5 ms·

It seems like he's still stuck thinking about computers the way he was many years ago. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yelp, etc. ... infinitely more tra

It seems like he's still stuck thinking about computers the way he was many years ago. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Wikipedia, Yelp, etc. ... infinitely more transformative than nearly all software that came before Ah, pop culture, you make me laugh... you make me cry...

chris_wot 14y ago
Why so?
- ehsanu1 14y ago
  Not the GP, but the quote gives undue importance to a number of websites that have been successful. You have to consider whether some early software (say Unix and the C compiler) was more instrumental to the transformative effects of software on humanity, or say the software written Xerox PARC, or the original TCP/IP work.
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    It depends on your measure. It could be argued that it's not undue weight as these sites have impacted on such a massive proportion of the world's society. For instance, gcc and unix didn't allow for the sort of direct communication that twitter caused - look at the Arab Spring for example. That the technologies you mention enabled the websites mentioned is not in doubt, but without the websites and related technologies would things like TCP/IP and Unix have had such an impact?
    - chris_wot 14y ago
      Seems that my comment is controversial as someone has voted me down. I'm curious to hear from opposing views - I love technologies like TCP/IP, gcc, Unix, C, etc. - but I think they wouldn't be much use unless they were used to enable applications like Twitter, Google, Nethack and Wikipedia. I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that the underlying technologies aren't amazing.
      - sp332 14y ago
        I think the debate is whether TCP/IP would be useful without Google, or Wikipedia would have happened without TCP/IP. Personally I would say that IP changed the way people think about information, which made Wikipedia seem plausible.
staunch 14y ago
Calling something a name isn't much of an argument.

chris_wot 14y ago

Why so?

ehsanu1 14y ago
Not the GP, but the quote gives undue importance to a number of websites that have been successful. You have to consider whether some early software (say Unix and the C compiler) was more instrumental to the transformative effects of software on humanity, or say the software written Xerox PARC, or the original TCP/IP work.
- chris_wot 14y ago
  It depends on your measure. It could be argued that it's not undue weight as these sites have impacted on such a massive proportion of the world's society. For instance, gcc and unix didn't allow for the sort of direct communication that twitter caused - look at the Arab Spring for example. That the technologies you mention enabled the websites mentioned is not in doubt, but without the websites and related technologies would things like TCP/IP and Unix have had such an impact?
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    Seems that my comment is controversial as someone has voted me down. I'm curious to hear from opposing views - I love technologies like TCP/IP, gcc, Unix, C, etc. - but I think they wouldn't be much use unless they were used to enable applications like Twitter, Google, Nethack and Wikipedia. I do want to clarify that I'm not saying that the underlying technologies aren't amazing.
    - sp332 14y ago
      I think the debate is whether TCP/IP would be useful without Google, or Wikipedia would have happened without TCP/IP. Personally I would say that IP changed the way people think about information, which made Wikipedia seem plausible.

staunch 14y ago

Calling something a name isn't much of an argument.