Re: A Link of note

[Rubywand <rubywand@swbell.net>]

Paul Schlyter writes ...
> 
> In article <394CFED7.6C096A46@swbell.net>,
> Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
 ....
> > The term "hobby" is frequently misused. In many cases, the explanation
> > is that someone wishes to refer to a group engaged in some
> > non-professional pursuit and, lacking any interest in correct usage,
> > picks the term "hobby". Then, too, those who sell magazines and
> > supplies related to some activity may call the activity a "hobby"
> > in order to create an easy-to-grasp sense of community-- 
> > e.g. 'the magazine for widget hobbyists', 'the number one seller
> > of widget hobbyist supplies', etc..
> >
 ....
> >
> > Model building is, usually, a hobby. The same is true of "electronic
> > experimentation", "robot building", "model rocketry", etc.. In each case 
> > you have a pursuit in which the design/building activity itself is
> > enjoyed and can be repeated again and again with no obvious end point.
> >
> > Sure, some of those involved in early small computing built kit after
> > kit and/or fiddled with numerous hardware projects. Others, once they
> > had a small computer, used it for nothing but trying out 'the language
> > of the month', running primes sieves, and experimenting with sorts.
> 
> Why would "computer as a hobby" imply hardware experimentation?

     As mentioned just above, it need not. Someone who pours over each issue
of Dr. Dobbs and uses his computer only to try out the program snips listed
(and, perhaps, sends in his own program snips) is, essentially, in hobby mode
and might reasonably be considered to be engaging in computer use as a hobby.

     On the other hand, if the Dr. Dobbs devotee also uses the computer to
play Colossal Cave, then, it is no longer correct to say that 'computer use'
equals 'hobby'. (Game playing is not a hobby any more than is watching TV or
listening to classical music.)
 

> Couldn't a hobby involve mostly software?  E.g. not merely trying out the
> "language of the month" but actually implementing one?
>

     That is an interesting slant.

     My suggestion is that what matters is the purpose/motivation of computer
use. If it is, mainly, to 'use the computer', then, you probably have a
hobbyist. If it is to write useful programs, balance a checkbook, organize a
library, print out forms, compose music, ..., or play games, then, you have,
primarily, a computer user who may or may not occasionally employ the
computer in some hobby activity.

 
> > There were, certainly, some hobbyists within small computing. However,
> > the vast majority of those involved were genuine users.
> 
> Not in 1977 -- unless you count those who puhcned cards and handed in
> the card deck to be run at some mainframe.  But in the micro scene,
> there wasn't hardly anything in 1977 for those who wanted to be just users.
>

     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.

     True, you did not find anything like the quantity of software that would
be available just five years later; but, there was still lots of small
computer software, including games, being produced and sold to home users,
universities, and businesses.

 
> > And, when you focus upon users of BASIC, the number of hobbyists is truly
> > miniscule. If these users messed with hardware at all it was to have the
> > hardware and be done with it. They were interested in using their computers
> > to play games, balance checkbooks, write music, and create useful programs.
> 
> And why is messing with the hardware a "hobby" while messing with the
> software isn't?

     Neither necessarily constitutes a hobby.

> 
> There were a lot of hobby programmers out there, and there proably still
> are.
>

     There may be. 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".


 
> > A computer is a tool. Using a computer may be interesting, beneficial,
> > and/or entertaining but, in general, it is no more a "hobby" than using
> > a lawnmower.
> 
> Suppose you experiment with different lawnmowers or different configurations
> of your lawnmower, or perhaps even constructed your own lawnmower?
>

LOL! A lawnmower hobbyist-- neat! Anyway, I have done the above (except for
building my own lawnmower).  The purpose was to have a better lawnmower, not
play around with lawnmowers. Once the purpose was achieved, the fiddling with
lawnmowers ceased. Lawnmowers was not a hobby.


 
> There are still a lot of hobby programmers out there -- they are the
> ones writing all those freeware programs available on e.g. SimTel.
>
 ....

     Simply choosing to engage in an unpaid activity does not make the
activity a hobby. 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.

     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.



Rubywand