A splashy sotto voce

By now there’s a good chance that your feet have been at least gently nudged by the ripples of this minor controversy. Would it depress you terribly if I called it “Thingsgate”? Yes? Fine, then.

  1. Michael Lopp announced he was ditching Things.

  2. Daniel Jalkut was frustrated with what he perceived as change for the sake of change.

  3. Ben Brooks synthesized the whole thing.

  4. Everybody else chipped in.

The internet, or at least that corner of it that many of us inhabit, is like a giant paddling-pool: opinion moves in curious undercurrents and waves.

I didn’t know that this dispute would spring up when I posted my technology koan on Friday. I doubt that any of the above-mentioned gents saw it. And yet I think that it’s what I would have commented on the above situation, had I written it immediately afterwards instead of some days before. It’s rather apt, I think (as apt as I generally manage to get, anyway.)

The fascinating thing (which is generally unknowable, and thus even more interesting) is this: who was the butterfly that flapped their wings in the first place? From which dark corner of the internet did this current emerge? Is anyone really posting original thoughts, or are we all just bobbing around reactively, bouncing off each others opinions in the waves generated by unseen forces far away?