[p2p-research] is open source design inferior

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 19:47:49 CET 2009

Thanks for all these insigths ... I guess what I'm wondering is what is the
motivation for peer communities to get the end user aspects right, if the
logic is primarily to solve one's own particular problems, even as it is
coordinated through a commons. I think Sam poses the question in the right
way. Apart from the contemporary forms of private enterprise, whose survival
depends on market acceptance, what other find of social form could come into
play. I guess there will be many new forms of market-oriented players, that
do not need to be the current for-profit enterprises, but could be outcome
oriented businesses, coops, etc.. These would operate partly as market
players, but voluntarily constrained by aims and goals that go beyond the
pure self-interest of the market, just as the peer producers are constrained
by the commons, beyond 'scratching their own itch'.


On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > the argument could be that since the motivation of FLOSS is
> self-governed,
> > and designed to develop solutions for one own's problems, it would then
> to
> > ignore customer issues, since most of its first users would be tech-savvy
> > ... this could explain both the failure of the linux desktop, and the
> > success of Ubuntu once a private partner started to play a role in it,
> >
> > I find that argument quite credible, given my own difficulties in chosen
> > free software, which is usually more difficult to install etc..
> >
> > Michel
> >
> I think this is definitely the case when comparing Debian to Ubuntu,
> for instance. It usually does take a company-style structure and
> intensive iterative labor over time to simplify user interfaces.
> Although, I don't think that it's a safe assumption that it is
> *required* to have a capitalized company behind simple user interface
> development.
> It's not that open source design is "inferior" so much as it is
> foundational. The building blocks exist to build up open source design
> into simpler and more usable interfaces. So far, only capitalized
> companies have stepped forward to improve usability of interfaces. I
> think this could change, though. The more that people who are engaged
> in designing interfaces start to employ pooling of their work into
> commons, the more we'll see this as a component of open source
> production ecologies, I think.
> --
> --
> Sam Rose
> Social Synergy
> Tel:+1(517) 639-1552
> Cel: +1-(517)-974-6451
> skype: samuelrose
> email: samuel.rose at gmail.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.com
> http://socialsynergyweb.org/culturing
> http://flowsbook.panarchy.com/
> http://socialmediaclassroom.com
> http://localfoodsystems.org
> http://notanemployee.net
> http://communitywiki.org
> "The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human
> ambition." - Carl Sagan

Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research:
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank:

P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20091110/42f54c40/attachment.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list