2 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2018
    1. “The number of moving parts is so vast, and several of them are under the control of different groups. There’s no way you could ever pull it together into an integrated system in the same way as you can in a single commercial product with, you know, a single maniac in the middle.”

      While there are indeed many moving parts modern Version Control Systems take care of that properly and automatically. The idea of a Benevolent dictatorship dictating the course of the software is not wrong, but it's been shown that it limits the software itself, no matter how smart or good the dictator is, he/she will never be able to think about every aspect and possible applications of the software. And considering this is a tool for research and experimentation, limiting the tool on purpose is not a very good idea, if you ask me. EVEN THEN, an open-source model leaves space for a Benevolent dictatorship (just as Linux and Google does for many of its FOSS projects), so that isn't really an argument against an open-source non-commercial developing model, in the worst case scenario.

  2. Feb 2017
    1. His Senior year at CCNY, Arrow took the advanced course on relational logic taught by Alfred Tarski, where the eminent philosopher took pains to reintroduce the ideas of Charles Sanders Peirce, the greatest yet most neglected American philosopher.