New Edisons? Was: [OT] Simple math considered physics

[Jim Kuzdrall]

On Saturday 24 November 2007 23:47, Ben Scott wrote:
> On Nov 24, 2007 8:56 PM, Jim Kuzdrall <gnhlug at intrel.com> wrote:
> > Try this on for an idea:  Linus' lasting contribution may be
> > the concept of collaborative, open technical development using the
> > Web or some other egalitarian communication medium.
>
>   I think Linus' key differentiators were (A1) an acceptance of
> "worse is better"[1], and (A2) his willingness to involve others.

    Yes, and I am sure there are other contributing concepts too.  It 
will only be when looking back 20 years from now that the lasting core 
or his concepts will be clear.

>   A2: It was Richard Stallman who codified and popularized the
> concept of "Free Software"...

    I talked to Stallman several times in the early 1980s, and his 
concept of "free software" always got me angry.  There he was, drawing 
a nice fat salary from MIT to work on anything he liked.  What right 
does he have to tell me, working for myself with no salary or capital 
backing, to give my work away for free.  I would starve!  If his point 
had been that university staff, funded by the public, should donate 
their work since they were already paid for it, OK.  But...
>
>   A1: GNU also appears to favor slow progress, more careful design,
> and a desire to get everything right the first time around.

     After years in engineering, I am firmly in the "do it right the 
first time" camp.  "There is never time to do it right, but always time 
to do it over.. and over.. and over.."  Since I bid engineering at 
fixed-price, I bet my living on not having to do things over.  Lots of 
incentive.

     But wasn't Linus a bit more firm than you imply about assuring 
things got thoroughly checked before release?  Wasn't the Linux crew 
against the Microsoft philosophy "Get it out there first, even if it is 
crap.  We can fix it once we scare everybody else off."

>   Let us also not forget that progress, even in Edison's day, does
> not occur in a vacuum.  Edison was not the first to work on
> electrical generation, or incandescent lighting, or transcription of
> sound.  He refined prior research and ideas into working concepts
> that scaled to commercial production.

    Understood.  But my point was that contributing "world class" 
advancements that achieve Edison-like fame is increasingly beyond the 
resources of the individual.  We all stand on the shoulders of giants.

>   Edison's work in electrical generation and distribution, in
> particular, is a fascinating study.  His original designs used DC,
> and could not scale to wide-area distribution.  George Westinghouse,
> his chief competitor, was the one promoting AC and tiered voltage
> distribution.

    Don't forget the colorful Tesla, "Look mom!  No wires!"

>   I wonder if Edison might well have more in common today with Bill
> Gates than Linus Torvalds: Edison was not just a smart guy and hard
> worker, he also had the business savvy to turn his work into big
> commercial success.

    My feeling too, but I didn't want to trample on Ric's hero by 
bringing up the complaints of his contemporaries of financial 
chicanery, idea "appropriation", or unsophisticated, unguided, brute 
force experimentation.  (Boy, that does sound like Gates!)

    Yes, Edison was a fortuitous bundle of attributes.  Back to Ric's 
original point, how do we encourage that good fortune to happen again 
or more often.

    To bring it back on topic, should the "board" be looking more to 
nurturing the youth in technological values than getting Linux 
installed on many computers (which may be better achieved by Novell, 
Red Hat, etc.).  Linux is a valuable tool for not only exploring 
software concepts, but also calculating the speed of baseballs and 
other physical curiosities.  High school, Boy Scouts, 4-H, YMCA 
presentations?

Jim Kuzdrall