Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

88RE: [blogrollers] Re: New social software blog

Expand Messages
  • Danny Ayers
    Apr 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > The only part of that sentence that I would ask you to take a
      > 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.

      Not so. I don't think I have ever had any direct communication with Clay,
      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, but
      > he's not *that* smart, and easy-to-get-along-with is over-rated.

      He's getting a great Extended Winer Number...

      > Most goodsoftware is made by people who are not very easy to get
      > along with because they are perfectionists, you have to be to get
      > any quality to come out the other end.

      Twaddle. I've seen loads of good and bad software over the years, and if
      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 that
      > 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. ;->

      I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.

    • Show all 19 messages in this topic