to make clothes, operate a bottling plant, or weave a carpet, but there are people who do.

    Back in the days when most people lived on farms and made most of the things they used by themselves, we all lived in rather squalid conditions. Let's hear it for specialization!

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  21. This reminds me... by Cytlid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... of some of the fantastic conversations I've had with my stepson. At first I was a little put off. But now I'm kinda fascinated by his generations' point of view.

      He grew up on nintendo. I grew up on Commodore 64. He thinks AIM is a killer communication app, for me it's IRC (for customers where I work it's email). We had interesting conversations about several things... we had a disagreement on how a Tivo works. I basically said ... uh you can make one of those with a linux box, it's a computer that saves video data to a hard disk, and that disk only has so much capacity. When the Nintendo DS came out, he was thrilled about this new "802.11 technology from Broadcom" ... I said ... like the Linux based Linksys router we have, the one I've customized firmware for? At that point we've had the router for a few years.

      The point shouldn't be who's right and who's wrong ... or who knows what and who knows "HOW" things work. But we can learn from each other.

      At some point, I had to stop and realize... wait, he's just growing up in a different world than I did. So now, it's really cool. Our individual experiences compliment each other. He brought home some C++ homework, and I said ... look, you can compile this on linux by changing one line!

      I'm an admin for a local internet provider and we do some connections for local colleges. I don't talk to the students there all that often, but when I do, I find it easier now.

      You're not better than a younger generation because you understand different things than they do. When you start to understand them, you're better than you were.

    --
    FLR
  22. Re:Grumpy Old Man by mrbooze · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, in the Corporate IT field at least, there is strong selection for specialization. Most of our network guys are clueless about operating systems, and most of our O/S people are clueless about low level networking. Hell, most of them wouldn't even know how to do subnet math.

    And the corporate environment encourages that. Naturally, nobody not in the network group is allowed to touch the networking equipment, so they'll likely never learn much beyond what they need to know for O/S support, etc etc. This silo-ing extends throughout much of Corporate IT in my experience. It discourages cross-training and encourages specialization to what imo is an excessive degree.

  23. Re:They were never any golden old days by Golias · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was under the impression that Western Civilization has been on the verge of colapse, or at least decline in decay, for a long time now.

    Five US Presidents later, I'm done waiting for it to happen.

    The economy cycles, but continues to slowly rise. Priorities of morallity shift around, yet we do not decline into nihillistic anarchy, but rather we continue to gradually raise our standards regarding what offends our sensibilities. Countries around us get their shit together and look as if they will "catch up" to us in global competition, and we end up finding a way to trade with them which enhances our prosperity. Our freedoms endure troubling restrictions in some ways, while opening up more than ever before in others, and brutal dictatorships around the world continue to slip into what Reagan once called "the ash bin of history."

    I've finally come to conclude that we actually have a rather robust society in place.

    As a child, I grew up (like many Cold-War kids) believing that the whole goddamn world would burn up in a massive nuclear apocalypse in my lifetime.

    As a young man, I was dead certain that we were living in the declining years of society... that we caught the very tail end of something great, and it will all be over soon.

    Today, I've come around to see that calling our society "doomed" is about as meaningful as calling Apple Computer "beleagured."

    So farewell to all the hand-wringing and furrowed brows about the future. I now firmly believe that the world will be a even better place during the rest my life than it has been so far. What's more, it will continue to improve long after I'm gone.

    --

    Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

  24. Nothing new here really by BobaFett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We're becoming specialists. The old geezer knows how tech works and the kids don't? Ask an even older geezer who knows how several different areas of tech work. Do you know how to make gunpowder or rubber, how to build an elecric generator, and how the telephone works too? What about how to saddle a horse? Every next generation is more specialized than the previous one, and for every previous generation the things they don't know "are just there" and things they do know are "basic education".

    Imagine a thought experiment: a modern man, a well educated one, is transported back in time, where the local population believes him to be a god, so he has endless supply of labor, but he lost the entire technological base and must rebuild it from scratch.

    How many different people would it take to reconstruct the techology of the age they were taking from? I would not be surprised if one man from 1500's knew enough to rebuild his entire technology from ground up. In 1800 there were scientists who worked in a good many of the available areas of science, may be half a dozen of those could reconstruct the entire scientific and technological knowledge of their civilization. How many we would need now? How many of the best-educated modern humans would need to come together to build a car or an airplane using only what's in their heads, no books, no libraries, nobody else to ask, only them and endless unskilled labor?

  25. Re:Grumpy Old Man by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Except, of course, that you cant actually fix the *hard* problems with the new stuff unless you know the old stuff. If you're writing a web portal in a managed language, and there's a bug in some platform-specific code in language itself (or the virtual machine), who's going to fix it for you? Who's even going to find it and prove it's not a bug in your web code?

    If you understand how to step through assembly in a debugger, and how to read a network trace (or wahtever trace applies to the problem at hand) there's no problem you can't eventually pin down, and given open source, solve.

    But the reality is far worse, as people don't generally even understand how their app affects the system and network. Heck, I can't count the times someone has suggested XML or XMLRPC to me on a project for which efficiency is paramount, and couldn't really understand why I'd suggest that their favorite XML package wasn't optimal. Many many programmers just don't get bits and bytes. But the fallacy is that this is something new. Most COBOL programmers didn't "get it" either.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  26. The more things change... by Duncan3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The young are great for working 12 hours a day on implementing stuff, but lack the experience to know WHAT to spend that time on. How many IM clients in sourceforge? And they are dirt cheap.

    The old have the experience to design reliable things that do things people actually want, but lack the energy to work 12 hours a day. So many go home to their "lives". And we need our naps.

    Solution: older designers, younger workers. Every field other then technology figured this out thousands of years ago. One of these years we'll figure it out too, probably right after AI works and noone needs to write code anymore.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
  27. Re:Grumpy Old Man by Raven_Stark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I sort of miss the old days sometimes. As a kid doing assembly (and machine!) code on my C64 I felt like I knew almost every little detail of how it worked. I felt like a god in total control of my little universe.

    With modern programming its more like being a CEO barking out orders to my minions (makers, compilers, assemblers, linkers and such). I haven't really a f*ing clue what is really going on anymore. I suspect they do a lot of slacking off but I can't see it from my office.

    It reminds me of what Richard Feynman said about the advantages of growing up with vacuum tube based radios, how you could much more easily see how they worked. Now it's just a few black boxes connected by hard to see wires, and there as so many bells and whistles, it is harder to get a feel for what is going on.

    Perhaps it isn't essential to know all the details, but it is fun to learn anyway. If I had a geeky kid, I'd encourage him to play with my Atmel microcontrollers and developer board. Its good clean fun and maybe it would come in handy some day.

    In emergency situations is interesting what dumb mistakes people make because they are so used to being far removed from the details of how things work. After a hurricane several people will always bring their generator indoors and die of carbon monoxide poisoning. Several will make obvious errors cutting up fallen trees and end up crushed. Many don't even seem to know how to cook without electricity or start a fire without matches or a lighter. I know of one person who couldn't even figure out how to eat from plants full of string beans, only knew how to warm them from a can. This is mostly stuff our ancestors dealt with daily.

    --
    http://www.marxist.com/
  28. Re:Grumpy Old Man by eneville · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Would that be the same OSI that is the 7 layer model of which TCP/UDP/ICMP is the fourth layer and IP is the third?