Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Humor
Torvalds and OSDL launch new image initiative
By Joe Barr
on
April 01, 2006 (9:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
Faced with former Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn's harsh appraisal of the real reason behind the "inertia" of Linux in the business world, Linus Torvalds and OSDL have come up with an action plan for rebranding the Linux image and the image of its core developers. They have jointly agreed on the formation of OSDSU, the world's first Open Source Dress for Success University.
Torvalds himself will teach a course on "Introductory sandal wearing," placing particular emphasis on sock selection. "Color is so important," Torvalds notes. "You want both socks to share the same color base, and yet it needs to stand out from the pale flesh of a kernel hacker and show off the sandals to their best advantage."
OSDL CEO Stuart Cohen said that in all his years at IBM, Dell, and elsewhere in the corporate world, he never saw a good idea come from anyone with a ponytail. "Haircuts are key to brain activity," Cohen says. "You learn this in MBA school. I don't know where these scalawags on the LKML ever got the notion that long hair and sandals were conducive to good code."
"We're determined to break out of this inertia thing," Torvalds says. "If we work hard enough, and long enough, on perfecting the image of our developers, we can deliver a better kernel. I'm revising git now to accept developer labels indicating hair length and the date and grade of their last appearance review. I can be a cruel bastard when it comes to accepting patches from unkempt hackers."
Cohen concluded their opening remarks with the observation that if OSDSU works as planned, the open source community "can be as successful at delivering new products, bug-free and on time, as Microsoft is doing with Vista."
Comments
on Torvalds and OSDL launch new image initiativeNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
I'd flunk out in a heartbeat.
You mean you have to wear socks?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(
Do they have to be proper socks or will paint do?
If they have to be proper and match then I will have to attend Sock Replacement Therapy!!! Who is going to pick up the bill?
If they have to be proper and match then I will have to attend Sock Replacement Therapy!!! Who is going to pick up the bill?
Do you wear socks? Damn! I'm so out of fashion!
than re-branding free software "open source" in the hope of pleasing the corporate kulture in which the words "freedom" is associated with such horrors as socialism, hippies, anti-war demonstrators, civil rights, Euro-trash, unions, healthcare, worker's rights and other "hammers and sickles" nightmares...
I wish the first re-branding had been a joke too!
I wish the first re-branding had been a joke too!
I think the "open source" brand had more to do with distancing itself from all the garbage released for windows under the brand "freeware".
Granted, there are a few really good programs under the "freeware" brand, but most of it is awful.
Granted, there are a few really good programs under the "freeware" brand, but most of it is awful.
nope. if only...
The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, John Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word free in English, so that the preception of free software is not anti-commercial.
source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source</a wikipedia.org>
We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.
source: <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php</a opensource.org>
So, basically, brown-nosing the korporate "suits" was the reason behind this re-branding.
The "open source" label came out of a strategy session[3] held at Palo Alto in reaction to Netscape's January 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator. The group of individuals at the session included Christine Peterson who suggested "open source" and also included Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, John Hall, Sam Ockman, and Eric S. Raymond. They used the opportunity before the release of Navigator's source code to clarify a potential confusion caused by the ambiguity of the word free in English, so that the preception of free software is not anti-commercial.
source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source</a wikipedia.org>
We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.
source: <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/docs/history.php</a opensource.org>
So, basically, brown-nosing the korporate "suits" was the reason behind this re-branding.
I don't think "free market economy" has much to do with what you wrote about, but it's a term business people often feel strongly about - and they don't mean you get things at no cost either.
"Free software" is a brilliant marketing term, largely due to it's duplicity in the English language - ranging from freedom to "at no cost". You get two meanings for the price of one. However, you must be careful WHO you address which meaning to. Secondly, there is an even better term than "free software", and this is "free data" or "free information".
Business people who believe in a free market economy are there to make money, and they believe rightly so that other business people want to make money too. At least 70% of their expenses are employee salaries, except at places where the CEO gives that burden alone. So they don't believe a free (as in freedom) software company that charges no money is a serious partner - you cannot rely your business on someone about to go bankrupt. There must be an exchange of money - period. So it's important to address the money problem up front - "Don't lock up your data - free your information! Free as in freedom software costs less to develop because of component reuse, and our support contracts are available for 1, 2 or 3 years at affordable prices. Our consultants takes your business to new hights on budget and on time! Be safe - be free!" These sentences hits market liberals in their core values of freedom to earn money without somebody snatching it away from them. They understand they must pay something, for a specific length of time, as long as they get more money out of the investment in the long run, either through lower costs or through better quality products equaling more sales.
Private consumers may share the above attitude, usually about important data like family pictures, their thesis, school papers, genealogy data and so on. They have one, two or three machines at home, and don't worry much about license costs. They got some OEM software, which usually includes a word processor, and buys a game or two for the kids now and then. They are a bit worried about software 'from the Internet' - you might have said 'from outer space', as the only regular thing they get from that place is alien viruses.
Academics and young people trust the Internet in the sense "you're an idiot like my parents if you don't know your way around". The potensial insecurity is managable, things should be free (as in freedom) and available at no cost or at very little cost (as both academics and young people have small budgets). Both groups like to hear "free software" - whatever meaning you intended is fine. "Open source" as a marketing term is a no-no as 90% are not developers. Try the following at any search engine:
"free games" and count the number of hits.
then try
"open source games" and count the number of hits.
If you haven't heard about free (as in freedom) games, you will still get hits. However, you must have heard about "open source" to even try searching for "open source games". This is bad. So downplay the "open source" and play the "free" part in all your texts - use the duplicity to your advantage. I agree with your last statement - I wish the first re-branding had been a joke too!
"Free software" is a brilliant marketing term, largely due to it's duplicity in the English language - ranging from freedom to "at no cost". You get two meanings for the price of one. However, you must be careful WHO you address which meaning to. Secondly, there is an even better term than "free software", and this is "free data" or "free information".
Business people who believe in a free market economy are there to make money, and they believe rightly so that other business people want to make money too. At least 70% of their expenses are employee salaries, except at places where the CEO gives that burden alone. So they don't believe a free (as in freedom) software company that charges no money is a serious partner - you cannot rely your business on someone about to go bankrupt. There must be an exchange of money - period. So it's important to address the money problem up front - "Don't lock up your data - free your information! Free as in freedom software costs less to develop because of component reuse, and our support contracts are available for 1, 2 or 3 years at affordable prices. Our consultants takes your business to new hights on budget and on time! Be safe - be free!" These sentences hits market liberals in their core values of freedom to earn money without somebody snatching it away from them. They understand they must pay something, for a specific length of time, as long as they get more money out of the investment in the long run, either through lower costs or through better quality products equaling more sales.
Private consumers may share the above attitude, usually about important data like family pictures, their thesis, school papers, genealogy data and so on. They have one, two or three machines at home, and don't worry much about license costs. They got some OEM software, which usually includes a word processor, and buys a game or two for the kids now and then. They are a bit worried about software 'from the Internet' - you might have said 'from outer space', as the only regular thing they get from that place is alien viruses.
Academics and young people trust the Internet in the sense "you're an idiot like my parents if you don't know your way around". The potensial insecurity is managable, things should be free (as in freedom) and available at no cost or at very little cost (as both academics and young people have small budgets). Both groups like to hear "free software" - whatever meaning you intended is fine. "Open source" as a marketing term is a no-no as 90% are not developers. Try the following at any search engine:
"free games" and count the number of hits.
then try
"open source games" and count the number of hits.
If you haven't heard about free (as in freedom) games, you will still get hits. However, you must have heard about "open source" to even try searching for "open source games". This is bad. So downplay the "open source" and play the "free" part in all your texts - use the duplicity to your advantage. I agree with your last statement - I wish the first re-branding had been a joke too!
and it is largely a myth. if you had any education in economics you would know that one of the assumptions underlying the concept of "free market economy" is perfect information (alongside, and as a prerequisite for, perfect competition), but that is not the point. since we are not even close to fullfilling this criterion, a free market economy is a myth. QED
the point is that it takes a thoroughly brainwashed worldview to reduce the entire world in all its complexities and diversity to ONE Uber-principle such as (what in your opinion constitutes) a free market economy.
Communists used to reduce all historical phenomena to the struggle of classes. Doubleplusgoodthinking capitalists reduce it all to market forces. Both are, in fact, expressions of a very narrow and intolerant outlook which can only be acquired by what can only be called particularly gullable and thus well brainwhashed individuals.
the point is that it takes a thoroughly brainwashed worldview to reduce the entire world in all its complexities and diversity to ONE Uber-principle such as (what in your opinion constitutes) a free market economy.
Communists used to reduce all historical phenomena to the struggle of classes. Doubleplusgoodthinking capitalists reduce it all to market forces. Both are, in fact, expressions of a very narrow and intolerant outlook which can only be acquired by what can only be called particularly gullable and thus well brainwhashed individuals.
Free and Open Source don't mean the same thing..
One comes with source code and costs nothing.
The other just costs nothing.
One comes with source code and costs nothing.
The other just costs nothing.
I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather not do business with someone stupid enough to be judging me by my looks rather than my abilities.
Who cares if my socks don't match my sandals?
Who cares if my socks don't match my sandals?
I don't necessarily agree with Quinn, but a similar debate arose when the NBA instituted a dress code. None other than Sir Charles Barkley <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/22/AR2005102201386_pf.html2005/10/22/AR2005102201386_pf.html" title="washingtonpost.com">lobbied in favor</a washingtonpost.com> of the league's initiative.
"I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather not do business with someone stupid enough to be judging me by my looks rather than my abilities."
Well, see that's all fine and good. However what you're forgetting is that it's open source that's coming to the table hat in hand. Not the other way around. So if open source want's to be accepted, then it's going to have to bend a little. Now of course open source could take the attitude you just did, and let the chips fall were it may. But then open source may not achieve all of RMS goals (if any) if it does that. So which will it be? Bend a little, or take your ball and go home?
Well, see that's all fine and good. However what you're forgetting is that it's open source that's coming to the table hat in hand. Not the other way around. So if open source want's to be accepted, then it's going to have to bend a little. Now of course open source could take the attitude you just did, and let the chips fall were it may. But then open source may not achieve all of RMS goals (if any) if it does that. So which will it be? Bend a little, or take your ball and go home?
If companies are so unbelievably stupid as to look a gift horse in the mouth because it is free for the asking and sharing, then let them NOT USE IT. Enough will, they will get the competetive advantage and prosper in the long run.
What should be evident by now, 2006, is that corporations fixated on executive payroll and this quarters profits over a longer view will fail. There will come a time where they have outsourced all they can, fired all the developers and innovators they can, thrown all the management and sales at it they can, and still fail, because they "don't get it". Some get into executive postions PRECISELY to rape the company and cause it to fail, because they can loot at will while it is going down. Do we need names mentioned here, are headlines of the past few years enough?
And the other side of the coin is the "great unmentionable", expensive software (and a lot of other goods and products and services in our economy) gets sold from KICKBACKS.
KICKBACKS
You get your company to buy x millions of dollars of stuff from us, here's a nice sack of cash, sub rosa. It is that simple, and it drives business (and government sales) today. If you have someone in charge of purchasing, and they consistently seem to always favor very expensive and fragile or stupid over free and cheap and robust and intelligent, and their decisions just contantly don't seem to make "sense", look at "cents" instead. Take a gander with a critical eye and see if they are living beyond their apparent means, orother such evidence. No one wants to talk about the corruption that is involved in this industry, but everyone knows it goes on.
What should be evident by now, 2006, is that corporations fixated on executive payroll and this quarters profits over a longer view will fail. There will come a time where they have outsourced all they can, fired all the developers and innovators they can, thrown all the management and sales at it they can, and still fail, because they "don't get it". Some get into executive postions PRECISELY to rape the company and cause it to fail, because they can loot at will while it is going down. Do we need names mentioned here, are headlines of the past few years enough?
And the other side of the coin is the "great unmentionable", expensive software (and a lot of other goods and products and services in our economy) gets sold from KICKBACKS.
KICKBACKS
You get your company to buy x millions of dollars of stuff from us, here's a nice sack of cash, sub rosa. It is that simple, and it drives business (and government sales) today. If you have someone in charge of purchasing, and they consistently seem to always favor very expensive and fragile or stupid over free and cheap and robust and intelligent, and their decisions just contantly don't seem to make "sense", look at "cents" instead. Take a gander with a critical eye and see if they are living beyond their apparent means, orother such evidence. No one wants to talk about the corruption that is involved in this industry, but everyone knows it goes on.
I'll take my ball and go home. I do my very best to associate with unintelligent people as little as possible. It's rather difficult, but that's life on the outliers of the bell curve.
"I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather not do business with someone stupid enough to be judging me by my looks rather than my abilities. Who cares if my socks don't match my sandals?"
HA! You really want to oversimplify this issue, don't you Mr. Sense-of-Aesthetics-Impairment?
It turns out that the way some people dress may reveal some very scary personality problems. Lack of sense of style/fashion/aesthetics is ultimately lack of sensitivity to a very wide range of human and social peculiarities. It is indeed inability to communicate. It is indeed an impairment.
So when we look at individual that wears sandals with socks and a pony tail, we're basically looking at a man who has no frigging idea of what is going around him. We're looking at a man who is not too far from being autistic. Does Raymond produce good code? Definitely. Yeah. But we don't care about how many cards or toothpicks Mr. Geek can count. He is weird, he is not sociable, he can't be left unattended, we had better avoid hiring him at all as much as possible.
Oh, and by the way: K-Mart sucks.
HA! You really want to oversimplify this issue, don't you Mr. Sense-of-Aesthetics-Impairment?
It turns out that the way some people dress may reveal some very scary personality problems. Lack of sense of style/fashion/aesthetics is ultimately lack of sensitivity to a very wide range of human and social peculiarities. It is indeed inability to communicate. It is indeed an impairment.
So when we look at individual that wears sandals with socks and a pony tail, we're basically looking at a man who has no frigging idea of what is going around him. We're looking at a man who is not too far from being autistic. Does Raymond produce good code? Definitely. Yeah. But we don't care about how many cards or toothpicks Mr. Geek can count. He is weird, he is not sociable, he can't be left unattended, we had better avoid hiring him at all as much as possible.
Oh, and by the way: K-Mart sucks.
You're a moron. Who buys their sandals at K-Mart?
I agree with the other poster. You are a moron. You come across as some corporate dickhead who has no friends, has no girlfriend except Sexy Suzy the Blowup Doll, and have no ability to make any friends because of your attitude. How can you when you judge the book by it's cover?
Just because you may wear sandals and have a ponytail does not mean that you are not sociable.
Maybe you could back the following statement up with facts:
Lack of sense of style/fashion/aesthetics is ultimately lack of sensitivity to a very wide range of human and social peculiarities. It is indeed inability to communicate. It is indeed an impairment.
People dress the way they do because it makes them feel more comfortable. Forcing people to wear something different will not suddenly make this person more productive or outgoing. In fact it will make them feel more uncomfortable and less productive.
As for this:
He is weird, he is not sociable, he can't be left unattended, we had better avoid hiring him at all as much as possible.
Well, we had better avoid hiring you. You are judgemental, prejudiced, lack any form of intelligence or judgement and cannot be trusted to form any kind of opinion.
Just because you may wear sandals and have a ponytail does not mean that you are not sociable.
Maybe you could back the following statement up with facts:
Lack of sense of style/fashion/aesthetics is ultimately lack of sensitivity to a very wide range of human and social peculiarities. It is indeed inability to communicate. It is indeed an impairment.
People dress the way they do because it makes them feel more comfortable. Forcing people to wear something different will not suddenly make this person more productive or outgoing. In fact it will make them feel more uncomfortable and less productive.
As for this:
He is weird, he is not sociable, he can't be left unattended, we had better avoid hiring him at all as much as possible.
Well, we had better avoid hiring you. You are judgemental, prejudiced, lack any form of intelligence or judgement and cannot be trusted to form any kind of opinion.
if sandals && ponytail && bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy
then
do not hire.
fi
if sandals && ponytail but NOT bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy
then
hire
fi
I think the question really is; How many programmers have problems with bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy?
because:
if programmers with bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy > microsoft programmers without bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy
then
linux has a problem.
fi
This will also lead to stereotyping the linux programmers which doesn't have those problems.
is this what has heppened here, or are the problem with the suits "not understanding linux culture" or whatever suits better?
I personally is of the opinion that this problem is created by the OSS guys themselves.. but maybe that's my prejudice.
then
do not hire.
fi
if sandals && ponytail but NOT bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy
then
hire
fi
I think the question really is; How many programmers have problems with bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy?
because:
if programmers with bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy > microsoft programmers without bad hygiene or lack of social skills and/or creepy
then
linux has a problem.
fi
This will also lead to stereotyping the linux programmers which doesn't have those problems.
is this what has heppened here, or are the problem with the suits "not understanding linux culture" or whatever suits better?
I personally is of the opinion that this problem is created by the OSS guys themselves.. but maybe that's my prejudice.
That last line really stuck a fork in things.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)
When I read that thing by the Quinn guy a few days ago, I thought: BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT. BULLSHIT.
Also: THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. (And I hope that it doesnt ever even think about happening)
When I read this article, I thought: HELL YEAH! I was overcome with a complete feeling of Torvalds-style ownage, through severe doses of sarcasm. Yeah. That last line. Beautiful. Brings a tear to my eye. We all know just how good a job MS is doing with Vista, or as some as myself call it: Product Codename: Pushed-Back-2-years-due-to-performance,-drivers,-<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> esting-and-security
Also: THIS IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. (And I hope that it doesnt ever even think about happening)
When I read this article, I thought: HELL YEAH! I was overcome with a complete feeling of Torvalds-style ownage, through severe doses of sarcasm. Yeah. That last line. Beautiful. Brings a tear to my eye. We all know just how good a job MS is doing with Vista, or as some as myself call it: Product Codename: Pushed-Back-2-years-due-to-performance,-drivers,-<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> esting-and-security
On the eve of April 1st.
Ever since the infamous "ponytails and sandals" article first appeared, I've been trying to get my friends and colleagues in the free software community to adopt my 'literal Tux' stance.
Obviously, we don't want to wear suits and be mistaken for the shallow, brainless corporate lackeys who typically sport jackets and neckties.
Unfortunately, we also now know that turning up for work in Speedos and a Mohawk is not going to get us the key to the Executive Washroom anytime soon.
My answer is beautiful in its simplicity: we should all wear tuxedos. Not only will this put us one up on the suits, but it is also an unmistakable statement of individuality (arguably more so than nipple clamps and a Prince Albert) and a powerful reinforcement of the Linux 'brand' image.
C'mon guys! Let's do it. Hopefully, readers of NewsForge will be more enthusastic than my friends, who have so far greeted my campaign with variations on 'bugger off, nutjob.'
Obviously, we don't want to wear suits and be mistaken for the shallow, brainless corporate lackeys who typically sport jackets and neckties.
Unfortunately, we also now know that turning up for work in Speedos and a Mohawk is not going to get us the key to the Executive Washroom anytime soon.
My answer is beautiful in its simplicity: we should all wear tuxedos. Not only will this put us one up on the suits, but it is also an unmistakable statement of individuality (arguably more so than nipple clamps and a Prince Albert) and a powerful reinforcement of the Linux 'brand' image.
C'mon guys! Let's do it. Hopefully, readers of NewsForge will be more enthusastic than my friends, who have so far greeted my campaign with variations on 'bugger off, nutjob.'
lol
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 01, 2006 01:21 PM#