The Virtue of Communal Instincts

Brian Martin has written a piece on Communal Instinct. It talks a little about the concepts of Open Source, working together, innovation, and communication. There's a lot in there and I think it's worth a read.

The following was written by Slashdot Reader Brian Martin

The Virtue of Communal Instinct With the recent hoopla surrounding Michael Chaney's courtesy to Microsoft, much breath has been given to the discussion of the incident as if there are 'sides' to be taken in some sort of 'battle'. Questions like "Would a Windows NT Admin Have Paid for LINUX.COM" are nothing if not antagonistic. While antagonism has its inherent value, such value is often over-appraised. Most Linux users will preach on the fact that their OS is more reliable, powerful, secure, inexpensive, etc. than the offerings from Microsoft. Microsoft will preach their FUD and usability. Macintosh users sit by and watch the battle with a belief that their OS is better than either of the others. The BSD users stand in the corner with their quiet exclusivity. But this is not an OS issue, it never was.

What an unfortunate use of our time and energy to bicker about a commodity piece of software like an OS. Can you honestly say that in the simplest terms your OS matters when using the Internet? I don't believe you can. We as a community are approaching a point where the petty arguments over what OS, browser, e-mail program, etc. are fruitless and mean nothing. The key to the future has never been the messenger, just the message. Sure, it is important that the messenger be fast, reliable, secure, and usable. Sure, it is important that new ideas be constantly integrated, tested, and either kept or dumped. Sure, some avenue should be left for individuals to make a living off of assisting others with a lighter inclination towards computers and the net. But when the messenger in all its glory (or simplicity) becomes the focus of the attention, then the message is lost in the confusion.

We must ask ourselves, as vocal and involved users of the Internet, one simple question: Why do we use the Net? I believe the answer to that question is that somewhere deep inside the bowels of instinct there is a piece of all of us that wants to commune with others. This is not a unique idea, this is not a new idea. If this is the case, then why do we form divisions in the community based on software or hardware selections?

Another more important aspect of this communal instinct is the goal - what do we hope to gain by communing? For some, it is a sense of enlightenment - the perfect end to the infinite search for knowledge. For some, it is a sense of family - the power of belonging. For some, it is a sense of dominance - the power hungry seek for the inexperienced user to prey upon. All of these things lead back to one source - the Ego. All of these things are fodder for the conscious thought. However, when you talk about instinct, you normally think of the id - that part of the human psyche which is the source of instinctual impulses. It seems as if the internet has given us a tool to satiate the communal instinct of the id, but that our Ego hijacks the process.

And what about the superego? What internalized sense of morality is constructed by communing in this way? We see now the uprising of a 'free information' movement. Statements of thought such as "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" have opened many minds to this thread of generosity.

One could suggest that our entire lives, humanity has been growing closer and closer together. The id driving constantly for satiation with a communal sharing of ideas. A rapid spiral of communication where technology is driven by the need for either real or virtual proximity. From the feudal days where you were unlikely to know people who lived further away than a day or two walk, to the age and boom of the telegraph/phone. Add in the invention of the printing press - which provided consistent portability of ideas, not just permanence of those ideas - and the myriad of transportation technologies, and we find this web of connectivity between people. For example, I can be contacted via postal service, telephone, e-mail, pager, instant messaging, or by personal visit. Every one of these methods has seen significant improvement by technology. If we assume that the point of all of this technology is to make it easier to communicate with others, when are we going to adjust our focus from constantly improving the technology to actually using the technology?

This leads us to the natural division of our community rather than some capitalistic ego-driven segregation. The natural order of perception should be understanding what level of balance between computing and communing is right for you, and then reinforcing that with others who seek a similar balance point. Individuals who find peace closer to the computing side of things will be the 'innovators' and 'inventors' of technology. Individuals comfortable at the other end of the spectrum will be the 'enlighteners' and 'internalizers' of idea and thought. With this concept of perception in place, we see that the majority of Internet users are of the 'innovator/inventor' genre. For now, those people who may someday be the 'enlighteners/internalizers' flock to services like AOL - communities that require minimal computing knowledge and experience.

The fact that there will always be individuals at both ends of the spectrum insures the reliability of the medium. It is up to the 'innovators/inventors' to provide the messenger. It is up to the 'enlighteners/internalizers' to provide a concept/idea for the messenger.

What Michael Chaney did was quite simple, quite noble, and a perfect example of an 'innovator/inventor' providing for the masses. He saw a gap, closed it, and enabled probably millions of people to communicate with others over the holiday because of it.

Comments

Why OS does matter.

[crulx]

This was a good, well thought out feature. However, I feel compelled to take you to task for one point. The OS I and others use to connect to the internet really, really does matter. The reasons for this are the following.

1. The os and assorted programs define what you are able to do with your computer out of the box. People keep saying that if internet users really wanted a X feature out of the box, the market presures would make it happen. Quite frankly, this is just not true. Due to the Microsoft hegemony, people have a skewed vision of what their OS can do. Many people want their own website but feel it is too hard to get server space without the anoying popups and banner adds. If they kewn and felt that a webserver should come with the OS, would a company like Microsoft give their webserver away? Web serving is a fundimental communication principle that the net uses, but is mostly unavailble on the largest user OS and definately not, in the box.
2. Users have a skewed view of what services that they can use out of the box. Has anyone tried to use the default Windows telnet out of the box? Compare that to a Unix telnet. How about IRC? These are fundimental communication technolgies that the 'enlighteners/internalizers' cannot use out of the box because of their OS. If communication is the key to the net (which I feel it is) then how could their OS not matter?
3. To return to the subject of services, can anyone imagine their Unix box without telnetd? How about ftpd? Sendmail (or related mail tech)? People cannot utilize their machine to its fullest sense because their OS does not allow that use. Ask yourself, if those services came default in Windows historically and the next release they were taken away, would people not care? They would be furious because their ability to communicate.
4. If these people are flocking to AOL and MS because of its ease of use, does that mean they should be denied basic computational and communicative power because they chose a path with a low learning curve? Currently, these people's expressive ablity is limited because they have to go out and typically purchase hundreds of dollars of extra software to get these services. They are seen as extras when really they are almost fundimental rights. Their OS has limited them.

If the people who are flocking to the internet are really going to spend time creating ideas, they need to be able to communicate them. You mention several technologies that have tremendously enhanced people's expressive power. Now, because of the tool that they choose to use, that power is limited. So honestly, I do feel that the OS matters. And not just a little bit, but a LOT. Until people use an OS that provides programs that fully utilize internet services and give easy access to contenet serving, they will be intellectually hampered and unable to realize the full communacative potential that we both feel that they have.
Crulx