3 ms·

> The real revolution would be open data which is wholly and exclusively owned by users (or user groups for collaboration) and loaned to proprietary software fo

> The real revolution would be open data which is wholly and exclusively owned by users (or user groups for collaboration) and loaned to proprietary software for specific limited tasks. How would that work in practice? By its very nature open data would also be accessible to proprietary programs although the reverse need not be the case. Seems like we will need open data and code. Either one open will not do.

calgoo 5y ago
One example for this that i have been thinking of is chat. Instead of having 15 different apps, we should be able to choose which UI we want to use, and then that opens the chat streams. Kind of like email, where you can use any client. However most big companies would fight this every step as they loose control. Edit: I envision it a bit like streams of data that you can subscribe / push to. Think RSS mixed with a pub/sub type of model. You would subscribe to the hackernews datastream, and submitting articles and comments are done using push. The push message would have some predefined metadata fields that are obligatory (article url, title, summary or comment text).
- mike97 5y ago
  Matrix does exactly what you're saying, you can use different apps, create your own also you can self host your own node or use someone else to join.
- aetherspawn 5y ago
  This is centralisation from the bottom up! You don’t want this. If everything talks the same protocol, some giant will eventually own the protocol in the same way Google stole the web with Chrome. Can you imagine if Android licensed iMessage instead of building Hangouts? Yes, we’d all be texting on the same protocol, and yes we’d have a choice of clients, but at what cost?
bluGill 5y ago
> How would that work in practice? By its very nature open data would also be accessible to proprietary programs That is a good thing. If program X works best on my data I want to use it. There are a few examples where people do mix programs from different companies. Musicians use MIDI to connect their favorite keyboard to a synthesizer from a different company all the time - sure it is tied to hardware, but it need not be and is a perfect example of what should be possible for any user data: mix and match. > although the reverse need not be the case. It doesn't have to be, but if users demand it, it will be. > Seems like we will need open data and code. Either one open will not do. Open data means we can create the code. Closed data is a lot harder to deal with than closed code.
- bzzzt 5y ago
  The reason MIDI is a success is the actual data is quite simple. It's just a stream of keypress and numeric control updates. And there's no incentive for a synthesizer manufacturer to block access to incoming or outgoing data. When your data is complex, the processing done to it will be complex, especially if you need to guarantee invariants (eg. referential integrity or database constraints).

calgoo 5y ago

One example for this that i have been thinking of is chat. Instead of having 15 different apps, we should be able to choose which UI we want to use, and then that opens the chat streams. Kind of like email, where you can use any client. However most big companies would fight this every step as they loose control. Edit: I envision it a bit like streams of data that you can subscribe / push to. Think RSS mixed with a pub/sub type of model. You would subscribe to the hackernews datastream, and submitting articles and comments are done using push. The push message would have some predefined metadata fields that are obligatory (article url, title, summary or comment text).

mike97 5y ago
Matrix does exactly what you're saying, you can use different apps, create your own also you can self host your own node or use someone else to join.
aetherspawn 5y ago
This is centralisation from the bottom up! You don’t want this. If everything talks the same protocol, some giant will eventually own the protocol in the same way Google stole the web with Chrome. Can you imagine if Android licensed iMessage instead of building Hangouts? Yes, we’d all be texting on the same protocol, and yes we’d have a choice of clients, but at what cost?

bluGill 5y ago

> How would that work in practice? By its very nature open data would also be accessible to proprietary programs That is a good thing. If program X works best on my data I want to use it. There are a few examples where people do mix programs from different companies. Musicians use MIDI to connect their favorite keyboard to a synthesizer from a different company all the time - sure it is tied to hardware, but it need not be and is a perfect example of what should be possible for any user data: mix and match. > although the reverse need not be the case. It doesn't have to be, but if users demand it, it will be. > Seems like we will need open data and code. Either one open will not do. Open data means we can create the code. Closed data is a lot harder to deal with than closed code.

bzzzt 5y ago
The reason MIDI is a success is the actual data is quite simple. It's just a stream of keypress and numeric control updates. And there's no incentive for a synthesizer manufacturer to block access to incoming or outgoing data. When your data is complex, the processing done to it will be complex, especially if you need to guarantee invariants (eg. referential integrity or database constraints).