>
>2) Open sourced as dick slinging? Umm. No. Matt hit the nail on the head
>with the reasons and benefits of Open Source. It's better, you can see what
>is there, you can modify it, you can improve it and send it off for the next
>folk to improve it. Dick slinging... or more aptly pride in ones work ...
>will factor into it, but such a base metaphor is inappropriate.
i never called it that. i responded to this, kendall's first comment:
>their computers; or giving away your code to the world at
>large to read, study, and learn from, and then assembling that code
>into operating systems that are challenging but give users a
>tremendous amount of power.
we were talking, in general, about "geeks". i felt that this characterization of geeks (as opposed to peter's claim that geeks are "condescending") was a little over the top and generously one-sided. giving away code is for other people who know what the hell code is and what to do with it. ferchrisakes.
gimme a break.
why is this trotted out over and over and over again. "geeks" are special b/c they give away code.
i've since gone on to do what i'd intended to do, use kendall's post to toss around some ideas and theories from the lit on the sociology of the profession to consider how and why this kind of practice is the norm. for example, it is not unusual for a newly emerging and marginalized practice like computer work to be highly collaborative in the beginning. it is also not unusual for an emerging profession to set itself apart from the capitalst values of the day and argue for a more utopian vision embedded in the ethos of its community (see physicians for that claim). etc.
the offhand claim about open source was actually about the "other" open source. i see those two competing position on "freedom" as rather interesting, a not insignificant split that is important to attend . i was suggesting that if "geeks" were so special then it would hardly seem likely that this other philosophy would have emerged, and it was indication to me of just how the open source movement would end up being coopted by c apital.
kelley