Monday, October 17, 2005
Blogs and OSS
I just read some interesting articles. The first one was a discussion about OSS and its model in terms of what business could learn from it. It was very derrogatory about current businesses and in particular. The second article, if you can call a small blog that, was a lot more condemning, in particular it attacked professionals. Here is where I have a problem. I fully agree with what I suspect was the sentiment behind the blog, that is that you lose a lot more then you gain with conservative, politically correct views and restrictions, but what I have a problem with is the use of the word "professional". I would be interested to hear from others, but to me professional does NOT have the connotations that the author of the blog and Paul Graham seem to have. To me a professional is someone that gets the job done, when and how he says. He is first and foremost a man of his word, he is reliable. That does not imply that he is conservative, stuffy or overly dignified, rather, that he is someone you can rely on to get something done in the manner which you would want it done yourself. Is that so different from what everyone else thinks of as professional?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Certainly different from how much of Gentoo defines the word. You must be seeing the constant blather about acting "professional" -- and none of this is about being reliable or getting the job done, it's about how people act and interact.
ReplyDeleteOdd, do you think that most of Gentoo defines "professional" along the lines of what both the referenced articles define it as? As to your observation, I must admit i've been a bit confused as to the constant references to professionalism, as there is nothing negative in its connotations, at least to me, but bear in mind I do agree with articles, just not the use / definition of the word "professionalism".
ReplyDeleteI guess that's the difference between "acting professional" and "being professional"! I concur with strerror; to me, professional has the connotation of "able to be relied upon" and "able to deliver", not the stuffy sense that it is sometimes (mis)used. Unfortunately, too many modern-day "professionals" associate the term with: sticking with the pack, adopting known/low-risk solutions, and generally not deviating too far from the benchmark on any particular issue. (For proof in point, witness the whole funds management community world-wide: most of them underperform a blind index fund when their performance is adjusted by their "management fees", yet they mostly refuse to deviate too far from the pack in terms of asset allocation simply because this would put them at the risk of performing differently to the "benchmark"). I think it is in this latter sense that much of Graham's criticisms are (probably rightly) applied. But I do think we need a better distinction between what is true professionalism and what is simply emulation and "me-too"-ism.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I do enjoy reading Paul Graham; I know he comes in for some flack from others but I have always been impressed with his articulateness and cogency of argument. I'm actually ploughing steadily through "On Lisp" right now - it's a great read.