You’re obviously not wrong on the relationships between these variables. There’s however use value in just-good-enough, easy-to-write, bloated software in that it could enable value creation and higher efficiency elsewhere. E.g. a shitty, power-hungry computer vision program that frees up 20 people from doing visual quality inspection of parts in a factory. These people can then do the manual work needed on additional lines, thus increasing the labour efficiency and output of the factory, and lowering the cost of the production per unit. Which frees up resources elsewhere in the economy, increasing the effect. All of which could more than offset the inefficiency of the original program and then some. Of course capitalism won’t necessarily select for these use cases for bloat. More likely than not we’re producing bloat that doesn’t offset anything. But in a non-capitalist environment, such bloat might very well be desired. Especialy if you’re trying to develop at speed that allows you to create deterrents before the US decides to liberate you from non-capitalism.
I completely agree, it’s not always black and white and there are plenty of cases where having inefficient software is better than not having anything at all. My main complaint is that the mechanics of the system select for bloat, and there’s little incentive to go back and optimize things. In a sane system you could make something that’s inefficient first, and then spend time to make it better if it becomes widely used. To a certain extent, we see this happening with open source stuff like Linux, where you can have a very lean system compared to commercial alternatives.
Well there’s definitely socialist dynamics in FOSS development. Most drivers in the Linux kernel were implemented because someone needed them, not for profit. The same is true for most things in the Debian repository. Also people generally own the means of producing that software. How do proprietary systems produced to maximize profit compete with software written to just work and cost nothing? FOSS is doing software product dumping! :D And the rest of the software economy has grown tremendously as a result. Imagine having to pay good money for a compiler. There were huge barriers back in the day.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
You’re obviously not wrong on the relationships between these variables. There’s however use value in just-good-enough, easy-to-write, bloated software in that it could enable value creation and higher efficiency elsewhere. E.g. a shitty, power-hungry computer vision program that frees up 20 people from doing visual quality inspection of parts in a factory. These people can then do the manual work needed on additional lines, thus increasing the labour efficiency and output of the factory, and lowering the cost of the production per unit. Which frees up resources elsewhere in the economy, increasing the effect. All of which could more than offset the inefficiency of the original program and then some. Of course capitalism won’t necessarily select for these use cases for bloat. More likely than not we’re producing bloat that doesn’t offset anything. But in a non-capitalist environment, such bloat might very well be desired. Especialy if you’re trying to develop at speed that allows you to create deterrents before the US decides to liberate you from non-capitalism.
I completely agree, it’s not always black and white and there are plenty of cases where having inefficient software is better than not having anything at all. My main complaint is that the mechanics of the system select for bloat, and there’s little incentive to go back and optimize things. In a sane system you could make something that’s inefficient first, and then spend time to make it better if it becomes widely used. To a certain extent, we see this happening with open source stuff like Linux, where you can have a very lean system compared to commercial alternatives.
Well there’s definitely socialist dynamics in FOSS development. Most drivers in the Linux kernel were implemented because someone needed them, not for profit. The same is true for most things in the Debian repository. Also people generally own the means of producing that software. How do proprietary systems produced to maximize profit compete with software written to just work and cost nothing? FOSS is doing software product dumping! :D And the rest of the software economy has grown tremendously as a result. Imagine having to pay good money for a compiler. There were huge barriers back in the day.
Exactly!