4 ms·

> > A local software would address local needs better than the generic "one size fits all" solutions would. At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not I

by Reelin 6y ago

> > A local software would address local needs better than the generic "one size fits all" solutions would. At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not Invented Here" is a well recognized anti-pattern for good reason. Don't forget the ongoing investment required for maintenance and (in many cases) ever changing interoperability requirements. > why do we tend to only use and develop Personal Computers rather than Community Computers Dynamicland is an amazing project but I think it's a pretty loose use of the term computer. It seems to me to be a physical space which incorporates interesting human-computer interaction paradigms. Someone still owns and operates the collection of computers and devices powering the entire thing behind the scenes so it's more like a mainframe or other public access system (ex sdf.org) in my view. So I'd split your question into two - why do people seem to prefer personal computers to public access systems, and why isn't there more investment in developing novel human-computer interaction paradigms? To the first question: All things being equal would you really prefer to do your personal coding, writing, reading, online shopping, or other private activities on a system someone else controlled? Note that many people already do much of their day to day work on such devices (ie centrally administrated systems). To the second question: That shit is incredibly expensive in both time and materials and a return on investment seems unlikely in most cases. Just look at how difficult it has proven to develop usable VR headsets that fall into a reasonable price range! (And then you have to rework or reinvent all the existing software to add support for them.) It does happen though - VR headsets, the Wiimote, and the Xbox Kinect are all examples. There are certainly hobbyists who custom fabricate their own keyboards or implement interesting interactions using computer vision, but the hurdle between that sort of thing and mass adoption of novel hardware that integrates with a variety of software is absolutely huge.

yellowapple 6y ago
> At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not Invented Here" is a well recognized anti-pattern for good reason. Building a system from smaller pre-built components helps address that; you would be able to take those already-built pieces and arrange and configure them to your specific needs. That is: not all customized solutions are a symptom of NIH syndrome. Sometimes one size doesn't fit all.
teekert 6y ago
Exactly, this also feel wrong to me, because a framework that allows local business to cater to locals much more easily and effectively is also a "one size fits all" approach but on a lower level. I really don't like the negative tone of this blogpost.
seltzered_ 6y ago
Take a step back, I'm thinking in broad strokes before thinking about all the 'whatabouts' of security concerns/etc. Of course we want some degree of commonality for the sake of minimizing resource use, but there's a huge question of what types of software would look like if it was developed by other cultures for different goals. Regarding dynamicland, I think there's space for both a mix of personal and communal computing - we already have personal computers while working on wikis, google docs, etc. It's too early to tell what dynamicland or similar efforts will grow into, remember it's current state is "One step in a 50-year project". > "So I'd split your question into two - why do people seem to prefer personal computers to public access systems, and why isn't there more investment in developing novel human-computer interaction paradigms?" Perhaps it's partly because personal computers already lay better within the context we already live in - we live in homes generally with at most a nuclear family. Households do have shared television computers / home assistants but they're generally oriented around content consumption. > "All things being equal would you really prefer to do your personal coding, writing, reading, online shopping, or other private activities on a system someone else controlled?" Today we're already doing plenty of things on systems someone else controls - I think the idea is to do more activity on platforms with shared stakeholdership. This means having a commons for doing those activities, per Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles ( http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-princi... ).

by Reelin 6y ago

yellowapple 6y ago

> At what cost in terms of development effort? "Not Invented Here" is a well recognized anti-pattern for good reason. Building a system from smaller pre-built components helps address that; you would be able to take those already-built pieces and arrange and configure them to your specific needs. That is: not all customized solutions are a symptom of NIH syndrome. Sometimes one size doesn't fit all.

teekert 6y ago

Exactly, this also feel wrong to me, because a framework that allows local business to cater to locals much more easily and effectively is also a "one size fits all" approach but on a lower level. I really don't like the negative tone of this blogpost.

seltzered_ 6y ago

Take a step back, I'm thinking in broad strokes before thinking about all the 'whatabouts' of security concerns/etc. Of course we want some degree of commonality for the sake of minimizing resource use, but there's a huge question of what types of software would look like if it was developed by other cultures for different goals. Regarding dynamicland, I think there's space for both a mix of personal and communal computing - we already have personal computers while working on wikis, google docs, etc. It's too early to tell what dynamicland or similar efforts will grow into, remember it's current state is "One step in a 50-year project". > "So I'd split your question into two - why do people seem to prefer personal computers to public access systems, and why isn't there more investment in developing novel human-computer interaction paradigms?" Perhaps it's partly because personal computers already lay better within the context we already live in - we live in homes generally with at most a nuclear family. Households do have shared television computers / home assistants but they're generally oriented around content consumption. > "All things being equal would you really prefer to do your personal coding, writing, reading, online shopping, or other private activities on a system someone else controlled?" Today we're already doing plenty of things on systems someone else controls - I think the idea is to do more activity on platforms with shared stakeholdership. This means having a commons for doing those activities, per Elinor Ostrom's 8 principles ( http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons http://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-princi... ).