Re: [Hampshire] simple description of open source etc.

> Here's how it is.

I disagree with your description of "how it is"...

> I love complex systems.

I don't.

> You love complex systems.

No, I don't. I like simple systems. Complexity in the solution merely
represents complexity in the problem space. It is not an end in itself -
indeed, it is something to be avoided as far as possible.

> Freedom is complexity.

I completely disagree with that statement.

> MCSE file or web server administrator does not like complexity. His role
> is very clearly defined. I have a bookshelf. He has a maximum of 20 cm
> deep Microsoft manuals.

It would be entirely feasible to achieve the same position with Free
software - you just leave out large parts of the documentation and tell
users to escalate problems, rather than solving them.

> When something goes wrong that a click will not solve, the shit hits the
> fan. But it is not his problem. A superior designates someone more
> skilled than him to fix the problem.

You can do that with Free software. The fact that we try to empower
everyone to get his hands as dirty as he likes does not make the solution
more complex - just better-described.

> When something goes wrong for us we reach for the packet analyser or
> whatever we need to make wrong, right. 99% of the time we can fix it
> with our generalist skills.

That is empowerment, not complexity. But there's nothing to stop any one
of us calling in support if we choose to do so - it's just that we can
usually get further without than we could in a proprietary environment.

> But companies like to compartmentalise, the stupid are more modular.

Companies still can. They can buy in support, or they can train in-house.
That's a commercial decision, and says nothing whatsoever about
complexity.

Vic.