[p2p-research] Implications of Alpha

[Ryan Lanham]

Economically, nothing is going to be closed going forward because it doesn't
make good business sense.  Facebook is moving rapidly to being a tool that
can be embedded, used for free inside other apps, etc.

This is why I stress P2P collaborative principles.  What is it that we want
to advocate?  There are always degrees to ideal.  What are the priorities?

I welcome Alpha, and I welcome Facebook.  Not using them because they are
not strictly commons-based frameworks that stamp CC on bottom of them would
be ridiculous.  That said, if someone built a creative commons FB that
worked and was well subscribed, I'd offer it my primary allegiance.

Ryan Lanham



On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:

> ok, i see. I said "open it up as a service"
>
> Did not mean to open up the software which he'll never do as that's
> his source of revenue (the Mathematica platform is used in Alpha)
>
> I meant to offer it up as a service, which in some context makes it a
> lot more open than a web app.. because it can be mashed up and/or
> integrated with other apps
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:22 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Ryan,
> >
> > I would agree with all points below but I'm confused as to how you
> > relate it to SaaS?  SaaS is not open. It can be fully closed, just
> > with an API. Facebook is SaaS in the sense that it offers its platform
> > APIs to any developer (with some stupid restrictions but it is a SaaS
> > platform in my view, just like Salesforce is)
> >
> > What gave you the impression that SaaS refers to open systems?
> >
> > Marc
> >
> > On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 6:20 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Marc,
> >>
> >> My own view is that open is a good, but not necessary element of good.
> I
> >> use many closed systems that I love.  Do I wish they were open?  Yes.
> Will
> >> they be soon?  Not likely.  So, I can live in a world of only open and
> limit
> >> my options, or I can advocate for open and try to use it where it makes
> >> sense.  Bright line morality may feel good, but it isn't reality.  The
> world
> >> is a messy place.  Dialogue and collaboration happen, and collaboration
> >> entails give and take.
> >>
> >> Maybe we can assume socialists are similar enough to P2P to merit
> >> collaboration (as Herve does) or maybe we can assume that for profit is
> too
> >> odious to work with as some no doubt do.  For me, I rule nothing out.
> >> Michael Albert ruling out those who do not fight capitalism from his
> forum
> >> is childish and counter-productive.  I understand trying to control
> >> discourse, but without authentic dialogue and full menagerie of all
> types of
> >> organizations, the best solutions will not be found.  Morality means
> >> balancing competing interests in my view.
> >>
> >> Mistakes are in not reasoning and in not pursuing dreams...not in
> failing to
> >> follow a certain prescriptive worldview.  I support P2P and advocate for
> it
> >> as a collaborative ideal--even as a market philosophy--I do not see it
> as
> >> exclusive, optimal at all times nor do I want it to replace all other
> forms
> >> of systems even in technology.
> >>
> >> Ryan Lanham
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 7:48 AM, marc fawzi <marc.fawzi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It would be infinitely more useful is he'd open it up as a service
> >>> (software as a service, to be accessed from other Web and P2P client
> >>> applications.
> >>>
> >>> I could think of many uses for its data collection and computational
> >>> capability in decision support systems as well as in any software that
> >>> needs to make decisions based on real world data.
> >>>
> >>> Letting people use it directly, as opposed to having it be a backend
> >>> service for software developed by others, is a huge mistake, IMO.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Ryan Lanham <rlanham1963 at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > I've been thinking about Wolfram's Alpha.  The question I'd like to
> ask
> >>> > him
> >>> > is, what will it change.
> >>> >
> >>> > I saw JOHO's (David Weinberger's) interview.  It was fascinating.
> >>> >
> >>> > Here's my 2 cents:  The research paper and the informing blog post
> may
> >>> > be
> >>> > dead.  Yes, stringing ideas together to make a point is still useful,
> >>> > but
> >>> > now anyone can answer a question properly structured.  So, ideas may
> >>> > become
> >>> > more changes of queries.
> >>> >
> >>> > Another separate point, Michel recently sent around an academic Call
> for
> >>> > Papers for a P2P conference.  Isn't that a bit odd, inherently?  A
> COP
> >>> > on
> >>> > P2P?
> >>> >
> >>> > Ryan Lanham
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > p2presearch mailing list
> >>> > p2presearch at listcultures.org
> >>> >
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Marc Fawzi
> >>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Marc Fawzi
> > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Marc Fawzi
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/people/Marc-Fawzi/605919256
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcfawzi
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090509/c5ab7d25/attachment.html>