3 ms·

> shrug there are giant for-profit corporations relying on software written by Richard Stallman. I don't think the intentions of the founder matter much. I mea

> shrug there are giant for-profit corporations relying on software written by Richard Stallman. I don't think the intentions of the founder matter much. I mean, the left politics of Stallman _very much_ influence how Free Software ends up being used and incorporated. Consider how the GPL encodes the norm of working in common with one another, dragging profit seeking corporations into that as well, or into defending against it. It's like a whole thing. > At this point I wish someone would clone urbit, since the hatred for the founder seems to mean it'll never get traction no matter what it does or how it works. Right, what I'm saying is, even cloned, Urbit's going to be a non-starter for a lot of people. Rigidly hierarchical, rent-seeking obscurantism isn't, uh, popular. I _do_ think Kelvin versioning is compelling though. TeX comes to mind there as an excellent example.

tern 4y ago
> Rigidly hierarchical, rent-seeking obscurantism isn't, uh, popular. What is the current state of the web? Rigidly hierarchical All internet governing bodies wield absolute power. Most of the computing experience is completely controlled by a handful of global corporations that are more powerful than many nation states. You don't control or have any influence over most of this. Rent seeking AWS, domain names, social networks? The web is rent-seeking at every level. Obscurantism Most of the code we use is worse than obscure, it's literally proprietary. I would say these qualities are very popular today.
- troutwine 4y ago
  > What is the current state of the web? Sure. I think the important difference here is the web has _become_ this way; the things you point out are problems to be solved. Whereas, Urbit encodes these norms as a social good.