Hello, these are my thoughts on CodeZero's open/closed dilemma. Bahadir writes: "One challenge is that when you open up, there is very few people who would appreciate and make a meaningful understanding or contribution to the project."
With 15 years doing open work within the "big money" of Wall Street (in NYC, USA), it seems to me that open is naturally self-supporting as the open model is 10 times more efficient that then proprietary model. My technology years ended with the final "down draft" of the technology economy that was called the new economy. The new economy, arguably, created the open community--or at least made it a reality. It also made the Internet a reality, and, among benefits for me, was a friendly relationship with David Korn, for instance (who made the shell something that would talk to you almost like a person). I do sociology and psychology now, so I am attempting to use my present skills to model (or perhaps sketch) an open paradigm that will move forward. What has been obvious to me, is that any small CPU board can potentially do everything, such as a DVD player. During the tech boom, I attempted to market a "set top box" (that goes on top of a TV) that would do everything, especially primary education. Also I expected HDTV to be a VGA derivative (as even Bill Gates thought it should have been), but then I didn't really understand how the Western economy works as I do now. If we have a tiny OS (1) that can potentially do everything, then every person with a CPU and an IP connecting device (and a video screen and a keyboard) can have all the benefits of the Information Society. In fact, I believe that this purpose was a play of the so-called new economy. As I mentioned that my focus is social now (and I am very busy with papers), so let me take a social approach. We know that the teams that make the huge contributions are very small--such as this one. So let me suggest that the economy that would fund the open projects can likewise be very small, say a major city in medium-sized country. That citizens of this city, presumably highly-democratic, would then create laws based on the 10X efficiency principle (that is reinforced by Moore's approximately 1X technology growth per year), so that they could benefit from huge savings in every technology sector by with a proportional increase their participation in the Information Society. Seeing these benefits, they would make laws that Richard Stallman would support -- such as a tax benefit for every device that allows individual users to install a free (or other) OS. To show the social math here, a 10X increase in societal benefits would inversely give a 90% decrease in taxes--all across the board. Likewise, devices would have to be 100% reusable. The community would see the instant proliferation of WiFi as the communication bandwidth of choice, and the equally instant demise of the "robber barons" of telecom. Now I don't want to say that the telecom people are bad or anything like that, that would be bias (which is very wrong), but that the structure descends from the "robber barons" of the Rhine, or the colonial systems of Rome and then Europe that relied, basically, on terror. This scenario goes on today on so many levels that I am afraid to say more! I realize this is very long and social for specialists who have their minds "wrapped around" low-level technology, but I want to share my perception that there is an open-systems development path out there, but it will need social-political support, and I am suggesting social support through tax incentives. My intuition tells me this will work, partly because businesses and individuals hate taxes more than anything, which is not a social but libertarian view. I just want to mention that even though my perception of the path is social, it is NOT socialism. I am experiencing socialism in Canada right now, and while it is better than American capitalism, it is expensive. This social approach is designed to make money by saving money through efficiency, and is hence attractive because it is cheap, and therefore is not socialist (at least as I have experienced socialism). My father-in-law, who holds a theology doctorate, pointed out that the economic model is, in fact, the model presented by John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church. My experience with societal studies suggests that nearly every social phenomena has been repeated in all the different culture sectors at one time or other (Asia, India, Europe, etc), so I am suggesting that no matter where you live, this type of economic development strategy exists somewhere in your culture. Added to that, I thought my plan was radical and rebellious, and not the conservatism of the Methodists, and Wesleyans! OK, thank you for taking the time to read this--and I STRONGLY appreciate feedback, John _______________________________________________ codezero-devel mailing list codezero-devel@lists.l4dev.org http://lists.l4dev.org/mailman/listinfo/codezero-devel_lists.l4dev.org
