mar...@snoutfarm.com wrote at 09/12/2013 09:30 AM:
I posit that co-evolution moves faster in today's open source world, because:
At first, I agreed vehemently. Then I started thinking (always a mistake). It depends on what you mean by "faster". It's possible that the species diversity might increase. But, perhaps _like_ a fluid going through a diverging nozzle, as the cross-section grows, the velocity shrinks. Perhaps while the progress of any one lineage slows, more lineages arise? Of course, I'm assuming there's some conserved property. It's also possible there is no conserved property, or that the whole co-evolutionary machine takes better advantage of the various nooks and crannies of the world.
1) More independent thinkers. Drones tend not to care, and not caring leads to not thinking. Passive aggressive compliance, brain rot.
I think it's important to consider that the drones are caring and thinking ... they're simply thinking about other stuff ... like who they'll vote for on some reality TV show, or whether to go to the mall or buy from amazon.com. The real trick is that of marketing. How to corral a bunch of drones into caring and thinking about what you want them to? How to manufacture care/thought?
2) Improved access to information -- the source code, and a community around it. This allows motivated individuals to educate themselves rapidly about things, and to be empowered to use this information.
It also allows us to lavish kudos on the fame-tolerant we find there. E.g. Musk, Diamandis, Branson, Dawkins, Tyson, Lady Ada, etc. The more we can turn these unfortunate suckers into role models, the easier it will be to corral the drones. Without the improved access to information, we're stuck with the dually diagnosed (deeper-digging _and_ charismatic). Improved access to information allows us to worry less about charisma and focus on people who do things, regardless of what they look like or their stage/tv presence.
3) A culture that has low tolerance for secrets.
I think you might be slightly off on this one. It's not a low tolerance for secrets so much as a need for _qualified_ secrets. We don't care if you won't answer a question, as long as we're happy with _why_ you won't answer it. The focus is on authenticity rather than openness.
4) Similar incentive structures for Linux in the server space as would exist for the Windows Server line. On the other hand, the Windows world surely has more people working on finding vulnerabilities. But many of those people are working without direct knowledge of how their target works. They have to infer it. Perhaps that has benefits, but it has costs too.
As with my prattling about your (3), I'd suggest the issue is less with the reverse engineering (which is fun) and more with the monolithic nature of Windows. Tools in that world are too tightly coupled... it makes for a fragile tool chain... very efficient when used in the right context, but seemingly broken when abused. And, as with Merle's "outsider everything", _abuse_ is the new _use_. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com Cynics regarded everybody as equally corrupt... Idealists regarded everybody as equally corrupt, except themselves. -- Robert Anton Wilson ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
