The lesson learned from open source...

With respect to the Operating System discussion, I was reminded of a joke I heard a long time ago:

If Operating Systems Ran The Airlines
UNIX Airways
Everyone brings one piece of the plane along when they come to the airport. They all go out on the runway and put the plane together piece by piece, arguing non-stop about what kind of plane they are supposed to be building.

Air DOS
Everybody pushes the airplane until it glides, then they jump on and let the plane coast until it hits the ground again. Then they push again, jump on again, and so on ...

Mac Airlines
All the stewards, captains, baggage handlers, and ticket agents look and act exactly the same. Every time you ask questions about details, you are gently but firmly told that you don't need to know, don't want to know, and everything will be done for you without your ever having to know, so just shut up.

Windows Air
The terminal is pretty and colorful, with friendly stewards, easy baggage check and boarding, and a smooth take-off. After about 10 minutes in the air, the plane explodes with no warning whatsoever.

Windows NT Air
Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses much bigger planes, and takes out all the other aircraft within a 40-mile radius when it explodes.

Linux Air
Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane, you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the Seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very comfortable, the plane leaves and arrives on time without a single problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is, "You had to do what with the seat?"

With the retirement of Windows XP, I've decided to use Linux on all of my computers except for one, which I'll use to run software that can't be run on Linux. Other than the Open Source OS, I use Open Source office automation applications. And I prefer to program in Java, which is multi-platform.

The Open Source paradigm has changed the complexion of computing. I seldom buy software anymore, because just about anything I want to do, I can find a free program to do it. And when the program crashes, if it's open source, I can find and fix the bug myself and contribute the fix to the project.

So, this is more of a literal interpretation of "lessons learned." But, I think it's still applicable.


Dex

Yes, moneyless abundance for all, and no patents, copyrights, all open sourced, though credit given where due. However, this is the higher grade. All would be very happy if born in this, but most are not able to realize that anything else is hell for the majority of people on earth and all of earth/nature. Its being raized for profit.

reply to post by abecedarian

Servers run Linux because it's free.

They are also fundamentally more secure due to the way the OS is designed. I'm not going to argue what is common knowledge.

Apache and MySQL have had, as far as I can tell, more security breeches than IIS and SQLServer.

The only reason that may be true is because there are hardly any servers running IIS. And MySQL has nothing to do with Linux, I can run MySQL on my Windows machine as well. The breaches you refer to are not holes in the Linux system, they are holes in the software running on the Linux system, and more often than not they are actually just holes created by the programmer who is trying to use the MySQL software incorrectly and they don't sanitize their queries properly. None of this is indicative of the actual security of any Linux OS. And Linux isn't designed for idiots so they can just stay the hell away and go back to using a Mac if they want protection from their own stupidity.

reply to post by DexterRiley


So your kind of saying that were inefectually rendering the big software development firms pointless? Not on porpuse but just based on the desire to create? I mean im reaching here but why not.

Damn.

The manufacturing side of it couldnt last a minute based on the same principle though could it?

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


There's one problem with the functionality of a decentralized system. When the system needs to function as a single unified entity, there must be a protocol, or contract, in place such that decentralized entities cooperate to achieve the system's goal. If there is a sufficient variance in the principles and goals of the various decentralized entities, then the system itself cannot function at top efficiency.

For example, think about the states of Texas and New York. There are probably few topics that these two entities agree on. Even if a strong contract is in place, actions that one state supports will likely not be strongly supported by the other. Thus there is the possibility that the half-hearted support of one of the participants may weaken the unified systems' desired action. That's one reason why a strong central control may be necessary for some applications.


Dex

reply to post by DexterRiley


I definately get what your saying, kind of reinforced my earlier statement that the results are not easily reproduced on the manufacturing side.

Its kind of like how people observe bee hives and relate ideas to them. If not only for fun.

reply to post by DexterRiley

For example, think about the states of Texas and New York. There are probably few topics that these two entities agree on.

But that's the great thing about decentralization, not everyone is forced to follow the exact same rules. And that provides people with more options and choices, they can choose to live in the state which is more aligned with their personal preferences. When the federal government enforces a law all states must abide by it whether they like it or not, there is no choice and if the federal government makes a bad decision then everyone is stuck with that decision. But when individual states get to make their own choices it only affects that one state/node and the rest of the states don't have to follow suit if they don't agree with the choice made by that state. But if they do agree then it will catch on and become popular among many states until eventually the majority of states are following the example of the other states.

But that's not to say some form of federal government isn't useful, I think it is useful and necessary, I just think the power of the federal government should be very much limited to the most crucial aspects of society, and most of the decision making power should be left to the individual states. It's all about balance, everything in this world is about balance, and it's clear the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments is completely out of balance. The federal government was never supposed to have the power it holds right now and we need politicians like Ron Paul to restore the proper balance of power.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

But that's the great thing about decentralization, not everyone is forced to follow the exact same rules. And that provides people with more options and choices, they can choose to live in the state which is more aligned with their personal preferences. When the federal government enforces a law all states must abide by it whether they like it or not, there is no choice and if the federal government makes a bad decision then everyone is stuck with that decision. But when individual sates get to make their own choices it only affects that one state/node and the rest of the states don't have to follow suit if they don't agree with the choice made by that state. But if they do agree then it will catch on and become popular among many states until eventually the majority of states are following the example of the other states.

Could i say it like this, its the act of control that produces the less desireable results? Just seems like everything you touched on involved some form of control.

Maybe allowing things to naturally evolve and allowing people to intuitively respond to that is a better way to go? Yeah i realize that its highly subjective to think in that way and most people have different opposable views. Just seems to me that natural progressions typically end with better results then ones that are forced.

This probably wouldnt work as a response mechanism designed to lets say, rescue someone or, fight an army or something. This is more outside the box thinking about a personal belief that natural cycles take precedence over forced unnatural cycles, or we can even call them evolutions for the sake of argument.

onequestion
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

So your kind of saying that were inefectually rendering the big software development firms pointless? Not on porpuse but just based on the desire to create? I mean im reaching here but why not.

Damn.

The manufacturing side of it couldnt last a minute based on the same principle though could it?

Wouldn't 3d printing solve manufacturing? It would be awesome to have open source manufacturing plants that churnout whatever orders come up... '66 Corvette? Give us two weeks! A Convair 880? Give us 6 months.

This assuming that all the ideas, patents included, get uploaded to a matrix and become fully open sourced design plans so anyone can print them out to build whatever they wanted to. Space Shuttle? Eh,,,, a few years probably.

reply to post by onequestion

onequestion
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

So your kind of saying that were inefectually rendering the big software development firms pointless? Not on porpuse but just based on the desire to create? I mean im reaching here but why not.

Damn.

The manufacturing side of it couldnt last a minute based on the same principle though could it?

That's an interesting point. For an individual like me, who has few resources, the big software firms are becoming less important. However, for large corporations, going the Open Source route is not always possible. There has to be some continuity not only within the organization, but between organizations that do business with one another. So I think there's still a place for the big software companies, but their influence over the individual user is now more limited.

Physical product manufacturing is currently not as susceptible to Open Sourcing as software. However, with the advent of just-in-time manufacturing, like 3D printing, the Open Source movement will likely change that industry as well. Eventually, I'll be able to download the CAM file for a toaster, tweak it to my tastes, and print it out. Of course it will still be quite a while before I'll be able to print out something as complex as a computer.

The ironic thing is that as we Open Source our world, we put those same programmers who are creating the Open Source products out of work. Presumably the economic system will adjust, and new jobs will be created for those now out-of-work employees.


Dex

reply to post by DexterRiley

The ironic thing is that as we Open Source our world, we put those same programmers who are creating the Open Source products out of work. Presumably the economic system will adjust, and new jobs will be created for those now out-of-work employees.

An open source economic paradigm will adjust just as you described. If there are errors in the code they get fixed and new versions do not get implemented without testing... sure sounds like the NWO... but with an altruistic heart... I don't know if humanity can sustain it's altruism long enough to establish the Brave New World/Star Trek dream or if it will all come tumbling down due to hate and corporations. That's a possible down side to consider.

reply to post by DexterRiley


Response to Sayonara and Dexter.

The ironic thing is that as we Open Source our world, we put those same programmers who are creating the Open Source products out of work. Presumably the economic system will adjust, and new jobs will be created for those now out-of-work employees.

Peoples rigid ideologies of profit and capitalism will start looking rediculous at some point near this time hopefully.

To address both posters, what were looking at to make moves closer to what were talking about are cultural changes and changes in the way people think and how they look at the community. Having a society that functions as a lets say Open Source community would require much lower levels of the self aggrandizing and egotistical and individual action paradigms that are destroying our world and our community at our current time. I guess we would really have to start empathizing with our fellow man more to be able to even make a move in this direction on any sort of macro levels, or to expand ideally this kind of practice into other industries.

I guess however that it has happening on small levels, even with the organic movement, now with the growing popularty of ideas like quaponics farming among other social changes that are very queitly and slowly starting to take hold. It just seems that peoples ideas and ways of interacting with eachother seem to be the last thing to change. The odd cause and affect of how ideas change culturally typically start like this. Its a business venture for most that once they dive into it becomes a passion when they see and feel the positive impact their having on their community.

Its almost as if the process is so much more natural and in tune with balance that it kind of takes hold of the "user" and gives them incentive to change.

Hopefully. Hopefully.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

An open source economic paradigm will adjust just as you described. If there are errors in the code they get fixed and new versions do not get implemented without testing... sure sounds like the NWO... but with an altruistic heart... I don't know if humanity can sustain it's altruism long enough to establish the Brave New World/Star Trek dream or if it will all come tumbling down due to hate and corporations. That's a possible down side to consider.

Right, but heres a thought to toss around in your head for a minute.

Nature relys on balance in order to exist, so maybe the subconscious action of the green and organic community is natural survival mechanism kicking in intuively to combat against the disease of Ego and is making its first attempt to lightly restore balance before resorting to more cosmic means of force that allow for this place to recycle and start over again with bacteria,

again

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

For example, think about the states of Texas and New York. There are probably few topics that these two entities agree on.

But that's the great thing about decentralization, not everyone is forced to follow the exact same rules. And that provides people with more options and choices, they can choose to live in the state which is more aligned with their personal preferences.

For the most part I agree. However, we don't always get to pick where we live. Some people don't have the resources to move to another state. Or, there may be family or other issues that forces someone to stay in a location that does not align with their personal preferences or beliefs. For instance, I'm not particularly fond of some of the actions my state has taken with respect to current hot topic issues. But, I have family, possessions, and employment here. So, my ability to relocate is somewhat limited.

When the federal government enforces a law all states must abide by it whether they like it or not, there is no choice and if the federal government makes a bad decision then everyone is stuck with that decision. But when individual states get to make their own choices it only affects that one state/node and the rest of the states don't have to follow suit if they don't agree with the choice made by that state. But if they do agree then it will catch on and become popular among many states until eventually the majority of states are following the example of the other states.

But that in itself is a double-edged sword. For instance, there is a movement among the states to decriminalize the consumption of a certain plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes. This is a movement driven by the inhabitants of those states, and it is catching on. And the Federal Government has decided to take a wait-and-see attitude, and is currently not actively enforcing the federal laws of prohibition in those states. That is as it should be.

On the other hand, until 1969 interracial marriage was prohibited in a number of states. It took a ruling from the Supreme Court to get those laws overturned. These were clearly bad laws driven by hate and prejudice. But, because these laws were presumably supported by a majority of the voters in those states, it took a strong central authority to revoke them. That is as it should be.

A more current example is same-sex marriage. Some states were passing laws, and even amending their state constitutions to prohibit it. Conversely, there were several states that were doing just the opposite. The SCOTUS ruled that at the federal level, same-sex marriages had to be recognized if their state of residence recognized it. However, that ruling didn't go as far as the 1969 interracial marriage ruling that stopped states from enforcing laws that prohibited mixed marriages. Apparently this has caused some confusion, and time will tell whether this decision by the federal government was good or bad.

But that's not to say some form of federal government isn't useful, I think it is useful and necessary, I just think the power of the federal government should be very much limited to the most crucial aspects of society, and most of the decision making power should be left to the individual states. It's all about balance, everything in this world is about balance, and it's clear the balance of power between the federal government and the state governments is completely out of balance. The federal government was never supposed to have the power it holds right now and we need politicians like Ron Paul to restore the proper balance of power.

edit on 19/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

I agree that balance of power between the states and the federal government is out of alignment. On the other hand, I believe that the balance of power is also out of alignment with the government and the populace. I posted a comment in a thread about Open Source Government:

There is already a game changer in place with respect to governing. The Internet has the potential to allow every single individual on the planet to voice their opinion. That same channel allows them to vote directly, without the need for group representation. In other words, a global direct democracy.

There are still lots of technical hurdles to making this a reality. However, the difficulties are not insurmountable. It will take a long time to put the infrastructure in place. So, those of us who are over 40 will probably not see it.

Of course enforcement containerization is still necessary (i.e. local, state, federal.) But the power of one person-one vote should ultimately be the goal.


Dex

reply to post by DexterRiley

But that in itself is a double-edged sword. For instance, there is a movement among the states to decriminalize the consumption of a certain plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes. This is a movement driven by the inhabitants of those states, and it is catching on. And the Federal Government has decided to take a wait-and-see attitude, and is currently not actively enforcing the federal laws of prohibition in those states. That is as it should be.

If it wasn't for the overreaching power of the federal government then it wouldn't have been illegal throughout the entire United States to begin with. Because of one decision by the federal government all the states are forced to live by rules which the majority of people clearly do not agree with according to recent polls. Even now the federal government could start arresting people in these states where it has been "decriminalized" if they really wanted to, and that creates a very blurry area of the law where it's hard to determine what is legal and what isn't. If the federal government just got out of the picture entirely then things would be much simpler.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


If they relinquish control?

Its all fear based.

reply to post by onequestion

onequestion
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

An open source economic paradigm will adjust just as you described. If there are errors in the code they get fixed and new versions do not get implemented without testing... sure sounds like the NWO... but with an altruistic heart... I don't know if humanity can sustain it's altruism long enough to establish the Brave New World/Star Trek dream or if it will all come tumbling down due to hate and corporations. That's a possible down side to consider.

Right, but heres a thought to toss around in your head for a minute.

Nature relys on balance in order to exist, so maybe the subconscious action of the green and organic community is natural survival mechanism kicking in intuively to combat against the disease of Ego and is making its first attempt to lightly restore balance before resorting to more cosmic means of force that allow for this place to recycle and start over again with bacteria,

again

I really like that idea. Hopefully we will see nature herself step in and gently nudge us in that direction. If our species does reach that level of enlightenment, then there will be no limit to what we can achieve.

On the other hand, there is a old saying for predicaments like the one in which we find ourselves: "You can't get there from here, you've got to go somewhere else and start."


Dex

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by DexterRiley

 

But that in itself is a double-edged sword. For instance, there is a movement among the states to decriminalize the consumption of a certain plant for medicinal and/or recreational purposes. This is a movement driven by the inhabitants of those states, and it is catching on. And the Federal Government has decided to take a wait-and-see attitude, and is currently not actively enforcing the federal laws of prohibition in those states. That is as it should be.

If it wasn't for the overreaching power of the federal government then it wouldn't have been illegal throughout the entire United States to begin with. Because of one decision by the federal government all the states are forced to live by rules which the majority of people clearly do not agree with according to recent polls. Even now the federal government could start arresting people in these states where it has been "decriminalized" if they really wanted to, and that creates a very blurry area of the law where it's hard to determine what is legal and what isn't. If the federal government just got out of the picture entirely then things would be much simpler.

edit on 19/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

That is a very good point and I agree wholeheartedly.


Dex

Do y'all understand that there are, in reality, only two operating systems?

Windows and Unix!

Linux and Mac are both the same OS...Linux; is a "baby" Unix. (and not terribly well done ether)

Unix/Linus is not more secure than Windows, and, contrary to what has been stated here; Windows is available to any one who can program. (C# and .NET are actually rather simple and easy to use/understand)

Oh, and Windows' big thing ".NET"? It's always been open source.

And the security advantage...In windows I have to try to "de-compile" the OS to figure out what's going on...with Unix/Linus...I can just read the source code.

reply to post by tanka418


Oh you took the technical side of things to serious. That was just an example.