Re: A Link of note

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <394CFED7.6C096A46@swbell.net>,
Rubywand  <rubywand@swbell.net> wrote:
 
> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote:
>> 
>> Rubywand wrote:
>> 
>>> About the only disagreement would be with the term
>>> "hobbyist".
>>>
>>>      By 1976, Bill should have been aware that "hobbyist" was out-dated
>>> Popular Electronics lingo. Anyone running BASIC in 1976 was a "small computer
>>> user".
>>>
>>> Rubywand
>> 
>> I have here beside my keyboard Volume Two of Dr. Dobb's Journal of Computer
>> Calisthenics & Orthodontia "Running Light Without Overbyte" The introduction,
>> written in 1980, paragraph two starts out, "Microcomputers were still very
>> much the domain of hobbyists and technology junkies in early 1977."
>> 
>> The first article in the January 1977 issue, titled "A PDP-11-Like, 16 bit,
>> Micro for the S-100 Bus", closes it's first paragraph with "... which should
>> prove to be of interest to the more advanced hobbists who have run out of
>> flexibility in their 8080 systems." There is a letter on pg 15 from CACHE
>> (Chicago Area Computer Hobby Enthusiasts). The second article is a description
>> and listing of the Lawrence Livermore Lab's 8080 BASIC, so people could
>> assemble and burn their own ROMs with it. On page 62 is a notice titled
>> "NEW BOOK FOR COMPUTER HOBBYISTS"
>> 
>> In the February 1977 issue is a letter from Tom Pittman who wrote one of
>> the first "Tiny BASICs" His fourth paragraph starts with "A quick scan of
>> a couple of hobby magazines shows typically 40 ads offering computer
>> hardware and no software, 10 ads offering both hardware and software...."
>> 
>> I could continue, but the point is obvious. Even in 1977 the term "hobbyist"
>> wasn't (yet) an outdated term referring to computer users. Most people were
>> still buying computers that they had to assemble themselves, or pay an extra
>> fee to have it soldered together for them. In vol 2 issue 1 is a letter from
>> LeRoy Finckle complaining that there was only one computer in the entire
>> country that could be bought and used by someone who wasn't a hardware
>> enthusiast and who only knew BASIC, and which would be bought with disk
>> drives. 1977 was still the time of the pioneers, in both hardware and
>> software, and they were still called "hobbyists."
>> 
>> Roy
> 
>      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..
> 
>     "Hi Fi" and "Stereo" were frequently refered to as "hobbies" in the
> 1950's and 1960's though, for all but a very few participants, they were
> nothing of the kind. Most of the so-called "hobbiests" built kits because
> that was the cheapest way to get decent equipment, not because they
> especially enjoyed constructing amplifiers and gluing together speaker
> cabinets. Once they had a system they liked, they used it to listen to music.
> 
>      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?  Couldn't
a hobby involve mostly software?  E.g. not merely trying out the "language
of the month" but actually implementing one?
 
> 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.
 
> 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?
 
There were a lot of hobby programmers out there, and there proably still
are.
 
> 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?
 
There are still a lot of hobby programmers out there -- they are the
ones writing all those freeware programs available on e.g. SimTel.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
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