Study Journal #2

22 January 2015

1) Everybody talks about being in computer development for the love of computers rather than for the money. I, however, believe that some, like Steve Jobs, were mostly ambition.

2) It's a shame that some major players end up with nothing and other major players lose their nerdy passion because of the business.

3) I am impressed that Wozniak was able to hold on to his love of technology. I think he struck the happy medium between getting financially recognized and being able to stick to what he liked best. The spreadsheet guys retained their tech love, at least, but are only recognized conceptually rather than monetarily.


27 January 2015

1) If that dress code at IBM was enforced today, many programmers would be discouraged from working there when there are other places that have more laid back rules. Maybe that's the point though--it weeds out the applicants to only those that are serious enough for a dress code.

2) All of the most lucrative developments seem to be front end/user interface stuff such as GUI's, more compact machines, more intuitive software, and especially improved operating systems. For the most part the market doesn't care if back-end software improves unless they can see a physical result.

3) Many open source people have radical ideas about open source software, but that passion drives them to create some pretty amazing things! People are motivated to build software to make money, but they are also motivated, maybe just as effectively, by the belief in making a difference and expanding the software that they are personally invested in.


29 January 2015

1) Pretty ridiculous to say 5 seconds laves 50 lives... But maybe a logical fallacy can give people a boost sometimes.

2) Steve Jobs was pissed about getting booted, but he'd ousted tons of people already... Karma.

3) Jobs says they mercilessly stole good ideas, but he's ticked about Microsoft having "no taste" and stealing Apple type-facing.

4) Good ideas are only good if you can implement, sell, and be willing to adjust the business plan/vision to match the public mood.


3 February 2015

1) The Free Software Definition article asserts that nonfree programs are an instrument of unjust power, which I think is pretty extreme. If a product is copyrighted and only controlled by the owner/creator who sells it, that doesn't make them an unjust tyrant for keeping it private and using it to make money...

2) It is clear that this article was created by programmers or computer engineers. The focus is on having open source software so knowledge can grow and spread and so peoples lives can be improved. Business is a more important factor to many other people who care nothing for the programming knowledge, which discourages open source stuff.

3) The situation with Microsoft, IBM, and the QDOS operating system is another example how luck plays a major factor in success. Who knew that that specific operating system would be the successful one?


5 February 2015

1) Many of these big players were accidental (at least partially). How do you predict big success like this? Or is it possible?

2) Sometimes it doesn't pay to be a pioneer, especially when people don't see your vision... Even if you find something good.

3) Dogmatism is never a good idea, or almost never. You can blind yourself everywhere, not just in technology.