Fox brotherhood Interview with Zbigniew Branetsky (Mozilla Europe) about the past and the future of the Web
If at any international conference related to the Internet or free software, you suddenly hear the name Gandalf, do not try to see a gray-haired old man with a long beard and a magic staff in the crowd. Most likely, instead, you will see an energetic young man wearing a Mozilla T-shirt, who will be happy to tell you about open source projects, communities and the future of the Web. And, believe me, it is worth listening to him - it is not often possible to meet such a charge of enthusiasm and dedication in one’s own business in the modern world.
Gandalf in the world is known as Zbigniew Braniecki (Zbigniew Braniecki). He was born in Poland and now works at Mozilla Corporation (owned by the eponymous non-profit foundation). He first encountered the development of browsers in 2000 — when Netscape (whose codebase formed the basis of a very young Mozilla project) crookedly displayed a web page written by him. “I tried to tell the developers that they had a bug in the browser, but they quickly explained that there was such a thing as a web standard, and in fact I had a mistake,” Gandalf recalls. Along the way, he learned that the Mozilla browser is an open project, in the development of which anyone can take part, and this idea captured his imagination:
- Most recently, there were only two browsers created by Microsoft and Netscape, and web developers could only follow what the two companies decided. And suddenly they tell me that I can influence the way barusers work, be not a consumer, but a producer, an active side of the process.
Zbigniew became involved in the Polish Mozilla community involved in browser localization, and began work on simplifying communication with developers in order to be able to bring them to the problems that users in Eastern Europe are facing.
- When it comes to localization, you need to think not only about translation, but also about integration into another culture, about how people in different countries use the Internet. For example, the predominantly American development team did not initially take into account the fact that there are such strange things as declensions in Eastern European languages, and it took us several years to reach an understanding on similar issues.
At some point, Branetsky decided that it was time to look for work related to Mozilla and ended up at the startup company Flock, which was creating the eponymous revolutionary “social browser”. A couple of years later, when Flock released version 1.0, he decided to look for something new and went to work at Mozilla Corporation. Zbigniew was engaged in programming and continues, but a significant part of his work consists in building relationships with communities - in the case of Mozilla, this is primarily about the European regional communities involved in localization. This activity was so interesting that he decided to do a serious study of it.
- Initially, I studied computer science, but it turned out to be too difficult for me - I am not very strong in mathematics and theory of algorithms, so I had to leave this study. However, over time, I discovered that even though my work is connected with computers and software, I am closer to users, to organizing communities, than to writing code. And I began to study sociology and social psychology, and I hope to finish my studies in this specialty.
Comparing his work in Flock and Mozilla, Zbigniew notes that despite the similarity of his “job responsibilities”, there is a big difference between projects:
“Working with the Mozilla community is more interesting and more difficult, because the community itself is bigger and older. In Flock, we were pioneers and could calmly decide how we want to move forward, and in Mozilla we need to understand the already formed community, which for 8-9 years of its existence has developed its own ways to solve problems. I can't just say: let's do it like this. I answer: no, we decide how we want to act. And this is great, because it corresponds to our idea of ​​an open web, in the development and determination of the future of which everyone can participate. This idea turned out to be very attractive not only for the US, but also for users from other countries - everywhere there are people who want to do this, they have their own points of view and share with Mozilla a part of their culture. It is wonderful!
Gandalf separately emphasizes that the Mozilla Corporation has no direct power over the community. However, such a statement of the question is not entirely correct at all, and at some point he corrects me: “It is wrong to separate the community and the Mozilla Corporation. We are part of the community. ” Of course, there are actions that may cause concern to the company:
- We definitely want to be sure that some regional community does not engage in activities contrary to our beliefs - for example, it does not try to close Mozilla code or sell Firefox, hiding the fact that you can download it for free. Yes, we know that there are conflicts in communities - and this is normal, because we are all human. We know that community leaders can make mistakes and make wrong decisions for a variety of reasons, and we want to be sure that there are certain compensation mechanisms and emergency exits — for example, if people inside the community are dissatisfied with the actions of their leaders, they can simply leave and work in another place — that is, to make a fork.
Actually, this is exactly the story that happened with the Polish community, known as Mozilla.pl. It was controlled by two people who kept everything under their tight control - only they had the opportunity to actually do something (for example, to release the localization of the next version). If these two people went on vacation, the community life died down, despite the many people ready to work. “We didn’t like it, we had a lot of strength and ideas, and we wanted to do something, while our leaders had less and less time for the project,” says Zbigniew. When patience broke, an alternative project, Aviary.pl, based on other principles, was founded. These principles have passed the test of time and practice: the success of Aviary.pl spoke for itself, and at some point the two communities reconciled and reunited already “under the wing” of Aviary.pl.
“And this is a better way out than if people from the United States came to Mozilla.pl and said: you need to change this and that and do it this way,” Zbigniew comments on this situation. - The only thing that Mozilla Corporation wants and can do in such cases is to support those people who want to change something - for example, by solving some technical problems. We may be able to resolve the conflict within the community, but only if its members themselves ask us about it. If you think that you have any problems - contact me or my colleagues, we will try to help. Freedom is very important. In communities, they should understand that they are not our “affiliates”, they make decisions themselves and are responsible for them. If someone controls you, that's another story - he is in charge, not you. We do not want this. This distinguishes Mozilla from some other open source projects where individual communities are much more manageable from the “center”.
Another similar fork occurred within the core Mozilla development team, and its name is Mozilla Firefox.
- No one made a centralized decision to start developing Firefox. - remembers Zbigniew. “We were engaged in the Mozilla Suite, but two developers decided that we needed something else and began to create an independent browser, the interface of which was written“ from scratch ”. A group of people joined them - no one asked anyone for permission, no one authorized and paid for this work. When they showed their first builds, the response was bewilderment: “Why is this necessary? We are doing quite different things now! ” But at some point, it became clear that Firefox is a good tool for achieving our main goals — promoting innovation and choosing online — and we made it our main product.
An open development model and community orientation is not only manifested in the localization process. The Mozilla Corporation, including all of its subsidiaries, employs about 160 people, about half of whom are developers, which is not much, given the complexity of the product. The main part of the new project code receives from external programmers (for most of them this is a hobby), and not from paid employees of the company itself. “And this is important for us, we want to remain a small firm that performs general management, and not to end up with a big corporation, people in which they will stop listening to the community some day, because it will seem to them that they can solve all tasks without outside help” - says Zbigniew.
However, the process of participation in the development of Mozilla can not be called very simple. If you offer some kind of patch for the main code base, you will have to find two people from the main team (reviewer and superreviewer), who will analyze the proposed changes and decide whether they are suitable for the project. Sometimes it seems that the principles of decision-making give some bureaucracy. “In general, the way it is, but this is not surprising: it is impossible to have such a complex project, on which so many people work and without falling victim to a certain bureaucracy,” agrees Gandalf. “When making changes, we want to make sure that they were analyzed by a person who understands the code, and that nothing will break as a result.” We have room for improvement here - for example, we need more reviewers so that patches are included in the code faster, we need to simplify the process of finding them - and we are working on it. ”
Mozilla Corporation has been very successful in commercial terms - thanks to cooperation with various companies interested in developing a popular open browser and the development of the Web, Mozilla is able not only to pay current bills, but also create some financial reserve “for a rainy day”. However, being the property of a non-profit foundation, the Mozilla Corporation does not set itself the task of increasing profits, if it does not lead to the achievement of the main goals of the Foundation. It’s impossible to provide direct financial support to external developers and community members - it will destroy the whole model (as it was, for example, with the DuncTank initiative in the Debian project, see “Sun from Ian” in CT # 732) and simply reduce the effectiveness of work. Zbigniew explains it this way:
- Employees of a commercial company are interested in money, and, perhaps, they are not very interested in work - it is unlikely that they will work with 100% efficiency. When it comes to the volunteer community, you can be sure that people are interested in what they do, they really want to work and do it effectively.
However, the company is able to help with technology or solve any other problems. It should also be noted that financial considerations do not affect the decision-making process associated with the development - for example, choosing the default search engine.
')
After Firefox became the main product of Mozilla, it began slowly, percent by percent, to gain popularity. When about 5% of the audience was captured, it became clear that Mozilla has ceased to be an “underground open-source project” and is becoming a full-fledged player in the market that requires appropriate “marketing support”. There is nothing surprising in the fact that this function has been taken over by a specialized community - spreadfirefox.com.
“Probably we were lucky that by the time the Web 2.0 revolution began, Firefox already played a significant role in the browser market - otherwise no one would have taken it into account when developing complex services,” I said to Zbigniew.
“In fact, the big question is whether this revolution could have taken place without a popular open browser,” he objected. - This is not about technical issues. Question in relation to the Web. In 2001, there was essentially one browser. Nobody was developing anything new, there were no new standards, the W3C was almost dead - what's the point of creating new standards if no one supports them? The web just wasn't an interesting place. I believe that the essential part of “Web 2.0” (whatever is understood by this word) is that people began to create new things, and this was possible because we revived the Web, again made it dynamic. In my opinion, we can talk about it without false modesty. And it's good that if Mozilla makes a mistake now, someone will be able to take our source code and move on.
As for the question of exactly where the web will move, Zbigniew holds a generally accepted opinion:
- Any animal - and man including - lives in the conditions of a constant lack of information and is genetically programmed to search for it. But the problem is that we now have too much information, but we cannot stop: remember how often you clicked on the links further and further, without much need. So now we are faced with the task of receiving less information, that is, organizing it correctly. We cannot do it “from the top down”, this contradicts the idea of ​​the Web as a space in which everyone can do what he is interested in without asking for any permissions. We tried - turned out newspapers, magazines, television. But people want to see more than show on TV and write in newspapers, and thus can not process all available information.
According to Zbigniew, in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to develop two directions: the social possibilities of the Web and the semantic description of information, including the automatic one.
- I agree with Tim Berners-Lee that Web 3.0 will be semantic. Of course, now people are not inclined to semantic markup, and we cannot say: “Hey, we came up with a cool thing called XHTML — spend a few years studying it and use it because it’s good.” No one will do that. But I believe that in the future we will make adding semantic information, without requiring authors to spend time on it - automatically analyzing content, for example. Another important part is social networks. I think that the main source of our knowledge about what information is interesting is our friends, people we trust - and services such as Digg, being rather inefficient, begin to implement this approach. Today I have to spend 6 hours a day, or I will stop understanding what is happening around me, but I believe that this situation will change, and our software - such as browsers or email clients - should help us in this, support social opportunities and develop further.
However, it is impossible to say that Firefox makes some kind of revolution on its own - its interface remains almost unchanged.
- Yes, the Firefox interface is quite conservative, and we are happy about this. - agrees Zbigniew. - Of course, we will move on and experiment, but Firefox is unlikely to make a revolution in the UI itself - rather, it will be done by Firefox extensions or other browsers - for example, it could be Flock. This project has a lot of possibilities for experiments, because we have Firefox, which is so successful, and people working on Flock can say: there is already a great browser, now it’s time to experiment and change the world. This is the ideal position and the perfect time - they stand on the shoulders of such a giant as Firefox.
Assessing the current level of Flock, Zbigniew notes that the main problem in its development was not in technology, but in finding its market niche and its own way.
- Flock came to a market in which no one had been before, and tried to change the paradigm. It is usually assumed that you are working alone on the Web. Flock's approach is that the web surfer remembers his friends and wants to share his findings with them. This is a huge experiment, and it took us 2 years to release version 1.0, because it was an unknown land. The Flock market is an early adopters, and this is great because these people do have other needs than the Firefox user needs. I believe that in the future there will be more browsers on open engines - it’s quite simple to do them: take ready-made code and change it in an arbitrary way. In the case of Flock, it took so much time, because it required to invent a lot of new things - we did not solve known problems, we tried to create a product for the modern rapidly changing "bidirectional" web. But I believe that open engines will play more and more influence, forcing companies to grow very quickly. Because we want the Web to grow fast.
At the end of our conversation, I ask Zbigniew to tell about the origin of his nickname.
- Oh, this is a funny story. - he says. - When I was younger, I wore long hair, played guitar in a rock band and read only fantasy. I was then 14 years old, and of course I did not look like a magician from Tolkien’s works. However, at some point I started using IRC, and for some reason it turned out that Gandalf was the only free nickname - and I took it. Now I understand that it was a mistake: many people use the same nickname, and I meet a lot of people who say: “Oh, I am also Gandalf” or “oh, I know you on IRC ... or not you ...”. I tried to change it, but it is very difficult - people have become accustomed and continue to call me that. But now it turned out to be very important for me - my name is completely unpredictable for people in the US (people are not ready for a name that starts with Z), and my nickname is much easier to pronounce and read - in fact, that is what my colleagues call me. However, I believe that once I have “grown up” to my nickname, I will become old and I will have a long beard ...
Published in the weekly "Computerra" # 747, the version with illustrations is available here.
Gandalf in the world is known as Zbigniew Braniecki (Zbigniew Braniecki). He was born in Poland and now works at Mozilla Corporation (owned by the eponymous non-profit foundation). He first encountered the development of browsers in 2000 — when Netscape (whose codebase formed the basis of a very young Mozilla project) crookedly displayed a web page written by him. “I tried to tell the developers that they had a bug in the browser, but they quickly explained that there was such a thing as a web standard, and in fact I had a mistake,” Gandalf recalls. Along the way, he learned that the Mozilla browser is an open project, in the development of which anyone can take part, and this idea captured his imagination:
- Most recently, there were only two browsers created by Microsoft and Netscape, and web developers could only follow what the two companies decided. And suddenly they tell me that I can influence the way barusers work, be not a consumer, but a producer, an active side of the process.
Zbigniew became involved in the Polish Mozilla community involved in browser localization, and began work on simplifying communication with developers in order to be able to bring them to the problems that users in Eastern Europe are facing.
- When it comes to localization, you need to think not only about translation, but also about integration into another culture, about how people in different countries use the Internet. For example, the predominantly American development team did not initially take into account the fact that there are such strange things as declensions in Eastern European languages, and it took us several years to reach an understanding on similar issues.
At some point, Branetsky decided that it was time to look for work related to Mozilla and ended up at the startup company Flock, which was creating the eponymous revolutionary “social browser”. A couple of years later, when Flock released version 1.0, he decided to look for something new and went to work at Mozilla Corporation. Zbigniew was engaged in programming and continues, but a significant part of his work consists in building relationships with communities - in the case of Mozilla, this is primarily about the European regional communities involved in localization. This activity was so interesting that he decided to do a serious study of it.
- Initially, I studied computer science, but it turned out to be too difficult for me - I am not very strong in mathematics and theory of algorithms, so I had to leave this study. However, over time, I discovered that even though my work is connected with computers and software, I am closer to users, to organizing communities, than to writing code. And I began to study sociology and social psychology, and I hope to finish my studies in this specialty.
Mozilla
Comparing his work in Flock and Mozilla, Zbigniew notes that despite the similarity of his “job responsibilities”, there is a big difference between projects:
“Working with the Mozilla community is more interesting and more difficult, because the community itself is bigger and older. In Flock, we were pioneers and could calmly decide how we want to move forward, and in Mozilla we need to understand the already formed community, which for 8-9 years of its existence has developed its own ways to solve problems. I can't just say: let's do it like this. I answer: no, we decide how we want to act. And this is great, because it corresponds to our idea of ​​an open web, in the development and determination of the future of which everyone can participate. This idea turned out to be very attractive not only for the US, but also for users from other countries - everywhere there are people who want to do this, they have their own points of view and share with Mozilla a part of their culture. It is wonderful!
Gandalf separately emphasizes that the Mozilla Corporation has no direct power over the community. However, such a statement of the question is not entirely correct at all, and at some point he corrects me: “It is wrong to separate the community and the Mozilla Corporation. We are part of the community. ” Of course, there are actions that may cause concern to the company:
- We definitely want to be sure that some regional community does not engage in activities contrary to our beliefs - for example, it does not try to close Mozilla code or sell Firefox, hiding the fact that you can download it for free. Yes, we know that there are conflicts in communities - and this is normal, because we are all human. We know that community leaders can make mistakes and make wrong decisions for a variety of reasons, and we want to be sure that there are certain compensation mechanisms and emergency exits — for example, if people inside the community are dissatisfied with the actions of their leaders, they can simply leave and work in another place — that is, to make a fork.
Actually, this is exactly the story that happened with the Polish community, known as Mozilla.pl. It was controlled by two people who kept everything under their tight control - only they had the opportunity to actually do something (for example, to release the localization of the next version). If these two people went on vacation, the community life died down, despite the many people ready to work. “We didn’t like it, we had a lot of strength and ideas, and we wanted to do something, while our leaders had less and less time for the project,” says Zbigniew. When patience broke, an alternative project, Aviary.pl, based on other principles, was founded. These principles have passed the test of time and practice: the success of Aviary.pl spoke for itself, and at some point the two communities reconciled and reunited already “under the wing” of Aviary.pl.
“And this is a better way out than if people from the United States came to Mozilla.pl and said: you need to change this and that and do it this way,” Zbigniew comments on this situation. - The only thing that Mozilla Corporation wants and can do in such cases is to support those people who want to change something - for example, by solving some technical problems. We may be able to resolve the conflict within the community, but only if its members themselves ask us about it. If you think that you have any problems - contact me or my colleagues, we will try to help. Freedom is very important. In communities, they should understand that they are not our “affiliates”, they make decisions themselves and are responsible for them. If someone controls you, that's another story - he is in charge, not you. We do not want this. This distinguishes Mozilla from some other open source projects where individual communities are much more manageable from the “center”.
Another similar fork occurred within the core Mozilla development team, and its name is Mozilla Firefox.
- No one made a centralized decision to start developing Firefox. - remembers Zbigniew. “We were engaged in the Mozilla Suite, but two developers decided that we needed something else and began to create an independent browser, the interface of which was written“ from scratch ”. A group of people joined them - no one asked anyone for permission, no one authorized and paid for this work. When they showed their first builds, the response was bewilderment: “Why is this necessary? We are doing quite different things now! ” But at some point, it became clear that Firefox is a good tool for achieving our main goals — promoting innovation and choosing online — and we made it our main product.
An open development model and community orientation is not only manifested in the localization process. The Mozilla Corporation, including all of its subsidiaries, employs about 160 people, about half of whom are developers, which is not much, given the complexity of the product. The main part of the new project code receives from external programmers (for most of them this is a hobby), and not from paid employees of the company itself. “And this is important for us, we want to remain a small firm that performs general management, and not to end up with a big corporation, people in which they will stop listening to the community some day, because it will seem to them that they can solve all tasks without outside help” - says Zbigniew.
However, the process of participation in the development of Mozilla can not be called very simple. If you offer some kind of patch for the main code base, you will have to find two people from the main team (reviewer and superreviewer), who will analyze the proposed changes and decide whether they are suitable for the project. Sometimes it seems that the principles of decision-making give some bureaucracy. “In general, the way it is, but this is not surprising: it is impossible to have such a complex project, on which so many people work and without falling victim to a certain bureaucracy,” agrees Gandalf. “When making changes, we want to make sure that they were analyzed by a person who understands the code, and that nothing will break as a result.” We have room for improvement here - for example, we need more reviewers so that patches are included in the code faster, we need to simplify the process of finding them - and we are working on it. ”
Mozilla Corporation has been very successful in commercial terms - thanks to cooperation with various companies interested in developing a popular open browser and the development of the Web, Mozilla is able not only to pay current bills, but also create some financial reserve “for a rainy day”. However, being the property of a non-profit foundation, the Mozilla Corporation does not set itself the task of increasing profits, if it does not lead to the achievement of the main goals of the Foundation. It’s impossible to provide direct financial support to external developers and community members - it will destroy the whole model (as it was, for example, with the DuncTank initiative in the Debian project, see “Sun from Ian” in CT # 732) and simply reduce the effectiveness of work. Zbigniew explains it this way:
- Employees of a commercial company are interested in money, and, perhaps, they are not very interested in work - it is unlikely that they will work with 100% efficiency. When it comes to the volunteer community, you can be sure that people are interested in what they do, they really want to work and do it effectively.
However, the company is able to help with technology or solve any other problems. It should also be noted that financial considerations do not affect the decision-making process associated with the development - for example, choosing the default search engine.
')
Web
After Firefox became the main product of Mozilla, it began slowly, percent by percent, to gain popularity. When about 5% of the audience was captured, it became clear that Mozilla has ceased to be an “underground open-source project” and is becoming a full-fledged player in the market that requires appropriate “marketing support”. There is nothing surprising in the fact that this function has been taken over by a specialized community - spreadfirefox.com.
“Probably we were lucky that by the time the Web 2.0 revolution began, Firefox already played a significant role in the browser market - otherwise no one would have taken it into account when developing complex services,” I said to Zbigniew.
“In fact, the big question is whether this revolution could have taken place without a popular open browser,” he objected. - This is not about technical issues. Question in relation to the Web. In 2001, there was essentially one browser. Nobody was developing anything new, there were no new standards, the W3C was almost dead - what's the point of creating new standards if no one supports them? The web just wasn't an interesting place. I believe that the essential part of “Web 2.0” (whatever is understood by this word) is that people began to create new things, and this was possible because we revived the Web, again made it dynamic. In my opinion, we can talk about it without false modesty. And it's good that if Mozilla makes a mistake now, someone will be able to take our source code and move on.
As for the question of exactly where the web will move, Zbigniew holds a generally accepted opinion:
- Any animal - and man including - lives in the conditions of a constant lack of information and is genetically programmed to search for it. But the problem is that we now have too much information, but we cannot stop: remember how often you clicked on the links further and further, without much need. So now we are faced with the task of receiving less information, that is, organizing it correctly. We cannot do it “from the top down”, this contradicts the idea of ​​the Web as a space in which everyone can do what he is interested in without asking for any permissions. We tried - turned out newspapers, magazines, television. But people want to see more than show on TV and write in newspapers, and thus can not process all available information.
According to Zbigniew, in order to solve this problem, it is necessary to develop two directions: the social possibilities of the Web and the semantic description of information, including the automatic one.
- I agree with Tim Berners-Lee that Web 3.0 will be semantic. Of course, now people are not inclined to semantic markup, and we cannot say: “Hey, we came up with a cool thing called XHTML — spend a few years studying it and use it because it’s good.” No one will do that. But I believe that in the future we will make adding semantic information, without requiring authors to spend time on it - automatically analyzing content, for example. Another important part is social networks. I think that the main source of our knowledge about what information is interesting is our friends, people we trust - and services such as Digg, being rather inefficient, begin to implement this approach. Today I have to spend 6 hours a day, or I will stop understanding what is happening around me, but I believe that this situation will change, and our software - such as browsers or email clients - should help us in this, support social opportunities and develop further.
However, it is impossible to say that Firefox makes some kind of revolution on its own - its interface remains almost unchanged.
- Yes, the Firefox interface is quite conservative, and we are happy about this. - agrees Zbigniew. - Of course, we will move on and experiment, but Firefox is unlikely to make a revolution in the UI itself - rather, it will be done by Firefox extensions or other browsers - for example, it could be Flock. This project has a lot of possibilities for experiments, because we have Firefox, which is so successful, and people working on Flock can say: there is already a great browser, now it’s time to experiment and change the world. This is the ideal position and the perfect time - they stand on the shoulders of such a giant as Firefox.
Assessing the current level of Flock, Zbigniew notes that the main problem in its development was not in technology, but in finding its market niche and its own way.
- Flock came to a market in which no one had been before, and tried to change the paradigm. It is usually assumed that you are working alone on the Web. Flock's approach is that the web surfer remembers his friends and wants to share his findings with them. This is a huge experiment, and it took us 2 years to release version 1.0, because it was an unknown land. The Flock market is an early adopters, and this is great because these people do have other needs than the Firefox user needs. I believe that in the future there will be more browsers on open engines - it’s quite simple to do them: take ready-made code and change it in an arbitrary way. In the case of Flock, it took so much time, because it required to invent a lot of new things - we did not solve known problems, we tried to create a product for the modern rapidly changing "bidirectional" web. But I believe that open engines will play more and more influence, forcing companies to grow very quickly. Because we want the Web to grow fast.
At the end of our conversation, I ask Zbigniew to tell about the origin of his nickname.
- Oh, this is a funny story. - he says. - When I was younger, I wore long hair, played guitar in a rock band and read only fantasy. I was then 14 years old, and of course I did not look like a magician from Tolkien’s works. However, at some point I started using IRC, and for some reason it turned out that Gandalf was the only free nickname - and I took it. Now I understand that it was a mistake: many people use the same nickname, and I meet a lot of people who say: “Oh, I am also Gandalf” or “oh, I know you on IRC ... or not you ...”. I tried to change it, but it is very difficult - people have become accustomed and continue to call me that. But now it turned out to be very important for me - my name is completely unpredictable for people in the US (people are not ready for a name that starts with Z), and my nickname is much easier to pronounce and read - in fact, that is what my colleagues call me. However, I believe that once I have “grown up” to my nickname, I will become old and I will have a long beard ...
Published in the weekly "Computerra" # 747, the version with illustrations is available here.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/39416/
All Articles