commit 7a4c9e7fefde9fb3d94e5f97f66cd3fdbd2b06e5
parent 34cf55aaf5ff533ebf0921c34c0549bb5f6b3f78
Author: Nick Moffitt <nick@zork.net>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 00:02:48 +0100
typos fixed, and final paragraph
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/spacehobo/antipatterns.mdwn b/spacehobo/antipatterns.mdwn
@@ -4,12 +4,12 @@ Because the boundaries of Permacomputing are not subject to a hard and formal de
This essay is an attempt to help bring some of these boundaries into clearer focus. They will never be sharp lines with firm rules, but we can identify some practices that are orthogonal (or even *antithetical*) to the practices observed by Permacomputing communities in the 2020s.
-In the abstract, I hope to illustrate the ways in which Permacomputing is not any of these things:
+I hope to illustrate the ways in which Permacomputing is not any of these things:
- * hierarchical
- * ascetic
- * nostalgic
- * individualist
+ 1. hierarchical
+ 2. ascetic
+ 3. nostalgic
+ 4. individualist
# Permacomputing is not Hierarchical
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ It is most certainly *not* limited to Forth! It's true that Forth has become som
To illustrate this principle, here are some living [[projects]] that prove this. These things, and others similar to them, *can be* Permacomputing. They range from 8-bit BASIC and Forth computers to 32-bit Lua programming tools and low-pixel-count photography festivals. They include Linux distributions you can install on old phones or tablets, power monitoring for your existing devices, and ways to distribute site hosting on solar-powered nodes so your traffic "follows the sun".
-I say "can be" because it's always possible for a project with noble aims and incredible promise to change. Goals shift, and sometimes people make tradeoffs that ultimately thwart the original aims. Permacomputing is about those goals, and that is why our descriptions of methods and approaches are so fuzzy.
+I say "can be" because it's always possible for a project with noble aims and incredible promise to change. Goals shift, and sometimes people make trade-offs that ultimately thwart the original aims. Permacomputing is about those goals, and that is why our descriptions of methods and approaches are so fuzzy.
So let's understand these "can be"s by looking at things that don't fit. Many of these things are fine on their own, or for their own different goals, but they simply aren't Permacomputing.
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ Or, put another way: Permacomputing is not Retrocomputing. This may surprise a
Permacomputing practitioners may take time to step back occasionally and admire the aesthetics of older computing systems. They may relish the design language of hardware and manuals, or the coding styles of older generations of programmers. There is absolutely room for the appreciation of beauty in Permacomputing.
-But while this may be a sufficient condition for some Retrocomputing enthusasts, it is not even a requirement for Permacomputing. Retrocomputing folks may buy [brand-new hardware](https://commodore.net/) to experience older systems, or use unethically-generated "AI" systems to produce art in the style of 1980s computer graphics or packaging. Neither of these fit the sustainability goals of Permacomputing.
+But while this may be a sufficient condition for some Retrocomputing enthusiasts, it is not even a requirement for Permacomputing. Retrocomputing folks may buy [brand-new hardware](https://commodore.net/) to experience older systems, or use unethically-generated "AI" systems to produce art in the style of 1980s computer graphics or packaging. Neither of these fit the sustainability goals of Permacomputing.
# Permacomputing is not Ascetic
@@ -58,14 +58,18 @@ Permacomputing puts its hopes in the communities we build to help us all make co
There is a movement known as "Suckless", who aim to keep software simple enough that the source code can be understood by its users. They decry the waste of resources in modern systems, and write tools that still work on hardware from the 1990s.
-This would seem sympatico with the Permacomputing, until you look deeper. The primary attitude of the "suckless" community is right there in their name. They just want you to feel like you "suck" unless you're doing things their way. Their advice for any computing system they enjoy is effectively "get good". To them, the answer to any computing problem is one of personal improvement.
+This would seem simpatico with the Permacomputing, until you look deeper. The primary attitude of the "suckless" community is right there in their name. They just want you to feel like you "suck" unless you're doing things their way. Their advice for any computing system they enjoy is effectively "get good". To them, the answer to any computing problem is one of personal improvement.
-And when you speak to many of the advocates for this system, you will discover that among the features that they see as "overcomplicated" or "wasteful" are accessibility aids. They gleefully rid themselves of affordances for blind or deaf users of software, or anyone who isn't fluent in English.
+And when you speak to many of the advocates for this system, you will discover that among the features that they see as "overcomplicated" or "wasteful" are accessibility aids. They gleefully rid themselves of affordances for visually impaired or Deaf users of their software, or anyone who isn't fluent in both English and C89.
It is perhaps no surprise, then, that the most prominent hits on YouTube for this movement include channels that mix technical commentary with self-improvement talks and hard-right-wing political essays.
-There is no political purity test in Permacomputing. Some have blanched at the phrase "post-marxism" on [[the_front_page|index]] (and somehow misread it as "you are required to be Marxist-Leninist" or something), but that's just one of many frameworks used to approach the topic. The unifying factor is our focus on building *communities* rather than *individuals*. This inevitably leads to strong scepticism around Libertarian schools of thought.
+There is no political purity test in Permacomputing. Some have blanched at the phrase "post-marxism" on [[the_front_page|index]] (and somehow misread it as "Marxist-Leninist" or something), but that's just one of many frameworks used to approach the topic. The unifying factor is our focus on building *communities* rather than *individuals*. This inevitably leads to strong scepticism around Libertarian schools of thought.
-This is not to say that personal empowerment is seen as a problem in Permacomputing circles! If anything, we hope to build systems that free indviduals to make more choices than they could under modern corporate-controlled computing. But we do not require individuals to pass some sort of skill test to join in.
+This is not to say that personal empowerment is seen as a problem in Permacomputing circles! If anything, we hope to build systems that free individuals to make more choices than they could under modern corporate-controlled computing. But we do not require individuals to pass some sort of skill test to join in.
+
+# So what is it?
+
+Permacomputing aspires to take the enormous number of technological artefacts we already have, and make the best use of them to improve the future for everyone. It's a vast, expansive definition with active and healthy discourse all around its perimeter. I don't intend to resolve these debates in a single essay, but I hope newcomers might find this list of antipatterns instructive for gaining an intuitive feel for the shape of the movement.
-- [[spacehobo]]
