[9oliYQjP]

I think PG's qualification of "very best" is important here. While he has restricted his assessment to programmers, that need not be the case. This is applicable to the very best in any profession.

I don't consider myself to be in the category of very best hackers, but I am pretty good, and I have never worried about money. If you have a decent reputation there will always be somebody practically begging for you to take their money to do some work for them.

While you're probably correct that no one person can just unilaterally walk into Google and give themselves a job, the very best hackers can get pretty close to that. I'm sure they're probably an email or a phone call away from getting an interview. If you haven't tried to find good programmers, it'll be difficult to grasp just how very difficult it is to find good programmers. I have interviewed programmers for a number of positions and, quite frankly, it is a bit disconcerting what I have seen. In the past 2 years I have interviewed about 20 programmers and only 1 blew me away. He was just brilliant. Roughly 4 were good. And the other 15 were kind of crappy. We were forced to hire more than 4...

[eb]

Absolutely. I think the meaning of "hacker" is being diluted, I'm seeing people use it interchangeably with "programmer" on this site.

When I think of great hackers, guys like Richard Stallman, Justin Frankel, or DHH come to mind. They're most certainly idealistic and only a couple of emails away from getting hired at Google.

[vesterr]

Google is large enough it can take on people with almost any expertise.

But what if DHH wanted to get a job hacking the Linux kernel? Or Frankel wanted to get re-hired to AOL to work on the stuff they didn't like? And RMS doesn't even program anymore from what I understand.

What you're looking at is freedom due to financial independence. If you're financially independent, you don't have to work someplace you don't want to. It does not, however, mean you get to work wherever you DO want to.

[nostrademons]

I'd imagine that if DHH really, truly wanted to work on the Linux kernel, he'd have no trouble getting hired to do so. Or if Frankel really wanted to work at AOL. The objection to hiring them is that given their past programming projects, it's pretty obvious they wouldn't want to work on that. Nobody wants to hire someone who doesn't want to do the job that has to be done.

[vesterr]

"I'd imagine that if DHH really, truly wanted to work on the Linux kernel, he'd have no trouble getting hired to do so."

That's pretty silly. Just because someone is famous for a Ruby project doesn't mean they'd know they first thing about low-level kernel code.

"it's pretty obvious they wouldn't want to work on that"

I'm not talking about working on something they DON'T want to work on. Obviously! I'm talking about working on something that is outside what they are known for, but which is an interest of theirs (hypothetical in this case).

[nostrademons]

People (usually) don't hire based on specific skillsets. They hire for talent and passion, and figure that if someone really wants to be working on that problem, they'll find a way to teach themselves what the need to know.

My last job had two main projects - a Netbeans plugin and a JSF webapp. I had no JSF and no Netbeans experience, though I'd done Java Swing development before and written several PHP or Perl webapps. My coworker on the JSF project was a former COM and .NET developer who didn't know Java.

[vesterr]

"They hire for talent and passion"

Microsoft used to say something very much like that.

But at the top of the application: "State your skillset".

...You use PHP, Perl, and Java? Not by choice, right?

[eb]

I don't see the point you're trying to make.

We're talking about freedom in hacking abilities here. If you're severely financially strapped then, yes, you're restricted. No one is saying otherwise.

[vesterr]

"I don't see the point you're trying to make."

Might want to work on your reading comprehension then.

"We're talking about freedom in hacking abilities here."

We're talking about jobs, quite obviously, as a given from the PG quote that started off this thread.

Not ability -- of course if you have an ability for something you can work on that something on your own time, that's not remotely close to being under contention.

As for money, if you have money, you don't have to work anywhere you don't want to. Also not disputed.

PG's claim is the best hackers can work wherever they want. This claim is a fallacy. No amount of technical skill guarantees that you can get hired exactly where you want.

Instead, empirical evidence shows that knowing someone in the company is the most effective way to get a job.

[eb]

"PG's claim is the best hackers can work wherever they want. This claim is a fallacy. No amount of technical skill guarantees that you can get hired exactly where you want."

Again, you're taking the "wherever they want" thing much too literally. I don't know if you're actually trying to make a point or just trying get the last word in, but judging from your other posts, you're just being pedantic.

PG is not saying that a guy like Peter Norvig is going to land a job as a neurosurgeon. But if there's an opening anywhere for anything that's even remotely technical, the probability that they would hire Norvig must be near 100%.

[vesterr]

"If you have a decent reputation there will always be somebody practically begging for you to take their money to do some work for them."

That's not the same as being able to make money working on anything you want to work on. Of course you can make money working for someone else on their boring stuff, that's never been a question.

"I have interviewed about 20 programmers and only 1 blew me away. "

...so why was he out of a job? You see... even brilliant programmers don't always get to work for themselves or exactly where they want.

"This is applicable to the very best in any profession."

Not really. If you're the very best plumber you can fix Bill Gates's clogged toilet instead of the worst toilet in Scotland but you're still dealing with someone else's crap. =D

[9oliYQjP]

He wasn't out of a job. He was working at Microsoft and was shopping around. I suppose there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise. All I can say is speak to really good programmers, and by that I mean people that can 1) code 2) not only communicate with people but communicate effectively and lead groups, and 3) understand the bigger picture and how their work fits into it. They can move from attractive job to attractive job the way a hot Hollywood celebrity can move from attractive partner to attractive partner. Personally, I'm jealous :)

[vesterr]

"and lead groups"

What does that have to do with programming? A lot of programmers find the notion of management extremely distasteful. ;)

"They can move from attractive job to attractive job"

Then I guess they keep ending up in jobs that weren't what they really wanted to do after all!

[9oliYQjP]

Programming has a lot to do with people. People influenced the choice of languages, file formats, applications, and operating systems you use more than their technical merit on its own. The ability to convey technical merit and convince others of your message is crucial to being an effective programmer and is very much what leadership is. I've seen the smartest most capable programmers become dejected and rather useless because they lack these qualities. They end up working on the insignificant problems and surprise-surprise are miserable because of it.

These people usually like to make excuses, and refer to the Dilbert PHB effect as the root cause of the problem. That's a very cynical way to view the workplace. Although, Dilbert is quite funny I'll give it that. The Dilbert-style programmer is going the way of the do-do. It used to be that a programmer could be an asshole of a person and have no communication skills, because so few people understood computers. The market simply had to put up with these people. Circumstances have changed. There are people with great personalities that have compelling leadership traits that know how to program these days and they are finding the best jobs and exerting the greatest influence on the industry.

On another note, what makes you think that jobs are static experiences? Working at Google in 2001 would be far different from working there today in 2008. Good people move on from jobs because they out-grow them, the same way people move on from friendships but might never have had a falling out with the other people in those relationships.

Cheers, we'll just agree to disagree!

[vesterr]

"Cheers, we'll just agree to disagree!"

Sorry, you don't get to pre-empt all further discussion after saying what you want to say. :)

"Programming has a lot to do with people"

Everything people do has a lot to do with people.

"and convince others of your message is crucial to being an effective programmer and is very much what leadership is."

Once again, you are conflating leadership with programming. Two separate things. You can be good at either without being good at the other.

If you are working with other good programmers then they should be able to tell whether your design has the most technical merit, or whether some other design does. If you're politicking then the code is going to suffer.

"It used to be that a programmer could be an asshole of a person and have no communication skills"

I think that's a majorly incorrect stereotype. People with no communication skills tend to have social phobia. They are shy, not assholes. The assholes are the "Rockstar" types and the people who think they are amazing leaders. They like to communicate their perceived superiority to other people.

"Good people move on from jobs because they out-grow them"

Good point.