jfw: diana_coman: I'm trying for a concise intro/description of V, in the present (post-Republic) context. Does this about capture it: "versioning system that supports owner control of computing by placing primary focus on the change and explicit management of trust through strong cryptography" ?
diana_coman: jfw - hm, what do you mean by "of computing" there?
jfw: well, of the operation of one's own computers
jfw: possibly a bit circular with "ownership of one's own"...
diana_coman: it's more that the definition as you gave it doesn't do all that much - though it takes a few readings, hm.
diana_coman: it's a bit tortured on various fences by the looks of it; for one thing, defining it as a versioning system cuts away an important part - the deployment of software that is usually not all that much the traditional concern of versioning systems
diana_coman: jfw - what's the audience you have in mind there or is this blog/generic?
jfw: it's the blog, yes - and partly for clarifying it for myself, heh.
jfw: my grasp of what V does for deployment is basically to say that the other tools traditionally used for it aren't necessary
diana_coman: ahaha, going for once fully-negative-space there (and that getting rid of all the other "tools" is not a tiny thing either at that, but it's more of a consequence than anything else)
diana_coman: V is a complete solution in that sense, hence "the other tools [...] aren't necessary"
jfw: (though um, it's still known to lean on 'wget' etc.)
diana_coman: well, it also still requires an OS!
diana_coman: anyways, I wouldn't say that "other tools are not necessary" - it's more that the change is so fundamental that previous tools don't fit /don't have a useful place anymore; other tools though *are* still necessary - only they need to be built
diana_coman: it changes the whole landscape if you want
diana_coman: but let's rewind and try to grab it from some more concrete end perhaps
jfw: alright
diana_coman: so for one thing, V is not some particular implementation but essentially a paradigm for software
diana_coman: and software as a whole, not just development, nor even just deployment, it goes all the way to even what software *is*
diana_coman: sure, one can use V for some narrow part that they care about and it's true that the first implementation was just that, a very narrow thing in fact, but that doesn't mean much.
diana_coman: and I suppose that the current state of V-use and development otherwise might give the impression that there isn't anything more to it either, huh
jfw: I suppose I've tried to understand the species based on observations of what's shared by the known instances
diana_coman: jfw - you know, I think your attempt and question there hits actually deeper (and well done for it, too) than you intended, lol
jfw: haha, indeed
diana_coman: jfw - so where did you start from, anyway? from the current implementations of V, is that what you mean by the instances?
jfw: right
jfw: heh, you know the one about the blind men and the elephant?
diana_coman: that kind of locks you unhelpfully into some rather sterile and narrow mindframe, myeah (and I'll leave the tracing of the root cause there to each log reader)
diana_coman: jfw - hm? doesn't come to mind, no.
jfw: apparently a story that exists in many versions, but basically each man feels a different part of the elephant and extrapolates a completely different (& quite incomplete) picture of what an elephant is.
diana_coman: ah, the fable, yes
diana_coman: I can see the similarity, indeed
jfw: https://allpoetry.com/The-Blind-Man-And-The-Elephant - possibly the main English version.
jfw ponders how to "see true v-elephant with mind's eye"
diana_coman: the thing is, V is not just a different type of versioning system - a bit like a car is not just a faster cart, hm
diana_coman: jfw - well, better start from the beginning as it were which indeed is *not* whatever implementation, no matter what claims are made otherwise; e.g. [http://trilema.com/2015/no-such-labs-releases-v-for-victory/?b=change&e=satellites#select][the change similar to that introduced by the understanding and controlling movement in terms of mass, impulse and energy, such as it occurs in the launching of
diana_coman: satellites]
diana_coman: damn, it still broke the link, didn't it
jfw: space between the words in the text, yeah
diana_coman: jfw - my, yrc can't recall previous line??
jfw: nope :/
diana_coman: jfw - why, why, why whyyyyyy
diana_coman: the change similar to that introduced by the understanding and controlling movement in terms of mass, impulse and energy, such as it occurs in the launching of satellites
jfw: because it's young still
diana_coman: so based on the above, you can start perhaps with a broad definition of V as a new way of understanding software - and therefore, as a consequence of this deeper and more precise understanding, the resulting more efficient way of talking about software, developing (version controlling being only one part of that developing) software, deploying software, maintaining software and so on.
diana_coman: jfw - well, yrc may be young and have all the time ahead of it indeed but what can I say, I'm getting older day by day here so pleaaaase: can haz tab-completion and last-line recall?
jfw: yes; and kill/yank (cut/paste) for the input is needed too.
jfw: "manage his investment of trust at all junctures so that he is never required to implicitly trust either an unknown code author, or a code snippet of unknown provenance." - hey I pretty much got that part, right?
diana_coman: with that broad definition at hand to help you avoid the pitfalls of stupid compartmentalizing, narrow focus, childish pick-and-choose and other numerous afflictions of the "software industry/engineering", the next step is to review the stated principles at the root of it all:
jfw: (but yes, paradigm rather than particular set of scripts was missing.)
diana_coman: namely software being the property of those running it and identity being constructed by others' view, upon a fixed support
diana_coman: jfw - trust is possibly the skin of that particular elephant and at least the word itself has been repeatedly brandied about for sure
diana_coman: it might have been bandied, but I do like brandied better.
jfw: mmm, brandytrust!
diana_coman: quite, it can produce... intoxication!
jfw: especially hazardous when pregnant with concepts & definitions
diana_coman: ahahah, indeed!
diana_coman: looking back at your original definition, I'm afraid there isn't much of it left though.
diana_coman: making a first attempt at tightening up that previous definition:
sonofawitch: 2020-06-23 21:56:55 (#ossasepia) diana_coman: so based on the above, you can start perhaps with a broad definition of V as a new way of understanding software - and therefore, as a consequence of this deeper and more precise understanding, the resulting more efficient way of talking about software, developing (version controlling being only one part of that developing) software, deploying software, maintaining software and so on.
diana_coman: V is a new conceptual framework for software, emerging from a better understanding of what software is and providing as main benefits the means for explicit, verifiable enforcement of software ownership by users as well as the correct incentives and supporting concepts for a qualitative jump in the way software is developed, deployed, maintained and evolved.
diana_coman: jfw - does the above sound like the sort of concise definition you were looking for?
diana_coman: it aims for a more practical intro so it necessarily leaves some stuff out/picks some to highlight.
jfw: diana_coman: it's the sort of definition, yes - I don't know that I'll use it here directly though because if I'm to give a definition I'd want it to be one I fully understand myself (i.e. to have that new understanding of software & be able to explain why it's better)
jfw: I'll work on getting there but the present article can make do without it.
diana_coman: jfw - ah, no need to use it directly anywhere, lol; and anyways, if not clear, ask further tomorrow or whenever, sure.
jfw: yep, & thanks for the pointers.
diana_coman: yw
diana_coman: such excellent questions are a pleasure to answer, so...keep asking them!