Slashdot Mirror
Sandals and Ponytails Behind Slow Linux Adoption
Eric Giguere writes "CNet is reporting that according to former Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn 'the lax dress code of the open-source community is one of the reasons behind the software's slow uptake in commercial environments.' In particular, Quinn blames the 'sandal and ponytail set' for sluggish adoption of Linux by businesses and governments." From the article: "Quinn, who faced plenty of scrutiny over his support of the OpenDocument standards-based office document format, said proponents of open source in government faced formidable opposition from vested interests if they went public."
Its all about class and swagger.
Eventually I think linux and OSS will take hold. I agree with the articles thesis: uptake of OSS (and, for the record, ANYTHING) is affected (negatively in this case) by sandals and ponytails.
In my long career pathetically ended after 21 years by an unfortunate "right-sizing" (let's get rid of the 20% MOST expensive employees in IT, but make sure to get rid of some of the kids too so we don't get sued...), I conducted an ongoing rant/argument/rage/discussion with my best friend at work about the impact of dress. Bob (not her real name) insisted not only are others impacted by your appearance and demeanor, but your very own work and feelings about yourself change based on your dress.
Being a long-haired sandaled techie I disagreed. It took Bob about fifteen years to win me over. I get it now, maybe a bit too late, but it does matter.
For doubters, read Robert Malloy's book. I love and hate this book. It's hard to dispute empirical research... you dress for your audience or risk losing them.
Still I like to wear my rose-colored glasses and think good conquers evil eventually, and still hold hope someday linux along with OSS gains the purchase it needs to be a viable and dominant market force unto itself (it already passes the viable test...).
As an aside: this does take an interesting turn when you consider that the "dress code" for "good tech" is oxymoronic, i.e., while it is true business leaders and decision makers like/prefer business dress and decorum from people they meet and strike deals with, at the same time it's a time-honored tradition that the most savvy and high-octane techies wear cutoffs, sandals, t-shirts (that probably say "fuck you" in some obfuscated way), and piercings. Go figure. (From my own personal experience, I would add, I found little correlation with the raggedy techie look and competence and would even submit many less competent techies cultivated the look as an offset to their less-than-great skills.)
And, now I'm off to install the new Firefox /. extension (God Bless OSS)
Does -anyone- wear sandals and a ponytail anymore? That's kind of cliche.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/resources/roumen/micro soft_old_small.jpg
;)
How did Microsoft become so successful, then?
This message printed on 100% post-consumer recycled electrons.
People who are too shallow to see past how some dork dresses get what they deserve, sheez..
On the other hand, people who don't care whether you wear sandles, have a ponytail, are black, white, asian, a woman, or whatever, will come out ahead, because they'll pick stuff that is best, rather than looking to see if it wears Armani suits.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
If they think *that's* bad, wait 'till they see 'em naked!
The problem is with idiots who believe that they can judge the quality of a product by the shoes of it's creator. Noone ever complains about my t-shirt, Dickies shorts, and piercings when I'm done fixing their shit... in fact, I'm the one they ask for by name.
Some of us feel that being proficient at your job and being comfortable are much more important than being a shortsighted, uninformed asshole in a fancy monkey suit.
The problem is on THEIR side.
Messiah figures don't work for software.
Linux + Business Suits = Success.
..we raise our children to "not judge books by their cover", and then turn around and do just that.
I understand that by dressing like the stuffed suits would make me more appealing to them, but I don't care about them. They need me more than I need them. I'll always be able to find tech work somewhere. They won't always be able to find a lot of techies to work for them. The sooner they get over themselves and their dress code ideas, the better, for realities sake.
I thought it was the companies thinking they could replace their technical management with bean counters responsible for the slow uptake. Managers that think if IT gets on their nerves enough they can simply outsource them to India. Or the fact that many company IT departments are staffed with MCSE's who see every IT problem as a nail for the MSFT hammer.
And here all this time it was sandals and ponytails. Missed it by that much!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Of course, it all depends on context. If you're interacting a lot with clients, then you probably want to dress somewhat like them, depending on the situation, of course!
So sad but its obvious Quinn is talking about Stallman in sandles. Quinn is the MA open source guy and Stallman is unequivocally the most idealistic, free software guru that has come out of the MA area and the go to guy for all things free software. Who would I listen to, Quinn or Stallman.. Stallman of course. Who has a habit of rubbing "open source" people the wrong way, Stallman of course. Who do you think Quinn is talking about as being a thorn in "open sources" business friendly side? Stallman of course. What a cheap "ad hominem" shot.
the real reason, right there in the article, has little to do with dress and more to do with the incredible political influence (money) wielded by those who want to keep OSS down. the 'image' of OSS developers is not the problem. it is that the political process has been hijacked from seeking public good to seeking personal good.
there are plenty of suits involved in the OSS movement. but as he says at the end of the article, what got him to drop out of the fight was not the image of OSS but the constant barrage of attacks brought against him by those with the wherewhithal to do so - big business.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Since when does a developer's alleged mode of dress influence the decisions of those who never meet him? It's yet another excuse: "Oh, those open source guys are hippy dippy slobs with pony tails and sandals! Let's buy from MicroSoft who makes their (sales) people dress up nice!!"
It's bullshit.
Besides, microsofties wear west coast developer attire too, just they don't let them make sales calls. Also, I know damn well what the Apple geeks wear, and it isn't suit and tie. I see them whenever I drive down the DeAnza Blvd in Cupertino. They are definitely ponytail compliant - although some of them their *only* hair is their ponytail, with nothing on top!
use Sig::Witty;
In the last job and some others I've worked, the ones with ponytails were generally the big-boys in admin. Really, one generally didn't notice it, as their attitudes were still professional. Sandals I'm not so keen on (who wears those, anyways), but a ponytail is hardly as damaging as the lack of professionalism some people have. Moreover, I've met quite a few geeks that had rather unpleasant hygiene (see: body odor), which is far worse than the ponytail and sandals.
As for myself, I'm hardly a shirt-and-tie person. I'm not sitting here with a kokanee shirt and shorts, but when your job often involves crawling under desks and in other various recesses where computer parts dwell, a white shirt and tie are hardly functional for the position at hand.
.. that only people in a shirt and tie or similar "professional" dress are capable of performing their assigned duties to which they agreed when they signed the employment contract. After all, how many of us completely lose the mental faculties (alcohol not withstanding) to do our jobs as soon as we get home and get the jeans and t-shirt on? Come on, raise your hands! { watching tumbleweed blow by }
So, basicaly what the author of the original article is saying is the following:
open source + casual dress = no credibility regardless of the quality of work
open source + "professional" dress = complete credibility regardless of the quality of work
Someone needs to do a study on this. I'm fascinated by the attitiude that some people have that the design of the cotton on the outside of our skin somehow has a direct correlation on the ability for us to maintain our servers through open source. It must be some kind of intellectually stimulating chemical that is weaved into the fibers of "professional" clothing that we absorb through our skin whereas casual dress does the opposite.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I, for one, am familiar with the concept of "dress for success".
There's a dress code at my company. It's fairly easily followed, but it's still a dress code.
And there are considerations when going out to customer sites. Some, we could show up in a pair of shorts and a wife-beater for all they care. Others, if we're not in a suit and tie, they look at us funny.
Even so, this argument is an especially large patty of bullshit.
If you're reviewing software, review the damn software. Stop worrying what Joe Slack down the road happens to be wearing while using the self-same software.
Competent managers understand this. And they're usually dealing with (well dressed even) technical staff who do as well.
All the idiots who can't actually grasp the significance of the technology are covering themselves by going "OMG! IT'S WRITTEN BY A DIRTY, TREE-HUGGIN' HIPPIE! RUN AWAY!"
These individuals will, eventually, be replaced by more dynamic individuals who aren't so concerned with what some community programmer in Bumblefuck, KY is wearing.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Free Software is given to you free as in speech, and free as in beer.
If you want us to look the way you want us to look, that will cost you a FUCKING LOT. Start writing big checks, or STFU and stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.
Ungrateful stuffed suit.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
There was this religion started by some guy with sandals and a ponytail about peace and goodwill. Suits really didn't like him, nailed him to a tree. Don't remember if it caught on or not....
There was also some strange government of people with ponytails and almost-sandals with the idea of "liberty or death" and "all men created equal".....
I can't remember if either of these things exist anymore, but if they do, I bet the people in them are OK with ponytails and sandals.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
At 37, I haven't suffered any harm from this attitude yet
Or you're too conceited to have noticed.I would not work with you based on that comment.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Style is always much more important than substance to those who have little of the latter.
Fantasy and superstition should be used for entertainment purposes only.
Let's not forget that all of those C-level types currently on trial were very well dressed . . .
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Some of the vested interests are, in fact, hippies. When the government rejects valuable technology because it's not offered by the required jock or yuppie, whose own tech isn't good enough, the government has to change style, not the hippies. Or the government by, for and of the yuppies gets left behind.
--
make install -not war
Exactly the ignorant elitist attitude that will place you near the top of the list when it's time to lay a few people off. Fact of the matter is that management needs tech and tech needs management, but neither needs arrogant know-it-alls like you.
At 37, I haven't suffered any harm from this attitude yet.
Time is not on your side. A more polite and still smart and pleasant to be around kid will soon replace you. Sure they will need some training and education that comes with experience, but the benefits to the management, that you are so quick to insult, of this new fresh blood out weigh your value.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Sometimes dressing in less "professional" apparel can lose you a sale. Sometimes, it can gain you a sale. I know a lot of the sales guys are somewhat leery of dragging along scruffy looking geeks to business meetings, but from what I've seen it often works to convince businessmen of the credibility of tech. "Wow look at all those piercings, if the company lets him get away with that he must be brilliant!" This works well in smaller, more technical markets I imagine.
I also notice that the work environment at a company is one of the most important aspects in attracting really talented people. Smart people, who love what they do would rather dress like slobs, have free beer, and a ping-pong table than make an extra $20K a year. The environment is worth a lot to a person's quality of life. Now that does not mean just because a company is relaxed it has talented people, but if you are looking for extraordinary people, that is one very visible sign.
I also notice that given a relaxed or absent dress code, the clothing of choice widely varies. Some people prefer to wear a suit every day, even if they are just going to sit at a desk and code for 12 hours. Others will be wearing shirts with fake boobs attached. I have not noticed that either type tends to be more or less proficient.
I know I'm not the only one to have noticed this trend and I know it is something in some businessmen's minds when they are meeting with new partners, suppliers, or customers. The rule that a dress code will get you more sales is not universal and does not apply to all market segments. A dress code might get you more sales, right up till all your talent moves on and your more relaxed competitor starts to clobber you in head-to-head comparisons.
Given a choice between a guy in a suit with a mediocre piece of software, and the guy in jeans that hasn't shaved for two days and smells of pizza with an amazing array of programs - they're going to take the suit. The marketdroids want to see success oozing from the vendor, not an air of dishevelment.
All in all, it's sad to see decisions based on quality of presentation as opposed to quality of product, but with few exceptions, that's the way it's always been - and probably always will be.
Shower. Shave. Buy some button up shirts and a pair of slacks. From my experience, this makes all the difference in the world. Like it or not - it's the way the game is played.
hi mom!
Just based on this post, there's no way you could do the suit's job in a million years.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Having read the damned article, I'd like to point out something that a lot of posters seem to be missing.
Nowhere that I've seen in that article does he say that ponytails and sandals signify anything about the skills, attitude, or professionalism of the people in question.
He is talking about peoples' perceptions, and the need to be politically savvy when selling OSS to those same people.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
Operative word in the above: yet . It's fun to hold on to that attitude from your youth (note: not necessarily a "youthful attitude", but an "attitude from your youth") and all but 40's thundering over the proverbial hill and has you in it's sights, young man, and you'll soon show up (if you haven't already, unbeknownst to you) on the corporate "OhMyGodHe'sNotTwentyAnyMoreAndWhatIfHeGetsSenile
Ah, on second thought, nevermind -- Lots of luck with that attitude and I hope you like peanut butter. See ya! (and I will, every time I look in the mirror. But hey, look on the bright side: that "middle-aged-spread" is easier to keep off when you can't afford Twinkies AND beer...)
If nothing else, that picture proves that there is such a thing as the opposite of pornography.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I'd gotten unsolicited offers at trade conference visits before (when I was casually dressed). But the first time I came out to Silicon Valley for a deliberate job hunt I caved in to my 'ol dad's suggestion and wore a suit to interviews. I didn't get a single offer on that trip.
Don't know what happened at most of 'em, but I later heard that, at one place, everybody was impressed by my tech prowess and wanted to hire me - except one key guy who was SO offended by my suit that he flat-out refused to work in the same company with me, strictly because of it.
Know your audience. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
formidable opposition from vested interests
Ok, just tell all the people in sandals and ponytails to all wear vests . . .
On second thought, I've seen people in sandals and ponytails wear vests. There is generally no shirt under the vest.
Quick tutorial for software buyers:
Jacket and ties are signs that too much of a software company's resources are being spent on clothing.
Sandals and ponytails are signs of software you should pursue.
Pretty simple really.
it's a good thing to remember that ties and folded down shirt collars used to be the sign of drug users, rebels, and layabouts, in earlier times.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I may get flamed for this but it seems that many of the posters are missing the point Peter Quinn is trying to get across. He used the "sandal and ponytail set" as a figure of speech, trying to point out that many of the open source advocates need have a more professional appearance AND be business-savvy. He wasn't really talking about some programmers locked up in an office somewhere programming, as this applies more to people who are visible. For example, if there's a sales meeting full of suits and the presenter is in a t-shirt, jeans, and "sandal and ponytail set", do you honestly think the suits will take the presenter seriously? Sure, in an idea world, no one will "judge a book my its cover" but this is not really different that a good looking jerk having better chances with the girls than no-go-gook looking nice guy.
Quinn also blamed the leaders of technology departments for not communicating the benefits of open-source software to their businesses effectively.
He has another valid point here. Just look at the posts on Slashdot. It seems that many here think that posting insults and profanities makes them look smarter than they really are. Picture this in your head:
Slashdotter (S): Dude, you really should switch to Linux.
Business Guy (BG): Why should we need to do that? Every Dell we buy already comes with a copy of Windows.
S: M$ is an evil empire and they kick puppies.
BG: That MS sales guy sure seemed nice to me.
S: Only morons like you fall for their shit. I know this because I'm so smart.
BG: I don't see why I need to listen to someone that's insulting me but Windows run fine and all of my clients use Office.
S: OMG! It's motherfuckers like you and your idiot clients that enabled M$ to retain its power. You guys all need to fucking die because to are just too stupid. In fact, the sheer number of cuss words that I used just proves how smart I am.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
If only people were that objective.
The truth is that, as a salesman, you have to play to your audience and different audiences have different requirements - in essence you sell yourself along with a product. This doesn't always mean a suit, but you are conforming yourself to your audience.
If a business suit might level the playing field where your potential clients take you that much more seriously, while someone who shows up in stained T-shirk and slack will have to have a product that is that much more better to be taken seriously, why even risk it?
You see it everyday, in how consumers pick products. Usually, lets say in electronics, the more polished products get more serious consideration. Something that looks slapped together or superficialy cheap/chintzy is either not taken seriously or has to be sold cheaper - even if the functionality is better.
If you really like to believe that people are so objective to look past the superficial, I suggest you put some research into "packaging..."
A few problems with this. First of all, being a "geek" doesn't put you in the same league as Einstein. Come back when you've revolutionized a field of science. Second of all, Einstein didn't have a ponytail and his hair, while wild, was not that long. Third of all, Einstein frequently wore a suit and tie, or at least a sweater and tie or a sport coat. Fourth of all, he would have been lynched? Give me a break.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
IBM used to make their techies wear suits. Then, during the dark period in the late 80s and early 90s when they were struggling to reinvent themselves, they had a revelation: Business-type customers like to see people in "professional" business atire, but this only matters if the customer actually sees you. The rest of the time, it is fine to dress comfortably. Thus sales, marketing, and any techie who happened to be interacting with the business-type customers would wear a suit and tie, everyone else wore what they wanted. Bam! Problem solved! And since then, the "sandal and ponytail set" hasn't stopped IBM from making sales, now have they?
So the fundamental problem, if there really is a real problem behind the article, is that the wrong people are speaking to each other. If you're trying to make an OSS business case to the business-types, then yeah you need a business-type person dressed in business-type clothing to do the talking. If you aren't a for-profit organization who can hire such a person to do the talking for you, then why do you give a fuck if the business types listen or not? The techies will listen to you, and you'll get in like most OSS has gotten in -- via the back door in the server room. If you are a for-profit, then why do you need a cnet article to tell you to "dress for success" and hire a marketing person instead of sending your be-sandled techies out into the field?
I don't know, this whole thing smacks of misdirection. He says it's the poor dress code that's causing the slow adoption, but then makes it sound more like it's politics and "IT leadership" (interpreted to mean some kind of management, shouldn't be wearing sandals) that are to blame. It sounds to me like the real reasons for the slow adoption of OSS have nothing to do with "sandals and ponytails", and "OMG RMS dresses looks like a dirty hippy!" is just an excuse.
The enemies of Democracy are
Here's a completely different point of view.
Yes, the corporate suits are not comfortable with OSS companies, because the folks in the OSS companies don't wear suits. But it's not actually because of the clothing, it's what the clothing implies. The lack of suits tells them that these are technical people in charge, not business people. The suits don't like dealing with technical people, because they don't really understand us. They feel more comfortable with people wearing suits, because people who wear suits are their kind of people.
I just love hearing from our C_Os about how we in development should do whatever the sales/marketing folks tell us, because "if it weren't for them, we wouldn't have jobs". Meanwhile, I'm sitting here thinking, well, what the heck would they sell if we weren't creating products?
Never mind the fact that the sales department has a very regular turnover, and the sales people themselves aren't anything special, just your average ex-fratboy business major who made it through four years of college with an average 0.8 BAC. Nobody blinks twice when they leave, they just replace them. Yet, the company is horrified that I ride a motorcycle, because of the possibility that I may get injured/killed and thus leave them with a serious hole to fill that requires very specialized knowledge.
Truth? They fear us. They know that they are a dime a dozen. Our entire sales department could get hit by a bus tomorrow, and it would set the company back a month at worst. If the engineering department walked out, the company would fold up like a wet kleenex, and would *never* recover.
Ever walk around the Redmond campus? Lots and lots of people with long hair and sandals. I've not been to the Apple campus but I'd wager it's about the same except for the really faithful who wear only black turtle necks.
according to the office girls; and you know what it's true.
I have a good mate who is thick as a brick but still managed to get an MCSE - I guess when a company is paying the the big bucks to the training organisation they'd be hard pressed to fail them.
But while he is thick he has great teeth a good tan and dresses like a CEO. so he scores plenty of sweet contracts and rides the fine pussy at those workplaces - at the office I met him at he banged three hott secretaries - but asked me how to spell crowd. twice.
Same thing goes for their marketing people - the MS account managers and biz devs are hot fucking shit. I have no doubt they vet their customer-facing teams on looks - they have a far higher proportion of genuine stunners than you would expect. If I had a 300k contract dangling I would definitely let these hotties pitch to me. pitch it baby... aw yeah
linux techs are ugly fuckers. I know because I am one, and so are you bitches. sad but true
Not at all. It catches those who know and understand whats important for buisness and what isn't. How I dress doesn't effect the code I produce, or how I answer interview questions. Since how I dress doesn't effect my work, as long as I am dressed (not being dressed would probably effect the work of others) and not wearing stuff with racist/offensive slogans and the like that would effect my coworkers negatively, they shouldn't care. If they do care, it shows they're wasting valuable company resources on utter bullshit, and are actively counterproductive to the company (happy workers are productive workers. And if I have to wake up and care about what I dress in or spend money on a new clothes, I'm not happy). As such they are a moron, and such a stuffy place is somewhere I would likely not enjoy working. This is actually better for both parties- I wait for a job I'll enjoy more, and they don't get someone who would actively flaunt a dress code and tell them to fire me if they don't like it.
:)
On the other hand, there are things that do matter- coding conventions, code review procedures, etc. I follow these because there's a reason to have them, even if I think some are suboptimal (if suboptimal enough, I may try and work to change them. Depending on how much effort it'd take and how much unneeded red tape there is). Hell, if I did nothing I don't want to I wouldn't have a job in the first place
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
The orchestra played in the space in Rockefeller Center currently used by Saturday Night Live. However, there was no audience present during the radio broadcasts, save for a handful of people not in the orchestra (radio engineers, NBC executives, perhaps a representative from the sponsors or two).
Despite this fact, every member of the orchestra wore a tuxedo, and Maestro Toscanini wore tails.
Radio. No audience. Formal dress.
The story has stuck with me ever since, and I'd often pondered the reason for this. Remember, this was back when even street dress for a professional musician was a suit, tie, and snazzy shoes. No "business casual" back then.
The best reasons I could determine for this were:
Personally, I'm inclined to judge a person's performance rather than their appearance. But even I can't help but think about appearance sometimes: if a vendor showed up to pitch my company while wearing shorts and a UCSC Banana Slugs t-shirt, my first thought would be "Jeez, he just doesn't care, does he?". The product or service would live or die on its merits, but my opinion of the salesman would be tainted by that first thought.
I think the bottom line is finding the appropriate level of casual/formal dress for the situation. The owner of the surf/skate shop might not mind if I showed up in shorts and sandals to install a POS system, but the funeral director probably would.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Doesn't it strike anyone that it might make the job a lot easier if you just adapted to whatever dress standards your customer might like? I'm just a coder, so I don't do a lot of work around customers, but if I am to appear at a meeting I damn well know how to put on a suit. Try explaining something they won't be able to understand to your customers. Do it in a suit, and they probably lay off the really silly stuff. Do it in slacks and slippers, and they won't believe a word you say. Maybe the tech guys would, but you put them in a bad position for supporting you just by looking the way you do.
Once you're back behind your workstation, go ahead and wear your underpants on your head. It's what I do, if not so explicitly, but I'm definitely one of the shorts and sandals type.
It just seems unsensible to me that you try to do your best to keep your code clean and manageable, you go to all lengths at keeping up to speed with technology and then spoil more than you can make up with speed and quality by having one client meeting going the wrong way.
While I follow the dress code of my California based company (beard, polo shirt, chinos, dress shoes), I am well known as someone who "cleans up well" and can readily give a good impression at a goverment or business presentation. I have no problem with this and rather much enjoy having an excuse to dress to the nines. On the other hand, when I'm back to the lab I'm casual again. This works for me.
The key point is respect, by dressing up I'm showing in a rather painless way that I can meet managers or business types halfway and can effectively interface with them. If I'm dressed sharper than they are I've beaten them at their own game and have a point in may favor immediately. It makes them considerably more receptive to my non-negotable issues.
On the other hand folks who made a point of not being able to "clean up well" tend to be rubbing their arrogance in peoples faces. They do it because they assume that they can get away with it because of their awesome skills. Problem is, skills change, and everybody loves to undermine an arrogant bastard, especially when they hand you shovels. Worse yet, they don't see it coming because they aren't able to collect intelligence dressed like that.
Haberdashery is a form of legal social engineering which is fun and easy to practice.
The point Mr Quinn is making isn't that the Linux crowd in general should wear suits. The average programmer isn't going to be doing sales. I personally think the issue is a lack of open source advocates who are business friendly at all. When a organisation wants to move to open source they want to know the company doing it is professional. Having someone turn up in a T Shirt and jandels doesn't do much for their confidence.
Appearance is important, we cannot possibly invest the effort to get to know 'the real person' for everyone we meet. In order to function we need our sterotypes. Its a bit like justice - justice not only must be done, it must be seen to be done. Similarly, quality in service must be seen. Thats not to say everyone needs to be in a suit; but certainly if you are making a open source presentation to a large organisation you should have appropriate attire; or not bother at all.
Not bothering is fine of course - nobody is forcing you to advocate and sell OSS solutions, but if you are in that game, and you do care about getting that contract, then perhaps how you dress will impact your chances.
'the lax dress code of the open-source community is one of the reasons behind the software's slow uptake in commercial environments.'
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true, my response would be that if the clean cut, three piece suit set did more of the actual important work on the big projects, then they would be more visible and this would not be such a big problem.
Therefore, it is the clean cut, three piece suit set who are really holding back the uptake of Free Software in commercial environments.
Assuming what we did, what is wrong with the reasoning that followed?
all the best,
drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/145261
Record a song and you might win $1,000.00
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
"Let him in, I'm expecting him", your partner yells to you from the bathroom as you're heading out the door....
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Latching onto subcultures is pretty typical human nature. The corporate softball team is a subculture; the PTA is a subculture; the local church is a subculture. It gives people a sense of belonging and generally, looking at social structure you see that views on appearance, subsets of morality and so on are quite flexible and usually are readily adaptable to belonging to a given subculture. Actually, the ones that you really need to worry about are the ones that can't find a social group to latch on to. Believe it or not, relating to goths or ravers or punks isn't nearly as fundamentally different to relating to suits as the guy that wears polo shirts, but can't talk to other humans.
I personally think the European underground techno scene is a lot of fun. I really enjoy dancing all night on weekends. To an extent I look the part. But this doesn't keep me from being one of the lead developers in the LinuxLab at one of Europe's largest software companies.
Why don't I take on the appearance that's typical for the European IT industry? Well, honestly, I'm not that far from the default, though I do have hair down past my shoulders and tend to have kind of a grunge-nouveau look. But the more important thing is that I'm established within my field. I feel like my accomplishments speak for themselves and if you're not the sort of employer that's willing to look past my long hair to the long list of cool things on my resume, then you're not the sort of company that I want to work for. It is in a sense a statement -- it's a statement saying, "I'm good at what I do. I'm not going to be a cookie cutter cog in the corporate environment. You do need to have some flexibility, but if you're cool with that, then I can probably do good things for you."
Worst....analogy......ever...... :)
Some see the vessel as half full; others see it as half-empty; We pour it out on the floor and laugh
You statement by wearing something may be as simple as "Look at me" or as complex as "I'm a smart business woman bucking for a promotion." It may say "Stare at my chest and think I'm sexy" or it may say "I'm trendy and hip." It could be "I'm rich and ostentatious" or "Don't notice me, I just want to blend in."
But make no mistake, any fashion is a statement.
So to dress one way and be mad at people for taking the hint you're sending. That is one of those things that really annoys me.
As for the car buying example, that was the first thing I thought of. It would work for realtors and other sales people too. Same with doctors. Do you trust the one in the white lab coat, or the one in the bike-racing suit more?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Something like this has happened to me on occasion when working in tech support and something goes critically wrong onsite at a customer. One of us would arrange to visit them to fix whatever and the account manager would specifically direct us to dress shabby otherwise the customer would not believe they were actually getting a deep-level tech person. In contrast I have also once been shown the door from a bank's datacenter for wearing a coat/jacket and tie but not actually a suit!
"Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
Thanks for the non-kneejerk reply. :)
Honestly, I'm a pretty decent guy. I get along well with the people I work with, and for the most part always have, in a number of different settings (the military, corporate IT, and now academia.) And although of course I've had to do things I disagreed with, for the most part, when I felt strongly about an issue, I was able to bring management around to my point of view through reasoned discussion.
My original post, as only one other poster seems to have noticed, was directed at a specific type of manager -- the type who automatically dismisses people who don't dress the way he does, who refuses to recognize that for the most part (not always, certainly, but that's the way to bet) casual dress is just as much a mark of the competent techie as a sharp suit is of the competent businessman, who honestly believes that Microsoft is better than F/OSS because Bill Gates wears a suit and Richard Stallman doesn't. And who, not incidentally, inevitably ends up driving competent tech people away from his organizations because smart people refuse to put up with his crap.
People like that are really just as lacking in social skills as the stereotypical smelly geek; but (as with smelly geeks, come to think of it) there are a lot of them, and they congregate in groups where their antisocial behavior is not only accepted but encouraged, and they reinforce each other. Unfortunately, because they are primarily interested in telling people what to do rather than actually doing anything useful themselves, they tend to acquire enough power to make other people's lives miserable.
Believe it or not, I don't prejudge people in suits; I deal with them exactly as I do everyone else, and that's pretty well. However, I refuse to deal nicely with anyone who does not extend me the same courtesy.
(Oh yeah -- I'm obviously not a full-time writer, and never have been except for a brief period a number of years ago. The truth is, making a living from writing is damned rare. Which is too bad, but so it goes.)
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Damn, how freaking old are you?
My Tech Posts on Twitter
The foreskin mechanically helps to open the woman. It moves hair and labia aside, spreads the vagina open. lets the penis enter with less dry abrasion. Generally, the foreskin helps you get started.
The foreskin also has estrogen sensors. (you can feel the estrogen, like heat/cold/pressure/etc.) No other part of the human body has this feature.
Do you find it odd that very few adults with foreskins want to be circumcised? In any case, one ought to let a person choose for himself if he likes to be sexually mutilated.
I am not at all certain I understand the problem. As I read it, the Linux and open source communities are not driven by the goals of market share and profit. Rather, they are driven to provide quality software at no cost, along with the means for other users to use, share, and modify that code. Maybe they see a niche that needs filling, maybe they just like coding - the reasons are not important. What is important is that they don't give One Tight Shit about whether Linux etc. is being adopted by the business world. Whether or not that happens is completely, utterly irrelevant to the ongoing development of their software. If Peter Quinn is concerned about it, that's his deal. What, exactly, does he feel are the consequences that will befall the open source movement if they don't take his advice? Are they going to stop developing Apache just because the head of IT at, say, Sears thinks it's put together by some dude with a Prince Albert? Is the NSA or Merrill Lynch going to stop using Linux because Dan Lyons makes a bunch of jokes about smelly hippies in Forbes? If you can't make a cost- and quality-based argument to convince accountants, CXOs, or politicians, I don't know what to tell you. I don't understand that bullshit world, and I'm glad I'm not a part of it.
I find it hilarious that some in the business world are trying to use ignorant statements like this as some sort of blackjack with which to intimidate the open source dudes. "You guys better shape up or we won't use your software!" To which the obvious reply is, "That's fine, your decision makes no difference to us whatsoever. If you change your minds, however, Apache, Linux, MySQL, ethereal, snort, and any number of other wonderful programs are available to you at no cost, any time day or night. Good day to you, sir." There's no leverage in this situation because they don't understand that while outward appearances trump everything else in the business world, they don't make any difference at all to the people who actually write the software. If your company believes this, that's fine - you will get the IT you want, and the IT you deserve. I'm sure these people would be shocked to find out that IBM, Merrill Lynch, JP Morgan, Novell, Dreamworks, Lucasfilm, Pixar, the NSA, and the United States Armed Forces , among others, all use software written by scumbags who have long hair and wear t-shirts while they work, because everyone knows that anything done by someone with a ponytail is shoddy and unreliable, and will never be accepted by serious professionals.
In one tiny nod to the suit-and-tie crowd, however, if they want the textbook example of the childish arrogance of the bedroom coding crowd, look no farther than BitchX. You, sir or ma'am, are either a twelve year old kid, a stupid, childish asshole, or both. What are you, in fourth grade? "Dude, I'm going to call my program BitchX! It'll be totally awesome!" Fuck you, child. Why didn't you call it CuntTalk or FaggotyFaggotClient? Maybe you could have made a fart joke for good measure. I know, I know, you didn't write it for the business community or for grandma's desktop. You wrote it for those who weren't too shallow to be put off by appearances. You sure showed us, we are totally impressed by your non-conformity.
Shady car salesmen wear suits. Drug kingpins wear suits. The heads of Enron wore suits.
A man in nice suits sent our military into Iraq after WMDs that weren't there.
The former thug leader of Iraq wore suits.
So what does a suit prove again?
In most "advanced" human cultures it's illegal to discriminate on the grounds of:
1 Race.
2 Skin Colour.
3 Sex.
4 Sexual orientation.
5 Physical Disability.
7 Age.
However personal choice of attire seems to be amongst the last bastions of acceptable discrimination.
And just why is it that the "acceptable standard" is always based around the preferred attire of a fat, middle aged, white man with no discernible dress sense and who's probably spent one half of his life being dressed by his mother and the other half being dressed by his wife ?
(And now I'm off on a good rant) Have you seen the fat fools in their golf wear ? or in the utterly embarassing "casual wear" they occasionally wear on the rare "team building" events in the pub ? The mind simply boggles... but hey it that's what floats their boat more power to 'em. (yeah I know I'm sterotyping heavily here but this is the mindset we're dealing with...)
Personally I look forward to the day when the mindless majority wake up to the idea that the packaging is not the contents, that people are all different, and that this is a GOOD THING. Diversity breeds innovation. Conformity breeds stagnation. We need suit wearing, small minded, twits as much as we need poinytailed, sandal wearing geeks. The two should just learn to see the good points in each other and get along... Or have a war when us geeks will seriously kick the suits asses (after all who invents all the good weaponry ?)
And people wonder why aliens never bother landing... when most humans can't even cope with members of our own species who have a different taste in haircut or pants.
Pah.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
I am not a business drone.
I don't do business drone-like things. You know what I mean by that--have endless, usually pointless, meetings (not to mention "pre-meetings," whatever the hell those are), generate tons of paperwork in an effort to appear like I'm actually working, and rely on charts and graphs to know my position in the world. I don't treat automobiles, houses/neighborhoods, or wives as some kind of a status symbol. I'm down on the metal, doing what I do best--sculpting in pure electricity.
So, I don't feel any particular need to dress like a business drone. I think it's a good thing for me to dress in such a way that people can tell the difference, so they know what to expect.
Socially aware? Please. My social contract with the world at large is not to show up naked. That's it. Beyond that, it's all up to me. The world can deal with it, because the world benefits from what I do. [You better believe it--what I've done over the past 10 years, in concert with a small team of very talented people, has revolutionized a very large world-wide industry.] If the world wants what I have, then the world deals on my terms. I didn't ask to be in the game, and nobody offered me an opportunity to determine the rules. Ipso facto.
For the record, I don't have a ponytail and I don't wear sandals. I also don't wear long-sleeved shirts, or dress pants. If that gives the business guys an aneurysm--GOOD.