91–100 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
quick! to the INTERNET, in order to correct the misconceptions of others! it never stops being tempting.
That's kind of a silly way to look at discourse. All discourse is basically someone trying to correct the misconceptions of others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's kind of a silly way to look at discourse. All discourse is basically someone trying to correct the misconceptions of others.
So is there anything besides misconception? Is there One True Conception, which defeats all others in internet debate?
As for one true conception, I imagine it exists on many topics, though getting at it is rather tricky. I've certainly started to argue with people before only to find out, as I put it in writing, that I agreed with them, sometimes even for reasons they'd missed. So if the truth is so convoluted that you can never really know it, perhaps it functionally does not exist.
I now feel my counter argument to the sincerity thing is overhyped though. I don't have enough time to make it live up. Please don't read, you'll only be let down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of other reasons why people would do boring stuff. This is by no means an orthogonal breakdown! - Militance: They believe in a cause and do some sacrifices to further it. Like translating software and docs into an obscure language. This can be done by zealots of the software, of the language, or both. - Self-image (somewhat related to the above): After having completed the sexy parts, you care about the a…
With regards to people working as Game Masters in MMOG's, I think it's mostly done for the feeling of godlike power.
You can say they were motivated by a feeling of notoriety. In my area we have problems with people that would sneak and set woods on fire only so they can feel important helping to extinguish the fire. They get no tangible benefit from it, not even power, and they risk shame and jail if they get caught. Feeling relevant is a strong motivation for some people.
Like Artix, Chain would have failed in its current form no matter how smooth it was polished. It was very important that we failed fast so that we could focus on morphing it into something that works. You lose that with perfectionism. So you'd better be a Steve Jobs.
I think you have set a new record for deciding defeat the fastest:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google probably has to, for example.
Yes, Google is a service. But then again, Debian repositories are a service, as is Wikipedia, as is Usenet (although you said 'open source', I'm assuming your argument extends to donated effort in general). So there must be some other difficulty to Google. There are high stakes, business wise, in web search. But then again, that was just as true for operating systems and web browsers. So cross that one too. Google is…
I don't think it's only (or mainly) a matter of accountability. In general, volunteer services are given for the benefit of a community. Services targeted to individuals (except casual social interactions like answering questions) don't attract much volunteer effort, and are generally provided by for-profit companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That post about sincerity is interesting but exactly, completely wrong. He's completely reversed the entire cause effect relationship. I'll write a blog post as to why.
quick! to the INTERNET, in order to correct the misconceptions of others! it never stops being tempting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Google is a service. But then again, Debian repositories are a service, as is Wikipedia, as is Usenet (although you said 'open source', I'm assuming your argument extends to donated effort in general). So there must be some other difficulty to Google. There are high stakes, business wise, in web search. But then again, that was just as true for operating systems and web browsers. So cross that one too. Google is…
Just came to mind: an area where open source doesn't even try to go, AFAIK, is services that require you to entrust them with sensitive personal data. For example, I don't think there's any volunteer run service that asks you for your credit card info, or that hosts your personal email. I don't think it's only (or mainly) a matter of accountability. In general, volunteer services are given for the benefit of a commun…
The examples cited so far are basically special cases of this. Google needs to be able to enter into contracts for hosting, bandwidth, power, uptime, etc, so it needs to be a real corporation. When you entrust sensitive personal data, you want an ongoing obligation to keep that data secure, which you can't get with open-source. Additional examples might be corporate support contracts, support for certain platforms, and any service dealing with payment or finances.
Basically, open-source is good for sharing what people have done, while corporations are good for determining what people will do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just came to mind: an area where open source doesn't even try to go, AFAIK, is services that require you to entrust them with sensitive personal data. For example, I don't think there's any volunteer run service that asks you for your credit card info, or that hosts your personal email. I don't think it's only (or mainly) a matter of accountability. In general, volunteer services are given for the benefit of a commun…
Anything that creates obligations essentially has to be done as a company. Open-source programmers typically tend to be leery of taking on projects where they have to do something, with good reason. Also, contracts generally aren't enforceable if there is no money (or other "consideration") changing hands. Anything where you want to be sure that something gets done in the future basically needs to go through the real…