> If it would work, and the cost benefit ratio were there, people would adopt it quickly. That's what happens with just about everything else.
Great point! Just like:
* Betamax
* HD DVD
* Minidisc
* Hoverboards
* IPV6
* DNSSEC
* PGP & PKI
* Linux desktops
* Dvorak keyboards
* The metric system
* Decimal time
* [flavour-of-the-month programming language]
* [flavour-of-the-month database]
* [flavour-of-the-month cypher]
* ...
The factors that influence the proliferation of a technology are wildly divergent from the criteria 'works well, cost/benefit'. I'm not even sure those are weakly correlated proxy indicators of technology uptake.
While I agree with your sentiment, this one is a bad example.
I grew up with the metric system, as did the vast majority of the world. I have an intuition for "meter", "kilograms", "seconds", and so on.
I need to convert to cumbersome stuff like "miles", "inches" or "pounds" only when reading articles written by, you know, inhabitants of that strange, large country over there.
IBTD. This is mostly an educational issue. Here in Germany the metric system was introduced in 1872 [1], and compared to other European countries we were already late to the party. That's plenty of time for transition. The last generation who didn't work with the metric system is dead for a very, very long time.
[1] The history is actually more complicated, but let's not get into that.
The metric system has been taught in US schools for decades. Still no one uses it, because no one else uses it. Breaking out of network effect traps requires coordination only a government can provide.
> A furlong is the distance one can sprint before running out of breath
That doesn't seem very logical at all, that's entirely subjective. I'm fairly certain a top sprinter would easily be able to sprint much further than my (admittedly) unfit self before running out of breath.
One, furlong actually comes from "furrow length" which how long an ox could plow before tiring.
The point isn't that the measurement is precise, the point is that it's useful. The unit has an intuitive and tangible meaning in the real world that let's people ballpark. This doesn't mean we should start doing precision work in furlongs but demanding that everyone switch away from measures that are still useful is silly. As long as the measurements are standardized using metric units who cares that you have a funny name for 201.168m?
Which is why nobody really uses furlongs anymore but there are plenty of other units that are still in use. One example I think we're all familiar is the 'Rack Unit' for servers (i.e 1U, 2U) where 1U is 44.45mm. I don't think there would be any additional clarity gained by saying, "I bought a few 88.9mm servers".
But that's a context specific unit, not intended for general use.
Metric is great for general use simply because of it's multipliers:
(...) 1G = 1,000M = 1,000,000K = 1,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000,000m (...)
And also the simple way many units are related as well, like 1L of water having 1kg of mass (yes, with a certain temperature, pressure, yada yada yada)
I think the best situation is when you use sensible units for general situations, and when the funny units remain domain-specific.
Another example of a funny name is two-by-four, which - for some typically American reason - is understood not to actually be two inches by four inches...
"Better" has to actually "be better ENOUGH" to warrant all of the retooling of existing systems. I've got plenty of clients who would happily run Windows 2003 ("it's paid for") if it weren't for changing standards that aren't compatible (newer TLS, Exchange, etc) and security breaches. They only upgrade because they have to. "E-mail is e-mail" to them.
But if you sell them some magical new technology that promises to meet new features, like tons of data analysis tools and easily graphs and charts in a new version of CRM, they'll happily upgrade.
Another important factor for adoption/adoptability is how well the new system integrates with existing deployments of older systems. Ideally it completely interoperates with the older systems, while providing you with additional value right from the start.
Agreed with lgierth and I believe this is what sets IPFS apart from many similar technologies: integration path for existing technologies. As far as I can tell, it has been an important design decision from early on for IPFS.
It's pretty visible in tech that it's not actually the only (or main) reason, especially when you see companies continuously switching from one crappy tool to another. Tech is a fashion-driven industry; companies use what is hot and/or what everyone else is using. Both of those create a positive feedback loop that amplifies brief spikes in popularity (easily exploitable through marketing) beyond any reasonable proportion.
The worst thing is, though, that it kind of makes sense from the POV of management. The more popular something is, the less risk there is in using it, especially when the decisionmaker doesn't have enough knowledge to evaluate the options. Also, the more mainstream a given technology is, the cheaper and easier to replace programmers.
I guess metric system is there to drive the point home to the Americans in the audience, and IPv6 as an example of something used but not enough to matter.
(Here's my new conspiracy theory: lack of adoption of IPv6 is caused by SaaS companies colluding to keep people and companies from being able to trivially self-host stuff.)
Great point! Just like:
* Betamax * HD DVD * Minidisc * Hoverboards * IPV6 * DNSSEC * PGP & PKI * Linux desktops * Dvorak keyboards * The metric system * Decimal time * [flavour-of-the-month programming language] * [flavour-of-the-month database] * [flavour-of-the-month cypher] * ...
The factors that influence the proliferation of a technology are wildly divergent from the criteria 'works well, cost/benefit'. I'm not even sure those are weakly correlated proxy indicators of technology uptake.