Book review - A History of Warfare

From my flickr

Am reading a book that a good friend recommended: "A History of Warfare" by John Keegan.

It was published just after the first Gulf War, and contains optimistic comments about what seemed to be a limited offensive. This was an unfortunate example of wishful thinking, since the book, although otherwise well balanced, does not seem to want to believe in the recent possibility of extreme escalation.

The statement above is unfair, but it reflects my disappointment, since I remember those days very well. These were the times when Gwynne Dyer, another distinguished historian, had a CBC radio series on how the world was getting better. His reportage indicated that there were less and less big wars. I will be reading his book on war soon.

Things have changed since...

The Keegan book is a comprehensive analysis of the culture of war. It is generally cautious, erudite, and wide-ranging. Its coverage includes what we can gather from prehistory, from isolated cultures, from Western and Eastern traditions, and it analyzes cultural, anthropological and biological factors to define what is meant by "war". It provides a framework for defining war across cultures and religions and observes that war is often self-limiting, but not always.

It is also an attack on Clausewitz's dictum that war is an extension of politics - an extreme in a spectrum. In fact Keegan links the adoption of Clausewitzian philosophy to the Great War.

He makes a strong case. Total war does not seem common in history or prehistory, although it does occur. It is certainly not a survival mechanism for cultures! Its ultimate realization in the atomic age is a tragedy and he also makes the point that it cannot be considered politics by any stretch of the imagination, unless we simply consider it deterrence, which is a strange way to look at it.

All in all, it does illuminate the reality of war and does not make it seem inevitable, yet more must be said about the adoption of a Clausewitzian view in a world of measurement and power games. If a tool like total war exists, it will be used in certain cultures of escalation. I think that positivist materialism provides that context - ironically enough.

Vico and iterative design - History as a spiral

Giambattista Vico was an Italian 17th century academic who wrote about history scientifically. His thesis is that history is a helix, and that the we can know history better than we can know nature because we make history. It is the New Science.

History is iterative design, in short. We are creating our cultures through spiral cycles of successive approximations. There is no overarching strategy, only tentative approaches, herding of instinct by the powerful, and some imperfect knowledge of the past that gets better as we approach the present.

Iterative design is the norm. Anything else is just so much hubris.

Waterfalls mostly create entropy.

The Art of (tech) War

(photo copyright 2007, A. Barake)

Where I talk about more-or-less obvious but infrequently discussed strategies by Sun, IBM, Microsoft et al.

I think it was in during the last century, with the advent of the hardware/software dichotomy that this type of strategy evolved. IBM may have been the first to use it successfully. A prerequisite is a pair of complementary things to sell, with at least one that you control completely, through secrecy, patents or a huge market lead. Let me describe it.

Suppose you sell hardware, and you make and sell software for it too. Your competitors also sell hardware and software of course. Your hardware is different and possibly proprietary or difficult to clone or to re-brand. So the strategy is to make software that runs on both your own and your competitors' box. You under-price or give away the software, and call it bundling.

Better still, you give away stuff that is almost or as good as your competitor’s, and you value-add and sell a version that runs only on your platform.

Sounds familiar?

IBM with Java and Linux
Sun with Solaris
And both are also attacking Microsoft with Eclipse and OpenOffice respectively.

Yet Microsoft thrives.
Explain in 2 pages or less....

Microsoft fights back using another strategy; they sell software that runs mostly on smaller cheaper platforms. They have an arrangement of co-dependency, as their releases grow and become more bloated, they require bigger and bigger Intel horsepower, until that low-cost hardware begins to overtake the computing power of big boys. This is an attrition strategy; much vaunted in management theory courses.

Microsoft's core business is software, so it is the protected commodity. The hardware is Intel, but multi-vendor and commoditized so competition drives the price down below the proprietary guys’ stuff. They are pursuing a software-first strategy and the other guys are pursuing a hardware-first strategy. Are you still with me?

It is with reason that IBM fears Microsoft more than it fears Sun or HP.

IBM and HP also sell Intel servers, but they are branded, not commodities. Both try to mitigate the hardware-first exposure by also making money on professional services (which can sometimes be an adjunct to sale - nudge nudge), server software and very big boxes. Forced upgrades due to byzantine dependencies among their software offerings help too, and the upgrade cycle is one way to drive this.

IBM has little software presence on the desktop except with IDE’s and I’m not sure they sell workstations since the Lenovo deal. In other words, they threw in the towel for now.

On the Internet side:
The classic version of this story is, of course, Microsoft vs Netscape, where hardware becomes system software and software becomes the browser. We know who won.

More subtle, as chronicled by others before me, Google learned a thing or two from this. They give away email, blogging, API’s, server side apps - to counter Yahoo’s offerings in that space. Free and easy Web access for the masses, no emphasis on paid subscription modes, whereas Yahoo does act as an ISP. Google’s core business depends on search and on page views, all the rest of their offerings simply draw customers into their portals while at the same time undermining Yahoo’s non-search businesses. They are not evil but almost...they followed in the footsteps of the well-tried IBM and MS strategies.

Yahoo - has no strategy that I can tell. They are like Sun. Java was a gift to the community that hurt Sun, since it is platform independent. I guess they thought that they could make an OS/hardware combo that ran the JVM better than the other guys, but IBM with its marketing (and technical) clout claims that that is not the case. In a way, it is as if Microsoft had written Linux. That is what happens to a nice earnest tech company that swims amongst the sharks.

Is their hope for the "good tech" to overcome the "mediocre tech" with good strategy?
My proposal would be combine the Apple, Sun and Yahoo brands as the high-end stuff of computing. The champagne. Then market it to consumers and businesses as the cream of the tech-savvy crop. Apple and Sun are an almost perfect match, and it would get Apple into that server market they so covet. R&D would be a plus rather than a risk, since the audience would want to take those risks, it would be cool, fodder for the early adopters. Yahoo would provide even more channels for Apple’s media side

There. Free strategy. Why don’t I command the multi-million dollar bonus?

I know many tech types who can't bring themselves to believe that that kind of “deep thinking” goes on; but this is exactly what the people who took biz courses when you were toiling to understand complex stuff end up doing, and they make the big bucks. Hustlers, thugs, ruthless opportunists... having the only kind of fun they can, since they can’t make things, are too competitive to collaborate with anyone, and certainly can’t code. I think they are missing out, because in the end, what's left is an abstract and hollow victory, scorched earth, and lots of resentment against inferior technologies. Real satisfaction can only come by making things better, and not just in the monetary sense as noted here. The alternative is growing entropy until the next cleansing crisis.

P.S.
This just in.

Dylan and Drake - Ego spectra

(Picture copyright A. Barake, 2007)

Have been reading a book of interviews with Dylan. I also mentioned here that I read and recommend Joe Boyd's memoirs. I "discovered" Nick Drake through these, and subsequently listened to some of his music. The stuff I like most is him singing to his own guitar accompaniment, sparse but deeply moving. It is full of melancholy. the ego struggling to emerge but battling emotion. Drake committed suicide.

Dylan's interviews and songs reveal a different type of ego, one that is dominant, defining of a reality. The person is re-invented with every appearance, and is making us consider adopting some of this vision.

This spectrum of ego - from the struggling and disappearing one to the inventive, playful and somewhat monstrous one is particularly interesting given that these are solo artists, both very original, defining themselves in the difficult music business. The support of others is limited, until you break through. Your belief system is mostly held near your heart.

In Dylan's case, the media circus and controversy tried to take hold, and he built a humorous shield to deflect the ego distorting forces and to maintain his creative force.

Drake was trying to break through and seems to have been struggling against his handlers as well as himself. He was more alone, in a sense, than Dylan, or at least not ego maniacal enough.

As ego is questioned, depression sets in. An argument can be made that depression in a loss of ego, a flattening of it that leads to inability to make the future for oneself. A strong ego influences destiny (character is destiny) by changing the perceptual environment. Management types would call it "selling yourself", missing the underlying irony.

It is easy to sell a template ego, for example the "MBA persona", or the jock persona, but in the arts, individuality and novelty are the goal, so the frame of reference gets pretty narrow, the market too. Success means enlarging that frame, creating the market. Dylan did it through force of character, strong confident performances, new poetic lyrical modes, and hubris. Drake did it too, but with his music and style. It took longer.

For most of us, the ego is sustained by our family, our friends and to some extent our peers at work. We adapt to these micro-cultures (or not) when we interact. Depression can occur when there is indifference or forced adaptation that violates beliefs and upbringing.

It is therefore important not to let any erosion of the ego occur through lack of self-respect. Unfortunately, our ape behaviour is all about climbing the ego ladder, and this erosion is all too common in groups.

Solitary artists, like writers and the afore-mentioned performers sustain the ego through their art. The songs are externalizations of the ego, and provide a hedge against the erosion. Criticism of the songs can be destructive for that reason. I think Drake was very susceptible to this (from my reading of Boyd's memoir of him). Dylan would be too, but then the songs are held up by all the fans and many have become classics - he is immunized.

Logic of opposites

(Picture of Lausanne Park copyright A. Barake)

I recently read a blog quoting E. Wiesel, about how the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. ( I thought it was Dave Pollard, but I can't find the link). In any case, the point is that attention is the commodity being given or withheld. I am severely summarizing, but I tripped on the word "opposite". How do we define it in such a context? Why can't hate be the opposite of love if intimacy or something else defined as the desired commodity?

Math and logic try to resolve these ambiguities by making distinctions between converse, complement, and other technical relationships, that have something to do with oppositions. The usefulness of these constructs depends on their generality and how they fit within the meta-world of math operators and relationships - set theory etc. Why this is satisfying is a mystery. It may be that our minds are happy to tie these loose ends together in a big coherent construct, or it maybe that our world is actually organized in this way, at least physically, but I am not sure.

I think that what the crisis of mathematics that occurred over 100 years ago shows is that as culture and knowledge and philosophy mature, fragmentation inevitably takes hold. Size matters in that holding something too big together takes exponentially increasing effort, and this applies to things both physical like boats and civilizations or entirely platonic - like mathematics.

Words like "opposite" and "similar" can be so misused in important contexts. Mathematics tries to bring precision to them by limiting the context, and some people try to bridge that limited context world with the real one via ideas like AI, but I am not sure that there is a mapping. the computer is a limited for now in its interactions with our reality.

Also, logical operations depend on predicates, and transitivity, and operations that are repeatable and consistent, which means that the environment in which they operate must be stable. This is not a good environmental expectation for non-mathematical reality.

I was attracted to mathematics and computer programming because it gave me this sense of control, but now I realize that as in programming, the real-world intrudes and must really be considered first.