Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q
But the point I was trying to make with those 3 articles still stands: that
people who join communities for community's sake are not necessarily only
drags on, disrupters of the system. They provide something like a dampening
baffle that traps
Glen writes:
But, again, you're being very binary. Practically, each member will be a
member in part because they're aligned ideologically, in part because they
contribute to the mission, and in part for promotional/egotistical reasons.
Those sets aren't disjoint, regardless of what the
On 07/17/2015 09:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
I do know about emacs. It survives, because it is bloody good at being
a text editor, particular for programming. I suppose vi is the same -
I've seen some people make vi stand up and sing, but for me, its
behaviour when interacting with vt100
On 07/17/2015 11:22 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
My claim is that free software developers, and GPL developers in particular,
have a preference for exploring this broader type of connectivity, and are
especially interested in the frustration of the interconnections amongst the
global bits than
But the point I was trying to make with those 3 articles still stands: that
people who join communities for community's sake are not necessarily only drags
on, disrupters of the system. They provide something like a dampening baffle
that traps and eliminates the noise of the extremists, the
On 07/15/2015 08:08 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
If one wants a tool to do a job, why would that person have more opinions
about tools not in that category?They just want that kind of tool. If
FOO and BAR are competing, then it is different because BAR is like non-FOO.
But that's not
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 08:10:09PM -0700, glen wrote:
Programs like LibreOffice or maybe Eclipse do bolster your argument, I think.
I don't know about Emacs. It's a strange beast that I think has survived
for reasons other than coherence around a mission. But I'm certainly willing
to
On 07/15/2015 05:07 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
To tie this back to the original question, I was thinking of actual open
source projects. It is common when a group of people form to build a
software package that the concept for what the capability is, is reasonably
clear to the founding
I suspect that aspirations are, like most ideological constructs, less causal
than we think they are. Going back to what Marcus actually meant, it seems to
me that (most) humans are so ultimately/fundamentally social, that all they
_ever_ do is seek out community just for the comfort of
The last one, in particular, seems to imply that those who are most likely to
think a community really has a mission (as opposed to the illusion of a
mission) are the most extreme of the bunch, the hard-liners, the obnoxious
ones.
To tie this back to the original question, I was thinking of
: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: July-14-15 7:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q
I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about
keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine
“I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something where
they couldn't see the code (for instance).”
Because employers and employees are different people, and the individuals that
would want to see the code details (and could interpret and act on them) tend
to be employees
On 07/13/2015 07:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
What I see is that proprietry software is just the visible tip of the iceberg,
but its largely open source underneath.
Me too. I'd be interested to see some sort of analysis of software pathways, chains of
software packages that were hit when
For many front end developers, jQuery/jQueryUI is what they mean when they
say I know JavaScript.
And with more apps (mobile) moving to web frameworks (React, say)
Node.js/Linux for services, I'd say there's a healthy bunch of OpenWare out
there.
Totally agree that the user-facing parts are all
I think the issue with that last 20% of user facing software is that it's
very expensive to run the marketing campaigns to persuade users that it's
really, really good when in fact it sucks, especially when your
competitors are working very hard at marketing their own brands of sucky
user
Motivation is such a subjective thing. Like most people, I like to work on
things that are at least a little challenging intellectually, but
sometimes, just seeing the end result and knowing that I did it is reward
enough to make the tedium bearable. A few years back, I did a bunch of very
Both of these comments touch on something that irritates me quite a bit. Because I have
a chip on my shoulder and enjoy confrontation, I regularly apply for jobs even when I'm
only a tiny bit interested in changing jobs. (Plus, who knows? Maybe someone will make
a really good offer.) In
Interesting vs. boring is orthogonal. So, there's interesting-hard and
boring-hard. I'll accept money for either type of work, though I much prefer
interesting-hard ... obviously.
How about engaging, imaginative, educational, or surprising work vs. detail
work. Doing detail work may be
that to some extent but each have
their pluses and minuses.
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q
I'd (probably
I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about
keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other
than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of
mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence,
I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about
keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other
than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of
mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence,
On 07/14/2015 10:24 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Although there is open source software for office and accounting, I can't
imagine wanting to spend my free time on such a thing.It is just boring and
depressing to think about.I don't think it has anything to do with it being
hard. Hard
On that same front, Gary's right about that last 20%. But user-facing
software has a much harder last 20% than what happens behind the scenes
_because_ those occult tools are allowed to be very focused, tight, and single
purpose, whereas user-facing tools have to handle, ameliorate, shunt,
When you say “app”, I assume you’re talking about mobile; is that correct?
Even if you consider all non-server software, even stuff that runs on
desktops, I think it’s still pretty miniscule (I don’t have numbers to back
it up).
In my opinion, the reason that open source software has made so
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:44:35PM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
Speculative Q:
Anyone care to speculate why Open Source apps not have gotten much traction
out side some exceptions?
I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something
where they couldn't see the code (for
Speculative Q:
Anyone care to speculate why Open Source apps not have gotten much traction
out side some exceptions?
I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something
where they couldn't see the code (for instance).
26 matches
Mail list logo
