88RE: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog
- Apr 27, 2003
> The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take aNot so. I don't think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay,
> look at is "our software."
> That's the problem with manufactured trends. Some stuff is inside
> the circle, and some is outside.
> And whether you're in or out does depend, as Andrew Orlowski
> posited and Clay dismissed with a joke, whether Clay likes you or not.
but his writing on social software rang some bells for me. So I put my name
on the list (on the Wiki, in actual fact). I wish to associate myself with
this work because I think the ideas are good. I will try and ensure that the
software I write is interoperates well with other software, is usable by
humans, etc etc. I am declaring *myself* inside the circle.
> Clay is a smart guy and he sure is easy to get along with, butHe's getting a great Extended Winer Number...
> he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated.
> Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to getTwaddle. I've seen loads of good and bad software over the years, and if
> along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get
> any quality to come out the other end.
anything the better software came from people that were easy to get along
with - probably because they were better listeners.
How much energy was wasted
> in the late 80s trying to get AI into your software. I saw thatI don't really see what point you're trying to make here.
> from the outside (I refused to jump on board) and then from the
> inside after merging with Symantec (an AI company, heh).
> Hey Symantec actually did do some AI software, and it wasn't bad.
> The funny thing is that the pundits had lost interest by the time
> they shipped, and the users never placed that high a value on
> software that understood what they meant. ;->
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>