I say it’s because of personality politics … the A-list only allows advances that add value to their own stock. In case case the fact is that most of what’s being discussed as “new” I recall from the early 80s, even the late 70s. (I carried around my copy of “Netweavers” for years!) And the software that’s coming out? I saw designs that were almost identicial (if not superior) in the last 90s … a decade and more ago.
My point is simply this: my communalism dates back to “the bus” in ’68 … where dozens showed up to help hang new drapes but when it came time to change the engine it was just the.same.old 6 or 7 of us. And I’ve watched the dynamic mature: the clique that was oh.so.willing to “partake” but not actually “take part” have been treated well by the passing years and a good number of them are now well-positioned if not wealthy. And their thing is this: stand back and watch til there’s something they like and then take / steal / copy it … your basic Bill Gates manoever. Actual collaboration? Horse.shit … “collaboration” is the pretext they use to stick their nose in it.

So anyhow, it’s still good stuff … however couched in self-serving cant.

Interview with Tim O’Reilly by Delib from Delib on Vimeo.

 

Here’s some material from the blog at delib.co.uk (File under “They sure do have the theory!”)

Here’s an item that shows the end effect: March, 2010, a lovely blog post celebrating a brilliant new method (“Notes v. Maps: Trading Quantity for Quality“) when actually the method was “cutting edge” late-90s. How am I so sure? Because that’s when I abandoned for the fact of being retro- and inherently dead-ended. But it suits the twits in suits so … so that’s that. Period. “Innovation”?! C’mon, get real …



Related posts (rating):