[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Link of note
In article <3950EF57.D8727C4A@swbell.net>,
Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter writes ...
>
>> In my book, a "computer user" is someone who does *not* write his own
>> programs, but only uses software written by others.
>
> I like the portrayal of "user" in the movie "Tron" better. A "user" is
> someone who uses computers to do stuff, including to write programs. This
> also matches the generally understood meaning of "small computer user" going
> back to the late 1970's.
So someone who uses a computer to create software, just for the enjoyment
of creating software, is a "computer user", not a "computer hobbyist"?
Then what about someone who uses a computer to create hardware, e.g.
another computer? He might be running CAD programs to create the
layout of his motherboard, or even the mask for his CPU chip (yes,
this is today possible to do for a determined enthusiast who is not
too poor)? All if it just for the joy of doing it. Is such a person
a "computer user" or a "computer hobbyist"?
Now if creating computer hardware as a hobby makes someone a "computer
hobbyist" rather than "computer user", why wouldn't it be the same for
someone creating computer software?
>>> There is a natural tendency to lump the years 1975-1977 together and
>>> think of them as the Byte-Altair-SWTP- ... pre-Apple II
>>> times when everyone was fiddling with S-100 boards.
>>> However, it just is not the case. By 1977, bunches of
>>> complete small computer systems (OSI, TRS-80, ...) running
>>> high-level languages, including BASIC, were being sold, many with disk
>>> drives.
>>
>> Yes, but these computers had almost no end-user software.
>
> Not so. By 1977 there was quite a lot, more for some brands and models
> than others.
Perhaps we define "end user" differenyl here. The software available
in 1977 did, with almost no exception, require the ability of tinkering
for the one who would want to use it and get the most out of it. Such
a person is not in my eyes an "end user" -- he's a "computer hobbyist".
>> The owners of these computers had to write their own software:
>
> Depends upon what a user wanted to do. There were paint utilities,
> financial packages, chess programs, adventure games, arcade games, disk
> management utilities, ... .
...we're talking 1977 here, not 1980...
> A user might need to write a program for some special application or to
> handle some task better than existing software did. But, then, this was
> true five years later and is still true today.
Except that the domain of what "no available software does well" is
shrinking all the time.
>> that makes them developers, not users.
>
> It makes them users who develop some piece of software. The term
> "developer" usually applies to someone who creates a lot of software
> which is distributed and used by others.
I've never seen any quantity requirements before like that. So you
claim no-one is a developer until he's developed X pieces of software
which has been distributed? Now, what numerical value would you
want to assign to X? And why that value and not another value?
>> If they did it for free, at their spare time, then it was a hobby.
>
> Model railroading is a hobby. Writing a program is programming.
One can as well say:
"Writing a program is a hobby. Model railroading is model railroading".
What criterion are you using to determine which is a hobby and which isn't?
>>> However, if you program as a hobby, then _that_ is the
>>> hobby. Unless all you do on the computer is hobby programing, you are
>>> still a computer user not a "computer hobbyist".
>>
>> Even if I use the computer, for free, at my spare time?
>
> Right. Doing something for free in your spare time does not make it a
> hobby.
Well, when I was young I did model rairoading, for free on my spare
time. So that implies model railroading isn't a hobby - right?
>> The "computer" isn't merely the hardware: it's the software too, you know.
>
> Agree.
>
>> Then exactly WHAT decides of something is a hobby or a profession?
>
> Mainly, why you do what you do and, usually, the range of activities
> involved.
I looked up "hobby" in a quite exhaustive wordbook, and there they
required it to be done for free, of course, but also to contain some
creative aspect. Therefore painting, model railroading, etc are
hobbies.
Do you think writing programs isn't a hobby because you think it
lacks that creative component?
>>> As you say, some of the software was probably produced by users who
>>> enjoy programming so much that it is a hobby activity. And, some of
>>> the software was produced by users who, chiefly, program as a means
>>> to an end -- i.e. in order to produce a desired program.
>>
>> People who program just to reach a specific goal (e.g. to program a
>> phone book, or something), and then cease programming, such people
>> will most likely write quite a horrible program...
>
> Maybe; but, that is not the situation which was described.
>
> The distinction is between those who program for the enjoyment of
> programming and those who program in order to achieve specific results
> whether or not the programming process is always enjoyable.
Is it a hobby in one of these cases?
>>> In any case, the original spark for all of this discussion was Bill
>>> Gates's use of the term "computer hobbyist" to describe users of BASIC
>>> in 1977. After reviewing magazines from that period it is more plain
>>> than ever that he was mistaken. Calling small computer users "hobbyists"
>>> was an insult which, very likely, meant that most of what he said was
>>> ignored.
>>
>> Why is it an insult to call someone a hobbyist?
>
> It is not an insult so long as the person is a <whatever> hobbyist.
>
> Otherwise, it is likely to be an insult. Since a hobby is, by
> definition, something you pursue for pleasure, the implication is a very
> restricted commitment-- i.e., if some unpleasant or very trying challenge
> arises, it may well be avoided. The hobbyist is not responsible to anyone for
> producing a high quality product; and, hobby activities may be suspended at
> any time leaving hobby projects unfinished.
>
> It's no wonder that the term "hobby" is universally perceived as
> essentially diminutive. For example, it would be an insult to call a teacher
> an "education hobbyist" or a lawyer a "law hobbyist".
>
> Today, it is fairly common for a user to shop for a motherboard, video &
> sound cards, hard disk, ... and put together a PC. We do not call these users
> "computer hobbyists". Putting together a computer is not something one does
> for fun and it is not a continuous activity.
NO activity is continuous! As you said above: "hobby activities may
be suspended at any time leaving hobby projects unfinished" -- does
that mean such a suspended activity is, by definition, not a hobby,
since it ceased?
> You put together a computer to have a computer which you can use as a tool.
>
> By 1977, most of those involved with 'small computing' hardware saw
> themselves as engaged in putting together and upgrading their computers in
> order to have a computer to use for a rapidly expanding range of
> applications. They were 'small computer users', not "computer hobbyists".
>
>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> In another of my interests - astronomy - there's a strong amateur
>> movement: plenty of people buy, or build, their own telescopes, and
>> then watch the skies just for enjoyment, or even to discover new
>> comets and novae (about 1/3 of all newly discovered comets are
>> discovered by amateurs). They do this for free, at their space time,
>> and they fund all their equipment themselves. Sometimes there will
>> pop up a discussion about exactly what makes someone an "amateur
>> astronomer", however almost all skywatchers agree on that it's no
>> insult to be called "amateur astronomer".
>
> Agree. Since there are professional astronomers who get to use big
> expensive telescopes, the term "amateur astronomer" is not insulting.
>
> On the other hand, my inclination would be to side with those favoring a
> change to just "astronomer". Many "amateurs" are as knowledgeable about
> astronomy as any professional and do what professionals do. Being able to use
> a 200 inch telescope whenever you like and get paid for it does not seem like
> sufficient reason to call everyone else "amateurs". If the professionals
> don't like the idea, let them call themselves "professional astronomers".
>
>
>
>> There are even some
>> professional astronomers who also are amateur astronomers -- on
>> *their* spare time, when they watch the sky just for enjoyment, not
>> because some research programme requires it.
>>
>> People outside the amateur astronomy movement often think it's an
>> insult to be called an "amateur": to them, "amateur" is the same as
>> "incompetent". But "amateur" has another meaning: someone who does
>> something, not for profit or to make a living, but solely for the
>> love of the subject. Actually "amateur" really means "lover"
>> (compare with the french "amour" and spanish and italian "amore").
>>
>> Couldn't the word "hobby" be interpreted similarly to "amateur" ?
>>
>
> Yes. They are similar. The usual distinction is that "amateur" is
> typically applied to an activity for which a professional status exists.
> And, "hobby" usually goes with activities which involve hand crafting.
Interestingly, in Victorian England, amateurs/hobbyists were looked
upon with esteem, while professionals were despised. How come?
Well, remember that the upper class at this time despised work
and though that no noble person should have to do any work at all.
Now, an amateur/hobbyist was usually a gentleman who did something
for the love of the subject. A professional, on the other hand,
was a worker....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se or paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW: http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch http://welcome.to/pausch