Essentially, while this project may be quicker to get visible results, they may not be able to release all the code kosher for merging upstream. It will be interesting to see the next steps.
Competition is fine, but the "spiciness" was really just drama+pettiness on both sides :/ I'm hoping they're both past that now, as they should know better, but having two competing projects unable to assume good faith from each other is generally not healthy at all.
The more spiciness and completive things are the better the overall results. We all like to think that collaboration, harmony and love drives innovation but much of innovation is built around intense rivalry and competition as well. Don't be idealistic to a fault, much of the qualities we view as petty exist because they passed millions of years of natural selection. Those who compete, thrive.
When teams of people compete intensely , the collaboration within the teams themselves must be just as intense.
I find it slightly offensive that someone would accuse me of discounting collaboration when 1. I never discounted it, 2. It's obvious that society is full of people who collaborate. In what universe are the words "zero sum" apt for my response? None. I never described a zero sum game. Obviously, the replier added the description with his biased imagination.
I'm just saying spiciness and intense rivalry and competition can lead to results beneficial to society. There are tons of examples of intense competition and rivalry leading to great results in science. The decoding of the human genome for one.
> I find it slightly offensive that someone would accuse me of discounting collaboration when 1. I never discounted it, 2. It's obvious that society is full of people who collaborate. In what universe are the words "zero sum" apt for my response? None. I never described a zero sum game. Obviously, the replier added the description with his biased imagination.
You wrote, "Winner takes all" which seems pretty zero sum to me, hence my comment.
Your post implies that I discounted collaboration which I obviously did not. Look at the original post again, it deliberately says that competition is important as well as collaboration. Hence why your reply is categorically baseless.
As for “winner takes all” why don’t you look up the definition of a “zero sum game”. A zero sum game usually applies to simplistic games like chess or an island with limited resources aka things that have a measurable gains and losses. Complex situations like the one described are rarely zero sum.
When I say winner takes all its more of an “expression” symbolizing the intensity of competition. I think it’s quite obvious that the situation here is not some contest setup so that a single winner takes everything. There’s no need to make your self sound smart and use the words “zero sum game” redundantly. Only certain types of people use the words “zero sum game” colloquially for the purposes of sounding smart even though the majority of situations in nature aren’t actually artificial games setup to be zero sum.
The word is also used negatively as if zero sum games can’t ever exist. Like it’s obviously wrong if your describing a zero sum game. It’s rare but zero sum games do exist so stating that something is a zero sum game doesn’t move the conversation forward. Like so what? Yeah I could be describing a zero sum game, it doesn’t make me wrong, what’s your point?
Case in point, the credit for the First person or team who can get Linux running on the m1 IS a zero sum game and there already is a winner for that “game.”
I never edited any of my posts. That line is just a fragment of the post, which specifically has this line:
“ We all like to think that collaboration, harmony and love drives innovation but much of innovation is built around intense rivalry and competition as well.”
Keyword here is “as well”. If you feel the need to respond or vote someone down please read the post carefully rather then respond or vote baselessly.
More clarification is necessary. Competition is the driver of natural selection. Your entire biological form exists as an evolution of winning traits because your ancestors out competed and defeated others who fought to reproduce so someone else could take your place.
Competition is therefore a primary driver of your existence while collaboration is secondary. It’s not that competition can lead to benefits, the phenomenon that occurs is that collaboration can actually work but only as a tertiary driver behind competition.
See communism if you want to know the results of a society formed with collaboration over competition as the primary driver.
I'm familiar. The jail breaking scene and other examples are one offs though. You just need to take a holistic view of life and civilization to know how critical competition is to success.
All of society and the development of capitalism to evolutionary biology is founded on competition. Competition is, in fact, the primary success story and collaboration is the side story. Citing the failure of one community discounts the view of the entire world. Competition works, and it works better than collaboration. See communism if you want an example about a community founded on collaboration as the primary driver.
Putting politics aside, which I probably don't want to discuss in a thread about Apple silicon, competition where you argue about licensing and code sourcing for stuff that you are vying to upstream stuff to the same open source upstream does really not seem healthy.
We're not talking about health. Competition and the cred received for for being first to market will drive people to compete and therefore innovate. Whether that's healthy or not is not only a big convoluted topic, but a separate topic.
Either way you're citing singular examples and calling it "seemingly unhealthy." It's a weak argument against my example of the entire modern world as a competitive arena.
We are talking about health because I started this thread with a discussion about the healthiness of the situation. Bringing up jailbreaking is an extremely strong argument because many of the same people are involved, rather than whatever vague "competition the real world" example you have shows. And I know that the currently situation has already turned off some very capable people from contributing to either "side" when they were perfectly willing to do so before, or waste their time on arguing who is in the right here.
But of course many people who are working on this are driven by the competition as well. Both collaboration and competition have their place, but make no doubt, the world itself is proof that competition is likely the primary driver behind why Linux was up and running on the M1 so quickly.
Haven't followed this at all so I have no idea how far I'm off, but I could easily imagine that the type of person who dives deep to take on the M1 Linux challenge is exactly the kind of person who could enjoy, after noticing another team taking on the same project, to celebrate each other by not only agreeing to disagree, but agreeing to disagree * with all the drama they can muster*. "Hey, you're cool, let's publicly sling mud at each other!"
I wouldn't dare considering it the most likely scenario, but it's surely the most lovely.
marcan is CCed on that set of patches as a courtesy, and he can help with figuring out better approaches before it's merged. Because it's set in stone forever after that.
Reading the comment thread that arose from your comment reminded me, and maybe you'll appreciate this...
I like to view competition as a form of collaboration, for example:
When companies compete, they compete in a collaboration we call the market.
When sports teams compete, whether as groups or individuals, they compete in a collaboration we call the game, or even a tournament.
When the other side is beating you, you might look at their strengths and weaknesses, their knowledge and ability, and work out if there's anything you can learn, how to adapt your behaviour to strengthen your position.
Employees, or players, can move from one company to another, through hiring or acquisitions, bringing skills and experience with them. Here we have companies competing for employees, and then those employees collaborating anew.
Or a company might license certain IP from another, this is a form of collaboration too.
In this sense, collaboration and competition aren't necessarily opposing paradigms, they can be tools to apply to the situation.
Essentially, while this project may be quicker to get visible results, they may not be able to release all the code kosher for merging upstream. It will be interesting to see the next steps.