Let me ramble a little about this whole affair. There are no pure answers.
Back in the stone age (i.e., mainframes with very limited remote
access), how did I get into the more challenging areas? Maybe that
environment is too different than today's. There were no
certifications. There were no introductory books, much less
computer-based training. Also, I was aiming at design and
programming, not support.
I first did some application programming in college. My day jobs, at
first, were as an editor or research assistant. In each of those
jobs, I got a little more computer exposure, and devoured every book
I could afford. Eventually, I made an internal transfer from the
documentation group to the programming group. It was a time of fairly
frequent job moves, and I used good personal networking and resume
skills to get ever more responsible jobs.
My first break into the more technical areas -- mainframe system
programming -- was while I was in a database retrieval/user support
job, where I read every manual I could get my hands on, and
experimented where I could. IBM's internals manuals were technically
licensed to the site, and marked restricted. At the same time, new
sets of manuals came out for new software release, and I began to
stake out the trash can of the head of system programming, retrieving
the discarded manuals after each release. Eventually, he found out,
was amused, and began to mentor me. The manuals alone wouldn't have
been enough to move up; I was constantly getting more theoretical
background. Part of this came from reading, but I was active in
professional societies like ACM and IEEE, went to every evening
seminar I could find, etc.
Was this violating copyright? I tend to think not, since I did work
at the site to which the materials were licensed, and I used either
assigned or discarded materials. I didn't make copies.
Let me quote the "hacker ethic," as codified by Stephen Levy. I am
_not_ using the term "hacker" here in a positive or negative sense,
but in its original meaning, which probably evolved at MIT.
-- Access to computers should be unlimited and total.
-- All information should be free.
-- Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.
-- Hackers should be judged by their hacking not bogus criteria such
as
degrees, age, race, or position.
-- You create art and beauty on a computer,
-- Computers can change your life for the better.
There is some value here, but I can't agree with every point. I
don't want unlimited and total access to the computer that is
controlling a respirator, bypass pump, or X-ray machine that my life
is dependent on.
The crux of the ethic, which impacts directly on the current
discussion, really is the second point. If all information is free,
how do the creators of information live? The GNU idea is that the
creators will get consulting and support work to make up for the loss
of revenue. Napster and such have the principle that if people can
try-before-they buy, it will increase the overall concert income to
bands, and probably increase CD sales.
True, I like to write. True, my writing helps my overall professional
reputation and improves the compensation in my day job. But, it's
not worth it to me to give away my time to write and give it away.
The basic model of compensation that I have with my publishers is
based on royalty on sales. Less sales, less compensation. Sure, there
are advances and specific commissions, but the reality is that if I
don't sell, I don't earn anything.
Now -- there are many people on the list that say "they can't afford
the materials" or "just want to learn." From my own experience, I'd
rephrase things a bit. There are lots of free materials available for
anyone with Internet access -- CCO, RFCs, etc. What is not available
free are the shortcuts to specific goals such as certification. If
one "just wants to learn," there are huge amounts of material
available. It just takes longer.
I drive a 1987 Jeep, but my main computer is a Mac G4. I have to make
decisions about what I can afford. When I was a beginner, I was able
to find mentors, but there weren't shortcuts to good jobs. Let's face
it -- the motivation for most people who want to get certified is to
improve their income quickly. Nothing wrong with that.
But I don't understand how some people could look me in the eye and
say "I'm going to take what you produce for part of your income,
without compensation, so I can improve my income."
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11571&t=11342
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
