Diff3r3ntVversionsArePOSSIBLE?!. notes

From DiVersions
Jump to navigation Jump to search

in 2018 (as submitted in Dutch for funding in Flanders)[edit]

Collections: Collecties: WikiMedia + immaterieelerfgoed.be


Description: Hoe maak je plek voor materieel en immaterieel erfgoed waar we nog geen weet van hebben? OmissiONfuzz stelt voor om symbolische en potentieel nuttige lege items in de database op te nemen, geïndexeerd en genummerd als ieder ander object, maar zonder vaste en representatieve inhoud. Ze dienen als symbolische markers van de leegtes in een collectie en leggen verbanden tussen de kwantiteit en kwaliteit van datgene wat ontbreekt. Deze plaatshouders kunnen worden gebruikt voor de imaginaire toevoeging van schetsmatige, onzekere en hypothetische informatie.

Biography: Zeljko Blace is actief op meerdere domeinen: cultuur, activisme, media en sport. Hij heeft een achtergrond in media, kunst en design en een affiniteit met vrije cultuur. Hij maakt video- en installatie kunst maar ook generatieve media, net art en computer game art. Op dit moment speelt zijn praktijk zich vooral af op het gebied tussen sport en media. Zijn onderzoek richt zich op QueerSport en de spanningen tussen sportnormativiteit en queer uitdrukkingsvormen.

WORK (materials)[edit]

(working 2019) Diff3r3ntVVersionsArePOSSIBLE?!.[edit]

Content example: Men's CUP[edit]

To illustrate, manifest and render the need for change and possible implementation here is an exemplary wiki page and its reWorked version with elaborated differences: that is just plain old patronizing with some potential for homophobic reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zblace#Nomination_of_Men's_Cup_for_deletion

Content example: Pride parade[edit]

To illustrate the need for change and possible implementation here is an exemplary wiki page and its reWorked version with elaborated differences:

(working 2020) Title: 0MissiONfuzz[edit]

Project work named with "temporary" to connect to notions of absence/voids and fuzzy logic (?) of kind of (negative) archive/collection gaps and amendments that are officially not re-presented/visible.


0n-n0n-maj0r-versi0ns-0.xx or What-a-Difference-a-VersionName-Makes?

(in social and cultural effects - from queer perspective)

To paraphrase a blues classic with What-a-Difference-a-VersionName-Makes (1), between day (or night-build make) used to be of major difference, but it is becoming increasingly less so at least for end-users. In the times of agile software development, cloud services and general obfuscations of systems in "smart" but non-transparent technologies, issues are either being solved (or not) and features added (or removed) on the go (no flow or milestones) in translucent ways. For an average "digital native" consumer so old of me to put this under quotations, especially after blues intro most commercial apps and services obviously change only when re-branding is needed and UI/UX changes direct focus to some (apparent) (new) (consumable) (added) value. However before software release versioning further disappear from view in consumer use of technology, it would be important to consider its relevance and reception, especially considering different (a)social groups and (sub)cultural effects.

If you were using PCs before 90s, you were likely swapping versions of software and media initially in a very dated analogue form (as noisy audio tapes or dial-in sounds over modem connections) and each new version likely brought enthusiasm or at least set of expectations that would fill the day or maybe even a week with attention to all the changes. Switching to digital media made the distribution significantly less exceptional (with often un-open CDs and DVDs finally cramping our PC desk drawers) until we gave up on it. With the appearance of WWW updates became so easy and routine that it became a mundane activity for many... However if you were a part of a particular specialized niche of users invested in specific software and its development this could still evoke blood rush on a specific release cycle. This is where we (PC users) differentiated socially and culturally when reading/experiencing differences of different software release versions.

On version naming systems...

When approaching change software versioning practices from the start of 21st century one can notice that there is: -- no 1.0 versions almost as a rule, unless it is Free/Libre/OpenSourceSoftware and/or there is a long publicly visible path towards building tension for 1.0. It is as if marketing departments of commercial software companies see 1.0 as a weak point of promotion data. Going with software product's name only when first getting established is not only enough, but also can induce a sense of stability more then one amended by 1.0 versioning. In whole honesty who can blame them after seeing how many products needed immediate 1.1 and 1.2 version updates (in 90s Microsoft got famously bad for its second and third "edition" releases). -- staging further full number versions is fairly safe to bring consumer attention especially with versions 2.0 and similarly for 3.0. For 2.0 releases it is often the most promising most radical re-work/re-conceptualization, but often delivering with it even more of capitalization, as if it is corrective of not only technological but also economic logic underneath the surface; It is David Bowie who once said: "It is important to be second", referring to the potential to follow up on pioneering work and opportunity to mainstream it. In the world of software it is often this version that positions strategically producer inside of its field, or even shapes the field for itself. Most infamous Web 2.0 brought in by O'Railly....................... On the other hand it is 3.0 releses are usually focused on reality-check of fixing fixable; They are about practical and pragmatical choices. — what became quickly obvious that no much popular attention/PR investment was made for versions within release cycles N.x as these served to satisfy more advanced and expert users that would actually find issues, discuss them and sometimes even report. Most famous non-major release in 3rd release cycle was HTML standard 3.2 where web exploded in popularity and divergences of many HTML implementations needed to be sorted around common standard in the time of BrowserWars (x)... As first decades of 21st century brought us a number of hybrid models of software development and packaging, it became slightly more complex when products like Ubuntu started to market themselves to mainstream markets with x.4 and x.9 (LTS)...

— Any potential enthusiasm for 0.xx only among very (very) few... HAIKU

- there is no — non-versions and v0ids — forks and — irational numbers...

https:github.com/semantic-release/semantic-release semantic-release automates the whole package release workflow including: determining the next version number, generating the release notes and publishing the package. This removes the immediate connection between human emotions and version numbers, strictly following the Semantic Versioning specification. Trust us, this will change your workflow for the better. – egghead.io//

Z.Blace is exceptions: - paid for software maybe 2 times: JeeperElvis! non-linear video editing alpha for - signed NDA on a rainly evening in Hannover to get to Zeta (YellowTAB's hybrid software)

(1) It is the English version of Spanish original that induced endless new versions/covers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_a_Diff'rence_a_Day_Made