Agreed. Well, I didn't really mean to get highly political in the first few posts I'm sending to this list, but analyzing the terms "server" and "client" appears to be similar to how Karl Marx questioned the German terms "Arbeitgeber" and "Arbeitnehmer".
"Arbeitgeber" means "employer". The literal translation of the German term is "work provider". "Arbeitnehmer" means "employee" The literal translation of the German term is "work receiver". Marx said those terms should be reversed, because the "employee" is really the one who provides something (his work), and the "employer" is the one who receives it (and pays for it). Guess this is similar to "server" and "client". It's the client that really serves something (our ideas, content, etc). Markus On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > Markus Sabadello wrote: > > "Who does that server really serve" is a question I > > have asked myself many times as well. > > The answer is always "whoever owns it". > > That seems insurmountable until you realize that groups of users > are also capable of wielding ownership for their own good. > > So now we just need to design and write a legally binding > Social Contract that user groups can choose to apply to such > physical property and we can begin without the need to write > any new software. > > This is similar to the ideas of Bill St. Arnaud > http://BillStArnaud.BlogSpot.com but extended right into the > server room. > > We, the users, must eventually own *all* the physical infrastructure > of all our communication and productive systems such as the > farms and factories and water and land if we are to be free. > > But we have been fooled into believing that ownership must > be limited to those who possess the skills needed to operate > and maintain it = the Workers... > > > Sincerely, > Patrick Anderson >
