9 ms·

I read the article, and I don't see what the thesis is. The article is disorganized. You can't tell where it's going, and when it gets there, you can't tell wh

by javert 13y ago

I read the article, and I don't see what the thesis is. The article is disorganized. You can't tell where it's going, and when it gets there, you can't tell where you are. It also seems to contain a lot of pretentious pseudo-intellectual posturing. Maybe I'm missing something, though. Someone feel free to enlighten me. EDIT: Also, I should state that I find the scatalogical references to be vulgar, juvenile, and a big turn-off.

TelmoMenezes 13y ago
The thesis is that things like Linux belong to a category of human endeavours that are opposite in nature to most of what regular consumers are exposed to nowadays. Furthermore, it analyses the increasingly strong "economy of bullshit" that we live under. It's hard to avoid the scatological references without diluting the message. When I read "bullshit" for the first time, I knew immediately what the author meant. Had he said "intentional misrepresentation and/or exaggeration of facts for the purpose of personal gain", the whole thing would be harder to read. And the author even bothered to explain the analogy. I don't think pseudo-intellectual posturing is a problem here. The author is quoting philosophers, but he does that in a way that is relevant to the main thesis. I understand that a lot of people groan the moment they see a reference to Philosophy. Philosophers might be to blame for that, but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. I would make the opposite accusation towards many articles we see on HN these days: they are too simplistic, too conformist and lack deep thinking.
- aquayellow 13y ago
  >The thesis is that things like Linux belong to a category of >human endeavours that are opposite in nature to most of what >regular consumers are exposed to nowadays But this is true for any open source project, why just Linux ? That said, I feel Linux too can't escape the "economy of bullshit" - commercial companies have interest and contribute to different parts of the Linux kernel for a reason. Heck even MS works on the hyper-v code base, not for the betterment of Linux but for the good of their own product. The "enterprise focus" of LKML activity is proof enough.
  - TelmoMenezes 13y ago
    > But this is true for any open source project Not in my opinion. In my opinion, Gnome, KDE, Ubuntu and many others are self-destructing in an effort to imitate Apple's design without understanding it, and generating a good amount of bullshit in the process. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that companies==bullshit. There's nothing wrong with smart employees of big companies contributing to the kernel. In many cases it's mutually beneficial so it's the rational thing to do. On the other hand, it seems to be very hard to create a big corporation without letting bullshit fester. Linux is not controlled by the sort of people that thrive on bullshit. But could it fall under their control in the future? Sure.
    - educating 13y ago
      > Gnome, KDE, Ubuntu and many others are self-destructing in an effort to imitate Apple's design without understanding it I'd go so far to say that the desktop App Store is a BAD idea. 1. It was meant to make mobile more free, and now makes desktops less free. It was born out of things like Brew on the old, old cellular market. Mobile content used to be as free as a concentration camp, and in order to appease them, Apple said "we'll do your content management for you". That was a huge deal step forward, but it obviously wasn't enough or people wouldn't jailbreak their phones. 2. It is not sustainable over the long haul. Centralized app management is not a long-sustainable model for the desktop, or anything for that matter. You cannot continue to micromanage that much software without things eventually deteriorating. Apps require maintenance or removed as hardware and the OS changes. 3. The user experience sucks. It puts all the installed apps in its own area (LaunchPad) in addition to the AppStore app where you see what you bought, and both in addition to the previously widely known Applications directory/folder. That's just stupid. Why do people want to emulate that mess? 3. But it survives for now because it is profitable. I've bought more apps in OS X using the App Store than I would have in a store or via some other online delivery mechanism or Amazon, etc. But, none of all of that would have been as terrible, if it hadn't spread to Ubuntu. Seeing similar there was a huge WTF moment.
    - snowwrestler 13y ago
      Which are all Linux distros, of course. If we are talking about the Linux kernel, specifically, then of course it's not consumer bullshit, because the Linux kernel is a technical product in a B2B market. You might as well say that Intel CPUs or Samsung flash chips or Nikon steppers are not consumer bullshit.
rwmj 13y ago
Thanks for that. Not only is the article pretentious bullshit, it's also factually wrong. There are loads of companies directly supplying developers to Linux and all of them have a strong motive to push development in the companies' own directions.
- chris_wot 13y ago
  True, but they don't always get it in the way they want it. The Android work took a long time to be incorporated into the kernel. Google is a pretty big player!
chris_wot 13y ago
On Bullshit is an essay written in 1986 by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt. Whilst bullshit is a swear word, it is immediately recognisable and gets the readers attention immediately. However, I had to read Doc Searles essay twice myself. I think it appears disorganized because it starts discussing the Linux kernel but it is about advertising. The big idea is tat most on,one advertising is wasteful, and unnecessarily violates privacy for no real good reason. The second time I read the article, I suddenly realised why he juxtaposed the Linux kernel with advertising. The Trader Joes example makes it quite clear.

by javert 13y ago

TelmoMenezes 13y ago

The thesis is that things like Linux belong to a category of human endeavours that are opposite in nature to most of what regular consumers are exposed to nowadays. Furthermore, it analyses the increasingly strong "economy of bullshit" that we live under. It's hard to avoid the scatological references without diluting the message. When I read "bullshit" for the first time, I knew immediately what the author meant. Had he said "intentional misrepresentation and/or exaggeration of facts for the purpose of personal gain", the whole thing would be harder to read. And the author even bothered to explain the analogy. I don't think pseudo-intellectual posturing is a problem here. The author is quoting philosophers, but he does that in a way that is relevant to the main thesis. I understand that a lot of people groan the moment they see a reference to Philosophy. Philosophers might be to blame for that, but let's not throw away the baby with the bath water. I would make the opposite accusation towards many articles we see on HN these days: they are too simplistic, too conformist and lack deep thinking.

aquayellow 13y ago
>The thesis is that things like Linux belong to a category of >human endeavours that are opposite in nature to most of what >regular consumers are exposed to nowadays But this is true for any open source project, why just Linux ? That said, I feel Linux too can't escape the "economy of bullshit" - commercial companies have interest and contribute to different parts of the Linux kernel for a reason. Heck even MS works on the hyper-v code base, not for the betterment of Linux but for the good of their own product. The "enterprise focus" of LKML activity is proof enough.
- TelmoMenezes 13y ago
  > But this is true for any open source project Not in my opinion. In my opinion, Gnome, KDE, Ubuntu and many others are self-destructing in an effort to imitate Apple's design without understanding it, and generating a good amount of bullshit in the process. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that companies==bullshit. There's nothing wrong with smart employees of big companies contributing to the kernel. In many cases it's mutually beneficial so it's the rational thing to do. On the other hand, it seems to be very hard to create a big corporation without letting bullshit fester. Linux is not controlled by the sort of people that thrive on bullshit. But could it fall under their control in the future? Sure.
  - educating 13y ago
    > Gnome, KDE, Ubuntu and many others are self-destructing in an effort to imitate Apple's design without understanding it I'd go so far to say that the desktop App Store is a BAD idea. 1. It was meant to make mobile more free, and now makes desktops less free. It was born out of things like Brew on the old, old cellular market. Mobile content used to be as free as a concentration camp, and in order to appease them, Apple said "we'll do your content management for you". That was a huge deal step forward, but it obviously wasn't enough or people wouldn't jailbreak their phones. 2. It is not sustainable over the long haul. Centralized app management is not a long-sustainable model for the desktop, or anything for that matter. You cannot continue to micromanage that much software without things eventually deteriorating. Apps require maintenance or removed as hardware and the OS changes. 3. The user experience sucks. It puts all the installed apps in its own area (LaunchPad) in addition to the AppStore app where you see what you bought, and both in addition to the previously widely known Applications directory/folder. That's just stupid. Why do people want to emulate that mess? 3. But it survives for now because it is profitable. I've bought more apps in OS X using the App Store than I would have in a store or via some other online delivery mechanism or Amazon, etc. But, none of all of that would have been as terrible, if it hadn't spread to Ubuntu. Seeing similar there was a huge WTF moment.
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Which are all Linux distros, of course. If we are talking about the Linux kernel, specifically, then of course it's not consumer bullshit, because the Linux kernel is a technical product in a B2B market. You might as well say that Intel CPUs or Samsung flash chips or Nikon steppers are not consumer bullshit.

rwmj 13y ago

Thanks for that. Not only is the article pretentious bullshit, it's also factually wrong. There are loads of companies directly supplying developers to Linux and all of them have a strong motive to push development in the companies' own directions.

chris_wot 13y ago
True, but they don't always get it in the way they want it. The Android work took a long time to be incorporated into the kernel. Google is a pretty big player!

chris_wot 13y ago

On Bullshit is an essay written in 1986 by philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt. Whilst bullshit is a swear word, it is immediately recognisable and gets the readers attention immediately. However, I had to read Doc Searles essay twice myself. I think it appears disorganized because it starts discussing the Linux kernel but it is about advertising. The big idea is tat most on,one advertising is wasteful, and unnecessarily violates privacy for no real good reason. The second time I read the article, I suddenly realised why he juxtaposed the Linux kernel with advertising. The Trader Joes example makes it quite clear.