Updates catb and services

1 files changed, 56 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/books/tecnopolitica/cathedral-bazaar.mdwn b/books/tecnopolitica/cathedral-bazaar.mdwn
index 5e36e99..4089a7e 100644
--- a/books/tecnopolitica/cathedral-bazaar.mdwn
+++ b/books/tecnopolitica/cathedral-bazaar.mdwn
@@ -1,7 +1,10 @@
 [[!meta title="The Cathedral & The Bazaar"]]
 [[!tag jogo software foss economics]]
 
+* [The Cathedral and the Bazaar](http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/)
 * Author: Eric S. Raymond
+* ISBN: 978-0-596-00108-7
+* Publisher: O'Reilly
 
 ## Phenomenology
 
@@ -79,3 +82,56 @@ with the gift economy model:
     'hierachy of values' model of human motivation.
 
     -- 82-83
+
+Cites both Ayn Rand and Nietzsche at page 88 when talking about "selfless"
+motives, besides their "whatever other failings", saying that both
+are "desconstructing" 'altruism' into unacknowledged kinds of self-interest.
+
+## The value of humility
+
+    Furthermore, past bugs are not automatically held against a developer; the fact
+    that a bug has been fixed is generally considered more importante than the fact
+    that one used to be there. As one respontend observed, one can gain status by
+    fixing 'Emacs bugs', but not by fixing 'Richard Stallman's bugs' -- and it
+    would be considered extremely bad form to criticie Stallman for _old_ Emacs
+    bugs that have since been fixed.
+    
+    This makes an interesting contrast with many parts of academia, in which
+    trashing putatively defective work by others is an important mode of gaining
+    reputation. In the hacker culture, such behavior is rather heavily tabooed --
+    so heavily, in fact, that the absence of such behavior did no present itself to
+    me as a datum until that one respondent with an unusual perdpective pointed it
+    out nearly a full year after this essay was first published!
+
+    The taboo against attacks on competence (not shared with academia) is even more
+    revealing than the (shared) taboo on posturing, because we can relate it to a
+    difference between academia and hackerdom in their communications and support
+    structures.
+    
+    The hacker culture's medium of gifting is intangible, its communications
+    channels are poor at expressing emotional nuance, and face-to-face contact
+    among its members is the exception rather than the rule. This gives it a lower
+    tolerance of noise than most other gift cultures, and goes a long way to
+    explain both the taboo against posturing and the taboo against attacks on
+    competence. Any significant incidence of flames over hackers' competence would
+    intolerably disrupt the culture's reputation scoreboard.
+
+    -- 90-91
+
+What about Linus behavior, then?
+
+    The same vulnerability to noise explains the model of public humility required
+    of the hacker community's tribal elders. They must be seen to be free of boast
+    and posturing so the taboo against dangerous noise will hold.
+    
+    Talking softly is also functional if one aspires to be a maintainer of a
+    successful project; one must convince the community that one has good
+    judgement, because most of the maintainer's job is going to be judging other
+    people's code. Who would be inclined to contribute work to someone who clearly
+    can't judge the quality of their own code, or whose behavior suggests they will
+    attempt to unfairly hog the reputation return from the project? Potential
+    contributors want project leaders with enough humility and class to be able to
+    to say, when objectively appropriate, ``Yes, that does work better than my
+    version, I'll use it''—and to give credit where credit is due.
+
+    -- 91