I don't understand why you (plural) insist on associating studying in the
university and work. While it is the most practical reason, many (and me)
studied for personal enrichment. I believe that any person that desires study
should do so if he can.

--
Regards,
牋牋牋牋Tzahi.
--
Tzahi Fadida
Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: 爏ee at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:

> On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
> > wrote:
> > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
> > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
> > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
> > >
> > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
> > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
> > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
> >
> > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
> > is a real thing or even possible.
> >
>
> OK. :-)
>
> > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
> > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
> > >
> > > 1. Unbiased.
> > >
> > > 2. Objective.
> > >
> > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
> > > View or NPOV.
> > >
> > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
> > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
> > > objective because it is true.
> >
> > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
> > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
> > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
>
> It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
> data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
> to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
> day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
> know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
> killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
>

Define "Evil"?

--
Tal Kelrich
PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F  CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
----
With a gentleman I try to be a gentleman and a half, and with a fraud I
try to be a fraud and a half.
		 -- Otto von Bismark
----

If one or more of the following describes you:

* Ruby programmer

* Rails developer

* capable Python programmer

* deeply interested in languages similar in design or spirit to Ruby:
Python, Smalltalk, Lisp, Scheme, Perl

* experienced in web development using one or more of the languages above

* experienced programmer or web developer in any modern language
(Java, PHP, .NET)

* a fast learner interested in becoming a Ruby (on Rails) developer

Seeking Alpha may have a great job offer for you. Send your resume,
C.V., or a few paragraphs about yourself in either Hebrew or English
to adam@... and hopefully we'll see you at the interview
:-)

-Adam

And now in Hebrew:

[讛爪注转 注讘讜讚讛] 诪驻转讞 专讜讘讬 (讗讜谉 专讬讬诇讝)

讗诐 讗讞讚 讗讜 讬讜转专 诪讛讘讗讬诐 诪转讗专 讗讜转讱:

* 诪转讻谞转 专讜讘讬

* 诪驻转讞 专讬讬诇讝

* 诪转讻谞转 驻讬讬讟讜谉 (驻讬转讜谉) 诪讜讻砖专

* 诪转注谞讬讬谉 诪讗讚 讘砖驻讜转 讚讜诪讜转 讘诪转讻讜谞转谉 讗讜 专讜讞谉
诇专讜讘讬:  驻讬讬讟讜谉, 住诪讜诇讟讜拽,
诇讬住驻, 住讻讬诐, 驻专诇

* 诪谞讜住讛 讘驻讬转讜讞 讜讜讘 转讜讱 砖讬诪讜砖 讘讗讞转 讗讜 讬讜转专
诪讛砖驻讜转 讛谞"诇

* 诪转讻谞转 讗讜 诪驻转讞 讜讜讘 诪谞讜住讛 讘砖驻讛 诪讜讚专谞讬转 讻诇砖讛讬
(讙'讗讜讜讛, PHP, 讚讜讟 谞讟)

* 诇讜诪讚 诪讛讬专 砖诪注讜谞讬讬谉 诇讛驻讜讱 诇诪驻转讞 专讜讘讬 讗讜谉
专讬讬诇讝

讬讻讜诇 诇讛讬讜转 砖诇讞讘专转 住讬拽讬谞讙 讗诇驻讗 讬砖 讛爪注转 注讘讜讚讛
诪注讜诇讛 注讘讜专讱. 砖诇讞 专讝讜诪讛,
拽讜专讜转 讞讬讬诐, 讗讜 讻诪讛 驻住拽讗讜转 注诇 注爪诪讱 讘注讘专讬转 讗讜
讗谞讙诇讬转 诇讚讜讗诇
adam@... 讜讘砖讗讬驻讛 谞转专讗讛 讘专讗讬讜谉 :-)

-讗讚诐

Hi Tal!

On Tuesday 27 March 2007, Tal Kelrich wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:48:29 +0200
>
> Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > On Monday 26 March 2007, Arik Baratz wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar 2007 23:42:52 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > > That's fine, objectivism is highly overrated. We cannot be
> > > > > objective merely because we live in a subjective world, the one
> > > > > we created for ourselves. I can go on and on about that, though.
> > > >
> > > > Just a note. You claim that "objectivism" is highly over-rated.
> > > > Do you mean the philosophy of Ayn Rand (also referred to as
> > > > "Randianism")? Or do you mean plain-old "objectivity"?
> > >
> > > I never read Rand. I meant the indulgence in objectivity as if it
> > > is a real thing or even possible.
> >
> > OK. :-)
> >
> > > > In any case, I have a problem with this. As you may realise there
> > > > are three similar but non-identical terms:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Unbiased.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Objective.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Neutral. Or as it is known on the Wikipedia - Neutral Point of
> > > > View or NPOV.
> > > >
> > > > They are not the same. For example, if I say "Genghis Khan
> > > > performed many Evil acts", this is a biased statement. But it is
> > > > objective because it is true.
> > >
> > > How is that exactly objective? If you were a Mongol living in the
> > > 13th century, you'd think that Genghis was a great and worthy Khan.
> > > Go read the [1] wikipedia entry.
> >
> > It is objective because it is an accurate description of the factual
> > data. Genghis Khan did kill many innocent people, not because he had
> > to, but because he wanted to. Maybe it seemed right to his present
> > day Mongols, but it wasn't. Some mainland Chinese I talked to did not
> > know Mao was a mass-murderer, but we all know he was an Evil man who
> > killed at least 40 million people of his own people.
>
> Define "Evil"?

Quoting my previous message:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
== "bad".

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
[hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
> done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
> productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
> prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
> destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
> == "bad".

This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely broken
to me...

Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills your
own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you stole
from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed others
more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and Roosvelt's
campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological needs, and
millions of Germans lost theirs?

--
Nadav Har'El                        |       Friday, Mar 30 2007, 11 Nisan 5767
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |How's he gonna read that magazine rolled
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |up like that? What the ... - a fly.

On 30 Mar 2007 00:39:48 -0700, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Define "Evil"?
>
> Quoting my previous message:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is consciously
> done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the
> productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or
> prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the
> destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
> == "bad".

Bah. This definition sucks. Neo-Tech might think it's okay and you
might agree. I don't. It's using subjective terms in a "scientific"
definition. Nope, I don't buy it.

-- Arik

On Friday 30 March 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: Objectivity [was Re:
[hackers-il] Re: [Israel.pm] Is University Really Necessary?]":
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > The meaning of moral in Neo-Tech is simple and direct: Whatever is
> > consciously done to help fill human biological needs is good and moral
> > (e.g., the productive actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously
> > done to harm or prevent the filling of human biological needs is bad and
> > immoral (e.g., the destructive actions of mystics and neocheaters).
> >
> >
> > As you can see it's even a scientific definition. In this context "evil"
> > == "bad".
>
> This definition is far from scientific... In fact, it looks completely
> broken to me...
>
> Is rape filling your own "biological needs" (and therefore good) or harming
> someone else (and therefore bad)? What about stealing food (which fills
> your own biological needs, and does not "biologically" harm the store you
> stole from)? If Gingis Khan's campaign is bad in this definition (he harmed
> others more than he benefited himself), what about Churchill's and
> Roosvelt's campaign in WWII - after all they didn't fill their biological
> needs, and millions of Germans lost theirs?

Hi Nadav!

Please see the rest of my quote. Please be readink, understandink and
integratink what I'm writing.

kthx, bye.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Our first meetup will take place this Friday, April 6th, at 49th
Borochov st., Neve-Amal, Hertzliya (Israel ;-).

It will be much more fancy than originally planned. Take a look at the
invitation for details:

http://israelrb.googlegroups.com/web/RubyOnFire.invitation.pdf

Please confirm your arrival.

This is the absolutely final invitation for this meetup. Neither rain
nor snow shall foil us.

Everyone is welcome: hardcore Ruby addicts, Israel.rb members, curious
Pythonistas,  adventurous Perl monks, and anyone else interested in
technologies that are both beautiful and practical.

See you all there,
Yoni, Adam and Dor

Hi all!

I wrote this mission statement as a way to put some of my thoughts on paper.
It's just an idea, and I'm not sure how practical it is, but it is still
interesting.

Comments are welcome.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

I recently got fired from my workplace:

http://shlomif.livejournal.com/39976.html

That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in Israel?
Here's how I define perfect:

1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.

2. Google lets its employees work for 20% on the time on their projects of
choice. We will demand employees to work on our own projects only 20% of
the time, and we will not require them to assign copyrights for what they do,
including not at work time.

Why? For several reasons:

     2.1. If someone has to work 80% of the time, he'll feel frustrated and
     only works 20% of the time. If, OTOH, he has to work 20% of the time,
     he'll work more than that.

     2.2. Because what employees do on their free days may prove of interest
     to us.

     2.3. Because we're not possessive about our "intellectual property". We're
     fully open source (see below).

3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but also
,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and companies
ask
us for permission to use our software - the better.

4. We will encourage our workers to "blog": write essays, maintain a weblog,
edit wikis, maintain public web sites, publish articles in online and offline
publications, etc. We will have a "planet" for the company.

5. We will allow free choice of language.

6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself to
the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can consider
themselves part of the company.

------------------------------------

Now what we will work on? Will there ever be a lack of good ideas?

1. Refactoring MediaWiki - MW is great but its source code is lacking and
could use a lot of polishing. I've talked with someone who wants to
re-implement it, but based on the wisdom of the patriarchs Joel and Eric, I'd
like to try to refactor it first.

2. Writing a web-based email that does not suck - I'm sorry, but KMail still
gives a much better E-mail experience than gmail, and makes the people you
correspond with, who are using a superior email client, much less angry.

I suppose we can take a popular web-based email client and improve it to
perfection (as we cannot do the same with gmail)

3. Winapt - http://winapt.berlios.de/

4. rindolf - a perl 5 compiler written in perl 5 that will make perl 5 on
Parrot and other VMs, both C-hosting and perl-hosting.

---------------------

These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is that
I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in fact be
profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how people who are
left to do what they want to do, rather than what they feel they are obliged
to do, produce superior results to those who don't. Such a company can be a
very powerful force, even in comparison to Google. And most importantly it
will be a great employer to work for.

My problem is that while being a competent programmer and a philosopher (or
essayist or blogger as they are now called), I'm not sure I'm cut to do
management. I need someone who'll manage me. Then I'll need to find funding.
This way I and others can get paid for doing the things they like to do on
their free time, and the company can actually make a profit.

I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to give
us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing. Or we can
give consulting, contracting and support for projects that we have a lot
of experience with. Alternatively, we can have a completely different business
model.

Regards,

     Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Shlomi,

i'm sorry that you got fired.

however, i think you should do some introspection about why you unable
to find a steady work place for such a long time - you're burning
yourself out in the market place.

coming up with ideas about utopian companies, without even thinking how
they'll earn money, can help you release steam. it will not help you
earn a living.

unlike with the open-source world, where time is not a factor, and it's
ok if several people do the same thing again and again until they get
something working properly, and having 10 different projects doing the
same thing, until one or two emerge as the most useful, and the others
ar thrown into a niche (or die gracefully) - i don't see many people
willing to put their money into such initiatives - because they can't
see how they are ever going to get it back with a nice profit. if you
don't have a clear plan - it's safer to invest your money in bond
stocks, in the stock market, etc.

so i would suggest you started thinking why you keep losing jobs
(quiting early is not better then being fired). and try to work on
changing that.

--guy

Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I wrote this mission statement as a way to put some of my thoughts on paper.
> It's just an idea, and I'm not sure how practical it is, but it is still
> interesting.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Shlomi Fish
>
> I recently got fired from my workplace:
>
> http://shlomif.livejournal.com/39976.html
>
> That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in Israel?
> Here's how I define perfect:
>
> 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.
>
> 2. Google lets its employees work for 20% on the time on their projects of
> choice. We will demand employees to work on our own projects only 20% of
> the time, and we will not require them to assign copyrights for what they do,
> including not at work time.
>
> Why? For several reasons:
>
>     2.1. If someone has to work 80% of the time, he'll feel frustrated and
>     only works 20% of the time. If, OTOH, he has to work 20% of the time,
>     he'll work more than that.
>
>     2.2. Because what employees do on their free days may prove of interest
>     to us.
>
>     2.3. Because we're not possessive about our "intellectual property". We're
>     fully open source (see below).
>
> 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but also
> ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and companies
> ask
> us for permission to use our software - the better.
>
> 4. We will encourage our workers to "blog": write essays, maintain a weblog,
> edit wikis, maintain public web sites, publish articles in online and offline
> publications, etc. We will have a "planet" for the company.
>
> 5. We will allow free choice of language.
>
> 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself to
> the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can consider
> themselves part of the company.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Now what we will work on? Will there ever be a lack of good ideas?
>
> 1. Refactoring MediaWiki - MW is great but its source code is lacking and
> could use a lot of polishing. I've talked with someone who wants to
> re-implement it, but based on the wisdom of the patriarchs Joel and Eric, I'd
> like to try to refactor it first.
>
> 2. Writing a web-based email that does not suck - I'm sorry, but KMail still
> gives a much better E-mail experience than gmail, and makes the people you
> correspond with, who are using a superior email client, much less angry.
>
> I suppose we can take a popular web-based email client and improve it to
> perfection (as we cannot do the same with gmail)
>
> 3. Winapt - http://winapt.berlios.de/
>
> 4. rindolf - a perl 5 compiler written in perl 5 that will make perl 5 on
> Parrot and other VMs, both C-hosting and perl-hosting.
>
> ---------------------
>
> These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is that
> I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in fact be
> profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how people who are
> left to do what they want to do, rather than what they feel they are obliged
> to do, produce superior results to those who don't. Such a company can be a
> very powerful force, even in comparison to Google. And most importantly it
> will be a great employer to work for.
>
> My problem is that while being a competent programmer and a philosopher (or
> essayist or blogger as they are now called), I'm not sure I'm cut to do
> management. I need someone who'll manage me. Then I'll need to find funding.
> This way I and others can get paid for doing the things they like to do on
> their free time, and the company can actually make a profit.
>
> I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to give
> us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing. Or we can
> give consulting, contracting and support for projects that we have a lot
> of experience with. Alternatively, we can have a completely different business
> model.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Shlomi Fish
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
> one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
>     -- An Israeli Linuxer
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Hi guy!

On Monday 02 April 2007, guy keren wrote:
> Shlomi,
>
> i'm sorry that you got fired.
>

Thanks for the support!

> however, i think you should do some introspection about why you unable
> to find a steady work place for such a long time - you're burning
> yourself out in the market place.
>

guy, your last two messages to me were top-posting preaching:

1. The one about the Technion was a "should have", saying that I should have
studied CS. I founded it of value because I incorporated some of my reply to
my essay, but it was still annoying.

Yes, EE was more difficult for me than CS, but I don't regret taking it, and
today with a B.Sc. in EE (cum laude, FWIW) in my hand, it is behind me, and I
be glad it is behind me, and be proud that I did not give up.

2. This one may be relevant, but is still very preachy, and I did not ask for
it. Furthermore, you just tell me to think about it, and don't have any
concrete suggestions.

As you know, being a hacker and trying to live according to the Hacker's
ethos, I have learned many technologies and also became interested in
software management, software engineering, and the philosophy of hackerdom.
Often I find that many workplaces, where the people in charge are much less
knowledgable in many respects than I am, are doing things sub-optimally.

I have a tendency to become hypo-manic, where hypo-mania is a type of clinical
depression, in which the person is overly-excited. This often makes me much
less focused and productive. Such states-of-mind are caused by a certain
negative thought that is not handled correctly by the cognition. From my
experience, such things are normally caused by work-related fears and
problems.

This has proven it hard for me to work as well. This time around I was OK for
a long time (over two months), but then became hypo-manic. It took me some
time to relax, but after I went to work, much more relaxed and determined to
finish my task, I was informed that I was going to be fired.

-----------------------------

Where was I? Yes: I don't like very much being preached at much especially
with not-so-constructive criticism like "you should figure something out"
(how?) or "you should have done X instead of Y" (when it's impossible to do
it again). My primary intention in the last two threads here was to start a
philosophical discussion.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

> coming up with ideas about utopian companies, without even thinking how
> they'll earn money, can help you release steam. it will not help you
> earn a living.
>
> unlike with the open-source world, where time is not a factor, and it's
> ok if several people do the same thing again and again until they get
> something working properly, and having 10 different projects doing the
> same thing, until one or two emerge as the most useful, and the others
> ar thrown into a niche (or die gracefully) - i don't see many people
> willing to put their money into such initiatives - because they can't
> see how they are ever going to get it back with a nice profit. if you
> don't have a clear plan - it's safer to invest your money in bond
> stocks, in the stock market, etc.
>
> so i would suggest you started thinking why you keep losing jobs
> (quiting early is not better then being fired). and try to work on
> changing that.
>
> --guy
>
> Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I wrote this mission statement as a way to put some of my thoughts on
> > paper. It's just an idea, and I'm not sure how practical it is, but it is
> > still interesting.
> >
> > Comments are welcome.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >  Shlomi Fish
> >
> > I recently got fired from my workplace:
> >
> > http://shlomif.livejournal.com/39976.html
> >
> > That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in
> > Israel? Here's how I define perfect:
> >
> > 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> > http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> > http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.
> >
> > 2. Google lets its employees work for 20% on the time on their projects
> > of choice. We will demand employees to work on our own projects only 20%
> > of the time, and we will not require them to assign copyrights for what
> > they do, including not at work time.
> >
> > Why? For several reasons:
> >
> >     2.1. If someone has to work 80% of the time, he'll feel frustrated
> > and only works 20% of the time. If, OTOH, he has to work 20% of the time,
> > he'll work more than that.
> >
> >     2.2. Because what employees do on their free days may prove of
> > interest to us.
> >
> >     2.3. Because we're not possessive about our "intellectual property".
> > We're fully open source (see below).
> >
> > 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but
> > also ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and
> > companies ask
> > us for permission to use our software - the better.
> >
> > 4. We will encourage our workers to "blog": write essays, maintain a
> > weblog, edit wikis, maintain public web sites, publish articles in online
> > and offline publications, etc. We will have a "planet" for the company.
> >
> > 5. We will allow free choice of language.
> >
> > 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself
> > to the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can
> > consider themselves part of the company.
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Now what we will work on? Will there ever be a lack of good ideas?
> >
> > 1. Refactoring MediaWiki - MW is great but its source code is lacking and
> > could use a lot of polishing. I've talked with someone who wants to
> > re-implement it, but based on the wisdom of the patriarchs Joel and Eric,
> > I'd like to try to refactor it first.
> >
> > 2. Writing a web-based email that does not suck - I'm sorry, but KMail
> > still gives a much better E-mail experience than gmail, and makes the
> > people you correspond with, who are using a superior email client, much
> > less angry.
> >
> > I suppose we can take a popular web-based email client and improve it to
> > perfection (as we cannot do the same with gmail)
> >
> > 3. Winapt - http://winapt.berlios.de/
> >
> > 4. rindolf - a perl 5 compiler written in perl 5 that will make perl 5 on
> > Parrot and other VMs, both C-hosting and perl-hosting.
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is
> > that I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in
> > fact be profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how
> > people who are left to do what they want to do, rather than what they
> > feel they are obliged to do, produce superior results to those who don't.
> > Such a company can be a very powerful force, even in comparison to
> > Google. And most importantly it will be a great employer to work for.
> >
> > My problem is that while being a competent programmer and a philosopher
> > (or essayist or blogger as they are now called), I'm not sure I'm cut to
> > do management. I need someone who'll manage me. Then I'll need to find
> > funding. This way I and others can get paid for doing the things they
> > like to do on their free time, and the company can actually make a
> > profit.
> >
> > I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to
> > give us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing.
> > Or we can give consulting, contracting and support for projects that we
> > have a lot of experience with. Alternatively, we can have a completely
> > different business model.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >     Shlomi Fish
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> > Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
> >
> > If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
> > one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
> >     -- An Israeli Linuxer
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Perl mailing list
> Perl@...
> http://perl.org.il/mailman/listinfo/perl



--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Hi Shlomi,

   I'm really sorry you got fired, it was kind'a nice seeing at the Black
Steer from time to time.

   But, I couldn't help but read something you wrote on your blog: "My main
problem (and the reason I got fired) was that they were relatively clueless
as far as software management was concerned". Please tell us that you don't
really believe what you just said, as, I'm very sorry to say, that according
to your motto, we should all stand up and leave our current work places.

   Dude, it's a job, nothing more, nothing less. If you happen to be
fortunate and enjoy your job, be happy with that. When you try to impose
your own set of values and paradigms on a system, who usually isn't ready to
accept your values/paradigms, the result is: YOU GET FIRED!

   For example, in my previous work place, I was working with a very well
known open source figure. At some point, we hired another well known open
source figure, which simply didn't fit the job profile. He was a genius when
examining the code and the work, but the values and paradigms were
incompatible.

   My advice to you is this: next time when you get into a new work place,
try not to stick out like a soar thumb from day one. Blend in, let time take
its course, and make your voice heard once you've established your status.
I'm confident you will see that your employment period will be longer than
the previous one. If you get to a company that is positive to open source,
and is willing to let you work on OSS as part of your work, consider
yourself the luckiest man on earth, and stick to that job for as long as you
can (or as long as you are happy with it).

Nir S

-----Original Message-----
From: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com [mailto:hackers-il@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of guy keren
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 3:40 PM
To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Perl in Israel
Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Mission Statement for a New Company based on
Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme


Shlomi,

i'm sorry that you got fired.

however, i think you should do some introspection about why you unable
to find a steady work place for such a long time - you're burning
yourself out in the market place.

coming up with ideas about utopian companies, without even thinking how
they'll earn money, can help you release steam. it will not help you
earn a living.

unlike with the open-source world, where time is not a factor, and it's
ok if several people do the same thing again and again until they get
something working properly, and having 10 different projects doing the
same thing, until one or two emerge as the most useful, and the others
ar thrown into a niche (or die gracefully) - i don't see many people
willing to put their money into such initiatives - because they can't
see how they are ever going to get it back with a nice profit. if you
don't have a clear plan - it's safer to invest your money in bond
stocks, in the stock market, etc.

so i would suggest you started thinking why you keep losing jobs
(quiting early is not better then being fired). and try to work on
changing that.

--guy

Shlomi Fish wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I wrote this mission statement as a way to put some of my thoughts on
paper.
> It's just an idea, and I'm not sure how practical it is, but it is still
> interesting.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Regards,
>
>  Shlomi Fish
>
> I recently got fired from my workplace:
>
> http://shlomif.livejournal.com/39976.html
>
> That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in
Israel?
> Here's how I define perfect:
>
> 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.
>
> 2. Google lets its employees work for 20% on the time on their projects of
> choice. We will demand employees to work on our own projects only 20% of
> the time, and we will not require them to assign copyrights for what they
do,
> including not at work time.
>
> Why? For several reasons:
>
>     2.1. If someone has to work 80% of the time, he'll feel frustrated and
>     only works 20% of the time. If, OTOH, he has to work 20% of the time,
>     he'll work more than that.
>
>     2.2. Because what employees do on their free days may prove of
interest
>     to us.
>
>     2.3. Because we're not possessive about our "intellectual property".
We're
>     fully open source (see below).
>
> 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but
also
> ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and
companies
> ask
> us for permission to use our software - the better.
>
> 4. We will encourage our workers to "blog": write essays, maintain a
weblog,
> edit wikis, maintain public web sites, publish articles in online and
offline
> publications, etc. We will have a "planet" for the company.
>
> 5. We will allow free choice of language.
>
> 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself to

> the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can
consider
> themselves part of the company.
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Now what we will work on? Will there ever be a lack of good ideas?
>
> 1. Refactoring MediaWiki - MW is great but its source code is lacking and
> could use a lot of polishing. I've talked with someone who wants to
> re-implement it, but based on the wisdom of the patriarchs Joel and Eric,
I'd
> like to try to refactor it first.
>
> 2. Writing a web-based email that does not suck - I'm sorry, but KMail
still
> gives a much better E-mail experience than gmail, and makes the people you
> correspond with, who are using a superior email client, much less angry.
>
> I suppose we can take a popular web-based email client and improve it to
> perfection (as we cannot do the same with gmail)
>
> 3. Winapt - http://winapt.berlios.de/
>
> 4. rindolf - a perl 5 compiler written in perl 5 that will make perl 5 on
> Parrot and other VMs, both C-hosting and perl-hosting.
>
> ---------------------
>
> These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is that
> I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in fact be
> profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how people who
are
> left to do what they want to do, rather than what they feel they are
obliged
> to do, produce superior results to those who don't. Such a company can be
a
> very powerful force, even in comparison to Google. And most importantly it
> will be a great employer to work for.
>
> My problem is that while being a competent programmer and a philosopher
(or
> essayist or blogger as they are now called), I'm not sure I'm cut to do
> management. I need someone who'll manage me. Then I'll need to find
funding.
> This way I and others can get paid for doing the things they like to do on
> their free time, and the company can actually make a profit.
>
> I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to give
> us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing. Or we
can
> give consulting, contracting and support for projects that we have a lot
> of experience with. Alternatively, we can have a completely different
business
> model.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Shlomi Fish
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
> Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/
>
> If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
> one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
>     -- An Israeli Linuxer
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>




Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Roman!

DeCCing Perl-IL - please keep it this way.

On Tuesday 03 April 2007, Roman M. Parparov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If a potential recruiter gets to read this message, and follows the link
> to your livejournal entry,
> and reads the lines "I gave my boss at the workplace this list, which
> I'll hope he'll read as much
> as possible from.", I'd guess Shlomi Fish would be disqualified as both
> a candidate and a
> contractor.
>

Hi Roman!

If a contractor STFWes me, or even just visit my personal web-site (URL at the
bottom of every message I write) he'll find much more things due to which to
reject me:

1. http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/TheEnemy/ - offensive to many Arabs,
left-wingers, anti-Libertarians, pro-Israelis, etc.

2. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/ - offensive to
right-winged Israelis, and practicall every "humanitarian" people.

3. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ - offensive to
all "IP-Nazis" and ultra-right-winged people.

4. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/the-eternal-jew/ - incredibly
blasphemous - practically every Theist will be offended.

And there are more. I'm not optimising to make myself look good to potential
employers or commisioners. Instead, I'm trying to be the best possible man I
can be. And that means being the best possible philosopher[1]. And that means
speaking your mind. If I claim that Kant was a brilliant applied logician and
history's greatest practical joker, many philosophy professors will think I'm
talking non-sense. But I can prove that most of what he said was wrong, and
given his false reasoning show the problems with it. (And no, I haven't read
Kant yet - I was told it's incredibly inaccessible).

I believe in speaking my mind regardless of what the majority may think. At
ancient times people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. If we still
believed that today, then we wouldn't have landed on the moon. Similarly,
many or even most people believe that illegal narcotics should be illegal.
This is also wrong, and I can prove it.

Like I said, many people will hate me for what I said. But the most
enlightened people (regardless of their many opinions) will find value in me
speaking my mind so fearlessly[2]. I actually got some jobs because of my
site, and there are some things I care about more than having a job.
Hopefully, I will eventually become independent by becoming an
essayist/blogger and a FOSS developer and consultant. This will enable me to
get money for doing the things I'd like to do in my free time.[3]

What I meant by referring my boss to that, was that after I was fired I told
him I believe he has yet a lot to learn as far as software management is
concerned. **After** I was fired. So I was giving him a good advice.

It is possible many workplaces believe they are run in the best way possible,
and that employees should just shut up, be micro-managed and do as they told
and nothing more. However, there's no way I'd like working there, even if
they paid me a lot of money. And I believe clueful people who are looking for
consultants will be impressed that I'm familiar with "Joel on Software", Paul
Graham, ESR, etc. and may actually prefer me over someone else.

These are the companies I will most probably like to work for. They are much
fewer than dysfunctional companies, but that's where hackers like to work.
And for the record, I believe the company that fired me was as a general rule
such a place.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

[1] - or essayist. Or now some bloggers are like that.

[2] - Although I admit that I find the thought of being witch-hunted for what
I said not frightening, but rather exciting. People who feel fear and then do
what they do anyway, are much more courageous than me, who is just a crazy
romanticist.

[3] - And no, I don't think it will mean I'll be a leach on society. Some
philosophers have produced more than they consumed, and obviously that's the
case for the FOSS developers of many important projects.

> R.
> _______________________________________________
> Perl mailing list
> Perl@...
> http://perl.org.il/mailman/listinfo/perl



--

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Hi Nir!

No longer CCing Perl-IL where it isn't tolerated very much. I believe
discussions about the startup idea are, but not such "Why I got fired" ones.

On Tuesday 03 April 2007, Nir Simionovich wrote:
> Hi Shlomi,
>
>   I'm really sorry you got fired, it was kind'a nice seeing at the Black
> Steer from time to time.
>
>   But, I couldn't help but read something you wrote on your blog: "My main
> problem (and the reason I got fired) was that they were relatively clueless
> as far as software management was concerned". Please tell us that you don't
> really believe what you just said, as, I'm very sorry to say, that
> according to your motto, we should all stand up and leave our current work
> places.
>
>   My advice to you is this: next time when you get into a new work place,
> try not to stick out like a soar thumb from day one. Blend in, let time
> take its course,
> Nir S
>

You're right, of course. However, this time I feel the problem was with them,
and let me explain.

My experience in this company has been very positive. They were very
professional: had a great technology, had professional, friendly, good and
productive people, the environment was nice, the location was OK, we got some
perks like a kitchen with many snacks, and lots of informal meetings to
celebrate birthdays, etc.

I blended in relatively well for over 2 months, in which I had no depression.
I expected my job to be a kernel hacker hacking on Linux/BSD/etc. kernel
code, but as it turned out most of what I did was getting things to compile
and work, especially on VMware ESX which gave us a lot of trouble. We sold
high-end equipment (10Gbps cards) and we practically dealt with every
customer specifically, which I suppose was the right thing to do in our
position.

However, from my knowledge and experience in software management, I detected a
few problems:

1. We didn't use the best tools and equipment money can buy. I had only one
VMware ESX computer, which had to be rebooted and re-installed often. At my
first day at work, I was given an old computer with a small hard-disk
(20-40GB) and a CD-ROM (Not DVD-ROM or CD-RW or DVD-RW - CD-ROM!) drive. At
one point we ran out of space on the only hard-disk of our development
machine, which was 40 GB and the only hard-disks the lab bought were a
whopping 80 GB disks.

While I believe in equipment re-use and re-cycling, I think developers who
don't want to be delayed by such problems, need a bit more than that.

2. I was sometimes "caught" playing Sokoban or PySol, and was notified to
stop. Now, they had a policy of allowing the workers to surf the Internet
indefinitely, but did not like them playing games. Now, I'm not a game
addict, and frankly I play games to put my mind back into focus, not to waste
time. (There's a limit to how much I can play puzzle games.)

I think they were worried that developers who play games made a bad
impression. But to quote Feynman "What do you care what other people think?".
Some people work. Some people pretend that they are working. These two are
orthogonal. Sometimes playing games is good for one's productivity. If you
have a good programmer who you know has an average ("DC") productivity, you'd
better leave him alone and let him be.

3. There are other things I detected which I won't detail here.

------------------

I didn't comment on any of these things. I didn't tell him how to do things
differently. While trying to be as "Rosh Gadol" as possible as far as the
technical side of my work was concerned (given the limitations of it being
completely new to me, and not fluent in it). However, I simply let them be as
far as managing the company was concerned. Perhaps sometimes I quotes a
software management guru for support to what I wanted to do, but not often.
Often, I just made sure I can work the way I like despite limitations.

I was productive and achieved a lot of things. My supervisor, my co-workers
and my boss were as a general rule happy with me. So why did I get fired? I
was assigned a task to write a disassembler of sorts to our own internal
processor. I first thought I can do it in Perl, but later was instructed to
do it in C, so it will be capable of being in the drivers. At first I wanted
to do it quick-and-dirty, but my supervisor then wanted me to do it using a
dispatch table.

All of this delayed me.

Once I started writing the code, I decided to use Perl to generate at least
some of it, make and the GNU tool chain to build it on my local machine,
Python and ctypes to test it (with some unit tests for the Perl code in
Perl), and Test::Run ( http://web-cpan.berlios.de/modules/Test-Run/ ) to run
the tests and summarise everything (in colour - ;-)). I know it sounds like
an insane configuration, but it worked pretty well.

Obviously writing C code, even by generating it using Perl takes some time. My
boss (who's a brilliant Electrical Engineer) expected me to finish it in a
day or two, but then I told him that there was no way I could do it. Perhaps
it was my problem that I didn't tell them that one mother cannot deliver a
baby in one month. Perhaps I should have been more "Rosh Gadol" and told him
that it will take some time. Perhaps I should have asked him how urgently
they needed it.

However, I believe this was a human mistake. It was not my first mistake
there, but possibly the biggest one. ( My father, who is a bio-technological
manager, once said 90% of his decisions were mistakes. ) However, I've always
done mistakes, and while trying to learn from the mistakes of mine and
others, will probably always do mistakes. Even the largest and most
successful companies have done many mistakes, and I don't claim to be
anywhere near a good or experienced a manager enough to run such one. If I'm
ever going to be.

Perhaps they noticed a general trend of me being not independent enough and
too dependent on my supervisor and other workers. (Or so I've interpreted
it.). That was true, but it was because I still had too little experience
with it, and had to pick the brain of someone with more. [1]

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{
[1] - The reason workplaces want experience is not because people with
experience write better code, but because they know how to deal with problems
easier. For example, once someone on Freenode's #perl asked us why he gets
a "syntax error at line X" when the line was fine. Without looking at the
code, I told him that he was missing a semi-colon on the previous (code)
line. This indeed turned out to be the case.

I learned it by experiencing with Perl a lot. On a different time someone
asked why her script won't run when the sha-bang (#!/usr/bin/perl) is fine. I
told her I believe the she had a trailing carriage-return (CR or \r or
whatever) at this line and should remove it. It also turned out to be the
case, as the file originated from Windows. This I learned from hanging on
#perl, helping many people.
}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

As I could tell, my boss was a brilliant developer, but had too little wisdom
in managing people. Some people who become managers or team-leaders right
after university become very good managers, while other people with a lot of
experience in development and then management still suck at it. I'm not
saying the latter ones can't improve, but it takes some attitude and
determination to do so. (To quote Socrates - "I know that I do not know.").

I hope I didn't defame my workplace here. Like I said, they are a great place
to work, and they are good and friendly people and hopefully will improve.
For the record, I spoke perfectly honestly and sincerily here, although it's
just my side of the coin, and should be taken with a grain of salt. As you
can see, I didn't mention the company's name, and ask you to avoid mentioning
it here in semi-public.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Hi Aur! (and all)

On Monday 09 April 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
> Hi Shlomi,
>
> This is Aur (from Israel.rb).
>

Israel.rb == Ruby-IL.

> I've read your "When C is the best tool for the job" article.
>

Just for the record it is here:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/when-c-is-best/

> My impression is that after promising to deal with the list of claims:
> (1)    * "Java and/or .NET are better than C in every way.".
> (2)    * "Perl/Python/PHP/Ruby/Tcl are better than C."
> (3)    * "LISP is better than C".
> (4)    * "If you need speed, use O'Caml or Haskell - don't bother with C."
> (5)    * "C is for kernels."
> , you only deal with (1), (2), (5).

Actually, these and many similar claims are encountered times and again on the
Net. I tried to address the common theme.

>
> By giving an example of data crunching code that benefits from speed,
> you rule out Java and scripting languages.

I gave up Freecell Solver as an example, but it may not have been the best
example. I also regret the fact that:

<<<<<<<<
I explained why the Freecell Solver code will be slower in Java, but not why
it will also *feel wrong* in Java.
>>>>>>>>

( http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/when-c-is-best/ )

I should also note that OSNews have done me a dis-service by linking to the
raw HTML page of the article itself instead of the cover page, because the
cover page contains a vital correction and some links. I've learned from this
mistake and now try to make sure my articles are part of the site flow.

>
> You don't rule out high level compiled languages. You say nothing at
> all about how would the code be written in them.
>
> Why not write this code in Haskell? OCaml? APL? Lisp?
>

Because:

1. They often tend to have implementation problems. C just works, and gcc
works extremely well. Almost everything of importance nowadays is C or
C-hosted. Compare it with ghc (the standard Haskell compiler) that requires a
recent enough version of itself to compile.

2. They are often not as straightforward to program in than C. I know that
when I tried to implement an algorithm using Haskell with an array map for
Primes (a variation of Arthostenes' Sieve) it didn't work alright and did not
scale, while in Perl and C - it ran perfectly fine. (I suppose O'Caml would
be better.)

A hash also doesn't work quite right in Haskell. The two prominent projects I
know that are written in Haskell: darcs and pugs are both very slow, and
consume a lot of memory. Moreover, it takes a long time to compile pugs. You
may think it doesn't matter, but people like things to compile quickly so
they can develop faster, not be distracted to do something else for a long
time, and get over with it quickly. This is also an argument against funky
C++ code (like KDE's) using g++.

3. They tend to consume much more memory than C. I once thought O'Caml could
be a good substitute for Forth for satellites until I discovered that some
types of satellites can use only 128 KB of memory.

4. They're still an abstraction and an abstraction is not always what you
want. Sometimes you want to be close to the machine.

5. They tend to be much more buggy than gcc.

6. Some UNIXisms (or Win32isms) in them are harder to do in them, or otherwise
fell non-native than in C.

7. If you want to implement a virtual machine, then C is your best bet. perl5,
python, php, ruby, io, lua, clisp, most Scheme implementations, java, Mono
and Microsoft .NET, etc. are all written in C. To say nothing of C compilers.

8. You obviously cannot use Lisp or O'Caml for kernel code. However, one
should note that the amount of things you can do in user-land is growing. On
Linux (and other systems) nowadays, file systems, USB drivers, protocol
implementations, serial or parallel port controllers, etc. in high-level
languages, including Perl and friends.

However, some things are still too-level, too real-time or need to be too-fast
for that.

------------------

This is just off the top of my head.

I'm not saying you can't use higher-level languages than C for many domains
where once C or before that Assembly dominated the market. However, some
things still require C.

Some criticisms of the article said that similar opinions were voiced when C
started to become popular and people wrote things that said it won't
completely displace Assembly. Well, while C has become more popular than
Assembly, there's still a lot of code written in Assembly nowadays. So I
believe higher-level languages won't completely displace C either.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

On Monday 09 April 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
> So you basically say nothing more than "Haskell has a buggy
> implementation and the OSes I use are C so it's easier to communicate
> with them in C, no need for FFIs"?
>
>
> Aur
>

Hi Aur!

Please don't take it the wrong way, but you are annoying and you completely
mis-interpret me. I gave many reasons, but you only focus on one. I have a
policy against emails sent to me in private:

http://www.shlomifish.org/meta/FAQ/#should_i_email

Please IM me ( http://www.shlomifish.org/me/contact-me/ ) if you want to
continue this discussion.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

> On 4/9/07, Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Hi Aur! (and all)
> >
> > On Monday 09 April 2007, SonOfLilit wrote:
> > > Hi Shlomi,
> > >
> > > This is Aur (from Israel.rb).
> >
> > Israel.rb == Ruby-IL.
> >
> > > I've read your "When C is the best tool for the job" article.
> >
> > Just for the record it is here:
> >
> > http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/when-c-is-best/
> >
> > > My impression is that after promising to deal with the list of claims:
> > > (1)    * "Java and/or .NET are better than C in every way.".
> > > (2)    * "Perl/Python/PHP/Ruby/Tcl are better than C."
> > > (3)    * "LISP is better than C".
> > > (4)    * "If you need speed, use O'Caml or Haskell - don't bother with
> > > C." (5)    * "C is for kernels."
> > > , you only deal with (1), (2), (5).
> >
> > Actually, these and many similar claims are encountered times and again
> > on the Net. I tried to address the common theme.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

First of all, my apologies for those who my take this e-mail as
off-topic, or non-relevant to their mailing list.


We're organizing a Debian Etch release party (see
http://www.debian.org/News/2007/20070408) in Jerusalem this Saturday.


Date: Saturday 14/04/2007.

Time: 21:00

Place: Focaccita Bar/Restaurant, Jerusalem ( http://xrl.us/votf ).


Everybody is invited :), if there are any inquiries related to this
announce, please e-mail (or cc) me directly, since I'm not registered to
all the mailing lists.


Best regards,

shay

On 09 Apr 2007 09:43:49 -0700
Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:


> Hi Aur!

Could you please keep your off list discussions off the list?

Regards,
	 Tal Kelrich
	 Practicing Discordian

--
Tal Kelrich
PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F  CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
----
Your goose is cooked.
(Your current chick is burned up too!)
----

On Tuesday 10 April 2007 20:44:18 Tal Kelrich wrote:
> On 09 Apr 2007 09:43:49 -0700
>
> Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > Hi Aur!
>
> Could you please keep your off list discussions off the list?

It is not Off-Topic.
This is list is all about hacking and your average off-topic on any other
linux/FOSS/computers mailing list.


--
Regards,
牋牋牋牋Tzahi.
--
Tzahi Fadida
Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: 爏ee at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html

On 10 Apr 2007 12:45:36 -0700
Tzahi Fadida <Tzahi.ML@...> wrote:

> On Tuesday 10 April 2007 20:44:18 Tal Kelrich wrote:
> > On 09 Apr 2007 09:43:49 -0700
> >
> > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > > Hi Aur!
> >
> > Could you please keep your off list discussions off the list?
>
> It is not Off-Topic.
> This is list is all about hacking and your average off-topic on any
> other linux/FOSS/computers mailing list.
>
>

I didn't say it was Off Topic (although, IMHO it was).
It was a private message to someone to continue the discussion off
list, such things are best sent directly. especially when the entire
discussion was off the list in the first place (only here in this case,
because someone felt the need to CC it to the list).

Regards,
	 Tal Kelrich
	 Practicing Discordian
	 Episkopos of the Black Cat Cabal

DISCLAIMER:
Opinions represented within (or without), explicitly, implicitly, or
in some other way are my opinions, although you may share them, if you
like.

--
Tal Kelrich
PGP fingerprint: 3EDF FCC5 60BB 4729 AB2F  CAE6 FEC1 9AAC 12B9 AA69
Key Available at: http://www.hasturkun.com/pub.txt
----
Living in LA is like not having a date on Saturday night.
		 -- Candice Bergen
----

Hi Tal! (and everybody)

On Thursday 12 April 2007, Tal Kelrich wrote:
> On 10 Apr 2007 12:45:36 -0700
>
> Tzahi Fadida <Tzahi.ML@...> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 20:44:18 Tal Kelrich wrote:
> > > On 09 Apr 2007 09:43:49 -0700
> > >
> > > Shlomi Fish <shlomif@...> wrote:
> > > > Hi Aur!
> > >
> > > Could you please keep your off list discussions off the list?
> >
> > It is not Off-Topic.
> > This is list is all about hacking and your average off-topic on any
> > other linux/FOSS/computers mailing list.
>
> I didn't say it was Off Topic (although, IMHO it was).
> It was a private message to someone to continue the discussion off
> list, such things are best sent directly. especially when the entire
> discussion was off the list in the first place (only here in this case,
> because someone felt the need to CC it to the list).
>

Just for the record, I'd like to note that:

1. Aur sent me a message privately.

2. Since I found the reply of value to a mailing list and since I hate a lot
of handling such private email, I emailed him back asking for permission to
CC my reply here.

3. He said it's OK.

4. I posted my reply.

5. He replied to me in private (by accident) with the top-posted, laconic and
off-tangent reply, that only addressed one of my arguments. After talking
with him on IM, I found out that he wanted to address each point one by one
and started a discussion.

However, that was not the proper way to do it.

-------------------

Now I have a policy against people writing me in private as replies to my
mailing lists' posts. From now on, most of them will end up in my ham folder
unreplied. (You have been warned).

If you have any comments regarding my original posting to this list (= the
reply to Aur's mail) please do. Otherwise, let's stop this useless discussion
about Netiquette.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] Mission Statement
for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in Israel?
> Here's how I define perfect:
>
> 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.

Just a thought:

Maybe these issues are not as important as you think?
Some of the most interesting small projects that I ever worked on didn't
follow any of these rules. What *is* bad, however, are employers that try
to stuff their own (often stupid) software management techniques down your
throat. I don't mind that my employer doesn't use a specific software
management technique, but it does bother me when the technical team wishes
to use some technique, and this wish is vetoed by the management (for legal
reasons, legacy reasons, investment in some commercial software, etc.).

I believe it is more important what you work on, and *why* you work on it.

The "what" is obvious, but the "why" is also important: Are you working on
something because you believe it's important (and perhaps even helped to
invent), or because some clueless client or equally-clueless bossed "dropped"
some stupid requirement on you? Are you working toward a long-term goal you
can understand and believe in, or are you being "blown in the wind" (using
the ship metaphore I used in previous post) each month doing whatever things
your boss, clients, or whatever, wants you to do this month?

For me, the perfect employer would have me working toward long-term goals I
believe in.

This is also why I like working on free software (and especially Hspell),
which allows me to work in exactly this manner. Users' requirements are
always in the background, but I'm free to choose my own priorities and own
long-term goal, and stick to that goal (which in the Hspell case, has been
more-or-less been done).

> 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but also
> ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and companies
> ask
> us for permission to use our software - the better.

Is this going to be a company producing software, a services company (like
consulting, etc.), a company for which software is just a part of (e.g.,
a hardware company, like TiVo), or what?

From most of your description, it sounds like you're talking about a software
company. If this is the case, I don't understand your business plan. How is
this company to profit? What is it selling if everything it works on is open
source?

> 5. We will allow free choice of language.

Programming language, or human language?
What if one employee decides to talk in French and program in Fortran - how
will anybody else understand him?
Of course, there should be diversity (not the 100% Java environment I
currently work in) but "free choice" is a little too strong.

> 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself to
> the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can consider
> themselves part of the company.

Ah?
You lost me here. What does "being part of the company" mean, if you don't
get paid?

> These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is that
> I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in fact be
> profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how people who are
> left to do what they want to do, rather than what they feel they are obliged
> to do, produce superior results to those who don't. Such a company can be a
> very powerful force, even in comparison to Google. And most importantly it
> will be a great employer to work for.

Free Software is an excellent proof of the superior results of the processes
you describe. However, it doesn't provide much proof that you can profit from
it by selling software (which it sounds like you're planning).
We already have "Free Software", and people can "just add themselves to
Free Software" at will and work on what they want. The only question is how
your company fits into this puzzle.

> I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to give
> us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing. Or we can

It sounds like you're describing now the "partnership" model we once discussed,
of creating a free-software/consulting firm which works very similarly to how
law firms currently work. This is indeed a good idea, and one which I'd like
to see materialize. But it is very far from what you described above...


--
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Apr 12 2007, 24 Nisan 5767
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |are not my own.

On Wed, Apr 04, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [Israel.pm] [hackers-il]
Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> If a contractor STFWes me, or even just visit my personal web-site (URL at the
> bottom of every message I write) he'll find much more things due to which to
> reject me:
>
> 1. http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/TheEnemy/ - offensive to many Arabs,
> left-wingers, anti-Libertarians, pro-Israelis, etc.
>
> 2. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/ - offensive to
> right-winged Israelis, and practicall every "humanitarian" people.

This is all irrelevant. No right-winged employer can realistically expect
all his employees to be right-winged (and vice versa), unless he's a total
fanatic. No employer that I ever worked ever for cared about my political
position.

> 3. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ - offensive to
> all "IP-Nazis" and ultra-right-winged people.

Again, irrelevant, unless you try working for RIAA - which I know you wouldn't
want to anyway.

> And there are more. I'm not optimising to make myself look good to potential
> employers or commisioners. Instead, I'm trying to be the best possible man I
> can be. And that means being the best possible philosopher[1]. And that means
> speaking your mind.

The philosopher Peter Singer wrote a section (quoted in his "greatest hits"
book, "Writings on an Ethical Life") on why we should listen (on ethical
questions) to philosophers, rather than to the ramblings of any random
person, or a person from a different profession (e.g., a priest, doctor,
or in your case, a programmer ;-)).

One of the points he made was that it is professional philosophers who can
devote all their time to thinking about the issues being discussed (in his
case, ethics), and their opinions were formed after a lot of thinking, and
are (usually) not just something they wrote down after an afternoon of
basking in the sun. These philosophers have time not just to think, but also
to read other people's opinions, and more importantly (as he sees it) - to
check the facts.

So if you want to be the "best possible philosopher", you need to devote your
time to it. Have you considered getting a degree in philosophy? Perhaps
getting a job in philosophy (in the academia, writing books that will be
sold, etc.?) Or at least devoting all your free time to philosophy (and not
to other hobbies like programming)? Because if you don't, you can hardly become
the "best possible philosopher". All you can perhaps aspire to is to be
someone interested in philosophy (like I consider myself).

"Speaking your mind" doesn't make you a philosopher - it depends what you
say, and to whom. Speaking your mind when what you have to say is not well
thought out or stupid (and I'm not suggesting that what you say is like that!),
or when you speak out your mind to the wrong people, can make you a nudnik
or spammer, not a philosopher.

> If I claim that Kant was a brilliant applied logician and
> history's greatest practical joker, many philosophy professors will think I'm
> talking non-sense. But I can prove that most of what he said was wrong, and
> given his false reasoning show the problems with it. (And no, I haven't read
> Kant yet - I was told it's incredibly inaccessible).

Ah? How can you prove that somebody was wrong without reading what he read???

I'm not saying you should read Kant's original works - I also didn't - but
at least don't claim you can prove them wrong unless you did.

> I believe in speaking my mind regardless of what the majority may think. At
> ancient times people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. If we still
> believed that today, then we wouldn't have landed on the moon. Similarly,
> many or even most people believe that illegal narcotics should be illegal.
> This is also wrong, and I can prove it.

Very well, speak your mind. I'm all for it. But like Comedians and DJs know,
and you should too, you need to know your crowd. Feel free to preach smoking
pot to your friends, but you wouldn't really want to do it to a group of angry
cops you see on the street, or to a group of school children for that matter.
Similarly, you can be 100% for free software, without preaching to your boss
all the time. When asked, always give the pro-free-software answer, but when
you're not asked, don't "preach". Your boss is paying you to do what he asked,
not to preach to him. And it goes both ways - you're working for him because
you want his money - not because you agree with everything he thinks.

> Hopefully, I will eventually become independent by becoming an
> essayist/blogger and a FOSS developer and consultant. This will enable me to
> get money for doing the things I'd like to do in my free time.[3]

Good luck (and I'm not saying this cynically).

> It is possible many workplaces believe they are run in the best way possible,
> and that employees should just shut up, be micro-managed and do as they told
> and nothing more. However, there's no way I'd like working there, even if
> they paid me a lot of money. And I believe clueful people who are looking for
> consultants will be impressed that I'm familiar with "Joel on Software", Paul
> Graham, ESR, etc. and may actually prefer me over someone else.

If you believe your job sucks, go out and look for a better one, but try to
hold on to the one you have in the meanwhile - both because I supposed that
you (like most us mortals) need the money to live, and because it's easier
to get a job while you already have one (employers are always suspicious of
people who got fired - it sounds like an anti-recommendation).


--
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Apr 12 2007, 24 Nisan 5767
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Promises are like babies: fun to make,
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |but hell to deliver.

Hi Nadav!

Thanks for your email.

On Thursday 12 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [Israel.pm] [hackers-il]
Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> > If a contractor STFWes me, or even just visit my personal web-site (URL
> > at the bottom of every message I write) he'll find much more things due
> > to which to reject me:
> >
> > 1. http://www.shlomifish.org/humour/TheEnemy/ - offensive to many Arabs,
> > left-wingers, anti-Libertarians, pro-Israelis, etc.
> >
> > 2. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/israel-pales/ - offensive to
> > right-winged Israelis, and practicall every "humanitarian" people.
>
> This is all irrelevant. No right-winged employer can realistically expect
> all his employees to be right-winged (and vice versa), unless he's a total
> fanatic. No employer that I ever worked ever for cared about my political
> position.
>
> > 3. http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/case-for-file-swapping/ -
> > offensive to all "IP-Nazis" and ultra-right-winged people.
>
> Again, irrelevant, unless you try working for RIAA - which I know you
> wouldn't want to anyway.
>
> > And there are more. I'm not optimising to make myself look good to
> > potential employers or commisioners. Instead, I'm trying to be the best
> > possible man I can be. And that means being the best possible
> > philosopher[1]. And that means speaking your mind.
>
> The philosopher Peter Singer wrote a section (quoted in his "greatest hits"
> book, "Writings on an Ethical Life") on why we should listen (on ethical
> questions) to philosophers, rather than to the ramblings of any random
> person, or a person from a different profession (e.g., a priest, doctor,
> or in your case, a programmer ;-)).
>
> One of the points he made was that it is professional philosophers who can
> devote all their time to thinking about the issues being discussed (in his
> case, ethics), and their opinions were formed after a lot of thinking, and
> are (usually) not just something they wrote down after an afternoon of
> basking in the sun. These philosophers have time not just to think, but
> also to read other people's opinions, and more importantly (as he sees it)
> - to check the facts.
>

I heavily disagree with that claim and let me explain why. I don't devote all
my time to thinking, or all my time to programming, or all my time to writing
essays, or whatever. However, I believe that by being eclectic in what I do,
I can then reflect on something else I do, etc. By devising a good algorithm
or designing a program properly, I become a more intelligent man, and this
enables me to have better ideas for essays. Also, by writing essays and
perfecting them according to other people's input I become a better
programmer.

This is similar to the fact that learning a radically different and
enlightening programming language will make you a better programmer even in
the existing language.

Over-specialisation is very dangerous. According to:

http://www.neo-tech.com/zero/part5.html

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
A mathematician alone, no matter how brilliant he might be, could not be a
threat to a neocheater without the knowledge of other fields and the rest of
the world, and without the means of achieving financial independence --
without a business integration. So long as those who are bright remain
divided and "specialized", oblivious of the world, neocheaters are safe to
exercise their "power" and use those scholars for their own advantages. This
is what happened and what has been happening throughout the entire history of
man. Moreover, some of those scholars turned to mysticism or neocheating and
achieved political and/or religious prominence. The so-called
social "intellectuals" of today are the direct offspring of those
earlier "scholars turned neocheaters".

Research in the fields of biology and anthropology reveals that all the
species and tribes that became extinct did so because of
overspecialization.The current educational systems of the world, which
originated in the neocheating strategy of ancient political powers, emphasize
specialization, and thus endanger the continuation of the human species.
Until today, the least specialized field, the field that requires the widest
integration of knowledge, has been politics, where neocheaters, who have the
least regard for knowledge, gravitate the most. Ironically and tragically,
the fittest to survive in the mysticism-ridden world of inverted reality have
been the least capable of surviving in reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's why I believe a man of many talents (or a so-called "Renaissance Man")
is much better at everything he does than someone who focuses on one talent
alone. While only other people can proclaim I am Renaissance Man, I can
testify I am a man of many talents, and always try to write what I want.

By becoming a full time philosopher who does nothing in real-life but think
and write, I'll lose my edge. Philosophy and insights come from experience
and from getting your hands dirty. You need to learn in order to experiment,
and you need to experiment in order to teach.

As much as ivory tower philosophers are respected by the Academe, I have to
say I found more value in philosophers that are do'ers: Ayn Rand, Paul
Graham, Joel Spolsky, Eric S. Raymond, Frank R. Wallace (the Neo-Tech guy),
etc. Nowadays the real philosophers are essayists or often even just
bloggers. I often found a lot of value in a Slashdot comment by an obscure
user.

I call myself a philosopher, because I've reached many philosophical insights.
Every field has a philosophy attached to it. While you can write a lot of
code, without reflecting on what you write (using philosophy, logic, etc.)
you'll hardly be any efficient.

> So if you want to be the "best possible philosopher", you need to devote
> your time to it. Have you considered getting a degree in philosophy?
> Perhaps getting a job in philosophy (in the academia, writing books that
> will be sold, etc.?) Or at least devoting all your free time to philosophy
> (and not to other hobbies like programming)? Because if you don't, you can
> hardly become the "best possible philosopher". All you can perhaps aspire
> to is to be someone interested in philosophy (like I consider myself).
>

I could get a degree in philosophy. On the other hand, Ayn Rand "only" had a
B.A. in History, and Frank R. Wallace has a Ph.D. in Inorganic Chemsitry. So
far it seems the non-technical degree that interests me the most is in
ancient history of the Near East.

However, I don't see why I cannot philosophise without having a degree in
Philsophy. Perhaps some idiot (= foolish) Philosophy Professors will me write
me off as unprofessional (just like I was told most of them wrote off Ayn
Rand), but I know better than to believe them.

So Nadav, I think you have been trolled. However, trolling you was not an
original intenion of mine.

> "Speaking your mind" doesn't make you a philosopher - it depends what you
> say, and to whom. Speaking your mind when what you have to say is not well
> thought out or stupid (and I'm not suggesting that what you say is like
> that!), or when you speak out your mind to the wrong people, can make you a
> nudnik or spammer, not a philosopher.
>

I agree that speaking my mind does not make you a philosopher. However,
a "spammer" is someone who sends unsolicited email to a very large amount of
people, not just posts a message on it to a small number of mailing lists or
web-boards. I may be regarded by some as a "nudniq", but I believe my essays
are of value, and I'm always getting input from them on my own mailing list
of reviewers (which I'll be glad to join anyone of you), and also ask people
to read it on the IRC.

And I think you're confusing my techniques of publicing my articles with what
I write in the articles themselves. I consider myself a philosopher because
I'm trying to practice that, and that's what I'm doing. Historically
philosophers had a great deal of training and professions. You don't need to
have a Ph.D. in Philosophy to be a philosopher just as it is well known that
some high school (or younger) students with one year of experience in
programming are more productive and write far better code than many people
with a Ph.D. in Computer Science, and 10 years of experience.

While education is important, your output is what matters, not what you've
earned.

> > If I claim that Kant was a brilliant applied logician and
> > history's greatest practical joker, many philosophy professors will think
> > I'm talking non-sense. But I can prove that most of what he said was
> > wrong, and given his false reasoning show the problems with it. (And no,
> > I haven't read Kant yet - I was told it's incredibly inaccessible).
>
> Ah? How can you prove that somebody was wrong without reading what he
> read???
>
> I'm not saying you should read Kant's original works - I also didn't - but
> at least don't claim you can prove them wrong unless you did.

I have read many of Kant's conclusions - from you or otherwise. And I can
prove them to be wrong based on Logic and more basic assumptions. According
to Neo-Tech, everything of importance can be deduced from the biological
nature of men and women (and possibly some other natural laws and facts) and
using Logic.

>
> > I believe in speaking my mind regardless of what the majority may think.
> > At ancient times people believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. If we
> > still believed that today, then we wouldn't have landed on the moon.
> > Similarly, many or even most people believe that illegal narcotics should
> > be illegal. This is also wrong, and I can prove it.
>
> Very well, speak your mind. I'm all for it. But like Comedians and DJs
> know, and you should too, you need to know your crowd. Feel free to preach
> smoking pot to your friends, but you wouldn't really want to do it to a
> group of angry cops you see on the street, or to a group of school children
> for that matter. Similarly, you can be 100% for free software, without
> preaching to your boss all the time. When asked, always give the
> pro-free-software answer, but when you're not asked, don't "preach". Your
> boss is paying you to do what he asked, not to preach to him. And it goes
> both ways - you're working for him because you want his money - not because
> you agree with everything he thinks.
>

I agree. In my case, I didn't preach them the Joel way or any other way until
after I got fired. And it was not a preach, it was a general recommendation.

Like I said, people can find a lot of dirt about me on the Internet by using a
search with "shlomif" or "shlomi fish" and some selected keywords. But I
don't care much because keeping a perfectly good image is much harder than
not, and most of the employers I'd love to work for wouldn't care too much
about what I said or did not say. That's because they know it would be
irrelevant to my job as a programmer.

> > Hopefully, I will eventually become independent by becoming an
> > essayist/blogger and a FOSS developer and consultant. This will enable me
> > to get money for doing the things I'd like to do in my free time.[3]
>
> Good luck (and I'm not saying this cynically).
>

Thanks!

> > It is possible many workplaces believe they are run in the best way
> > possible, and that employees should just shut up, be micro-managed and do
> > as they told and nothing more. However, there's no way I'd like working
> > there, even if they paid me a lot of money. And I believe clueful people
> > who are looking for consultants will be impressed that I'm familiar with
> > "Joel on Software", Paul Graham, ESR, etc. and may actually prefer me
> > over someone else.
>
> If you believe your job sucks, go out and look for a better one, but try to
> hold on to the one you have in the meanwhile - both because I supposed that
> you (like most us mortals) need the money to live, and because it's easier
> to get a job while you already have one (employers are always suspicious of
> people who got fired - it sounds like an anti-recommendation).

I actually liked my job, and in fact the news that I was fired quite
distressed me. So I was not looking for a different one at that point, but
rather trying to do my job in the best way possible.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Hi Nadav!

On Thursday 12 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 02, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "[hackers-il] Mission
Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> > That has made me thinking: why can't there be a perfect workplace in
> > Israel? Here's how I define perfect:
> >
> > 1. Integrates the best of http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ ,
> > http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/ ,
> > http://www.extremeprogramming.org/ ,
> > http://www.paulgraham.com/ , etc.
>
> Just a thought:
>
> Maybe these issues are not as important as you think?
> Some of the most interesting small projects that I ever worked on didn't
> follow any of these rules.

All of these rules are not a panacea or a necessity. To quote Joel from
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html :

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Of course, these are not the only factors that determine success or failure:
in particular, if you have a great software team working on a product that
nobody wants, well, people aren't going to want it. And it's possible to
imagine a team of "gunslingers" that doesn't do any of this stuff that still
manages to produce incredible software that changes the world. But, all else
being equal, if you get these 12 things right, you'll have a disciplined team
that can consistently deliver.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

However, integrating them all will make your programmers happier, the employer
happier and everyone more effective.

> What *is* bad, however, are employers that try
> to stuff their own (often stupid) software management techniques down your
> throat. I don't mind that my employer doesn't use a specific software
> management technique, but it does bother me when the technical team wishes
> to use some technique, and this wish is vetoed by the management (for legal
> reasons, legacy reasons, investment in some commercial software, etc.).
>
> I believe it is more important what you work on, and *why* you work on it.
>
> The "what" is obvious, but the "why" is also important: Are you working on
> something because you believe it's important (and perhaps even helped to
> invent), or because some clueless client or equally-clueless bossed
> "dropped" some stupid requirement on you? Are you working toward a
> long-term goal you can understand and believe in, or are you being "blown
> in the wind" (using the ship metaphore I used in previous post) each month
> doing whatever things your boss, clients, or whatever, wants you to do this
> month?
>

Right.

> For me, the perfect employer would have me working toward long-term goals I
> believe in.
>
> This is also why I like working on free software (and especially Hspell),
> which allows me to work in exactly this manner. Users' requirements are
> always in the background, but I'm free to choose my own priorities and own
> long-term goal, and stick to that goal (which in the Hspell case, has been
> more-or-less been done).

In a previous workplace of mine I was instructed to translate a PHP+Flash 8
program from PHP to Perl. At first, I thought it was a legacy program, which
needed to be translated, and started working on it. Since I did not want to
fork the Flash 8 code, I decided to emulate the PHP behaviour in Perl. This
took a lot of work.

As it turned out all of it happened because our marketing department wanted
the application to be either "PHP, ASP or Perl" so people can easily deploy
it. But as you know, maintaining three differenet codebases in three
different languages does not scale, and always break.[1] My boss told me it
was equivalent to maintaining three different translations, but that's not
the case, as someone who worked with most translation tools now.

{{{{{{{{{{{{
[1] - XP says that you shouldn't also maintain a codebase and some external
documentation that describes it because the code will always grow out of date
with the documentation.
}}}}}}}}}}}}

This is one case, where the whims of marketing (who I think did not understand
the technology properly, and the fact that just having a PHP-only codebase
will give us most of the marketshare), caused the engineers to become
sub-optimal. I'm not claiming the engineers are always right, just that they
should be taken into the equation.

A good example of a case which almost completely ignores its engineers is the
present-day OS division of Microsoft. They are creating more and more complex
technologies in their operating system, which is growing into a bug-to-bug
backwards compatible mess that no one wants or is able to tweak. And even
Vista is still much inferior to the elegenance and power of some
high-quality, open-source, UNIX-based OSes. Vista came up with all of its
most-hyped features excluded early on.

>
> > 3. We will work on open source software exclusively. Not just GPL - but
> > also ,and often preferably, LGPL or MIT X11. The less other people and
> > companies ask
> > us for permission to use our software - the better.
>
> Is this going to be a company producing software, a services company (like
> consulting, etc.), a company for which software is just a part of (e.g.,
> a hardware company, like TiVo), or what?
>
> From most of your description, it sounds like you're talking about a
> software company. If this is the case, I don't understand your business
> plan. How is this company to profit? What is it selling if everything it
> works on is open source?
>

Well, first of all let me note that this idea is very theoretical and while I
think it is good, I won't recommend you to depend on it. Here are some
business models:

1. We'll create FOSS codebases for websites, (like a better webmail, or a
better freelancers board (see http://xrl.us/vqdj )) and then set up our own
sites based on them. Alternatively we can also hack on existing FOSS
frameworks (while contributing everything back to FOSS) and again set up our
own sites based on them.

2. We'll support our software. While the code will be perfectly usable, and
can even be used in a proprietary context, some people will want to consult
us on how to set it up, get it working, debug problems, etc. The code will be
free, but our time won't be.

3. I suppose that if someone is the company's paid employee, we can ask him to
give us a percentage of his fees for consulting, contracting, or commisions.

> > 5. We will allow free choice of language.
>
> Programming language, or human language?
> What if one employee decides to talk in French and program in Fortran - how
> will anybody else understand him?
> Of course, there should be diversity (not the 100% Java environment I
> currently work in) but "free choice" is a little too strong.
>

Programming language, of course. :-) All of our internal communication will be
in English, and a good control of English will be necessary to be employed.

I'm not sure I know what I have meant by "free choice of language". Maybe I
meant that we won't force someone to work with a language against his will or
because it's the most hyped language currently.

> > 6. Everyone can become a member of the company simply by adding himself
> > to the wiki. He or she will not get paid immediately, but they still can
> > consider themselves part of the company.
>
> Ah?
> You lost me here. What does "being part of the company" mean, if you don't
> get paid?

It means that you're part of the community. For example, I was active in the
Subversion #svn channel on Freenode (helping people with their problems,
etc.), read some of the mailing list, contributed patches, and wrote a few
advocacy articles, without getting paid. I no longer do, because Subversion
has been working for me very well for a long time, and I no longer feel my
help there is needed much. (While the GIMP is in much worse development
condition and can get all the help it can get[1].) But I was still part of
the community, even though I didn't get paid directly.

So in a sense you can work on this company's projects, or otherwise take part
in its discussions, without yet getting paid, or even without ever wanting to
getting paid.

{{{{
[1] - Just for the record, I believe GIMP could have been in a much better
shape nowadays if it had not been for the high tactlessness and apathy by
many of its core developers.
}}}}

>
> > These are just a few examples - there are many more. But the point is
> > that I believe such a company will not only be very popular, but can in
> > fact be profitable. Paul Graham and ESR have rambled a lot about how
> > people who are left to do what they want to do, rather than what they
> > feel they are obliged to do, produce superior results to those who don't.
> > Such a company can be a very powerful force, even in comparison to
> > Google. And most importantly it will be a great employer to work for.
>
> Free Software is an excellent proof of the superior results of the
> processes you describe. However, it doesn't provide much proof that you can
> profit from it by selling software (which it sounds like you're planning).

I didn't claim I was going to sell software. There are other ways to make
money off software than selling it.

> We already have "Free Software", and people can "just add themselves to
> Free Software" at will and work on what they want. The only question is how
> your company fits into this puzzle.

See above.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

>
> > I suppose that once someone has signed a contract, we can tell him to
> > give us a percentage of all the consultancy/contracting he's been doing.
> > Or we can
>
> It sounds like you're describing now the "partnership" model we once
> discussed, of creating a free-software/consulting firm which works very
> similarly to how law firms currently work. This is indeed a good idea, and
> one which I'd like to see materialize. But it is very far from what you
> described above...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

Just a suggestion, for the most idealistic.
Perhaps you should consider combining a PHD degree and an open source
software/design. My degree was MSc, however, the project itself was open
sourced. I think this can be a good option for you since when you do PHD and
later be an associate in some university you can control the works of other
students (phd, msc, etc...). Look at big projects that come out of the
universities: linux, mosix, etc... All very crucial and important.
Granted, you can't get very rich, however, you are not getting there now
either.

On Monday 02 April 2007 15:10:54 Shlomi Fish wrote:

--
Regards,
牋牋牋牋Tzahi.
--
Tzahi Fadida
Blog: http://tzahi.blogsite.org | Home Site: http://tzahi.webhop.info
WARNING TO SPAMMERS: 爏ee at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/my2nis/spamwarning.html

On Thu, Apr 12, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [Israel.pm] [hackers-il]
Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> By becoming a full time philosopher who does nothing in real-life but think
> and write, I'll lose my edge. Philosophy and insights come from experience
> and from getting your hands dirty. You need to learn in order to experiment,
> and you need to experiment in order to teach.

It is conceivable that some "outside-world" experience can give you a
philosophical idea. For example, Richard Stallman's "free software" ideas
(and ideals) came after some real experience with a real printer. Many ideas
of Peter Singer (the philsopher I mentioned in a previous mail) probably
came from his experiences in a world eating meat and (ab)using animals.

However, once you have idea, it takes time and effort to make it into a
well-polished theory, book, or whatever. You can't do that if you don't devote
a lot of time to it. I'm not saying that you need to devote to it all your
time, or even most of your time - but if you spend 30 minutes a day "blogging",
I seriously doubt your ideas will have a strong impact on the world..
If Richard Stallman continued to work full-time on coding Emacs, he wouldn't
have had the effect he has today. Conversely, Linus who concentrated on "dirty"
code-writing hardly had any effect at all on free-software philosophy.

One problem with your "philosophy" posts (and I hope you don't take this as
an insult, I'm not trying to insult you) is that you do *not* do enough fact
checking or thinking on your theories. You raise ideas which have been
discussed by many philosophers in the past, but you never heard of them or
read their books (or books about them). You raise ideas on how to run a
country which doesn't go well with existing history as we know it. You raise
ideas on the perfect job, when your commulatative job experience is just a
few months, and you never talked to other people to hear about their job
experiences.
If you spent time on *research* - finding the facts, reading what other
philosophers said, listening to what other people think, and so on - that
will make you a better philosopher. If you can't do that because your time
is spent doing something else (be it programming or raising a kid), well,
that will never make you a better philosopher, unfortunately.

At least this is how I see it.

> While education is important, your output is what matters, not what you've
> earned.

This is 100% right. So if one day you'll write a brilliant philosophical
essay, I'd say, hats off for that auto-deduct renaisance-man. But until
then, I can still try to make suggestions ;-)

> I have read many of Kant's conclusions - from you or otherwise. And I can
> prove them to be wrong based on Logic and more basic assumptions. According
> to Neo-Tech, everything of importance can be deduced from the biological
> nature of men and women (and possibly some other natural laws and facts) and
> using Logic.

So basically, your argument is that since Neo-Tech is right, Kant must be
wrong. That would be a perfect proof, if only Neo-Tech was indeed right.
But how do you know it is? And what if neither of those two positions is
wrong, and Neo-Tech is only partially right, and Kant is also partially right?
And what does it mean to be "right" anyway? Philosophy isn't an exact science
like math or physics. You don't check a philosophical idea - which is a way
to look at the world - for correctness based on experiments; Nor can you
check them using just logic - because unlike mathematics, there is no fixed
set of "philosophical axioms" that everyone agrees with.

Just a small example, is it ethical to eat animals? Some say it is (like
probably Neo-Tech, since eating meat is in our biological design), some say
it isn't (like the aforementioned Peter Singer). There isn't a "right" answer.
The only thing that matters (to philosophers) is how you explain your answer,
and the assumptions you made during this explanation (the "axioms").
You can say "yes" with a good explanation, and you can say "no" with a good
explanation...

--
Nadav Har'El                        |     Thursday, Apr 12 2007, 24 Nisan 5767
nyh@...             |-----------------------------------------
Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |Having a smoking section in a restaurant
http://nadav.harel.org.il           |is like having a peeing section in a pool

Hi Nadav!

Please don't take it the wrong way, but I think that following my refute of
your claims, you have evaded them, and instead of saying that you stand
corrected, you tried to amend them. But I'll reply to them just in case.

On Thursday 12 April 2007, Nadav Har'El wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2007, Shlomi Fish wrote about "Re: [Israel.pm] [hackers-il]
Mission Statement for a New Company based on Voluntarism-taken-to-Extreme":
> > By becoming a full time philosopher who does nothing in real-life but
> > think and write, I'll lose my edge. Philosophy and insights come from
> > experience and from getting your hands dirty. You need to learn in order
> > to experiment, and you need to experiment in order to teach.
>
> It is conceivable that some "outside-world" experience can give you a
> philosophical idea. For example, Richard Stallman's "free software" ideas
> (and ideals) came after some real experience with a real printer. Many
> ideas of Peter Singer (the philsopher I mentioned in a previous mail)
> probably came from his experiences in a world eating meat and (ab)using
> animals.
>
> However, once you have idea, it takes time and effort to make it into a
> well-polished theory, book, or whatever. You can't do that if you don't
> devote a lot of time to it. I'm not saying that you need to devote to it
> all your time, or even most of your time - but if you spend 30 minutes a
> day "blogging", I seriously doubt your ideas will have a strong impact on
> the world.. If Richard Stallman continued to work full-time on coding
> Emacs, he wouldn't have had the effect he has today.
> Conversely, Linus who
> concentrated on "dirty" code-writing hardly had any effect at all on
> free-software philosophy.
>

Are you kidding? Linus had a huge effect. A lot of what he says has been very
influential. He's often being quoted. He is a wonderful humourist and has
provided a lot of balance to free software by not holding the radical
opinions that RMS does. And he projected the project of writing the Linux
kernel which is currently the most advanced open-source kernel and the one
used by the most popular free software OS.

From reading Linus, I think he's both extremely intelligent and extremely
wise. RMS, OTOH is very idealistic, very stubborn and completely unable to
distiniguish between the two. I often found value in what RMS said, but I
believe I usually agree with what Linus or other people like Tim O'Reilly say
more.

> One problem with your "philosophy" posts (and I hope you don't take this as
> an insult, I'm not trying to insult you) is that you do *not* do enough
> fact checking or thinking on your theories.

That may be true.

> You raise ideas which have been
> discussed by many philosophers in the past, but you never heard of them or
> read their books (or books about them). You raise ideas on how to run a
> country which doesn't go well with existing history as we know it.

History can often be interpreted in a misleading way. Some people claim that
the pre-depression USA was a counter-example for why Laissez-Faire Capitalism
does not work, but it wasn't LFC by a long shot. Some people claim that the
situation of the Negros in the USA was improved by the regulation, but for
all we know it could have been better without it and with a public,
voluntary, action on part of the Black people and the people who supported
them.

> You
> raise ideas on the perfect job, when your commulatative job experience is
> just a few months,

Actually my commulatative job experience is a few years.

> and you never talked to other people to hear about their
> job experiences.

I have in fact. On IRC, on Email, in real-life, etc.

Please stop making wrong generalisations about me.

> If you spent time on *research* - finding the facts, reading what other
> philosophers said, listening to what other people think, and so on - that
> will make you a better philosopher. If you can't do that because your time
> is spent doing something else (be it programming or raising a kid), well,
> that will never make you a better philosopher, unfortunately.
>

I could find facts. But I believe a philosopher has an artistic licence to
publish an essay without much fact checking. Just because he has this idea.
As you may know, I publish a lot of mini-essays on my blogs, because I have a
good idea, and don't want to form it into a good essay on my site (or don't
feel its scope justifies that), and instead just publish it there for
everybody to read.

> At least this is how I see it.
>
> > While education is important, your output is what matters, not what
> > you've earned.
>
> This is 100% right. So if one day you'll write a brilliant philosophical
> essay, I'd say, hats off for that auto-deduct renaisance-man. But until
> then, I can still try to make suggestions ;-)

I think many of my philosophical essays are good. Most of them are not about
philosophy proper ("What is existence?", "Is the meta-variable nature of the
presence of multi-purpose individualism beneficial for the collective state
of mind?"[1]) but rather about applicative philosophy.

If you're claiming I should invest more time in researching my essays, that
may be true, and I can agree with that. However, if you're claiming I should
get a Ph.D. in Philosophy, just to be able to call myself a philsopher - it's
not something I can agree with.

A good engineer is any person who is competent at doing engineering work, not
necessarily someone who has a degree in an engineering field. Similarly, a
philosopher may not have studied philosophy in university. I believe my
experience as a software developer, a student for Electrical Engineering in
the Technion, a K12 student, a writer of humourous stories, bits and
aphorisms, a writer and giver of presentations, a blogger, etc. give me
enough credit to call myself a philosopher. And I certainly have more in my
arsenal than most people with a B.A. in philosophy.

{{{{{{{{
[1] - Don't ask me what the latter question mean.
}}}}}}}}

>
> > I have read many of Kant's conclusions - from you or otherwise. And I can
> > prove them to be wrong based on Logic and more basic assumptions.
> > According to Neo-Tech, everything of importance can be deduced from the
> > biological nature of men and women (and possibly some other natural laws
> > and facts) and using Logic.
>
> So basically, your argument is that since Neo-Tech is right, Kant must be
> wrong.

That's not what I said. You completely mis-interpreted me. What I said was
that given several of Kant's conclusions, I could disprove them based on some
more basic assumptions and Logic. Nothing that has to do with Neo-Tech. I
don't know how Kant reached his conclusions, but since the conclusions are
wrong, I can assume his reasoning was wrong too. (Or else Logic, which is the
tool for non-contradictory identification, is useless.)

> That would be a perfect proof, if only Neo-Tech was indeed right.
> But how do you know it is? And what if neither of those two positions is
> wrong, and Neo-Tech is only partially right, and Kant is also partially
> right? And what does it mean to be "right" anyway?

I have some things I disagree with the core Neo-Tech documentation, or think
they should be corrected.  I also have many extensions or corrections to
Neo-Tech. And I think some of the strategy that Neo-Tech took was wrong.
However, that doesn't make me any less of a N-Ter, because in N-T people
think for themselves, guide themselves, and philosophise for themselves.

> Philosophy isn't an
> exact science like math or physics. You don't check a philosophical idea -
> which is a way to look at the world - for correctness based on experiments;
> Nor can you check them using just logic - because unlike mathematics, there
> is no fixed set of "philosophical axioms" that everyone agrees with.
>

Due to the liberty of speech anyone can utter the greatest stupidity, and it
is his right to do it. However, it is also my right to claim that he's
speaking non-sense, or even trying to voice a bad philosophy in order to do
harm. I believe that like Math, we can make a deduction about reality,
humans, societies, etc.

For example, many people assume that altruism, the belief that humans must or
should subject themselves to "higher causes" in order to live is good.
However, then Ayn Rand asked "Why?" - give me a good reason why. And you
cannot answer.

JFK said <<< Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do
for your country. >>>. There's also <<< Social good is superior to personal
good. >>> . That was a slogan of the German Nazi party. (and no, Godwin's Law
is not invoked here.)

Imagine what would happen if a vast majority of the people of the countries
surrounding Germany before WWII were armed with firearms. Wouldn't history be
completely different?

> Just a small example, is it ethical to eat animals? Some say it is (like
> probably Neo-Tech, since eating meat is in our biological design), some say
> it isn't (like the aforementioned Peter Singer). There isn't a "right"
> answer. The only thing that matters (to philosophers) is how you explain
> your answer, and the assumptions you made during this explanation (the
> "axioms"). You can say "yes" with a good explanation, and you can say "no"
> with a good explanation...

If you tell me Peter Singer's reasoning, I may be able to detect some flaws in
it. I can accept any philosophy as a philosophy, but I also reserve the right
to claim it is false, invalid and illogical. Otherwise, we might as well
agree that for each A, both A and Not-A are true, and being omni-knowing not
say anything later on.

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

See:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/

for an essay I wrote and published recently. There are some links to coverage
and discussion here:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/#\
coverage

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer

See:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/

for an essay I wrote and published recently. There are some links to coverage
and discussion here:

http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/computers/education/introductory-language/#\
coverage

Regards,

	 Shlomi Fish

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish      shlomif@...
Homepage:        http://www.shlomifish.org/

If it's not in my E-mail it doesn't happen. And if my E-mail is saying
one thing, and everything else says something else - E-mail will conquer.
     -- An Israeli Linuxer