other knowledge implicit in the open source process: a random and initial list by risa
- even the most annoying or unattractive people might possibly be truly brilliant, and it is difficult to work in a way that supports brilliance when you’re annoyed.
- we could use as much help as possible in resolving this dilemma, as evidenced by the great number of prayers said by people asking for help with their sins (which i imagine is a lot) and by people looking for help with their (grrddannnedfricken!!) computers.
- on the long road to solving a really difficult problem, knowledge eventually gets out and circulates. It seems to want to make it past our flaws and into the lives of brilliant eyes. either the first inventor circulates it, maybe hoping to find others to work with on the next steps in the long road, or else someone else figures out the same thing some time after and circulates it, maybe out of spite for the time that was wasted by that enforced wheel reinvention. either way- it gets out and communicates.
-open source is one layer in our insanely complex communication structure- we have dance, and war, and money, and tv, and makeup, and businesses, and cars, and software: all kinds of systems tied up together all of which, aside from everything else they do, are involved in communicating.
-all of these systems are prone to failure. systems that connect on a mass level, but that are run by a tiny majority pushing their protocols, ideas and policies on down, seem capable of doing the most harm. They are also capable of doing huge, far reaching good, so fixing their flaws is complicated.
-no one system is capable of connecting all of us, and if it did we’d be in trouble, but centralized systems and decentralized systems both have their uses.
-open source suggests that the conflict between centralized and decentralized might be a question of how you look at it or more accurately- who you let look at it. it also suggests that if we weren’t always wasting so much time killing eachother and reinventing the wheel, the problem of our, and our extension’s, flawedness might be solvable.
- maybe we’ve been working on it for a really, really long time. by solvable i mean that we might be able to build enough redundancy and smartness and nets into the system by helping each other out with our crazy tool box of attitudes and kindnesses and extentions that we could survive our own failings and dumbass mistakes. (This reminds me of Neil’s amazing piece “opposition remains creating and sustaining something unopposable?“)
Leave a Comment