I read that some time back and its complementary to much of what I
wrote in 'Why I am not a Professor'. The social analysis stuff is
quite accurate. There's a lot you can argue over. Two passages ring
true.
It's very difficult for creative programmers in the academic CS world
to compete with those in the free-software world. Academics have one
advantage: money. Free-software programmers have another: freedom.
Ideally one would have both, but if you have to pick, pick freedom.
That's it in a nutshell. Qi would never have been finished if I'd
stayed in my job. But the no money bit is a PITA. In the long run
you need both. And a creative stimulating environment. Unis are
supposed to provide freedom+stimulus+creativity+security; actually
they provide none of these except £ (and not a lot over here). Its a
dead-end that destroys many able minds.
I'm working on s solution to that one.
Also see Kent Pitman on unis being overpriced for their product.
> I read that some time back and its complementary to much of what I > wrote in 'Why I am not a Professor'. The social analysis stuff is > quite accurate. There's a lot you can argue over. Two passages ring > true.
in retrospect, i think the article was a simdgen too black-and-white, and had some egregiously incorrect things -- but there were, as you hilight, some very interesting and thought provoking parts, too. i just wish there were a future in which academia and industry could work better together.
> > I read that some time back and its complementary to much of what I
> > wrote in 'Why I am not a Professor'. The social analysis stuff is
> > quite accurate. There's a lot you can argue over. Two passages ring
> > true.
> in retrospect, i think the article was a simdgen too black-and-white,
> and had some egregiously incorrect things -- but there were, as you
> hilight, some very interesting and thought provoking parts, too. i
> just wish there were a future in which academia and industry could
> work better together.
|
