From fork-admin@xent.com  Tue Oct  8 14:40:22 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: zzzz@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by spamassassin.taint.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A524E16F16
	for <zzzz@localhost>; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 14:39:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for zzzz@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 08 Oct 2002 14:39:44 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g98DIUK16967 for <zzzz@spamassassin.taint.org>;
    Tue, 8 Oct 2002 14:18:30 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 99D1A2940DA; Tue,  8 Oct 2002 06:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240])
    by xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46C832940D1 for <fork@xent.com>;
    Tue,  8 Oct 2002 06:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from endeavors.com ([66.126.120.174]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net
    (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May  7 2001)) with ESMTP id
    <0H3N006X7ZLZ03@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for fork@xent.com; Tue,
    08 Oct 2002 06:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gregory Alan Bolcer <gbolcer@endeavors.com>
Subject: Re: why is decentralization worth worrying about?
To: Rohit Khare <khare@alumni.caltech.edu>
Cc: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
Reply-To: gbolcer@endeavors.com
Message-Id: <3DA2D8B5.19DD480D@endeavors.com>
Organization: Endeavors Technology, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; IRIX 6.5 IP32)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en, pdf
References: <2583F1FA-DA52-11D6-B1B1-000393A46DEA@alumni.caltech.edu>
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@spamassassin.taint.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@spamassassin.taint.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 06:08:05 -0700

Rohit Khare wrote:
> 
> Why am I so passionate about decentralization? Because I believe some of
> today?s most profound problems with networked applications are caused by
> centralization.
> 
> Generically, a centralized political or economic system permits only one
> answer to a question, while decentralization permits many separate
> agents to hold different opinions of the same matter. In the specific
> context of software, centralized variables can only contain one valid
> value at a time. That limits us to only representing information A)
> according to the beliefs of a single agency, and B) that changes more
> slowly than it takes to propagate. Nevertheless, centralization is the
> basis for today?s most popular architectural style for developing
> network applications: client-server interaction using request-response
> communication protocols.

I think the ability to maintain an inconsistent database
is key to decentralization. 

Databases enforce consistenty with every transaction.
Bounded transactions, like an ATM, enforce consistency
  by have some play with time and value
Most people keep inconsistent data in their heads, it's
  called congnitive dissonance theory
Most businesses keep inconsistent data, documents, tationale
  and ideas to support their work activities, it's called real life.

I don't think it matters so much where it's located, i.e.
decentralization. I think that decentralization is the workaround
from technical limitations.  The fallout being that the only way
inconsistent information spaces can be maintained is by 
protecting them through a set of trust barriers and boundaries. 
The local information when combined with the technical
troubles of providing "just enough" forced synchronization
to remote information provide workable data consistenty, i.e.
enforcing local constraints or ignoring global ones when
concerns are more immedidate.  

Tolerating temporary, irreconcilable deviations is how
people cope, otherwise you'd be like Nick Gatsby unnecessarily
pre-occupied with a spot of shaving cream on McKee's neck
who thinks that if he can just wipe that spot off that the
whole world would be a little more perfect and everything,
including his pre-occupation with Daisy, would consistently
be in its proper place.

Greg


