Re: why debian
> The failure of 'democracies' (even this quoting will not hold it for
> ever) is in the fact that everybody believes to be entitled to judge
> everything, and to issue a directing opinion on every matter and
> aspect of life. As a result, the average level constantly is lowered,
> to accomodate the least capable that voices a desire. Evidence of that
> is overwhelming if you can see. A masterpiece of English literature
> would be considered a failure now, for containing too long paragrapahs
> and thus ideas too heavy to be handled by the average reader.
Right on!
Even though...
The idea I think in a parliamentary democracy is that the mediocre
mass does not actually make decisions directly. They choose, locally,
representatives, who are supposed to be specialists, and to make the
best decisions in the interest of their base, even if sometimes the
mediocre mass does not follow. The problem with the choosing process
is that to be chosen you have to want to be chosen. People that arrive
in positions of power do it because they want to do it. They want
power. This is a corrupting factor from the start. Like DOuglas Adams
said, a person that is capable of getting himself elected president is
the least appropriate for the job, I forgot the exact quote, but that
is the gist.
In Debian though, the equivalent of the parliament are the developers.
They don't get elected but this is good because they get to be
developers by being good at what they do, not by making the ignorant
mediocre mass THINK they're good at what they do. Also, they do it
because they just want to help make a better system, not because they
have some secondary vested interest in that, like remuneration, perks,
building a career, or whatnot. Also the qualifying criteria in the
developer community, which is to say, knowledge and expertise, are
much more clearly defined than in politics, where the qualifying
criteria are things like the ability to spin things your way, the
ability to give the impression of authority, to be seen in a certain
light, or other skills more properly connected to the acting
profession. In general the ability to make people think about you what
you want them to think about you. Politicians are professional
impostors, or if you prefer, poker players but this won't get you very
far among programmers.
To be completely fair though, in a thread related to this one somebody
mentioned that developers for debian DO get certain advantages, like
for example putting that on their resumé, and it seems that it works
too, meaning, they get hired. It's starting to have a little prestige
to be a debian developer, so maybe, to a small extent developers do
have at least a small vested interest. I'm not sure how much, but as a
matter of fact I don't think it matters because Debian being a
completely free, open, non profit stucture, it is impossible to make
career INSIDE Debian. You can spend some time, some formative years in
debian, and then use that experience for later on in life, if you
want. That's not a problem. This fact has no impact on the spirit of
Debian. The social contract ensures that Debian will never become a
purpose in itself (like bureaucracies have a tendency to, in the
opinion of some famous guy I forgot who), but it will always serve its
user base.
Exactly in the same way for example that there are companies out there
commercializing distributions based on Debian. Using Debian for
something from the outside is no problem, that is exactly the idea.
The freedom codified in the social contract has exactly that purpose,
to protect people's right to use Debian unfettered by any limitations.
Whether they use the software to get work done, like users do, or
using the experience gained developing Debian to advance one's
credentials and career, like some developers might, or using the body
of software to commercialize a Debian based distribution... The core
idea, the freedom, is only reinforced.
Debian and actually the whole free software community would be an
awesome case study in political theory.
I DO have one possibly non-positive thing to say about Debian.
Debian serves its user base and does so brilliantly. Its user base
however (even the non developers) consists of people that while not
gurus, know quite a bit about computers. Ever since I have used Debian
I have found myself learning more and more about how a system works,
about all kinds of stuff. I would die of shame if I ever got the
classic rejoinder: RTFM. So I find myself spending hours googling and
reading FAQs, howtos, tutorials, mailing lists, and manuals.
Problem is I'm not a programmer, I'm a physicist. So sometimes I ask
myself: why do I spend all this time learning all this stuff? Do I
really need it? Couldn't I get by easier with Windows or maybe some
nobrainer distribution? Bottom line, is :**Does using Debian increase
MY productivity?**
I don't really have an answer... Long term, for sure, a big YES. But
for right now,... I'm not sure. The learning curve is steep, and I'm
not sure I see the end of it.
I think a good direction to take for Debian would be to try to
modularize it just a little. By modularize I mean making it such as to
decrease the amount of stuff the user needs to know about what happens
below deck.
There are two possible reasons I can think of for why this is not
going to happen, and who knows, why it shoudn't happen.
First of all, the developers don't think like this, they are not
interested in making a Linux distribution for idiots like so many
other people try to make.
Second, and this is an argument I find very strong, and the reason I
continue to struggle and learn along with Debian.
The more computing technology advances, the more complex it becomes,
the more dangerous it's going to be because it will be inevitably used
for malefic purposes. The metaphor I think about is very simple: a
car. You can't drive one if you don't know how to drive one, because
if you don't know how to drive you pose a real threat to those around
you. It's becoming to me more and more obvious that sooner or later we
are going to have to put the same restrictions on people that own
computers. You shouldn't be able to own a computer, or at least, go on
the net on one, if you don't have a certain minimum amount of
knowledge about how things work. The vast majority of security
threats, viruses, etc, especially in windows can cause the damage they
have by taking advantage of people that don't know anything about how
their computer works, and they don't care either. These irresponsible
surfers are becoming a threat to everybody because of their ignorance.
They quite simply should not be allowed behind the wheel.
I think the day will come when either you will need a surfing license
to get on the web (I hope it's sooner rather than later) or that a
certain service infrastructure will be set up, so that people that are
not qualified to use a computer will use a computer administered by
somebody who does. This means setting up sysadmin companies, that
offer their services to people that want to surf but they can't be
bothered to get a license. What you do is you buy a computer, then
they install stuff and configure it, and you only use it, but do not
have root access on it, only user access. It is the responsibility of
your sysadmin to install stuff, administer it, set up the firewall,
get security updates, and in general make sure the computer behaves
responsibly on the net. Where Debian comes in is that it is an
initiative that encourages people to learn more about how their
computer works, in short, to become more responsible surfers.
Starting to use Debian could then become kind of like getting one's
surfing license. Once you've been using it for a while you can become
independent meaning you can fend for yourself on the web.
I would be curious if this idea seems completely crazy, or if perhaps
some developers have put the problems in these terms before. Are there
any initiatives on the web for incouraging and lobbying for
"responsible computing"?
Alex.
Reply to: