1. 10
  1.  

  2. 8

    …you can’t kidnap or murder someone over the internet, so regaining your lost honor or repairing an impugned reputation has to be non-violent! It doesn’t have to be pleasant–a jerk may deploy an invective-filled rant, a troll campaign, or a denial-of-service attack–but it can’t physically harm or kill anyone.

    What?! Aside from the usual threats of physical and/or sexual violence, a jerk may deploy a SWAT team. A popular jerk may deploy his followers. What year was this written?

    1. 4

      I like this for spurring thought, though I disagree with several bits.

      Everybody knows the rules, and knows that they will be punished for breaking them, often severely.

      Law cultures support parasites and defectors in a way that I don’t believe honor cultures do…if enforcement isn’t perfect (and it never is), clever people who choose to defect can game the system comparatively easily.

      And our market share is much lower even though our output is generally better

      I feel like the author is ignoring the effect of, you know, giving away software for free. I even quibble with assertion about market share: Linux won the server space pretty handily (how many commercial Unix vendors are left, eh?), jQuery occupied (and occupies!) browsers for quite some time, and so on and so forth.

      […] always more trustworthy over the long term.

      With the blanket disavowal of warranty in all OSS I see, I can’t help but think that this claim is bunk. Proprietary software can at least come with an SLA.

      Anyways, I disagree with the author, but it’s a good article to get one thinking.