Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout

Note Detail

DJ Sundog from the *new* toot-lab@djsundog@fedi.reclaim.technology (2026-10-18 07:10:47)
sometimes concepts like “software bills of materials” and dependency footprints and “software supply chains” come up and they always make me chafe a bit, not because they’re poorly fit analogies but because they’re so poorly fit they manage to eject the important data to focus on the unimportant data.

don’t worry, I’ll continue to ramble on about this in a thread now.
---Reply---
DJ Sundog from the *new* toot-lab@djsundog@fedi.reclaim.technology (2026-10-18 07:15:06)
what I mean is that by focusing on the “what constitutes this functional component of computing” part of the system, it ignores and invalidates the “how does one constitute this functional component of computing” part of the system, and that part is the key.

I’m not talking about digging into it on any technical level to understand the implementation details, I’m talking about the prerequisites, both technological and informational, required to leverage and/or develop with the thing. what’s the combined total biomass of people required to keep this project running? what’s the documentation footprint, and what’s its update cadence compared to that of the thing itself? how has that documentation footprint changed over time?

---Replies---

DJ Sundog from the *new* toot-lab@djsundog@fedi.reclaim.technology (2026-10-18 07:17:30)
because one thing that has been bubbling to the surface of consciousness around FOSS type stuff over the last decade or so is that it’s not enough for something to have open licensing and freely available source code if the resources required - technological, biological, and otherwise - are overly cumbersome; that’s not open to you, that’s open to “scale players”.