3 ms·

[on open source] As for the ideas they introduced into the public discourse: they were real, valid, and in many ways incredibly valuable, but in the end they wo

by chubot 3y ago

[on open source] As for the ideas they introduced into the public discourse: they were real, valid, and in many ways incredibly valuable, but in the end they would be woven into the fabric of existing corporate-software production practices rather than burning down the old ways wholesale. Ouch For rigid ideology seldom makes a good fit with the real world; pragmatically mixed national economies, for example, succeed vastly better than dogmatically capitalist or communist ones. Agree with this too, you need diversity in ideas / ideology

xwolfi 3y ago
Yeah, I work in an investment bank in Hong Kong, and I agree with both statement: we are more successful than most countries, including China, because as a people we are extremely pragmatic: we have free education to provide banks with an adequate workforce, we have free hospital so that bank employees do not overly concern themselves with the wellbeing of their parents and children, we have freedom of expression because we should not be distracted from the main point, politically: we should only aim at fighting for more capital to come in, not for freedom of speech to reappear. We only break down when a dogmatic partner, be it China or the US, push us around to trend their side, it's very annoying to witness. I enjoy a lot remixing open source software into our bank's backend. However, nobody ever cared about what I did in the bank to a point I could send it back to an open source community. I think open source cannot solve problems alone, as the article says: it just solves technical problems but never the ones I need to solve for money. Interestingly some of my least productive colleagues, those who never seem to solve any problem, are very very avid open source contributor. It's like they can write an entire unusable framework for calling databases in 6 whole months, but we still have clients who cannot cross a swap in Korea. They don't seem to know what a swap is, why we want to cross them or where Korea is located. Why ?

by chubot 3y ago

xwolfi 3y ago

Yeah, I work in an investment bank in Hong Kong, and I agree with both statement: we are more successful than most countries, including China, because as a people we are extremely pragmatic: we have free education to provide banks with an adequate workforce, we have free hospital so that bank employees do not overly concern themselves with the wellbeing of their parents and children, we have freedom of expression because we should not be distracted from the main point, politically: we should only aim at fighting for more capital to come in, not for freedom of speech to reappear. We only break down when a dogmatic partner, be it China or the US, push us around to trend their side, it's very annoying to witness. I enjoy a lot remixing open source software into our bank's backend. However, nobody ever cared about what I did in the bank to a point I could send it back to an open source community. I think open source cannot solve problems alone, as the article says: it just solves technical problems but never the ones I need to solve for money. Interestingly some of my least productive colleagues, those who never seem to solve any problem, are very very avid open source contributor. It's like they can write an entire unusable framework for calling databases in 6 whole months, but we still have clients who cannot cross a swap in Korea. They don't seem to know what a swap is, why we want to cross them or where Korea is located. Why ?