4 ms·

I'm not sure about this. On one hand the idea sounds good on the other it raises lots of questions. For example, who will decide who is a "worthy load bearer"?

I'm not sure about this. On one hand the idea sounds good on the other it raises lots of questions. For example, who will decide who is a "worthy load bearer"? Then once people are funded who will manage their workloads? Also, I'm dubious the whole thing is actually needed in the first place. No examples of "load bearers needing funding" were given. DNS was mentioned, but what part of it exactly? Root TLDs are doing pretty well financially from what I heard by selling all the sub domains in their TLDs, so what are we talking about exactly reverse DNS? Things like .org or edu? These are funded by governments. Network wise we have telcos paying for sub sea cables, Internet exchanges like the one in London are self funded (by connection fees). Routing is managed by same telcos and IXs. What are these individual "Internet Load Bearers" that keep the entire Internet afloat without making a dime from it? Usenet admins? I might have paid to keep Usenet alive, but Google bought it all, didn't they?

pdonis 3y ago
> who will decide who is a "worthy load bearer"? If you decide to contribute, you do. You contribute directly to people you think are worthy load bearers. > once people are funded who will manage their workloads? They do. They're already doing that anyway. If you decide to fund someone through this program, you're saying that you think whatever they are already doing is worth supporting. > What are these individual "Internet Load Bearers" that keep the entire Internet afloat without making a dime from it? The very start of the article explains this.
- tptacek 3y ago
  It makes a series of claims, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "explains" anything.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    It explains the theory under which the "load bearers" initiative operates. If you don't agree with that theory, then of course you're not going to buy their explanation. But for someone who does agree with their theory, the explanation given looks fine to me.
burkaman 3y ago
Examples are on the adviser pages: http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/, http://flent-fremont.bufferbloat.net/~d/lbip/ http://flent-fremont.bufferbloat.net/~d/lbip/. It seems like there will be more advisers and more candidates soon. My interpretation is that this is not about funding organizations, it's about funding independent open-source developers who maintain critical software. A couple interesting (to me) candidates: > Simon Kelley. (Simon promises a Patreon link soon) Maintains Dnsmasq, the most widely-used DNS implementation in the world, essentially solo. > Paul Eggert. Maintains the IANA timezone database. Ubiquitous in key open-source projects for decades. I don't know anything about Eric S. Raymond but it seems like everyone in the thread so far has pretty negative opinions of him, and I agree it's not a great look that he listed himself as a candidate here.
- cpach 3y ago
  “It seems like there will be more advisers and more candidates soon” You sure? http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ hasn’t been updated in nearly four years.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    Oh no I didn't see the updated date, I just figured this was posted here because it was new. I guess it is already dead.
    - dtaht 3y ago
      His idea was published in the last linux journal, and generated in part, in sympathy for my state of health at the time. Since then there has been a lot of decent research on the "load" and emerging government support for critical projects, as log4j woke up quite a few folk as to the problems that we are creating for ourselves with bad maintenence of open source code. The FCC has a NPRM pending on a cybersecurity label, for example, based on NISTś recommendations from this presidential directive. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/18/biden-harris-administration-announces-cybersecurity-labeling-program-for-smart-devices-to-protect-american-consumers/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... It is ok that the loadsharers idea, as conceived here, has died, as it lives on in other places, and the things that esr and I cared about then, are getting taken care of.
luma 3y ago
> What are these individual "Internet Load Bearers" Unsurprisingly (if you know his history), the author suggests himself: http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ This dude has been a "hanger on" since the 80s and has continuously pushed to put himself in the spotlight of the free software movement.
SequoiaHope 3y ago
I really think that we're just doing society wrong, and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to live without income. In such a world, we could have way more of these "load bearing" people who are doing just fine without needing to extract anything from the economy. This makes it much easier for parts of the economy to be less parasitic, as large groups could work on projects that provide value without feeling the need to hamstring those projects with value-extraction systems. Often those value extraction systems really sharply impact the value of the thing on offer, meaning that an economy comprised of projects which all have to extract value could be much more poorly performing than an economy comprised of projects which can offer much more for free. The resulting boost in economic output could I believe pay for the support system such a system would require.
- blooalien 3y ago
  I sure do wish we weren't the only two people in "civilized" nations that think along those lines. Right now on this planet (for a fairly long while now) most of the technology and knowledge to create near Utopic societies exist, but ain't gonna happen, because "mo' money" and "more power (but only for me)" is the ultimate goal of most humans. :(
  - SequoiaHope 3y ago
    I honestly do not believe this is the goal of most humans. That view is seriously over represented in media because the people who run the media hold that view, but most people want everyone to thrive. And there is a philosophical tradition going back hundreds of years concerning efforts to bring about such a world. That tradition is leftism, and while some interpretations have led to calamity, analysis of those outcomes shows that the problem was concentration of power. If we can have decentralized leftism, which generally falls under the label of anarchism or anarchist communism, then we can according to theory build the world I describe. I tend to avoid these terms because they start flamewars, but since you suggested only you and I think this way I wanted to draw your attention to these traditions. I boil all that down to less charged phrases like "community ownership of the means of production". It is through an economy described in that way which I believe we can achieve the world we desire. As long as there is an ownership class and a worker class, even with UBI or other schemes, there will be those that hold all the cards and those masses fighting for scraps. But if we can find collective ways to distribute ownership rights over the core systems in the economy, then we can all enjoy the dividends of factory ownership and see the gains that come from growth in technology and automation. I think this is more eminently achievable and sustainable than some hand-wringing capitalists would have us believe.

pdonis 3y ago

> who will decide who is a "worthy load bearer"? If you decide to contribute, you do. You contribute directly to people you think are worthy load bearers. > once people are funded who will manage their workloads? They do. They're already doing that anyway. If you decide to fund someone through this program, you're saying that you think whatever they are already doing is worth supporting. > What are these individual "Internet Load Bearers" that keep the entire Internet afloat without making a dime from it? The very start of the article explains this.

tptacek 3y ago
It makes a series of claims, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it "explains" anything.
- pdonis 3y ago
  It explains the theory under which the "load bearers" initiative operates. If you don't agree with that theory, then of course you're not going to buy their explanation. But for someone who does agree with their theory, the explanation given looks fine to me.

burkaman 3y ago

Examples are on the adviser pages: http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/, http://flent-fremont.bufferbloat.net/~d/lbip/ http://flent-fremont.bufferbloat.net/~d/lbip/. It seems like there will be more advisers and more candidates soon. My interpretation is that this is not about funding organizations, it's about funding independent open-source developers who maintain critical software. A couple interesting (to me) candidates: > Simon Kelley. (Simon promises a Patreon link soon) Maintains Dnsmasq, the most widely-used DNS implementation in the world, essentially solo. > Paul Eggert. Maintains the IANA timezone database. Ubiquitous in key open-source projects for decades. I don't know anything about Eric S. Raymond but it seems like everyone in the thread so far has pretty negative opinions of him, and I agree it's not a great look that he listed himself as a candidate here.

cpach 3y ago
“It seems like there will be more advisers and more candidates soon” You sure? http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ hasn’t been updated in nearly four years.
- burkaman 3y ago
  Oh no I didn't see the updated date, I just figured this was posted here because it was new. I guess it is already dead.
  - dtaht 3y ago
    His idea was published in the last linux journal, and generated in part, in sympathy for my state of health at the time. Since then there has been a lot of decent research on the "load" and emerging government support for critical projects, as log4j woke up quite a few folk as to the problems that we are creating for ourselves with bad maintenence of open source code. The FCC has a NPRM pending on a cybersecurity label, for example, based on NISTś recommendations from this presidential directive. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/07/18/biden-harris-administration-announces-cybersecurity-labeling-program-for-smart-devices-to-protect-american-consumers/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases... It is ok that the loadsharers idea, as conceived here, has died, as it lives on in other places, and the things that esr and I cared about then, are getting taken care of.

luma 3y ago

> What are these individual "Internet Load Bearers" Unsurprisingly (if you know his history), the author suggests himself: http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ http://www.catb.org/esr/loadsharers/ This dude has been a "hanger on" since the 80s and has continuously pushed to put himself in the spotlight of the free software movement.

SequoiaHope 3y ago

I really think that we're just doing society wrong, and that everyone should be afforded the opportunity to live without income. In such a world, we could have way more of these "load bearing" people who are doing just fine without needing to extract anything from the economy. This makes it much easier for parts of the economy to be less parasitic, as large groups could work on projects that provide value without feeling the need to hamstring those projects with value-extraction systems. Often those value extraction systems really sharply impact the value of the thing on offer, meaning that an economy comprised of projects which all have to extract value could be much more poorly performing than an economy comprised of projects which can offer much more for free. The resulting boost in economic output could I believe pay for the support system such a system would require.

blooalien 3y ago
I sure do wish we weren't the only two people in "civilized" nations that think along those lines. Right now on this planet (for a fairly long while now) most of the technology and knowledge to create near Utopic societies exist, but ain't gonna happen, because "mo' money" and "more power (but only for me)" is the ultimate goal of most humans. :(
- SequoiaHope 3y ago
  I honestly do not believe this is the goal of most humans. That view is seriously over represented in media because the people who run the media hold that view, but most people want everyone to thrive. And there is a philosophical tradition going back hundreds of years concerning efforts to bring about such a world. That tradition is leftism, and while some interpretations have led to calamity, analysis of those outcomes shows that the problem was concentration of power. If we can have decentralized leftism, which generally falls under the label of anarchism or anarchist communism, then we can according to theory build the world I describe. I tend to avoid these terms because they start flamewars, but since you suggested only you and I think this way I wanted to draw your attention to these traditions. I boil all that down to less charged phrases like "community ownership of the means of production". It is through an economy described in that way which I believe we can achieve the world we desire. As long as there is an ownership class and a worker class, even with UBI or other schemes, there will be those that hold all the cards and those masses fighting for scraps. But if we can find collective ways to distribute ownership rights over the core systems in the economy, then we can all enjoy the dividends of factory ownership and see the gains that come from growth in technology and automation. I think this is more eminently achievable and sustainable than some hand-wringing capitalists would have us believe.