Eric S. Raymond says you probably fit one of eight tech archetypes

I do recognise aspects of myself in those descriptions; a JOAT edging towards Algorithmicist. I was called a bit twister at one interview, then rejected, even after he said I gave the best definition of an expert system he had heard. I was very upset. Hey! What are you doing in my corner? Are you messing with my computer????? What are you doing? WTF? Get out! OUT! NOW! OUT!!!!! sulk...pout...weep...my...precioussssssessss...

Myers Briggs?

I wonder if these types line up with Myers Briggs types at all...or the Office Space types.

categorization usefulness

If it helps you, the manager, to understand how your people think and work, and you use it to help the team get the job done without creating division or hostility, then putting handles on workers is probably OK.

If you fail to use it, or misapply it, or use it to control rather than enable, then it's a waste of effort.

So tech workers are only ever one of these categories?

* Or is it that they're only ever one of these at any one point in a career?

* Tech-heads morph into different roles / styles over time. Some of that is out of necessity. Ability to sponge up new information vs. analytical experience....

* For example: Sharpshooters may morph into Architects as its becomes more difficult to keep a detailed 'micro focus' on every new piece of tech etc.

Attempting to pigeonhole people has a major issue.

The issue is that an adherent of any of the dozens of pigeonholing systems can rarely see outside the framework of that system.

Combine that with the fact that people are quite a bit more complex than any of these systems allow for leads to huge errors in judgement on the part of the pigeonholer.

Me, I find it a hell of a lot easier to treat people as individuals, instead of futilely trying to fit them into nice, tidy little boxes.

Brilliant. Three cheers for the manager-by-accident.

There are two more archetypes: The ones that will smack you in the face if you try to explain to them that they are supposed to belong to one "archetype" or another. And the archetype "pompous, self important arsehole". Hi Raymond, we've got an archetype for you.

A classification system that can't fail. If you can't find anything specific just use the catch-all, JOAT.

A much more useful classification

of us geeks.

https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/know.your.sysadmin.html

Developer: starts out with an IDE and a blinking cursor in a blank project (software) or a soldering iron and a bucket of ICs and thingamajigs (hardware) to create software/hardware item out of nothing. Working towards a goal he knows every step along the way but misses sideroads.

Architect/Engineer: Crudely understands inner workings of available bits of software and hardware but excels at cobbling them together into a working production system, often using unexplored sideroads of said items or combinations never originally envisioned or anticipated by Developer types.

Hacker/Breaker: Could not develop anything big or engineer anything complex if his life depended on it, but can hyperfocus on specific parts of hardware/software items. Taking the sideroads neglected by Developer he is usually capable of understanding software / hardware item or whole system good enough to break it.

That was the classification I have always used until now. Or at least have used to illustrate why specifically software / firmware is as bad as it is. Developers have tunnelvision on final product, neglecting possible attack vectors, Hackers have tunnelvision in regards to finding those. Folks who have both capabilities developed to a high level are far and in between. If we could crossbreed and deploy them for this IoT slow-motion desaster I'd sleep better at night,

The date is wrong

The post on ESR's site says it was published on the 3rd of April.

FFS, Eric, if you're going to post an April Fools' joke, get the date right.

Architect

Unfortunately, the term "architect" has taken over the unlovely role previously occupied by "analyst". Time was, you could just be a programmer. Then that job title became a bit infra dig, and anyone whose job didn't involve floor-sweeping became an "analyst programmer".

Last year I worked in an office where everyone was either an architect or a business analyst (except me - as a contractor I was allowed to be just a developer). I think it's a way of providing a chimerical career path for the permies.

Nothing against real architects.

Of course he does not mention another type we have all come across - useless obstructive wankers, but I guess most reader will have ten at on board already.

The word "Tinker"

Bit of a pejorative term this side of the pond. I reckon he's better off with "Tinkerer".

Architects *are* Translators

The description makes architects sound like isolated theorists.

in my experience the most crucial role of an ARchitect is to be able to discuss the same project with

Product Management, Software Engineers, Electrical Engineers, Project Management and Patent Lawyers.

Successful projects need all fronts firing in somewhat aligned directions, and all to frequently the archtect is the only one communicating with all groups.

There is far more work in *communicating* a broad design than there is in creating the design.

Wot no bastard?

Where's the category for the tenacious determined pragmatic bastard who just gets shit done when faced with the impossible whilst the architect, team leadery, businessy types dream up the impossible shit?

Bah!

Where's the shouty, abusive one that has to be kept away from the users even at e-mail's length?

Or the one that hasn't figured out how to bathe?

Or the one who cannot fathom the hinge on the toilet seat?

Or the one that thinks people are fooled by his putting the coffee-pot back on the hotplate on a slant to "hide" the fact that he is dodging the "you take the last cup, you make a new pot" rule?

Great... Sending links of the source article to all our competitors

...in the hope they are dumb enough to believe it.

I have found that pigeon holing people into narrow and arbitrary stereotypes is useful for two things, annoying them into working somewhere else and identifying the 20% of the population that compulsively fills out online surveys.

Or you could try to 1) build teams with complementary skills, and 2) weigh individuals with Antisocial tendencies that require special handling against their productivity and deploy containment strategies.

Disaster magnet: Never does anything obviously wrong but nearby things start to fail. Identified as far back as punched card days when mere presence was sufficient to make the card handling machinery start to crumple cards.

There are only two types of people in the world,

The types that are on the list, and the ones who aren't.

Credentials? Research?

I wonder what research and independent checking were done?

If none, then so what?

Oh yawn

'Open source luminary' Eric S. (don't forget the S, people) Raymond opens his mouth again. Why should anyone care?