Goals and Means

    Recent discussions about the file manager , about expectations from the brand , about the sale of “second-hand” software, as well as about numerous start-ups , in which Her Majesty Monetization is at the forefront , prompted reflection.

    Every thing at any moment can be either a goal or a means . Accordingly, we have a choice what to consider this or that thing at any time.

    Continuation of the topic - The ideal "Web-development" or the path from the idea to the finished project. For

    each thing, you can determine this by asking the question - "why do I need this?" and if the answer is in the style of “I want, like it to be,” etc. - that’s the goal, and if "then, to ..." is already a means of achieving some other goal. Let's look at a few examples.

    About the web.

    Here, for example, almost every "serious" web studio writes its own engine - as if it were their goal . What for? As a result, we have thousands of them, but each time having an explicit task, we are faced with the fact that the means of solving it are not perfect (it would be cool on Drupal, but with a module from Jumla and without unnecessary functionality that you will never use). Isn’t it better to unite and define the tasks facing the site engines to write several of them, one for each task, and at the same time, ideally or close to the ideal performing their functions?
    Or forums. Each habrayuzer saw dozens of dead forums, and some even created them. Yes, they aspired to the goal- create a forum. Some of them succeeded, we saw a lot of live, convenient forums that became full-fledged communities. And the difference is that those forums that “shot” were created as a means to unite some community, or to communicate on some interesting topic. Those who died - were created as a goal .

    About software.

    Programs, especially under Windows (I already imagine how trolls grin, anticipating another holivar)), have a lot of analogues. If there are more than one of them, this only means that they are somewhat imperfect, otherwise they would be so similar that they would not differ. Why don't the authors of these similar programs join forces? Apparently, their goal is not to create a tool that best meets the needs of future users in achieving their goals, but simply to do something “their own,” which may bring them some profit, fame, respect, or something else. At the same time, they are guided by the mass and inexperienced Windows user, unlike Linux (where the entire development community has one goal- development and promotion of free software, and therefore considers programs as a tool ) or Mac (where Steve Jobs and Apple strive to create ideal tools , both hardware and software, and this philosophy was passed on to individual software developers and teams), which indirectly confirms this assumption .
    In a recent discussion of the need for a file manager, great ideas were expressed, but, as all opponents of the idea noted, they cannot be realized until they understand that software is a tool and, accordingly, the goals of writing it for individuals and the community as a whole . And the situation will change qualitatively, only when the necessary number of people who have changed the paradigm is recruited.

    About blogs.

    “I keep a diary to be read,” many bloggers can say. © Wikipedia
    That is, roughly representing the interests of the reader, the blogger writes about what is interesting to his readers (and to himself, since he has his own opinion about it). Then the goal of the author is to convey the thought to the reader, and the blog is the means to do this.
    Why are thousands of standalone blogs where they write about the same thing? Maybe that is why most of them have so few readers, although there are resources where you can present your thoughts to an audience of thousands?
    For example, some habrayuzers have their own blogs. Sometimes a very IT subject. Why not write immediately to Habr? Two of the most popular objections are “they don’t mess there” and “I’m writing on my blog, withby their readers, with their advertising ”...
    Both objections seem untenable to me. The first - about the “zamusunyut” only shows that these bloggers are not sure of the value of the information that they want to convey to readers for the readers themselves. The second - about your blog - on the hub, everyone has at least his own blog, at most - a lot of thematic blogs, which is more convenient for readers.
    Does this not seem to you a substitute for ends and means?
    I’ll write my thoughts about advertising on blogs and moneymakers in a separate post, if it is interesting to someone and they will talk about it.

    About passive income.

    It seems to me that the whole problem is the desire for passive income. The fact that people are looking for a way to do something once and will always be profitable. People’s belief in passive income is not so bad. If you do something convenient, something that can become a means to something else - passive income can be. Otherwise, not a single project would survive, with donate monetization. The main trouble is that people are looking for a way to pass off another “bike” for something great and have a piece of paper protecting the idea . The concept of intellectual property, which has been causing so much controversy lately, rests on this great power.
    Regarding the rights to musical works, I like the approaches of Radiohead and Petr Nalich. Yes, they still earn on their work. But they act as if theirthe goal is to enable as many people as possible to hear their works. Accordingly, the recordings themselves, in mp3 or in other formats, are not the goal, but only a means to convey to the audience information that they will receive by attending the concert (in the case of Nalich), or simply understand what the performer (Radiohead) wants to say, and if they will like to donate.

    Conclusions or information for thought.

    Have you noticed that everywhere is a means, a means ? And if there is a goal somewhere, then the cycle will break and no infinity will work. And that is why the meaning of every thing, phenomenon or something else is to be a means to something else. And in the end, if you ask for a long, long time, “Why do I need this?”, And each time answer “ means ”, then at the very end it will be - to change the world for the better . Whoever asked and whoever answered.
    All other goalslead to anything, but not to this. And they divert attention from the main thing. And people strive for goals that do not change themselves, do not change the world in which they live, for the better. And in the end, you have to justify your time spent by a bunch of some meaningless events, things ... A crisis?
    But at any moment, each of us can ask ourselves - why do I need this thing, or this trip, or this meeting, or something else? And the world will get better)))

    Also popular now: