I hope it is OK to comment on some points you made in this thread, since you are the sole poster up to now.
sossego said:
There will never be complete unanimous consensus on anything when it comes to the human race.
I have to disagree! First, because I think there ARE fundamental values each&everyone should agree on. Second, this is the standard proof (Goedel) that there can be unsolveable things even in simple systems. Because if each one agreed on something, if there is consensus, then the hypothesis would be proven wrong by proving it right.
sossego said:
When the members of a community are more open and accepting, ideas shared become the basis for newer ideas. If one person, one school of thought, or one political ideology is allowed to overtake an idea, the following result is a stagnation and regression of ideas. You may not agree with the use of system A or the use of certain applications on system B but, allow others to develop on these platforms and be willing to give positive feedback.
This thread is not a strict standard on the proper way to do things but one single perspective when it comes to the computing community.
There is an analogy to this in social interactions and computer systems. When I look around in this country, with special attention to the timeline and progress, I can see patterns. There are the old trading routes which were established in the stone age and are still here today. There was trade in flint, amber, salt, ... and the routes which were taken were best for that days. Later came the 'Hanse', providing faster and further trade. Along the trade routes not only came goods, but also people. And with them came new ideas, new views and sometimes new plagues. People living along these routes, or even more so where they crossed, had to learn to deal with others, accept new ideas, ... Everyone who participated in that made progress, profit was made, things learned. Tolerance formed.
Those who were sitting in their mountain valley did not, and that mindset which was formed by that shows to this day.
Now for the parallels into the realms of computers. In the beginning we had an abundance of different makers, operating systems, architectures. Cross pollination was common, a lot of different outfits made profit. Computing was fun.
Then there set in a process which also is known from the 'Human World'. While small trade, small business could make a lot of people pretty well to do, it was not enough for some. But to become more wealthy you need other people to make your money. Thus you need to destroy their seperate base of living. Form guilds to regulate crafts, and in the end the same process ends in patents for
if. Today we have only one architecture on the desktop and mostly one operating system. In the 'human world' this is also a recipe for desaster. A certain amount of organisation is necessary, true, because else the $VIKINGS come around to collect. More, and it would/will collapse on it's own.
In computer terms, you can substitute patent lawyers/trolls and the bureaucracy of big companies. That's what big corporations fear, that they can be outmaneuvered by smaller and much faster ones. They do not have to fear the raiders. But: how long would it take to turn something like IBM around? Or change desktop computing to the MIPS architecture? To ensure the dominance, measures are taken. The same as those in the 'human world'. Laws, guilds, patents, religion, raiding, war, diplomacy, bribery. To fight dominance, to be free, also the same things need to be done. Self-sustainability, open minds, awareness, planning, tolerance, loose and close cooperation.
