Re: [decentralization] Re: selfishness not considered harmful
>Closed source means you can create an artificial state of scarcity to
> Why does each succession of MBAs make this mistake and then discover
> they would have been better off co-operating. Every time we do something
> proprietary we get a little short term gain and then lose big time.
> Every time we do something open and co-operative we *all* win big time.
> But the drive to "shut out the competition" seems to keep re-appearing.
drive the cost of your product as high as possible.
Once you open source the product, it becomes an unlimited resource and
you must turn to services (or an equivalent) to provide income.
So, the short answer is that closed source is sometimes better for
a *specific* business than open source, but worse for all businesses
or all peoples in general.
You will never see an open source office suite selling for a thousand
dollars at compuzone.
- At 11:26 PM 2/11/01 -0600, Wes Felter wrote:
>[...]I would direct those curious about attack-resistant reputation management
>I agree with Lucas that these are good ideas, and doable. One option not
>mentioned in that article is that it is possible to have un-spoofable
>reputation ratings in a pseudonymous and totally decentralized network,
>but I suspect that's because Raph Levien's work isn't that well known.
systems to attend the talk being given on Friday afternoon at the O'Reily
P2P conference by Bryce Wilcox of Mojo Nation. Bryce is presenting a
reputation management architecture (for content, MN already does reputation
management for "state of the network" data) that he and Raph Levien
designed which we consider our candidate prototype for collaborative
content ratings in the Mojo Nation technology platform.