I thought his column seemed fairly level-headed. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I didn't interpret his writings as being inflammatory. It was an interesting read.
Then I read all the slashdot followups and, aside from being called "rambling" and "out of touch," every sentence is taken out of context and nit-picked to death. That hair-trigger defensiveness is what has been associated with "advocacy" since the Amiga days.
It's interesting that you call this guy an "old fart." In the late 1980s, UNIX was looked at as an old-fashioned operating system and was definitely on the decline. It was clunky, adminstratively-heavy, and completely out of line with the "personal computing" metaphor that had been growing throughout the decade.
It is very odd that UNIX managed to rise again, and give other "old farts"--e.g. Stallman, Raymond--a chance to have their old hacking days suddenly be the voice of a new generation. As is often mentioned, it is perhaps the lack of a better alternative that made the desktop world so receptive to Linux. Certainly most computer users--and most programmers--really don't want to want to be dragged into the bizarre hell of having to be 70s era system administrators.
Linux *is* better than Windows, on a technical level. It's finally possible to get a desktop machine that *does* have top of the line 60s tech in it. But what a shame that we haven't advanced further than this.
It's funny that everyone is assuming the brain is digital.
There were a couple of good columns by Dewdney in Scienfic American, years ago, about analog algorithms. There are a number of algorithms that can be solved trivially, in one step, in an analog fashion, but are much nastier to solve digitally. One good example is finding the convex hull of a set of points on a plane. You could just place nails in a board representing the points, then wrap a string--or a large rubber band--around the nails. The best you can do on a digital computer is a Graham Scan, which is n log n. The brain tends to "see" the answer right away, like the nails on a board method.
Brian certainly knows his 3D, and he has a strongly held set of opinions about color depth and graphics APIs. But it's very strange the he's considered such an all-around expert in the game field, especially considering that:
1. He's never actually architected a game engine. 2. He's never actually designed a game.
He did write a book about 3D graphics, but he's obviously no Abrash. It's mostly average C++ code with a bit of thin commentary.
He also writes a Q&A column for Voodoo Extreme, but he sounds like an old man, constantly ranting about the same issues and never putting things in a new light. He seems very close-minded, certainly not an innovator.
He's damn good at self-promotion, though! Sour grapes? You betcha!:)
>The stereotypical geek is, yes, what you >describe. But not all, or even most, of them.
I maintain that it *is* the majority of them. The word "geek" has been distorted in the same way that "hacker" has. Geek used to mean "someone who spends a lot of time involved in intellectual endeavors" (the old term being "egghead"). Now it's more of an alterna-culture thing, like goth (which regardless of what's being reported on TV these days, is at least twenty years old).
I think "geek" has more to do with a particular set of trite pop culture interests than anything else: Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, special-effects based movies, comic books, X-Files, The Simpsons / Futurama, a certain group of SF/Fantasy authors (Stephenson, Jordan, Sterling, Pratchett), technology-based toys, and so on.
Most glaring is that a majority of these are the epitome of bad taste. Among award-winning SF authors, there's an intense dislike of corn like Star Trek and Tron (Orson Scott Card's "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" contains a good example of this opinion). The Matrix is just one bad cliche after another, the sort of thing you'd find on a "please don't submit stories on the following subjects" list from an experienced editor.
Geeks are easy to spot on the web. They froth at the mouth about Linux. They collect MP3s by the gigabyte. They're addicted to technology news sites. They're always nervous about not having the best and latest processor and graphics card. And they don't do a whole lot of much else.
There has to be a better word than "geek" for people who are passionate about programming or other aspects of technology but who aren't just collectors and anti-socials, people who try to be a little more well-rounded in general.
Slashdot Mirror
Except, of course, that both the Mac and ST *were* marketed as 32-bit machines. Go look at early Macintosh ads that talk about the 32-processor...
I thought his column seemed fairly level-headed. I didn't necessarily agree with him, but I didn't interpret his writings as being inflammatory. It was an interesting read.
Then I read all the slashdot followups and, aside from being called "rambling" and "out of touch," every sentence is taken out of context and nit-picked to death. That hair-trigger defensiveness is what has been associated with "advocacy" since the Amiga days.
Which is larger:
1. The number of people buying new $1000+ Dell computers.
2. The number of people wanting to bid on collectibles at eBay.
They're hardly in the same class.
It's interesting that you call this guy an "old fart." In the late 1980s, UNIX was looked at as an old-fashioned operating system and was definitely on the decline. It was clunky, adminstratively-heavy, and completely out of line with the "personal computing" metaphor that had been growing throughout the decade.
It is very odd that UNIX managed to rise again, and give other "old farts"--e.g. Stallman, Raymond--a chance to have their old hacking days suddenly be the voice of a new generation. As is often mentioned, it is perhaps the lack of a better alternative that made the desktop world so receptive to Linux. Certainly most computer users--and most programmers--really don't want to want to be dragged into the bizarre hell of having to be 70s era system administrators.
Linux *is* better than Windows, on a technical level. It's finally possible to get a desktop machine that *does* have top of the line 60s tech in it. But what a shame that we haven't advanced further than this.
It's funny that everyone is assuming the brain is digital.
There were a couple of good columns by Dewdney in Scienfic American, years ago, about analog algorithms. There are a number of algorithms that can be solved trivially, in one step, in an analog fashion, but are much nastier to solve digitally. One good example is finding the convex hull of a set of points on a plane. You could just place nails in a board representing the points, then wrap a string--or a large rubber band--around the nails. The best you can do on a digital computer is a Graham Scan, which is n log n. The brain tends to "see" the answer right away, like the nails on a board method.
Brian certainly knows his 3D, and he has a strongly held set of opinions about color depth and graphics APIs. But it's very strange the he's considered such an all-around expert in the game field, especially considering that:
:)
1. He's never actually architected a game engine.
2. He's never actually designed a game.
He did write a book about 3D graphics, but he's obviously no Abrash. It's mostly average C++ code with a bit of thin commentary.
He also writes a Q&A column for Voodoo Extreme, but he sounds like an old man, constantly ranting about the same issues and never putting things in a new light. He seems very close-minded, certainly not an innovator.
He's damn good at self-promotion, though! Sour grapes? You betcha!
>The stereotypical geek is, yes, what you
>describe. But not all, or even most, of them.
I maintain that it *is* the majority of them. The word "geek" has been distorted in the same way that "hacker" has. Geek used to mean "someone who spends a lot of time involved in intellectual endeavors" (the old term being "egghead"). Now it's more of an alterna-culture thing, like goth (which regardless of what's being reported on TV these days, is at least twenty years old).
I think "geek" has more to do with a particular set of trite pop culture interests than anything else: Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, special-effects based movies, comic books, X-Files, The Simpsons / Futurama, a certain group of SF/Fantasy authors (Stephenson, Jordan, Sterling, Pratchett), technology-based toys, and so on.
Most glaring is that a majority of these are the epitome of bad taste. Among award-winning SF authors, there's an intense dislike of corn like Star Trek and Tron (Orson Scott Card's "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy" contains a good example of this opinion). The Matrix is just one bad cliche after another, the sort of thing you'd find on a "please don't submit stories on the following subjects" list from an experienced editor.
Geeks are easy to spot on the web. They froth at the mouth about Linux. They collect MP3s by the gigabyte. They're addicted to technology news sites. They're always nervous about not having the best and latest processor and graphics card. And they don't do a whole lot of much else.
There has to be a better word than "geek" for people who are passionate about programming or other aspects of technology but who aren't just collectors and anti-socials, people who try to be a little more well-rounded in general.