Saturday, June 11, 2005

bool Process::broken() { return true; }

a couple nights ago i went to a presentation by John Ralston Saul about the evolution of globalization, it's current(!) demise, the depoliticization of populaces in democratic nations, the resulting rise in nationalism and racism and even a bit on the Canadian identity. he's an amazing thinker with amazing intellectual reach. his contention is that we are currently in an "in between state": in between the failing of globalization as a movement and whatever will come next. he said he truthfully doesn't know what that will be, which is pretty impressive. usually pundits like to swagger in with some soluton on their shoulders. but what he does "know" is that the general population has more influence in these periods than in more stable periods and that we must get involved to ensure democracy is maintained in our world.

my political and philosophical side felt thoroughly satisfied by the event as it was a mentally challenging and essentially upbeat presentation. if he was a movie, i'd see him again and again ;)

and speaking of processes that are breaking, apparently Microsoft's Longhorn won't ship with the new command line. apparently they need another 3-5 years to get it right. that's a sure sign of a very broken process. yes, their OS isn't built for a command line, but an OS that isn't is the result of a broken process. it is an exhibition of short sightedness and inflexibility. their clientele ought to take notice of this.

discussing the reasons for this sort of result with a friend tonight, i posited the theory that it's an inevitable result of the direction productization of a technology. you can not ship when it's ready nor allow yourself the space necessary to Get It Right when you are looking down the barrel of 3-year-ROI.

with Open Source software, we can ship when it's ready and productization follows somewhere in behind as befits the product (as opposed to fitting the product to the ROI schedule). this is why, for instance, commercial Linux distributions ship with older kernels whilst newer kernels are officially released. and there are many more examples. the technology develops according to a pace healthy for it, and others who care to productize somewhere within the wake of that process.

immediate productization made all the sense in the world when distribution was prohibitively expensive. nobody could afford to press a CD every day for every one of their developers and ship it via post to them. no developer would want this either. the internet, as Vincent Cerf kept telling us all for years, allows us to ship bits not atoms and therefore bring the cost of distribution effectively to zero. this allows for instant global distribution, which allows for the decoupling of the development and the productization of technology.

this is the unspoken revolution that the Open Source development model as enabled by open and global computer networks has wrought upon the IT industry. it is the underpinning of dual-license strategies as well as phenomena like "enterprise Linux distributions"

it also puts Microsoft in a hard position, because their business model is based on the coupling of productization and development. this made sense 15 years ago. it makes less sense every year that passes. they are venturing into the Open Source world one toe at a time, in part driven by this new order of things and in part because i think they see the fruitlessness of fighting the inherent success of it.

but until they can ship a feature like a shell in less than 10 years, their development process is obviously broken.

KDE, on the other hand, is agile. and not because we're a small boat to their supertanker, but because we are riding the reality of zero cost distribution.

7 comments:

Gagman said...

And how long might the "in between state" persist? As a notorious pessimist, I see the end of the black gold, maybe a bird flu killing a third of all of us or another "external" impact defining a new world order, but not the will of (more or less) democratic societies, which make the minor share on this planet, anyways.

Luckily, by your definition, I don't make a wise guy. ;)

Aaron J. Seigo said...

> And how long might the "in
> between state" persist?

damned if i know =P

> but not the will of (more or
> less) democratic societies,
> which make the minor share on
> this planet

the populace holding greater sway has nothing to do with their regional government(s) being democratic. populist movements can given rise to communism, fascism, despotism, democracy ... they can also arise in all of those environments.

so it isn't about a utopian dream of democracy sweeping the earth in a sudden awakening, it's more about recognizing that in times of uncertainty the power structures of society grow less effective in maintaining control and the populace as a whole has the ability to effect change more so than at other times.

at least, that's what i got from his presentation =)

Illissius said...

That's interesting. What are the reasons / signs of globalization failing? (ie, he thinks it's failing, but why does he think that?) I don't see it, but that's likely because I haven't even looked at it...

Aaron J. Seigo said...

> What are the reasons / signs of
> globalization failing?

Saul listed the expectations of the globalization theory: increased international trade, increased wealth, lowered national debt, dissipation of boom/bust cycles, governments of nation-states weakening in power and unfettered trade relationships (e.g. fewer and fewer tariffs).

none of the above are accurate descriptions of current trends except increased trade, which has indeed exploded in the last 30 years. generally opposite of all the other expected effects and benefits have happened instead.

he also noted the successful self removal from the globalization trend of Argentina, New Zealand and Malaysia as well as three recent international treaties/agreements (such the as the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity) that do not, to steal his words, "view the world through the prism of economics."

instead of arguing whether globalization is right or wrong, sustainable or not, he instead took the tack of simply observing the results of 30 years of globalization experimentation and comparing those results to expectations.

he also pointed to the rise in nationalism, racism and populist movements as well as the breaking of "traditional" (since WWII) alliances on major matters of world politics as signs of being in a period of structural uncertainty.

i hope i'm not slaughtering his points here, which i almost certainly am doing to some extent as he is quite the speaker. seems like quite a nice fellow on top of it.

he's also a fellow Canadian, which is cool because he approaches these topics from a cultural origin that is quite familiar for me. of course, his ideas are anything but regional, being one of those minds who stands upon the global stage, but it's still really interesting to hear his distinctly Canadian voice on these issues.

Ronald said...

I never knew Nationalism was wrong. O_o

Aaron J. Seigo said...

> I never knew Nationalism was
> wrong.

who said it was wrong? it's just not in the globalization agenda, which aims to create economic bridges of power rather than national ones.

populist movements aren't inherently bad either. they can be, but they can also be great.

IMO, the only item i listed there that is blatantly not in the globalization agenda but which is patently absurd, wrong and disgusting is racism. the other things depend highly on the implementation.

Mike said...

Thought you would like this. a million dollars