Who we should be pestering is the stupid nannie state that disowned the problem of looming power shortages for the last few years. They also have based regulation after regulation that make it nearly impossible for power companies to form useful emergency power agreements with other power companies out of the area. But as usual the government blames the consumers of power and its producers rather than admit that it has created and is exacerbating the problem. Even now it asks for more regulations including de facto state takeover of the power industry. Do not let them get away with this. They are robbing us all!
Try reading a relatively new Open Source book mentioned in/. recently, "Embracing Insanity". The author quite ably addresses issues concering OS in business including much of the question raised.
Briefly, with the source open it is much more likely than an employee or a consultant, or some contributor to the project can/will tune/fix the software many times faster and more to the business' specifications than any closed source vendor is likely to respond. With OS the help/support number is the Internet and the development community at large. Best of all, this community is much less vulnerable to simply going away or turning in a direction adverse to the business with the business having no recourse at all after that.
Also, more and more organizations are providing OS/Linux support services to business. Unlike in the closed source proprietary world, you can pick and choose between service vendors instead of being at the mercy of a single software vendor.
In short, the problem is largely getting management past its old-style thinking and planning, getting them to see the much more important silver lining in not having their old single "who you gonna call" criteria satisfied.
Similar points are made in the book about other things that management will need to get used to with OS that violate current assumptions.
You know, if people honestly believe that a significantly better job of Quality Assurance can be done which will add enough value to be worth any related increase in cost, then they should quite bitching and go grab some capital and implement their better idea.
Also, people should look at how much has become available on the consumer market how inexpensively in a very few short years. The technology is moving quite rapidly as are the business practices that succeed. Given all of that I am actually amazed at the level of overall quality that is present at the hardware side.
Is it perfect? No. Is it quite reasonable given all constraints? Very much so. IMHO of course.
Exactly how do they plan to stop a few million half-way technically literate types who can pull footage from television broadcast and reformat it as video-clips? I can imagine some really draconian nonsense coming down to try to enforce such contracts.
What is wrong with the media companies? Don't they realize that they could gather coverage of all events live and charge for DVDs of it or better yet for random access rights? If they want to claim monopoly rights to the content then they can at least be bothered to have reasonably full and flexible content. Oh, I forgot, they have a monopoly so they don't have to be reasonable. BAH!
The author of the piece in question implies that even Linux servers don't actually run Java. Huh? He claims that the Java is run on the client. Huh? Where has this guy been? Client-side Java has been eschewed by many corporations (mostly wrongly imho) for some time now. Servlets run on the server. Many organizations mandate that all server side business logic is written in Java for portability. Linux boxen are perfectly happy (with some gotchas in the current Linux Java implementations occassionally) running all of this Java code.
The talk of Linux on the desktop is just talk? Yeah, right. That's why I threw Windoze off my 3 home machines and went totally to Linux. Percentage wise there isn't a big shift yet. But let the Office tools (the GPL version of Star Office for instance) develop a bit and you may see a very different story.
Embedded folk don't like Java? Is the author ignoring the tiny device level Java offerings? Is he ignoring Java enabled cell-phones, PDA, toasters and so on?
The author also misses one huge reason that many geeks don't care for Java. It is the same thing that sells it so well to executives. The Sun overhype. We don't appreciate hype very much. We could care less about Java branded versions of all our known and trusted tools just to have the Java brand on them. It is tiresome reading tech docs on Java offerings that every few pages extol the virtues of Java while ignoring that many of those virtues have been around for a couple of decades (at least) in other environments. I get tired of Sun reinventing the wheel and calling it wonderful . I get tired of seeing Sun reinvent or just write a (closed-source!) API for something already present instead of bothering to interoperate with other language solutions. CORBA support was an afterthought it seems. Most of all I dislike the sheer mindless wordiness of Java. I can't capture half the patterns in projects within the strict little boundaries of the language. In terms of useability when programming Java is somewhere between C++ and Pascal in my opinion with a few good advanced features like garbage collection and some (but not nearly enough) reflection.
I smell troll. "Natural" evolution takes a l_o_n_g time to chance much of anything and then only in the direction of being better baby makers and providers for same. In case you haven't noticed that is not the area that human beings need improvement in. We happen to have evolved enough to have brains powerful enough (hopefully) to take over where natural evolution left off. From this time forward we are in charge of our own evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to belittle or assume the "evolutionary" inferiority of people with simple handicaps. There is actually some evidence that various types of problem can more often come with high intelligence using normal "natural" evolution.
Our continued development and growth is now highly tied to improved intelligence. Yet natural evolution does not change the basics of a working system but adds to it. But our brain cases cannot get larger without seriously injuring future mothers. And human females show no sign of changing to accomodate larger-headed babies. The only way we will get higher intelligence on a large scale is through "articial" augmentation and to a lesser degree through improved nurturing and training for greater intelligence.
Or would you prefer the race remain as stupid and increasingly unable to keep up with current needs as it is now?
Do you really think classist divisions of "rural man (sic)" and "college educated yuppie office-worker" are really meaningful categories for analyzing appeal of this pair of characters much less which of them should be president?
"Europe is one big city"??? Obviously, you have never been to Europe.
Careful, you might get cow manure on the keyboard.:-)
I chose not to vote for Dweedledum or Dweedledee. They both support continuing the disasterous "War on Drugs" and its attendand wholesale destruction of individual rights. Gore is too much of a statist control-freak imho opinion and has set some thing concerning ecological policies that I find quite irresponsible. Bush is a good old boy and quite likeable but seems to blame the Internet for all ills and would be pretty draconian in internet policy and in enforcing IP stuff.
Neither party and neither candidate has much of a record in truly doing what elected officials are supposed to be doing in this country - enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans want the government in your bedroom and Democrats want the government in your boardroom.
Fie on both of their houses. I voted Libertarian across the board. Futile perhaps but I couldn't stomach voting at all otherwise.
You bet! I want a Crusoe chip in a wearable computer with an ultra small display (with magnification) and lower power tiny hd and/or large flash storage systems.
Working 70 hours a week means you have zero time for anything else but your code. I believe in the power of computers to change the world but how many jobs allow you to do just what you believe is needed in programming to effect such change? I care about more things than just writing code to maybe make the house-of-cards balancing of a bunch of requirements, most of which I don't care about at all, more productive. I have a life. I think there are other things besides designing and coding software that I can and need to contribute to. In design and coding there are many projects I believe fully need my talents that do not pay the rent. So there is no way I will spend 70 hours a week on just the ones that do.
I've been in this business for 20 years and I've been in periods of up to 98 hours a week of work at times. They make you extremely burnt out and very grumpy with lesser mortals. I am not sure the extra code was worth it. I'm sure a couple of relationships blown up in the process were not worth it. Generally my co-workers have not enjoyed me when I was in such modes and management had quite mixed feelings.
Just putting in a lot of hours is a macho cowboy-coder thing. I've seen people be really proud of all the sweat and glory and produce utter shit. Sometimes you have to walk away and flush the mess and being willing to start over in a calmer manner. As I get older I notice I write less code per day (generally) but the code I do write is a lot more densely packed with capability than when I was churning out a lot more LOC.
If you give me a manager that wants to check up on me once a week then I'll give you a manager who is looking for a new hacker. I will give a set of deliverable dates and meet them. Anything more is juvenile non-professional BS. If it takes that kind of micro-managing then someone failed to define enough of what was needed and what the connections were between subsystems upfront. I can see turning in a progress report every week or so at the very most. Even that is sort of silly as most really good hackers I know (including me) do not work linearly. Check so often is about as useful as monitoring a fine artist or a poet every week.
With reasonable video-conferencing ability there is no need for a company to spend mega-bucks to make a nice centralized pen for its programmers. There is no way any company I've ever worked for would give me all the goodies I have in my current household. If productivity is the name of the game then why in the hell would you burn programmer hours driving to and from work?
In what respect do you consider the universe to be "amoral". You may perceive the universe as amoral but then there are two (actually three) things, the universe, your perception of it and your concepts about what is and is not "moral".
I have been working in Silicon Valley for 20 years now. I am now in my 40s and there is zero shortage of demand for my skills. It is embarrassing how much money is chasing me. It is also obvious from inside of every company and project I have been on that there is a very real shortage of good software talent. The toughest work I have experienced is trying to find good people and get them in the door. Also I notice that many of the senior people on most projects are about my age, so I doubt it is just me.
Not more Opera broken bs. This time it ate my Netscape bookmark file when I had the temerity to attempt to get it to read it. Yes, I told it not to change the current contents when it asked. Yes, I saw it fail to read it because it only reads its on broken file format and no one has part to right a simple import script.
I am really tired of seeing this piece of trash show up periodically and be still trash. Say what you will about Mozilla, starting with 17 it is a pretty solid program (although its bookmark handling leaves a bit to be desired too). But at least it doesn't destroy things and should be stupid stuff like a place to pull in IE5 (!?) bookmarks.
There are many reasons why humans as we know them today might not be around but world overheading and becoming that acidic is not high on the list. We know ways to avoid much of that and will do them if the need becomes pressing enough. The state of the world's atmosphere today even in major industrial areas is much better than a few decades ago. We actually have made inroads into air pollution and I'm sure we could do better.
I think it is more likely by far that we will transform beyond recognition and/or upload into AIs before we will simply have to leave due to the atmosphere being to foul.
I'm am amazed to see someone of Hawking's caliber come out with such a prediction. If it is an area of special study of his he should know better and if it is not he should definitely know better to put his name on a mere opinion of this kind.
My geek household (4 people, 20 or so computers. I've lost count) has been on DSL (780K bi-directional) for some time now. Except for a couple of very short area glitches that were not the fault of the provider (bayarea.net) it has been very dependable and quite nice. We recently expanded the service as we were running out of fixed IP addresses. The vendor turned everything around with hardly a glitch and had the DSNs all working within an afternoon.
We are headed for some time of technological Singularity whether anyone likes it or not unless we plunge first into major warfare or otherwise pretty totally bite the dust. Exptropians and so on did not invent this nor are they responsible for it being so. They are mainly just a bunch of people who recognize it is coming earlier than most folks recognize it. Beating them up or saying they are all this or that type of whatever is irrelevant and simply flat incorrect. There is about any type of viewpoint among such folks as you could imagine.
What is really important is making the future as good for all of us as is possible. To do that we need to stop acting like a bunch of gossiping ninnies.
I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. Open Source can promote a great deal more reuse and expanded component libraries. But this assumes that potential users and clients can find the existing resources and know what they have.
As opposed to what? To worshipping some hoary tome of the best guesses, intuitions and God-module firings of people from thousands of years ago? Sci-tech is about finding things that work and do even some seemingly miraculous things in the real world. That is its power. Acknowledging that does not mean you have a sci-tech religion and it is quite sloppy thinking to say so.
To the degree that we can perfect ourselves or at least progress and to the degree that we can reach a better state it will be through sci-tech as that is based in the real world which is the only place anything real can happen. This is obvious.
Will sci-tech pinch-hit for values and wisdom? No. But neither will any faith based religious system.
The IP agreements allow the company to patent whatever they wish of what you produce (at most). Most of them are written with a clause that says they can go ahead anyway if they cannot obtain your signature.
At the least I would state my objections. Most likely I would not sign. They would still go ahead and might or might not consider it a mark against me. But perhaps not. After all, if they are turning off the people that produce the goodies with their policies and they know it, which they can only do if people like you speak out, then they just might reconsider or modify their plans.
If I didn't feel that I could at least say my piece and not sign if I thought it was wrong then I would get my resume in shape. A 9-5 just isn't worth it. And there are too many interesting places looking for a few good nerds to sweat it overly much.
Personally I find very strong parallels between hacking, especially at some areas and mystical pursuits. Many of us "old-timers" (people around when the latest Apple prototype was in a wooden box) hung out with or were techno-hippies out to change the world through these cheap and hopefully someday ubiquitous computer chips. We largely succeeeded. Many of us felt this was as high, holy and even religious a quest as it was ever possible to have. All the more wonderful because it did not depend on any moldy ancient text or highly unlikely beliefs. Many of us are still in it to change the world and to transform humanity.
Speaking personally, I see and have always seen "the work" this way. I've always been moved by making a difference in the world. At one time I thought maybe the real difference wouldn't come through tech and attempted with full energy to find a mysticism path that worked for me and where I felt I could grow and make a difference. I learned a lot there. But technology and transformation through technology is central to me.
Slashdot Mirror
Who we should be pestering is the stupid nannie state that disowned the problem of looming power shortages for the last few years. They also have based regulation after regulation that make it nearly impossible for power companies to form useful emergency power agreements with other power companies out of the area. But as usual the government blames the consumers of power and its producers rather than admit that it has created and is exacerbating the problem. Even now it asks for more regulations including de facto state takeover of the power industry. Do not let them get away with this. They are robbing us all!
Try reading a relatively new Open Source book mentioned in /. recently, "Embracing Insanity". The author quite ably addresses issues concering OS in business including much of the question raised.
Briefly, with the source open it is much more likely than an employee or a consultant, or some contributor to the project can/will tune/fix the software many times faster and more to the business' specifications than any closed source vendor is likely to respond. With OS the help/support number is the Internet and the development community at large. Best of all, this community is much less vulnerable to simply going away or turning in a direction adverse to the business with the business having no recourse at all after that.
Also, more and more organizations are providing OS/Linux support services to business. Unlike in the closed source proprietary world, you can pick and choose between service vendors instead of being at the mercy of a single software vendor.
In short, the problem is largely getting management past its old-style thinking and planning, getting them to see the much more important silver lining in not having their old single "who you gonna call" criteria satisfied.
Similar points are made in the book about other things that management will need to get used to with OS that violate current assumptions.
Handling warranty repairs is NOT cheaper than doing Quality Control to begin with.
You know, if people honestly believe that a significantly better job of Quality Assurance can be done which will add enough value to be worth any related increase in cost, then they should quite bitching and go grab some capital and implement their better idea.
Also, people should look at how much has become available on the consumer market how inexpensively in a very few short years. The technology is moving quite rapidly as are the business practices that succeed. Given all of that I am actually amazed at the level of overall quality that is present at the hardware side.
Is it perfect? No. Is it quite reasonable given all constraints? Very much so. IMHO of course.
Exactly how do they plan to stop a few million half-way technically literate types who can pull footage from television broadcast and reformat it as video-clips? I can imagine some really draconian nonsense coming down to try to enforce such contracts.
What is wrong with the media companies? Don't they realize that they could gather coverage of all events live and charge for DVDs of it or better yet for random access rights? If they want to claim monopoly rights to the content then they can at least be bothered to have reasonably full and flexible content. Oh, I forgot, they have a monopoly so they don't have to be reasonable. BAH!
The author of the piece in question implies that even Linux servers don't actually run Java. Huh? He claims that the Java is run on the client. Huh? Where has this guy been? Client-side Java has been eschewed by many corporations (mostly wrongly imho) for some time now. Servlets run on the server. Many organizations mandate that all server side business logic is written in Java for portability. Linux boxen are perfectly happy (with some gotchas in the current Linux Java implementations occassionally) running all of this Java code.
The talk of Linux on the desktop is just talk? Yeah, right. That's why I threw Windoze off my 3 home machines and went totally to Linux. Percentage wise there isn't a big shift yet. But let the Office tools (the GPL version of Star Office for instance) develop a bit and you may see a very different story.
Embedded folk don't like Java? Is the author ignoring the tiny device level Java offerings? Is he ignoring Java enabled cell-phones, PDA, toasters and so on?
The author also misses one huge reason that many geeks don't care for Java. It is the same thing that sells it so well to executives. The Sun overhype. We don't appreciate hype very much. We could care less about Java branded versions of all our known and trusted tools just to have the Java brand on them. It is tiresome reading tech docs on Java offerings that every few pages extol the virtues of Java while ignoring that many of those virtues have been around for a couple of decades (at least) in other environments. I get tired of Sun reinventing the wheel and calling it wonderful . I get tired of seeing Sun reinvent or just write a (closed-source!) API for something already present instead of bothering to interoperate with other language solutions. CORBA support was an afterthought it seems. Most of all I dislike the sheer mindless wordiness of Java. I can't capture half the patterns in projects within the strict little boundaries of the language. In terms of useability when programming Java is somewhere between C++ and Pascal in my opinion with a few good advanced features like garbage collection and some (but not nearly enough) reflection.
I smell troll. "Natural" evolution takes a l_o_n_g time to chance much of anything and then only in the direction of being better baby makers and providers for same. In case you haven't noticed that is not the area that human beings need improvement in. We happen to have evolved enough to have brains powerful enough (hopefully) to take over where natural evolution left off. From this time forward we are in charge of our own evolution. There is no reason whatsoever to belittle or assume the "evolutionary" inferiority of people with simple handicaps. There is actually some evidence that various types of problem can more often come with high intelligence using normal "natural" evolution.
Our continued development and growth is now highly tied to improved intelligence. Yet natural evolution does not change the basics of a working system but adds to it. But our brain cases cannot get larger without seriously injuring future mothers. And human females show no sign of changing to accomodate larger-headed babies. The only way we will get higher intelligence on a large scale is through "articial" augmentation and to a lesser degree through improved nurturing and training for greater intelligence.
Or would you prefer the race remain as stupid and increasingly unable to keep up with current needs as it is now?
Do you really think classist divisions of "rural man (sic)" and "college educated yuppie office-worker" are really meaningful categories for analyzing appeal of this pair of characters much less which of them should be president?
:-)
"Europe is one big city"??? Obviously, you have never been to Europe.
Careful, you might get cow manure on the keyboard.
I chose not to vote for Dweedledum or Dweedledee. They both support continuing the disasterous "War on Drugs" and its attendand wholesale destruction of individual rights. Gore is too much of a statist control-freak imho opinion and has set some thing concerning ecological policies that I find quite irresponsible. Bush is a good old boy and quite likeable but seems to blame the Internet for all ills and would be pretty draconian in internet policy and in enforcing IP stuff.
Neither party and neither candidate has much of a record in truly doing what elected officials are supposed to be doing in this country - enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Republicans want the government in your bedroom and Democrats want the government in your boardroom.
Fie on both of their houses. I voted Libertarian across the board. Futile perhaps but I couldn't stomach voting at all otherwise.
You bet! I want a Crusoe chip in a wearable computer with an ultra small display (with magnification) and lower power tiny hd and/or large flash storage systems.
Working 70 hours a week means you have zero time for anything else but your code. I believe in the power of computers to change the world but how many jobs allow you to do just what you believe is needed in programming to effect such change? I care about more things than just writing code to maybe make the house-of-cards balancing of a bunch of requirements, most of which I don't care about at all, more productive. I have a life. I think there are other things besides designing and coding software that I can and need to contribute to. In design and coding there are many projects I believe fully need my talents that do not pay the rent. So there is no way I will spend 70 hours a week on just the ones that do.
I've been in this business for 20 years and I've been in periods of up to 98 hours a week of work at times. They make you extremely burnt out and very grumpy with lesser mortals. I am not sure the extra code was worth it. I'm sure a couple of relationships blown up in the process were not worth it. Generally my co-workers have not enjoyed me when I was in such modes and management had quite mixed feelings.
Just putting in a lot of hours is a macho cowboy-coder thing. I've seen people be really proud of all the sweat and glory and produce utter shit. Sometimes you have to walk away and flush the mess and being willing to start over in a calmer manner. As I get older I notice I write less code per day (generally) but the code I do write is a lot more densely packed with capability than when I was churning out a lot more LOC.
If you give me a manager that wants to check up on me once a week then I'll give you a manager who is looking for a new hacker. I will give a set of deliverable dates and meet them. Anything more is juvenile non-professional BS. If it takes that kind of micro-managing then someone failed to define enough of what was needed and what the connections were between subsystems upfront. I can see turning in a progress report every week or so at the very most. Even that is sort of silly as most really good hackers I know (including me) do not work linearly. Check so often is about as useful as monitoring a fine artist or a poet every week.
With reasonable video-conferencing ability there is no need for a company to spend mega-bucks to make a nice centralized pen for its programmers. There is no way any company I've ever worked for would give me all the goodies I have in my current household. If productivity is the name of the game then why in the hell would you burn programmer hours driving to and from work?
In what respect do you consider the universe to be "amoral". You may perceive the universe as amoral but then there are two (actually three) things, the universe, your perception of it and your concepts about what is and is not "moral".
Why such low-res? Memory issues? Higher res lcd is definitely available and not all that expensive.
I have been working in Silicon Valley for 20 years now. I am now in my 40s and there is zero shortage of demand for my skills. It is embarrassing how much money is chasing me. It is also obvious from inside of every company and project I have been on that there is a very real shortage of good software talent. The toughest work I have experienced is trying to find good people and get them in the door. Also I notice that many of the senior people on most projects are about my age, so I doubt it is just me.
a) who says I want such a daemon in the first place?
b) am I told about it up front and given the ability to disarm it?
c) why does Linux have a fixed number of file descriptors in the first place? Why make the system vulnerable to the best guess being too small?
Not more Opera broken bs. This time it ate my Netscape bookmark file when I had the temerity to attempt to get it to read it. Yes, I told it not to change the current contents when it asked. Yes, I saw it fail to read it because it only reads its on broken file format and no one has part to right a simple import script.
I am really tired of seeing this piece of trash show up periodically and be still trash. Say what you will about Mozilla, starting with 17 it is a pretty solid program (although its bookmark handling leaves a bit to be desired too). But at least it doesn't destroy things and should be stupid stuff like a place to pull in IE5 (!?) bookmarks.
There are many reasons why humans as we know them today might not be around but world overheading and becoming that acidic is not high on the list. We know ways to avoid much of that and will do them if the need becomes pressing enough. The state of the world's atmosphere today even in major industrial areas is much better than a few decades ago. We actually have made inroads into air pollution and I'm sure we could do better.
I think it is more likely by far that we will transform beyond recognition and/or upload into AIs before we will simply have to leave due to the atmosphere being to foul.
I'm am amazed to see someone of Hawking's caliber come out with such a prediction. If it is an area of special study of his he should know better and if it is not he should definitely know better to put his name on a mere opinion of this kind.
My geek household (4 people, 20 or so computers. I've lost count) has been on DSL (780K bi-directional) for some time now. Except for a couple of very short area glitches that were not the fault of the provider (bayarea.net) it has been very dependable and quite nice. We recently expanded the service as we were running out of fixed IP addresses. The vendor turned everything around with hardly a glitch and had the DSNs all working within an afternoon.
We are headed for some time of technological Singularity whether anyone likes it or not unless we plunge first into major warfare or otherwise pretty totally bite the dust. Exptropians and so on did not invent this nor are they responsible for it being so. They are mainly just a bunch of people who recognize it is coming earlier than most folks recognize it. Beating them up or saying they are all this or that type of whatever is irrelevant and simply flat incorrect. There is about any type of viewpoint among such folks as you could imagine.
What is really important is making the future as good for all of us as is possible. To do that we need to stop acting like a bunch of gossiping ninnies.
Like computers, compilers, operating systems, debuggers, disassemblers, editors, IDEs and so on?
Just whose leg are these morons pulling? Will I have to register dangerous tools like compilers?
I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. Open Source can promote a great deal more reuse and expanded component libraries. But this assumes that potential users and clients can find the existing resources and know what they have.
As opposed to what? To worshipping some hoary tome of the best guesses, intuitions and God-module firings of people from thousands of years ago? Sci-tech is about finding things that work and do even some seemingly miraculous things in the real world. That is its power. Acknowledging that does not mean you have a sci-tech religion and it is quite sloppy thinking to say so.
To the degree that we can perfect ourselves or at least progress and to the degree that we can reach a better state it will be through sci-tech as that is based in the real world which is the only place anything real can happen. This is obvious.
Will sci-tech pinch-hit for values and wisdom? No. But neither will any faith based religious system.
The IP agreements allow the company to patent whatever they wish of what you produce (at most). Most of them are written with a clause that says they can go ahead anyway if they cannot obtain your signature.
At the least I would state my objections. Most likely I would not sign. They would still go ahead and might or might not consider it a mark against me. But perhaps not. After all, if they are turning off the people that produce the goodies with their policies and they know it, which they can only do if people like you speak out, then they just might reconsider or modify their plans.
If I didn't feel that I could at least say my piece and not sign if I thought it was wrong then I would get my resume in shape. A 9-5 just isn't worth it. And there are too many interesting places looking for a few good nerds to sweat it overly much.
Personally I find very strong parallels between hacking, especially at some areas and mystical pursuits. Many of us "old-timers" (people around when the latest Apple prototype was in a wooden box) hung out with or were techno-hippies out to change the world through these cheap and hopefully someday ubiquitous computer chips. We largely succeeeded. Many of us felt this was as high, holy and even religious a quest as it was ever possible to have. All the more wonderful because it did not depend on any moldy ancient text or highly unlikely beliefs. Many of us are still in it to change the world and to transform humanity.
Speaking personally, I see and have always seen "the work" this way. I've always been moved by making a difference in the world. At one time I thought maybe the real difference wouldn't come through tech and attempted with full energy to find a mysticism path that worked for me and where I felt I could grow and make a difference. I learned a lot there. But technology and transformation through technology is central to me.
I have never had Netscape crash Linux. Not ever.