The lesson learned from open source...

Let me warn you before you read any further. This idea is completely abstract and out in left field so please feel free to just ignore it if you think its just insanity. Secondly i didnt know where to put it so i put this in the gray area.

I'm going to keep this short and sweet. This is an observation i made today based on the different operating systems im experimenting with on my computer. Now, before i was using Windows 7, windows 7 is an expensive multinational corporation with massive resources. In my opinion they have a bulky insecure and annoying OS thats not pretty to look at.

Mac, very expensive, pretty to look at and somewhat more secure. A slight improvement but they both have their benefits. Lacks personal autonomy.

Now, Linux Mint, and open source OS thats in my opinion attractive look at secure, and easy to use, and has all personal autonomy oh and its small and less bulky. Cant game on it but whatever.

Now for my observation. From this we can see that i favor the Linux system, which is free and as far as i know run off donations(could be wrong) and has a lot of autonomy for the user to do as they please. Does anyone notice how the best system is the one thats free and thats open and available to everyone? Can and would that idea apply to other things in our economy? Could that work with anything else or am i just seeing something that isnt there?

Thanks

reply to post by onequestion


Ok so how about this for a second stab it...

Are humans like operating systems?

When we are given room for personal choices and aloud to create for free and work outside of the restrictive paradigms of corporate control and to create artistically would we be better off like Linux?

Just saying and its all based on opinion and highly abstract and speculative ways of thinking.

I think you have a very valid point. Open source software is often better than commercial software because anyone can look at the source code and fix mistakes. It's more of a community effort and the coders are motivated by the challenge and not by the money, which often makes open source coders better than commercial coders. Another good example is FireFox vs Internet Explorer, FireFox is better in almost every respect. Or 7zip vs WinRar, 7zip has far better compression rates. Or LibreOffice vs Microsoft Office, or Bitcoin vs the legacy banking system, the list could go on and on.

The same thing applies to our systems of government, that is why the founding fathers tried to make sure that power was highly decentralized among the states. Things always function better when you spread out the power and decentralize it as much as possible because decentralized networks are always more secure and more robust than highly centralized networks where a small number of people have all the decision making power. I have argued this before in another thread, I will have to go back and see what I said in that thread and see if it's relevant to this discussion.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Its weird how a soceital equivelant can be found in computer operating systems and understood by someone else?

damn.

Thanks for the input to btw. I dont feel so crazy knowing someone else can see how it relates, how closely it relates lol.

when you were talking about open source i thought you were talking about EEFI. as far as linux, sure it's probabaly better as an OS than windows and mac. If your computer is on the internet does it really matter what operating system your using, or how 'secure' you consider it ? there are folks out there that will NEVER get it that messing with something that isn't yours in the first place is WRONG! so ergo, hackers and spooks should always be treated for what they are, information physcopaths. I never keep any of my computers on the internet at the same time and NEVER network them. I learned that when I was a spook !

reply to post by tencap77


Im speaking more about how the community of the three seperate systems functions rather then the systems themselves.

They are metaphores.

Ok I found that old thread I was talking about. It was a Ron Paul thread and is quite an interesting read actually.

The topic I was arguing was related more to the concept of decentralization than open source software, but I think the two concepts are very much related. Here are some of my quotes from that thread:

What works better? Giving a problem to one group of people and asking them to solve it, or giving the problem to several different groups of people and seeing who comes up with the best solution?

What works better? Letting one corporate monopoly control an entire industry or having an array of corporations compete with each other in a fair environment?

What works better? Having one mainstream news station providing us with all the information we need to know or having an array of independent news sources provide us with varying slants and opinions?

Here's the thing about decentralization. It's far easier for an attacker to breach a single node in a network if that node oversees all other nodes in the network. However, a decentralized network based on a dynamic array of independent nodes is almost impossible to breach, because the attacker must breach a majority of the nodes before even putting a dent in the network. You can't destroy a P2P network simply by taking down a few nodes, the network is dynamic and adaptable and can easily handle the loss of such nodes without the entire network being breached. That's why torrent technology is virtually impossible to destroy, no one has the power required to launch a sufficient attack on all the nodes... together those nodes, although independent, create a robust network that can sustain vicious attack from all sides. But when you hang that network from one master node, it becomes extremely easy to attack because all one need do is breach the master node and the whole system crumbles.

simplified: it's easier to take control of the master node (federal government) and then use that power to dictate the rules of all other nodes (state governments) then it is to take control of all the independent nodes (states) in a decentralized network.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


I agree and interesting post.

I am however more trying to touch on how the people of the community think and participate. For instance, the open source programmers create free software out of a desire to create and help rather then creating a system designed to monopolize, make money, and whatever else.

Seems like the artists is always producing a better product. Notice how the artist always creates a better product? is that some sort of result of their intentions, or maybe a result of a more pure form of creation, one thats less self serving?

Whats the deal with that? Is their thoughts coming from a different thought form or paradigm or some other type of energetic force?

Just seems obvious to me. Damn, i could literally post 100 threads a day pointing out odd similarities like this. Someone told me i was the master of tracking anomolies once. I dno maybe its true.

Thanks for participating btw.

onequestion...
Does anyone notice how the best system is the one thats free and thats open and available to everyone? Can and would that idea apply to other things in our economy? Could that work with anything else or am i just seeing something that isnt there?
...

The best system is the one that works best for the people doing something.
Therefore, I vote for the latter: you see something that isn't there.

Since one can't prove a negative, how about you say something you can do in Linux that can't be done in Windows?

reply to post by abecedarian


I think you missed the point.

Dont focus on the operating systems as much as how they are comparable to our economy and the functionality of our communities.

Feel free to ask me to clarify my position.

reply to post by onequestion

is that some sort of result of their intentions, or maybe a result of a more pure form of creation, one thats less self serving?

As a programmer I can tell you that my best work is done when I'm working on a personal project and not a job I'm getting paid for. I often procrastinate and put off working on jobs that I'm getting paid for because there's usually nothing interesting about them. But when I'm working on a personal project without any monetary incentive and without any time restraints I can spend hours on it without stopping because I actually find it fun and interesting. It becomes more of a hobby rather than work in that situation. I think the main difference is that open source coders choose what they want to work on based on what interests them. Commercial programmers don't get to choose to work on things which they have a personal interest in, they get forced to work on what ever is thrown at them and usually what they get is pretty boring stuff. So they lack passion and enthusiasm, the only thing motivating them is money but that's not as powerful as passion and enthusiasm.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

As a programmer I can tell you that my best work is done when I'm working on a personal project and not a job I'm getting paid for. I often procrastinate and put off working on jobs that I'm getting paid for because there's usually nothing interesting about them. But when I'm working on a personal project without any monetary incentive and without any time restraints I can spend hours on it without stopping because I actually find it fun and interesting. It becomes more of a hobby rather than work in that situation. I think the main difference is that open source coders choose what they want to work on based on what interests them. Commercial programmers don't get to choose to work on things which they have a personal interest in, they get forced to work on what ever is thrown at them and usually what they get is pretty boring stuff. So they lack passion and enthusiasm, the only thing motivating them is money but that's not as powerful as passion and enthusiasm.

Wow very grounding. Thats probably the most logical way to approach the subject and thanks for taking the time to comment.

I guess it works so well is because you only need a computer to create with. If you needed raw materials might not be as easy, or access to land or something. Oh well, a dreamer can dream.

onequestion
reply to post by abecedarian

 

I think you missed the point.

Dont focus on the operating systems as much as how they are comparable to our economy and the functionality of our communities.

Feel free to ask me to clarify my position.

I don't need to ask you to clarify anything. The simple fact you have already deflected to the economy is proof enough that you haven't followed through and thought out the 'total cost of ownership and maintenance'.

Again, one can't prove a negative, and therefore I cannot accurately refute your claim, so it's up to you to prove the positive.

reply to post by abecedarian


I dont really want you to refute it, but maybe add to it or just throw around some fun ideas or play with words a little.

The plight of the artist continues.

reply to post by abecedarian

how about you say something you can do in Linux that can't be done in Windows?

For a start Windows doesn't have a huge software repository which can be easily browsed from one single location (eg the Ubuntu package manager). Not to mention 99.9% of all Linux software is free. It is also way more secure than any other operating system (hence why the vast majority of servers run Linux). And you also have the ability to change virtually anything in a Linux OS because they aren't locked down to protect idiots from themselves.

open source mantra,
... could be a mantra is the abstract lesson to be learned from open source?
"Open Source the information.
Open Source the government.
Open Source your reality.
Open Source human destiny."

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Hmmm, right. How can i continue to follow your idea there?

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by abecedarian

 

how about you say something you can do in Linux that can't be done in Windows?

For a start Windows doesn't have a huge software repository which can be easily browsed from one single location (eg the Ubuntu package manager). Not to mention 99.9% of all Linux software is free. It is also way more secure than any other operating system (hence why the vast majority of servers run Linux). And you also have the ability to change virtually anything in a Linux OS because they aren't locked down to protect idiots from themselves.

Ignoring the fact you didn't answer the question....

Servers run Linux because it's free.

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

Target runs Linux... remember that?

And the idiots are the ones causing issues for Linux because the underlying operating system doesn't protect people from their own stupidity. And by that I mean the developers are the idiots because they aren't closing the holes and protecting the 'laypeople' who believe Linux is the godsend of security from their own ignorance.

onequestion
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Hmmm, right. How can i continue to follow your idea there?

fight agents!

reply to post by abecedarian


I dno why your stuck on computer information when were obviously talking about an idea that was inspired by an observation made while analysing my computer OS.

Were kind of both just saying its pretty cool how all the artist have an avenue thats enabling them to express themselves and its not only helping build the community but creating an entirely seperate maybe even better system then the giant mega corporations with all the resources are having a tough time competeing with.