4 ms·
I'll risque got many minuses, this is right of all. But read whole comment, and if you could, write counter arguments. I must admit, this is good article, beca
by simne 4y ago
I'll risque got many minuses, this is right of all. But read whole comment, and if you could, write counter arguments.
I must admit, this is good article, because it illustrating different styles of thinking, and using excellent example of really great fail, but absolutely avoidable.
Unfortunately, it is written considered tech people, in language of tech people, on resource intended for tech people, but it is much closer for entrepreneurs, business owners, investors, freelancers.
I could not add much to what already mentioned, except, that exists huge number of examples, when big corporations used best scientific research and fail.
This is because scientific is right in only some dimensions of space-time and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere, which are accessible for current science (and not right in huge non-digitized areas.
And usually, researched really past, but product is made for future, and future is mostly unpredictable for current science.
As summary of my comment, when use research data for work, you risque, to make product for some abstract market, existed in past, but will not exist in future.
- unsafecast 4y ago> As summary of my comment, when use research data for work, you risque, to make product for some abstract market, existed in past, but will not exist in future. Of course - this happens all the time. But I'd argue this is definitely not what happened with Plan 9. I think the article mentioned this as well, that Plan 9 was not really made by business people with commercial interests in a software company with experience. It was actually the polar opposite. The people that worked on Plan 9 wanted to make a better system. I don't call it a failure, I call it an enormous success. It of course failed as a commercial product, but that was an afterthought from the beginning. I digress. You said that Plan 9 was designed for a future that never got to be. What about all its legacy? All the things that I'm sure I don't have to repeat, that got into every other system eventually. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned a weirdness budget. I think that's the best explanation. Plan 9 finished up their weirdness budget about 5% in. That made it an awfully good system that nobody used. We need systems like that to show us what's possible, but they'll never be mainstream.
- lproven 4y ago"Risqué" (French: rees-KAY) is not the same word as "risk" (English). The main use of "risqué" in English means "overly sexual and provocative".
- simne 4y agoThank You. I sometimes do mistakes under pressure.