[h2o-discuss] Who is They?

["Stefan Keel" <sakone@mail4.halcyon.com>]

"This is what always happens.  A young Herostratus broods because he3 
doesn't know how to become famous.  Then he sees a movie in which a frail
young man shoots a country music star and becomes the center of attention.
Herostratus has found the formula; he goes out and shoots John Lennon."
-Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum.

I promise, in the future I will not steal so much from the brilliant works
of the Italian scholar, but it seemed so fitting given the orientation of
our discussion here.  By and by, Mark, I fear that any good conspirator will
suffer undue scrutiny in any State where s/he might reside - even in
Missouri.

I should admit that I feel a bit out of my league in some of this
discussion, particularly the medical research/R&D discussion.  Fortunately
for me, I think that Mark has managed to sum things up rather nicely with
his 'convergence of factors' passage.  I can't say that I even remotely
understand the cost structures involved with medical research.  Still, I
feel that in some cases there is enough technology available, though we lack
in imagination; and in other cases there is plenty of imagination, though we
lack in the available technology to make our dreams a reality.  So, in the
case of something *not* being brought to market, as Robert offered, it is
perhaps that we just weren't ready for that innovation to enter our lives.
It's likely that the idea lay dormant, somewhere, and someone will find a
'marketable' use for it given adequate imagination.

Moving along to another point of interest, I thought that I would comment on
the all pervasive 'us against them' issue brought up by Tuyet.  Hence the
quote at the beginning of this post, which is all too drastic an example but
seemed fitting nonetheless.

In regards to Apple's recent move to open the source for their OS, I have a
somewhat standard position, which I offered at a OSX seminar I attended
recently.  The fact that Apple opened their Kernel is not surprising - they
almost had to, since it's based on the FreeBSD Mach 2.5 Kernel and
subsequently subject to the BSD licensing.  Equally so, Apple has never
really been in the Operating System market, per se, more that their greatest
revenue source comes from hardware innovations and sales.  So what benefit
comes from the ability to recompile the Kernel for the hardware that you've
got installed?  Apple would have sold you that hardware in the first place,
and so the underlying Kernel should have been optimized for its best use.
One would think, anyway.  I believe that it was necessary in Apple's
evolution to make such a move - nothing lost, though the benefits of finally
offering some Unix like features to their operating system are surely
gained.  If one were to be able to actually customize the OS to one's own
specifications, then Apple would need to allow more configuration to the top
end of the OS in order to offer more options to the OS's overall
construction.

For example, if I were to desire a Web server, why wouldn't I just want to
build?  I wouldn't particularly need all of the extraneous Apple OS
applications riding on top of a more mission essential Kernel running the
necessary HTTP, FTP, etc. daemons.  If I wanted to plug in a rack-mount
server in over at an ISP on some co-location deal, then I may need to access
it from a more customizable system, or universal terminal.  But I don't want
to imply that I'm one of the 'us against them' proponents, just that I would
prefer more options and interoperability.  It's where propriety builds a
wall, from my view here.

Tuyet writes...

> It is laudable to advocate the open-source but, how often does an average
> person who uses a computer will be efficient in handling Linux and a plethora
> of open codes?

An excellent question.  From my understanding, Linux is by developers, for
developers.  It's a difficult venture for the Linux community to develop
enough of a desktop environment for it to be competitive with the current
grip that Microsoft and Apple have on the common market.  Therefore, in this
case, it seems necessary for closed systems to be more involved.  It might
just offer more incentive for those who don't quite understand open systems
to feel that they're getting their share for the life energies that they are
putting forth.  It reminds me of something that my mother said to me when
she was confused about some of my pursuits, "But why shouldn't you get paid
for what you enjoy doing."  To her, it seems that there should be some
quantifiable incentive to continue doing something that one is likely to do
anyway.  I have seen this in what is sometimes considered an 'average'
mentality, and the only way that I have come to understand it, for my own
sanity, is to view it as, 'the answer is provided.'  In other words, most
people would rather not have to deal with the issues that arise when it
comes to new ideas, or new processes.  Not that they don't already work hard
enough!  They want to be able to just have their operating system stable,
and let the rest of us tinker with its workings.

I never took the time to figure out the real mysteries of an internal
combustion engine, though I understand it in theory, and so I pay someone
else to work on my car - when I still owned a car, that is - and generally
trust that they're not 'taking me for a ride'.

On which side of the glass are We?  When We perceive that They are looking
in, what do We see in the reflection?  I confound myself daily by pondering
whether or not I am on the inside of the fishbowl looking out, or on the
outside looking in.  Which turns itself full circle and forces me to ask,
Who is They?  Who or what am I to Them?  From my own personal discoveries, I
feel that at times I need a target for my frustrations and lack of
understanding, and so I pick on Them.  Truly, it is unproductive, even
unkind!  I have even chosen to use some of the names that We have given
Them; i.e. Capitalists.

>From my vantage point down here at the base of the tower, I ask, "How much
is enough to kill yourself?"  I ponder the differences between quality and
quantity, and I recognize that I have limitations.  I am only one, in this
sea of many, and so I need the help of others from time to time.  I even
need Their help.  We wouldn't be having any discussion at all if this
weren't true.

Before I get too carried away here, for I fear that I may have wandered a
little off the path, I will leave with this additional thought - added to
Sun Tzu's, Art of War, around 100 B.C. by Su-ma Ch'ien...

"If a general is ignorant of the principle of adaptability, he must not be
entrusted with a position of authority.  The skillful employer of men will
employ the wise man, the brave man, the covetous man, and the stupid man.
For the wise man delights in establishing his merit, the brave man likes to
show his courage in action, the covetous man is quick at seizing advantages,
and the stupid man has no fear of death."

My only comment is that we should each consider ourselves Generals of our
own destinies.

Thanks,

Sak.