I stumbled across the GNU/Linux Distribution Timeline when I was reading about forking. I’ve considered the importance of transparency of communication for some time now and have identified that a primary attribute of the internet which underscores its value is that it enables people to evaluate and criticize the legitimacy of thoughts/ideas/projects in order to identify weaknesses in thought construction in order to foster the progression of stronger arguments/theses/final products. That information is (virtually) available to any individual, it is possible to learn concepts quickly and work off other projects, such as where people left off.
David Wheeler outlined the four possible outcomes of a fork:
- The death of the fork. This is by far the most common case. It is easy to declare a fork, but considerable effort to continue independent development and support.
- A re-merging of the fork (e.g., egcs becoming “blessed” as the new version of gcc.)
- The death of the original (e.g. the X.Org Server succeeding and XFree86 dying.)
- Successful branching, typically with differentiation (e.g., OpenBSD and NetBSD.)
Forking is an interesting framework by which to consider the trajectory of thought processes as well as the trajectory of human relationships, their value, and consequences of investments in different networks. When we consider the distribution of GNU/Linux, individuals developed technology that were beneficial for variable amounts of time allowing new technology to branch from it. When we think of the value of the accumulation of human knowledge, it works in much the same way. Each individual learns and specializes, building upon the effort and achievement of others, utilizing intelligence and charisma to propel the advancements of values/ideas. The velocity of these ideas advance only to the extent that the background behind these ideas are transparent. The internet is a great tool through which to organize one’s intellectual real estate – it allows individuals to analyze and criticize another’s ideas and framework for thinking, enabling a quicker progression of thoughts/ideas/projects.
To digress (slightly), it is possible for one to ask oneself the value of maximizing utility, and the relevance of identifying and constructing terminal values; to what ends are we working? Why are we working? To maximize utility and efficiency can be dangerous or subservise if one does not define end goals (an interesting read related to this concept is one of paperclip maximization; also related, is a quote by Paul Graham shared here).
Elaborating on the concept of open source distribution timelines; a thought can be made clear: the cumulative sum of human effort enables the effort of individuals in the future to advance further. A quick end I have identified, at least for myself, is that my life is not, and has never been, hard. However, it is for many people in the world. The collective sum of efforts for the privileged can beneficially impact the lives of those who are less fortunate (fortune being defined as the ability to sustain food, clothing, and shelter for oneself or for those dependent on oneself).