On creativity and cannibalism and culture and DRM

When I was a kid growing up in Calcutta, many things amazed me. [Actually, in this respect, not much has changed. I continue to be amazed by what I see. I guess I must be easy to amaze…]. One of the things that amazed me as a child was the way Indian mechanics kept things working. Wherever I looked, I could see antiquated and decrepit machinery.

Cars, lifts, pumps, cranes, a pantheon of gods mechanical, grunting and squealing their way to the next day. Antiquated, yes. Decrepit, yes. Yet working.

When I talked to the mechanics, their language took some understanding: the air was black with terms like radiowater and jugger-bugger and ishpark plahg; I got to radiator and spark plug easily enough, but to move from jugger-bugger to shock absorber took a little time….

Where was I? Oh yes, creativity and cannibalism. Let me not drift off point.

You see, what made these Indian mechanics of my youth special, gifted, talented, was their ability to contrive pragmatic solutions to real problems. They would find a way of getting the machines to work. Partly because they had to, partly because they could. And partly because they really enjoyed the effort, they got a thrill out of making the gubbins work.

To do this they cannibalised. Borrowed parts from other machines. Fashioned parts out of things destined for other purposes, things that now had new destinies.

When they did this cannibalising, everyone applauded. They had no manuals, no local showrooms and distributors and agents and what-have-you. Just themselves and the dead machines. And they brought these machines back to life; quite often, the machines would outlast the cannibal mechanics.

Now the odd thing about all this is the word “cannibalising”. Where I grew up there was nothing derogatory attached to the term, in fact the opposite was true. Someone who excelled at such cannibalising was looked up to.

Hold that mindset and perspective. When you are able to fix something yourself, without reference to manuals and without having access to lock-in intermediaries, this is a good thing. When no one comes in your way during your attempts to do such things yourself, this is a good thing. When you can substitute parts freely, fashion parts out of almost-random raw material, this is a good thing.

This is what Bob Frankston has always reminded me of, reminded me again lest I forget. Thank you Bob. This is what Doc Searls has always reminded me of, every time the conversation drifts to D-I-Y IT. This is what Gordon Cook’s mail-list conversations drive towards.

The kernel for this post was this post on Appropriation of Mobile Media in South America by Howard Rheingold. There’s this wonderful quote:

The appropriation process fundamentally is a negotiation about power and control over the configuration of the technology, its uses, and the distribution of its benefits

Any technology obtains value through adoption and usage, “appropriation” in the context above. Appropriation is a process, a negotiation of power. For decades, perhaps centuries, the balance of power has been with the provider of technology rather than its consumer. What we are seeing now is a shift in that power, something that has been happening over decades, something that is crescendo-level now.

Let the seller beware.

Blogs and gender and age and location

One of the more unusual things I’ve noticed about the blogosphere is the way that discrimination disappears. The people I read, the people I link to, the people who read this blog, whatever cut I choose, everything seems to level out. Barriers to entry are low, and, despite recent blogosphere events, threats to personal space are also low. This is something enterprises strive to do, yet it happens naturally on the blogosphere. The power of volunteers.

Maybe that’s why the concept of unconferences really caught on. Not because people wanted to rebel against the establishment per se, but because the traditional conference process had the traditional discriminatory walls built in.

BTW, the kernel for this post was a comment by Hazel on a recent cricket post of mine. And here’s something I couldn’t do before, point Hazel towards a knitting blog that I’ve visited a few times, one that appears to be received well. While I’ve never met the author of the blog, we have a connection. Children at the same school. How did I find out? Conversation over dinner with other parents whom we’re close to.

So there’s something else that blogs help me do. Connect people I’ve never met with people I’ve never met.

It’s been a great week for me, a week where I could connect with old college friends while they were playing a reunion gig thousands of miles away. Yes it could have happened with snail mail or telephone, but it didn’t. It happened because of blogs. [Thanks, Chukti. It was great to be able to speak to Bertie and Fuzz, though I missed Mel].

Update:

Saw this, serendipitously, via Boing Boing:

Multiple surveys confirm that females outnumber males online in the US, with “no significant gender gap in internet usage”.

I believe Pew was signalling this anyway, but I’d be interested in seeing the statistics about gender or age or nationality and their relationships with blogs. Dave the LifeKludger has made the point of the enfrachising power of the web before, and powerfully.

Learning from the comments people leave on my blog

I often get asked why I blog, and you’ve seen enough of my answers before. And it’s strange, how someone’s eyes glaze over when I come to the bit where I say “and I learn from my blog, from the comments people leave”. It’s the sort of look reserved for people who say “I read Playboy for its literary content”….

I guess it’s hard to explain to people who don’t blog, how one can learn from blogging. It’s not just about shaping and refining ideas, you also learn to find things, to see things you wouldn’t have seen otherwise, even to do things. Here’s an offbeat example. David Butler, who shares my passion for cricket, commented recently on a cricket-related post of mine. Later on, Dominic Sayers, another cricket-mad friend, left a comment that included a video clip of a Tendulkar catch. And David, while thanking Dom for pointing him towards the Tendulkar clip, made reference to a Johnny Dyson catch. He had no idea when, where and against whom the catch was, or for that matter who the batsman was.

All I did was to Google “johnny dyson catch cricket” and there it was on YouTube and Google Video and in a few other places.

Now I wanted to do something else. I wanted to find a way of sharing videos via my blog, quickly, easily, and without caring about whether it was on YouTube or Google Video or anywhere else. I wanted a level of independence from the “content carrier”. And I wanted it in a way that it didn’t dominate the blog post, a sidebar route.

Which got me looking around for something, and I found VodPod. Seemed to fill the bill, so I went and signed up and found out how to put it on my blog and so on.

A few days ago, I had dinner with Sean, another close friend and blogger. For some reason or the other I made reference to that video, and he hadn’t seen it. I remember thinking to myself, why can’t I have a LibraryThing or last.fm for video clips? VodPod goes some of the way, but I’me sure it can improve. Anyway, it gives me the chance to point towards the Web 2.0 video again, for Sean. Which I will do, shortly.

David, it looks like the batsman was Sylvester Clarke. Can’t remember another Clarke from the West Indies around Dyson’s time, but I could be wrong.

10 reasons for enterprises to use opensource

I don’t really understand why it happens, but for some reason far too many people think opensource is free as in gratis rather than free as in freedom. As a result, when I ask people why they would use opensource, the answers are framed in the context of cost. The three commonest answers I get are:

(a) cheaper to “buy”

(b) cheaper to run

(c) cheaper to fix

This not-so-subtle positioning of opensource as “free” somehow translates to the enterprise equivalent of pinko communist left-handed tree-hugging vegetarian, and that’s all she wrote. End of story.

So I thought it was time to provide ten reasons of a different sort….

1. Opensource makes you responsible. When you choose the components yourself, you don’t have a vendor to scream at. Or, as is often the case, a whole heap of vendors to scream at, each merrily pointing all known fingers (and a few unknown ones) at everyone else. While you fume and stew.

2. Opensource makes it easier for you to get married. When your architecture is primarily based on opensource components, software and data integration costs stay low and the process works.

3. Opensource makes you more attractive. To graduates and first-jobbers, members of Generation M, opensource has an iPod-like halo. And they know how to use the tools as well.

4. Opensource keeps your tail in shape. Scarcity models are by definition not scale-free; a hit culture prevails. Opensource, given the lower barriers to entry, allows someone to build a left-handed credit derivatives juicer because he felt like it. There’s a long-tail effect. You are more likely to find esoteric tools in an opensource world than in a closed source one. Opensource people don’t go around asking “Is there a market for this?” They solve problems and see if others have similar problems to solve.

5. Opensource makes you look younger. There’s an elixir-0f-youth effect, a future-proofing that comes from using opensource. You cannot be blackmailed at the altar of Forced Upgrade. You have optionality. That is the Free that is Opensource. The implied optionality.

6. Opensource makes you cleverer. You innovate faster because you have access to faster innovation. Whenever you look at an opensource ecosystem, try and compare it with a closed-source version. Compare it in terms of the time taken for launching in different countries, languages, whatever. I should say “try to compare it in terms of….”. There is no comparison.

7. Opensource makes you a man/woman of the world. Globalisation is about global markets and global resources and global communications. When you use opensource components, you are more likely to find people all over the world with the right knowledge and skills; proprietary skills require proprietary investment.

8. Opensource makes you fitter. Most opensource components are seen as infrastructure, as commodity, and people often say that opensource is therefore about commodity. I’ve made that mistake as well. I think we’ve got cause and effect mixed up here. Opensource commoditises, and therefore creates commodity. When you get commoditised, you tend to look for other things to differentiate you, make you stand out. You get “fitter” as a result, with the two prongs of commoditisation and looking-for-fresh-differentiation.

9. Opensource makes you more famous. At least one of the essences of opensource is Given Enough Eyeballs. Linus’s Law. The opensource model attracts eyeballs.

10. Opensource makes you safer. When code is open to inspection it is harder to create backdoors; harder to exploit weaknesses because the weaknesses get fixed faster; harder to make monoculture threats because there is a form of natural selection taking place.

And yes, the first three standard reasons are true as well. Opensource does make you richer.

Tiptoeing Through the Tulips

Nice to see friend and erstwhile colleague Nigel start blogging externally, gently wondering about the markets that are mushrooming around the Global Warming theme. Welcome, Nigel.