3 ms·

> The ecosystem is vibrant, healthy, and will keep growing. > > in my mind there will eventually be a tipping point, Why do so many people insist on Growth and

by berkes 6y ago

> The ecosystem is vibrant, healthy, and will keep growing. > > in my mind there will eventually be a tipping point, Why do so many people insist on Growth and Largest, as metrics for 'success'? My local pub is a success. They are not worlds' largest pub. My Mom and Granny don't go there. They don't have parties with millions of people crammed in the place. Etc. Why can't Linux be called 'a success', the very moment that it helps one person? Why don't we call Mastodon or Peertube a success the very moment a tiny group of people uses and likes it? Why do we insist that Peertube is only successful when my mom and my Granny use it? Why do we insist on huge market shares to call open source successful?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
slx26 6y ago
Your local pub might be trying to offer an alternative to local people staying on their homes watching tv instead. Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns (they often want to drive people away from the current mainstream option for ethical reasons). Not everyone might share that view, but they are definitely different situations. Not saying you don't have a point, but we can't ignore the differences in context.
- berkes 6y ago
  > Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns True. But my point is that you could call both "a success" the moment that one singular person uses it as alternative. For that person it is a success! With Peertube you need some network-effect, because one single person uploading and then watching those videos, can't be called "a success". But if a tiny niche, say a small group of specialist beekeepers, uses it to share instructional videos and no-one else in the entire world uses it, it can still be called "a success". Because for them it offers a solution.
harperlee 6y ago
Cost of physical distance enables niches that can be served by your local pub. If we could teleport (well, and cohabit the exact same space and tune out conversations of others at will so crowdiness is not an issue) they would have a much much harder time selling something unique. Scale aids in bringing people in, because it becomes the default choice.
- samaxe 6y ago
  You contradict, and invalidate yourself, in your own argument. > they (the local pub) would have a much harder time selling something unique > Scale ...becomes the default choice Scale and monopoly removes choice and uniqueness. There are people that love Starbucks, there are also people that love their local coffee shop.
  - harperlee 6y ago
    I don’t those two thing are contradictory, it’s just that you are assuming you don’t get uniqueness inside a monopolistic platform, which is only partially true. The platform is fixed, but you get uniqueness inside the platform, with the content and contacts you follow. Facebook, reddit, etc. are not the same experience for all users. Comparing a network, where each vantage point is unique with Starbucks, which has maybe 50 products, is not an apt analogy.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  I tend to avoid larger pubs because the quality of experience in smaller ones tends to be better. Quantity has a quality of its own, and it's not always a good thing.
A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I used to think differently, but I am starting to agree. Part of the issues with current generation of software is that it is effectively intended for masses, who barely understand what is happening under the hood or what is possible resulting in software that looks pretty, has severely limited options and constantly calls home for 'diagnostic' purposes. That said, commercially, it is hard to argue with adoption as a metric. Problem is, focusing on that metric results in the same bs as in the real world: consumer ( crap tier ) and business ( good tier that tends to have good options if you are willing to spend money ).
Mediterraneo10 6y ago
Aren't local pubs in the UK and certain other countries now mainly owned by corporate chains, not independent? In that case, there is definitely a concern with growth, though it might not be readily visible to patrons.

by berkes 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

slx26 6y ago

Your local pub might be trying to offer an alternative to local people staying on their homes watching tv instead. Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns (they often want to drive people away from the current mainstream option for ethical reasons). Not everyone might share that view, but they are definitely different situations. Not saying you don't have a point, but we can't ignore the differences in context.

berkes 6y ago
> Linux and peertube are trying to offer an alternative to something of a much bigger scale, and most likely with more pressing ethical concerns True. But my point is that you could call both "a success" the moment that one singular person uses it as alternative. For that person it is a success! With Peertube you need some network-effect, because one single person uploading and then watching those videos, can't be called "a success". But if a tiny niche, say a small group of specialist beekeepers, uses it to share instructional videos and no-one else in the entire world uses it, it can still be called "a success". Because for them it offers a solution.

harperlee 6y ago

Cost of physical distance enables niches that can be served by your local pub. If we could teleport (well, and cohabit the exact same space and tune out conversations of others at will so crowdiness is not an issue) they would have a much much harder time selling something unique. Scale aids in bringing people in, because it becomes the default choice.

samaxe 6y ago
You contradict, and invalidate yourself, in your own argument. > they (the local pub) would have a much harder time selling something unique > Scale ...becomes the default choice Scale and monopoly removes choice and uniqueness. There are people that love Starbucks, there are also people that love their local coffee shop.
- harperlee 6y ago
  I don’t those two thing are contradictory, it’s just that you are assuming you don’t get uniqueness inside a monopolistic platform, which is only partially true. The platform is fixed, but you get uniqueness inside the platform, with the content and contacts you follow. Facebook, reddit, etc. are not the same experience for all users. Comparing a network, where each vantage point is unique with Starbucks, which has maybe 50 products, is not an apt analogy.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
I tend to avoid larger pubs because the quality of experience in smaller ones tends to be better. Quantity has a quality of its own, and it's not always a good thing.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

I used to think differently, but I am starting to agree. Part of the issues with current generation of software is that it is effectively intended for masses, who barely understand what is happening under the hood or what is possible resulting in software that looks pretty, has severely limited options and constantly calls home for 'diagnostic' purposes. That said, commercially, it is hard to argue with adoption as a metric. Problem is, focusing on that metric results in the same bs as in the real world: consumer ( crap tier ) and business ( good tier that tends to have good options if you are willing to spend money ).

Mediterraneo10 6y ago

Aren't local pubs in the UK and certain other countries now mainly owned by corporate chains, not independent? In that case, there is definitely a concern with growth, though it might not be readily visible to patrons.