I want to talk to you today about something

今天我想和大家談談關於

the open-source programming world can teach democracy,

從開放原始碼程式中學習民主

but before that, a little preamble.

但是在開始之前，先來段前言吧

Let's start here.

我們從這裡開始

This is Martha Payne. Martha's a 9-year-old Scot

這是瑪莎.佩恩，九歲的蘇格蘭小女孩

who lives in the Council of Argyll and Bute.

居住在阿蓋爾-比特行政區

A couple months ago, Payne started a food blog

幾個月以前，佩恩開了一個飲食博客

called NeverSeconds, and she would take her camera

叫做NeverSeconds，她會帶著相機

with her every day to school to document

到學校記錄每天的

her school lunches.

營養午餐

Can you spot the vegetable? (Laughter)

有人找得到蔬菜在哪嗎？（笑聲）

And, as sometimes happens,

然後，就像一般會發生的那樣

this blog acquired first dozens of readers,

開始有一些人來收看她的部落格

and then hundreds of readers,

然後是幾百人

and then thousands of readers, as people tuned in

然後是幾千人，人們點進來

to watch her rate her school lunches,

看她為她學校的營養午餐分級

including on my favorite category,

包括我最愛的一個類別

"Pieces of hair found in food." (Laughter)

“在食物裡發現頭髮”（笑聲）

This was a zero day. That's good.

那天的午餐得了零分，這樣很好

And then two weeks ago yesterday, she posted this.

兩個禮拜前的昨天，她貼了一篇文章

A post that read: "Goodbye."

文章標題是"再見"

And she said, "I'm very sorry to tell you this, but

她說，“很抱歉要告訴大家”

my head teacher pulled me out of class today and told me

"班主任今天把我拉出教室，跟我說"

I'm not allowed to take pictures in the lunch room anymore.

"他們不准我繼續在餐廳拍照了"

I really enjoyed doing this.

"雖然我真的很喜歡做這件事"

Thank you for reading. Goodbye."

"謝謝你們的閱讀，再見"

You can guess what happened next, right? (Laughter)

你們猜得出來接下來發生什麼事了吧？（笑聲）

The outrage was so swift, so voluminous, so unanimous,

廣大網友的怒火燒得又快又旺，矛頭一致

that the Council of Argyll and Bute reversed themselves

然後阿蓋爾-比特議會馬上在同一天

the same day and said, "We would,

改變說法，表示：“我們從來、”

we would never censor a nine-year-old." (Laughter)

“從來不會對一位九歲孩子的部落格進行審查”（笑聲）

Except, of course, this morning. (Laughter)

當然，除了今天早上以外（笑聲）

And this brings up the question,

而這就產生了一個疑問

what made them think they could get away

是什麼讓他們以為

with something like that? (Laughter)

他們可以就這樣拍拍屁股了事？（笑聲）

And the answer is, all of human history prior to now.

答案是，至今以來整個人類歷史都是這樣發展的

(Laughter) So,

（笑聲）所以

what happens when a medium suddenly puts

當新的想法忽然透過一個媒介大量流傳

a lot of new ideas into circulation?

會發生什麼事？

Now, this isn't just a contemporaneous question.

這不只是一個現今時代才有的疑問

This is something we've faced several times

我們早在過去的幾世紀中

over the last few centuries.

就已面對過好幾次了

When the telegraph came along, it was clear

當電報發明的時候，很明顯地

that it was going to globalize the news industry.

新聞產業開始全球化

What would this lead to?

這可能會造成什麼結果？

Well, obviously, it would lead to world peace.

這個嘛，顯然地，這可能造就世界和平

The television, a medium that allowed us not just to hear

電視，一個不只是可以用聽的傳播媒體

but see, literally see, what was going on

還可以親眼看到發生在世界各地的事情

elsewhere in the world, what would this lead to?

這可能會造成什麼結果？

World peace. (Laughter)

世界和平（笑聲）

The telephone?

電話？

You guessed it: world peace.

你會猜：世界和平

Sorry for the spoiler alert, but no world peace. Not yet.

抱歉透露一下劇情：不過，沒有世界和平，還沒有

Even the printing press, even the printing press

儘管印刷機被認為是

was assumed to be a tool that was going to enforce

用來鞏固天主教知識份子

Catholic intellectual hegemony across Europe.

在歐洲霸權大業的工具

Instead, what we got was Martin Luther's 95 Theses,

但我們看到的卻是馬丁路德的《九十五條論綱》

the Protestant Reformation, and, you know,

宗教改革、還有，你知道的

the Thirty Years' War. All right,

三十年戰爭。好

so what all of these predictions of world peace got right

這些關於世界和平的預言說中了一點

is that when a lot of new ideas suddenly

那就是：當大量的新思想一夕之間

come into circulation, it changes society.

廣為流傳，就會改變社會

What they got exactly wrong was what happens next.

而這個預言猜錯的是接下來會發生的事

The more ideas there are in circulation,

當越多概念想法散播出去

the more ideas there are for any individual to disagree with.

就有越多的想法供人們反對

More media always means more arguing.

越多的媒體永遠代表了越多論戰

That's what happens when the media's space expands.

這就是當媒體空間擴展時會發生的事

And yet, when we look back on the printing press

但是，我們回顧早年的印刷機時代

in the early years, we like what happened.

我們喜歡那時發生的事

We are a pro-printing press society.

我們正處於一個後印刷機時期的社會

So how do we square those two things,

所以我們該如何整合這兩個結果？

that it leads to more arguing, but we think it was good?

雖然會導致更多論戰，但如何讓我們覺得這是好的？

And the answer, I think, can be found in things like this.

我想答案可以從這樣的東西中找到：

This is the cover of "Philosophical Transactions,"

這是《自然科學會報》的封面

the first scientific journal ever published in English

它是世界最早的科學英文雜誌

in the middle of the 1600s,

出版於17世紀中期

and it was created by a group of people who had been

是由一群曾經自稱為

calling themselves "The Invisible College,"

"無形學院"的人們所創辦的

a group of natural philosophers who only later

他們是一批自然哲學家

would call themselves scientists,

稍後又改稱自己為科學家

and they wanted to improve the way

他們的目的是要改善自然哲學家之間

natural philosophers argued with each other,

互相辯論的方式

and they needed to do two things for this.

為此他們需要做兩件事

They needed openness. They needed to create a norm

他們需要公開性。他們必須建立一個規範：

which said, when you do an experiment,

當你進行一項實驗時

you have to publish not just your claims,

你不能只是發表你的主張

but how you did the experiment.

還必須發表你的實驗過程

If you don't tell us how you did it, we won't trust you.

如果你不告訴大家你是怎麼做的，就不會有人相信你

But the other thing they needed was speed.

不過他們還需要另外一樣東西：速度

They had to quickly synchronize what

他們必須迅速且同步處理

other natural philosophers knew. Otherwise,

其他自然哲學家知道的東西，否則的話

you couldn't get the right kind of argument going.

就無法讓討論確實進行

The printing press was clearly the right medium for this,

印刷機就是個適合的媒介

but the book was the wrong tool. It was too slow.

書本反而不適合，因為它太慢了

And so they invented the scientific journal

所以他們發明了科學雜誌

as a way of synchronizing the argument

當作一種同步整合這些

across the community of natural scientists.

自然哲學家們不同論據的方式

The scientific revolution wasn't created by the printing press.

印刷機並沒有造成科學革命

It was created by scientists,

而是科學家自己創造的

but it couldn't have been created if they didn't have

但如果沒有以印刷機作為工具

a printing press as a tool.

就不可能發生科學革命

So what about us? What about our generation,

那我們呢？我們這一代

and our media revolution, the Internet?

和我們的媒體革命：網路，又造就了什麼？

Well, predictions of world peace? Check. (Laughter)

這個嘛，世界和平的預言？有的（笑聲）

More arguing? Gold star on that one. (Laughter)

更多的論戰？給這個五顆星（笑聲）

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

I mean, YouTube is just a gold mine. (Laughter)

我的意思是，YouTube 根本就是口水戰天堂（笑聲）

Better arguing? That's the question.

更有品質的辯論？這才是真正的問題

So I study social media, which means,

我研究社會媒體

to a first approximation, I watch people argue.

這就意味著：我觀察人們爭論

And if I had to pick a group that I think is

如果要我選出一個群體，可以代表

our Invisible College, is our generation's collection of people

我們這個世代的"無形學院"，一群出自這個世代的人們

trying to take these tools and to press it into service,

嘗試利用這些媒體工具

not for more arguments, but for better arguments,

不只是為了更多的機會，也為了更優質的辯論

I'd pick the open-source programmers.

我會選出開放源碼程式設計師

Programming is a three-way relationship

程式設計是種三方的關係

between a programmer, some source code,

一個程式設計師、一些原始碼

and the computer it's meant to run on, but computers

還有跑程式的電腦

are such famously inflexible interpreters of instructions

不過電腦是出名的死腦筋

that it's extraordinarily difficult to write out a set

要寫出一組可以讓電腦知道如何執行的指令

of instructions that the computer knows how to execute,

是極端困難的

and that's if one person is writing it.

這還只是在只有一個設計師的情況下

Once you get more than one person writing it,

如果讓一個以上的設計師一起寫程式

it's very easy for any two programmers to overwrite

很容易就會發生兩個設計師的指令

each other's work if they're working on the same file,

在共同製作的檔案上互相重疊的情況

or to send incompatible instructions

或是寫出互相矛盾的指令

that simply causes the computer to choke,

讓電腦無法順利運作

and this problem grows larger

當越多程式設計師一起工作

the more programmers are involved.

這個問題就越大

To a first approximation, the problem of managing

舉一個最相近的例子

a large software project is the problem

開發大型軟體計畫的管理困難

of keeping this social chaos at bay.

就跟社群媒體混亂的管理問題一樣

Now, for decades there has been a canonical solution

幾十年來，這個問題都有標準的

to this problem, which is to use something called

解決程序，通常被稱為

a "version control system,"

“版本控制系統”

and a version control system does what is says on the tin.

這個系統會絲毫不差地做你要它做的事

It provides a canonical copy of the software

它提供軟體一個標準備份

on a server somewhere.

並存在某處的伺服器裡

The only programmers who can change it are people

唯一可以更動它的是擁有

who've specifically been given permission to access it,

存取許可的程式設計師

and they're only allowed to access the sub-section of it

但他們也只被允許改動

that they have permission to change.

他們被授權更動的部分

And when people draw diagrams of version control systems,

而版本控制系統的示意圖

the diagrams always look something like this.

長得都是這種樣子

All right. They look like org charts.

好，他們像是組織結構圖一樣

And you don't have to squint very hard

你不必費力去弄清楚

to see the political ramifications of a system like this.

這樣一個系統的政治結果

This is feudalism: one owner, many workers.

這就是一種封建制度：一個擁有者，無數個工人

Now, that's fine for the commercial software industry.

這對商業軟體工業來說沒什麼問題

It really is Microsoft's Office. It's Adobe's Photoshop.

就像 Microsoft 的 Office 系列，和 Adobe 的 Photoshop

The corporation owns the software.

這些公司擁有這些軟體

The programmers come and go.

而程式設計師只是僱員

But there was one programmer who decided

但有一天，一位設計師決定

that this wasn't the way to work.

這不是正確的工作方式

This is Linus Torvalds.

他就是林納斯.托瓦茲

Torvalds is the most famous open-source programmer,

托瓦茲是最出名的開放源碼程式設計師

created Linux, obviously, and Torvalds looked at the way

從名字就看得出來，他創辦了Linux。托瓦茲看好

the open-source movement had been dealing with this problem.

開放源碼運動處理這類問題的方式

Open-source software, the core promise of the open-source license,

開放源碼軟體，開放源碼授權的根本理念就是

is that everybody should have access to all the source code

每個人都應該要有取得原始碼的權利

all the time, but of course, this creates

不過，當然這樣就會造成

the very threat of chaos you have to forestall

上述所說的混亂，而為了程式運作順利

in order to get anything working.

就必須事先預防

So most open-source projects just held their noses

因此大部份開放原始碼計畫只好摸摸鼻子

and adopted the feudal management systems.

回頭使用那些封建管理系統

But Torvalds said, "No, I'm not going to do that."

但托瓦茲說：「我才不要那樣。」

His point of view on this was very clear.

他的立場非常清楚

When you adopt a tool, you also adopt

當你使用一個工具，你同時也接受了

the management philosophy embedded in that tool,

那個工具背後的管理理念

and he wasn't going to adopt anything that didn't work

所以他不會接受使用任何跟 Linux 團隊理念

the way the Linux community worked.

不相符的東西

And to give you a sense of how enormous

而為了要讓你對這種決定有龐大

a decision like this was, this is a map

有點概念，這是一個

of the internal dependencies within Linux,

Linux 的內部依賴關係圖

within the Linux operating system, which sub-parts

在 Linux 操作系統裡面，程式的每一個單元

of the program rely on which other sub-parts to get going.

都互相依賴，以此讓運作順利

This is a tremendously complicated process.

這是一個極端複雜的流程

This is a tremendously complicated program,

這是一個極端複雜的程式

and yet, for years, Torvalds ran this

但多年以來，托瓦茲不靠任何自動化程式

not with automated tools but out of his email box.

而是用他的 email 收件匣運作這些

People would literally mail him changes

設計師們把協調出來的更動寄給他

that they'd agreed on, and he would merge them by hand.

然後他會親自把這些更動整合在一起

And then, 15 years after looking at Linux and figuring out

之後，靠著 15 年來對 Linux 的觀察

how the community worked, he said, "I think I know

和尋找團隊工作的方法，他說：「我想我知道

how to write a version control system for free people."

該怎麼寫一個讓自由設計師使用的版本控制系統了」

And he called it "Git." Git is distributed version control.

他稱之為"Git"。Git 是分散式版本控制系統

It has two big differences

跟傳統的版本控制系統

with traditional version control systems.

有兩個最大的差異

The first is that it lives up to the philosophical promise

第一，它實踐了開放原始碼的中心理念

of open-source. Everybody who works on a project

每個在參與工作計畫的人

has access to all of the source code all of the time.

都擁有獲得原始碼的權利

And when people draw diagrams of Git workflow,

而要製作 Git 的工作流程示意圖時

they use drawings that look like this.

它們都會長得像這樣

And you don't have to understand what the circles

你不必特地去瞭解這些圓圈

and boxes and arrows mean to see that this is a far more

方塊和箭頭的意義，就可以知道這個工作流程

complicated way of working than is supported

的複雜度遠遠超過了

by ordinary version control systems.

普通的版本控制系統

But this is also the thing that brings the chaos back,

可是這也帶來了之前所說的混亂

and this is Git's second big innovation.

因此，這就是 Git 的第二個創新

This is a screenshot from GitHub, the premier Git hosting service,

這是一張 GitHub（Git 最主要的存取服務）的螢幕截圖

and every time a programmer uses Git

只要每一次設計師使用Git

to make any important change at all,

進行任何重大的改動

creating a new file, modifying an existing one,

例如建立新檔案、修改舊的檔案

merging two files, Git creates this kind of signature.

或合併不同的檔案，Git 就會產生這種標示

This long string of numbers and letters here

這一長串數字和字母

is a unique identifier tied to every single change,

是每一個更動都有的、獨一無二的識別碼，

but without any central coordination.

而且沒有經手任何中央協調處理

Every Git system generates this number the same way,

每一個Git系統都以同樣的方式產生這些數字

which means this is a signature tied directly

意思就是，這是一個識別標誌

and unforgeably to a particular change.

會直接綁在每一個更動上面，而且無法偽造

This has the following effect:

這個方式達到的成果是：

A programmer in Edinburgh and a programmer in Entebbe

一個在蘇格蘭的設計師和在烏甘達的設計師

can both get the same -- a copy of the same piece of software.

可以同時拿到同樣的軟體副本

Each of them can make changes and they can merge them

他們可以各自進行更動和合併

after the fact even if they didn't know

就算他們各自都不知道

of each other's existence beforehand.

對方的存在

This is cooperation without coordination.

這是一種不需要中介協調的合作方式

This is the big change.

這是一項重大的變革

Now, I tell you all of this not to convince you that it's great

我告訴你們這些，不是想要你們覺得，哇

that open-source programmers now have a tool

這些開放源碼程式設計師這下有了好工具

that supports their philosophical way of working,

可以幫助實踐他們的工作哲學，真是太棒了

although I think that is great.

雖然我真的覺得這的確很棒

I tell you all of this because of what I think it means

我告訴你們這些，是因為我從中看到了

for the way communities come together.

這對不同社群間的整合產生的意義

Once Git allowed for cooperation without coordination,

自從 Git 開創了“互相合作而不需居中整合”的方式

you start to see communities form

你就會開始看到非常巨大

that are enormously large and complex.

而且複雜的社群形式

This is a graph of the Ruby community.

這是一個 Ruby 社群的圖示

It's an open-source programming language,

Ruby 是一種開放原始碼程式語言

and all of the interconnections between the people --

而在其中人們之間的連結——

this is now not a software graph, but a people graph,

這不是一個軟體圖示，而是人際的圖示

all of the interconnections among the people

所有在同一個企劃共同工作的人們

working on that project —

這是他們之間的連結

and this doesn't look like an org chart.

而這一點都不像個組織結構圖

This looks like a dis-org chart, and yet,

還比較像個反組織結構圖，然而