Free?

[Chante]

"Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j84ibc$1l0g$3 at digitalmars.com...
> Am 24.10.2011 02:35, schrieb Chante:
>> "Daniel Gibson" <metalcaedes at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j822kv$7jf$2 at digitalmars.com...
>>>
>>> I've never read a job description that said "we want a programmer 
>>> that
>>> has no job experience and has not touched GPL code either".
>>
>> While such a "concept" may be new to you, it is not to me. If I'm the
>> first to say it, maybe some who are not yet "tainted" will see it as a
>> differentiator and/or a way forward. Surely, if I had the funds to 
>> hire
>> programmers, the role description would be something like you stated
>> above.
>
> This would exclude many talented programmers - which are hard enough to
> find without restrictions like that.

Experience in programming is not necessarily an asset. It's easier to 
teach someone anew than it is to "unteach" someone. Those "talented" 
programmers that you mention may indeed be the ones I would want to avoid 
because that "talent" is chock full of viral source code techniques or 
proprietary patterns.

Programming isn't that hard, and it's not even very important. What is 
important is being able to render things in code. Say, a GUI or file 
system or a space shuttle launcher. I won't be looking for "coders" per 
se, but rather those who know how to implement something that I don't 
know how to or have no desire to. A WYSIWIG print engine, for example. I 
probably don't want to hire someone to do that either. I'll buy it from 
the company/individual who does that kind of thing after evaluating the 
choices. I don't have to start or support a "communistic movement". I can 
just go to the store and buy what I want (maybe even barter for it: I'll 
trade you my file system for your GUI system, e.g.)

> How is someone going to get experience without working with foreign 
> code?

Creating it, of course. The best way to learn programming is to jump in 
with both feet. I'd recommend NOT looking first at how others do it. Use 
the knowledge gained from the instructional materials. Looking at other 
renderings should come after trying it one's self. Have you ever heard 
music played by someone who learned it FIRST from the music sheet instead 
of trying to put it together on their own? The result is horrendous.

I do a little bit of consulting from time to time. A lot of times (almost 
always), the client tries to present a potential solution (nevermind that 
they don't have the foundational knowledge to do that) instead of stating 
the problem they want solved. What that does is color my mind immediately 
instead of leaving me to think freely to come up with what I think is the 
best solution (not to mention that it bypasses all my well-evolved 
methods designed to deliver a project efficiently).

> Reading books on programming and also exhibits you to foreign code 
> (that
> often doesn't even have an implicit license but only the license of the
> whole book that is basically "don't copy at all").

Read the other books then that really want to educate rather than to sell 
code.

Ideally, if I may fantasize a bit more, I wouldn't hire programmers. I'd 
hire "normal" ( ;-) ) people and teach them to program as it is done by 
the standards and methods of my company.

>
>> The ideal, for me, is
>> allying with others who are also not "tainted".
>
> i.e. people without any experience.

Exactly: with no PROGRAMMING experience. Of course, for the 
highly-comp-sci-like stuff, it's another story, but I'm thinking that 
those aren't "hires" but rather products that some other company makes 
which I will buy to use. Maybe have them whittle-out a little peace of 
their technology tailored to my needs.

>
>>> But I'd be interested in the opinions of other people in this 
>>> newsgroup
>>> who earn money with software development (or have done so in the 
>>> past):
>>> Have you ever experienced exposure to GPL'ed or proprietary software 
>>> as
>>> a hindrance for a job?
>>> Is the opposite true - Open Source commitment (GPL or otherwise) is a
>>> bonus in ones resume that increases the chances of being hired?
>>> (Or both - "depends on the job"?)
>>
>> "Job" is but one thing, freedom is another.
>
> Not getting contact with any "tainted" source code (like the DMD
> frontend, btw) doesn't seem like freedom to me.

It's a personal choice. It depends on one's goals and capabilities. I'm 
more of the type like Intel is as a company. Excerpt from their TOS for 
their AppUp program:

"Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy
INTEL OR ITS EMPLOYEES DO NOT ACCEPT OR CONSIDER UNSOLICITED IDEAS, 
INCLUDING IDEAS FOR NEW ADVERTISING CAMPAIGNS, NEW PROMOTIONS, NEW 
PRODUCTS OR TECHNOLOGIES, PROCESSES, MATERIALS, MARKETING PLANS OR NEW 
PRODUCT NAMES. PLEASE DO NOT SEND ANY ORIGINAL CREATIVE ARTWORK, SAMPLES, 
DEMOS, OR OTHER WORKS. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY IS TO AVOID 
POTENTIAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR DISPUTES WHEN INTEL'S PRODUCTS OR 
MARKETING STRATEGIES MIGHT SEEM SIMILAR TO IDEAS SUBMITTED TO INTEL. SO, 
PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR UNSOLICITED IDEAS TO INTEL OR ANYONE AT INTEL. 
IF, DESPITE OUR REQUEST THAT YOU NOT SEND US YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS, 
YOU STILL SEND THEM, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT INTEL MAKES NO ASSURANCES 
THAT YOUR IDEAS AND MATERIALS WILL BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL OR 
PROPRIETARY."


IOW, they have plenty of their own ideas and don't want or need anyone 
else's. I have a feeling that most programmers aren't that creative and 
tend to "requrgitate" what they have seen elsewhere, such as in viral 
source code, and that is not a good thing, not for my projects, anyway.

>
>> "Job" may be the only option
>> once one becomes "tainted". Surely one cannot say "clean room"
>> development for a product they offer from their own company once they
>> have exposed themselves, unknowingly or not, to viral source code or
>> another company's source code.
>
> So you're gonna start your own company without any prior professional
> experience and without looking at most (?) open source code and you'll
> only hire people that also have no experience? Good luck with that.

It sounds CRAZY, doesn't it! I'm hardly a noob at programming though. So 
much so, that I don't need to hire guru programmers. (I think everybody 
else is doing it "wrong").

>
> I don't see the value of "untainted" code per your definition.

Well maybe after reading this post you'll have a better understanding of 
my position on the matter.

> Of course you don't want to break copyright by mixing in code that you
> may not mix in (because of incompatible licenses or whatever), but this
> much paranoia is not needed and not feasible.

Well if it can't be had, then the alternatives would have to be 
evaluated. I do think, though, that the ideal situation is "growing" the 
developers rather than having to "unteach" (if that is even possible, 
given that the only patterns they may know is viral source patterns) 
existing ones.

>
> And if somebody claims you stole their code

And how would they ever know anyway, since my goals are to deliver 
"shrink-wrapped" software product, not source code product?

> they don't *have* to believe
> you if you say "I've never seen it", so in the end facts - or maybe 
> some
> incompetent judge or jury - will decide.

Doesn't it seem prudent to dodge that bullet from the get go?

> Or are you gonna breed you own programmers that are (from childhood 
> on!)

That probably would have been a great idea 10 or 20 years ago, for me. 
Maybe "I fucked up royally" in that regard.

> guaranteed to not have any exposure to "tainted" code by locking them 
> up
> without any contact to the rest of the world (including yourself,
> because you can't guarantee that you're not tainted)?

Well you're just presenting the extreme end case, which of course is not 
representative of the actual "landscape" of things. There is a range of 
between best case and worst case. I think the latter would be the case 
where someone has ONLY worked with viral source (or only at Microsoft?), 
and the best case would be training a non-programmer (for the 
non-highly-comp-sci things) with good capability in another domain.