3 ms·

True, but meaningless. Any OS that has the concept of a root or admin user with total control has monarchy hard-coded into it too.

Rangi42 11y ago
Which is not actually meaningless. Technical features like "root user" or "wheel group of root-capable users" have political implications. From `info su` [0]: > Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.) > However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual `su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers. > I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first. — Richard Stallman My understanding of Urbit comes mostly from this writeup on Popehat [1] and an initial foray into the documentation of Nock and Hoon. However, the impression that I get of it enabling encrypted, distributed programs, does mirror Yarvin's proposed "Patchwork" system of nation-states [2], in the same way that a single root user mirrors a monarchy, and with analogous pros and cons between the technical and political systems. [0]: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4460/why-is-debian-not-creating-the-wheel-group-by-default http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4460/why-is-debian-n... [1]: http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-why-urbit-matters/ http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-... [2]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwo...
- A_COMPUTER 11y ago
  I also have my familiarity from those same sources and I do agree that it imitates his neocameralism ideas. The mistake in my argument is that I considered the single-user system where the user controls root, so you're very right. Since urbit is a distributed system, its design will have political implications. Ironically though it would give you more control than current systems, so that's kind of an argument in his favor. As far as I could tell, I didn't see any aspects of racialism or slavery in urbit.

Rangi42 11y ago

Which is not actually meaningless. Technical features like "root user" or "wheel group of root-capable users" have political implications. From `info su` [0]: > Sometimes a few of the users try to hold total power over all the rest. For example, in 1984, a few users at the MIT AI lab decided to seize power by changing the operator password on the Twenex system and keeping it secret from everyone else. (I was able to thwart this coup and give power back to the users by patching the kernel, but I wouldn't know how to do that in Unix.) > However, occasionally the rulers do tell someone. Under the usual `su' mechanism, once someone learns the root password who sympathizes with the ordinary users, he or she can tell the rest. The "wheel group" feature would make this impossible, and thus cement the power of the rulers. > I'm on the side of the masses, not that of the rulers. If you are used to supporting the bosses and sysadmins in whatever they do, you might find this idea strange at first. — Richard Stallman My understanding of Urbit comes mostly from this writeup on Popehat [1] and an initial foray into the documentation of Nock and Hoon. However, the impression that I get of it enabling encrypted, distributed programs, does mirror Yarvin's proposed "Patchwork" system of nation-states [2], in the same way that a single root user mirrors a monarchy, and with analogous pros and cons between the technical and political systems. [0]: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4460/why-is-debian-not-creating-the-wheel-group-by-default http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/4460/why-is-debian-n... [1]: http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-why-urbit-matters/ http://popehat.com/2013/12/06/nock-hoon-etc-for-non-vulcans-... [2]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwork-positive-vision-part-1.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/11/patchwo...

A_COMPUTER 11y ago
I also have my familiarity from those same sources and I do agree that it imitates his neocameralism ideas. The mistake in my argument is that I considered the single-user system where the user controls root, so you're very right. Since urbit is a distributed system, its design will have political implications. Ironically though it would give you more control than current systems, so that's kind of an argument in his favor. As far as I could tell, I didn't see any aspects of racialism or slavery in urbit.