Oggun Tractor - Revision history

Marcin: /* About */

2023-01-10T15:36:13Z

About

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:36, 10 January 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	=About=		=About=

	https://ronnietractors.com/		https://ronnietractors.com/oggun-tractor

	<html><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IrnjKQRQP3g" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>		<html><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IrnjKQRQP3g" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

	In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?		In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?

	=Technology=		=Technology=
	Oggun has a Universal Power Platform (UPP) - https://siteassets.pagecloud.com/thinkoggun/downloads/Open_System_Design-ID-9e9fed2f-ac4f-4652-a69e-cf68cf7432f5.pdf		Oggun has a Universal Power Platform (UPP) - https://siteassets.pagecloud.com/thinkoggun/downloads/Open_System_Design-ID-9e9fed2f-ac4f-4652-a69e-cf68cf7432f5.pdf

Marcin: /* Technology */

2022-06-23T19:01:25Z

Technology

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 23 June 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:
	Oggun has a Universal Power Platform (UPP) - https://siteassets.pagecloud.com/thinkoggun/downloads/Open_System_Design-ID-9e9fed2f-ac4f-4652-a69e-cf68cf7432f5.pdf		Oggun has a Universal Power Platform (UPP) - https://siteassets.pagecloud.com/thinkoggun/downloads/Open_System_Design-ID-9e9fed2f-ac4f-4652-a69e-cf68cf7432f5.pdf

	The concept is sound.		The concept is sound and inspiring.

	MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution ~~as a~~ universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a different [[Depth of Modularity]] - more 'shallow' - where 'shallow' implies more of a construction set appraoch at the different machine level. According to the Depth of Modularity concept, I would claim that the OSE module (Power Cube) is modular at the module level. I would further argue that the UPP is modular at the part level. This is an insufficient depth of modularity to claim the 'construction set' that Oggun claims. There is too much modification work to fit into a different machine, thus limiting the ease of attaining modularity at the product ecosystem level. And I don't mean a small number of products - I mean an unlimited number of products. For an unlimited number, the modularity must occur at the part level _and_ at the module level. This means a more complex ecosystem - but one that I would argue is more [[Generative]]. In this sense, the OSE system can produce any machine with 'reconfiguration at the module level' - not just the machines that are created via 'specific redesign at the part level.'		MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution being easy in terms of the claimed universal product ecosystem platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured (within the module). Thus, in the OSE case, we have a different [[Depth of Modularity]] - more 'shallow' - where 'shallow' implies more of a construction set appraoch at the different machine level. According to the Depth of Modularity concept, I would claim that the OSE module (Power Cube) is modular at the module level. I would further argue that the UPP is modular at the part level. This is an insufficient depth of modularity to claim the 'construction set' that Oggun claims. There is too much modification work to fit into a different machine, thus limiting the ease of attaining modularity at the product ecosystem level. And I don't mean a small number of products - I mean an unlimited number of products. For an unlimited number, the modularity must occur at the part level _and_ at the module level. This means a more complex ecosystem - but one that I would argue is more [[Generative]]. In this sense, the OSE system can produce any machine with 'reconfiguration at the module level' - not just the machines that are created via 'specific redesign at the part level.'
	The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.		The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.

Marcin: /* Media */

2022-06-22T01:35:19Z

Media

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 22 June 2022
Line 111:		Line 111:
	*MJ note - as the note above indicates, the Oggun is not Open Source accoring to [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. But people think it is 'open source' because the words 'open source' have been corrupted in the mainstream media.		*MJ note - as the note above indicates, the Oggun is not Open Source accoring to [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. But people think it is 'open source' because the words 'open source' have been corrupted in the mainstream media.
	*Oggun tractor, in the media.		*Oggun tractor, in the media.

			=Links=
			*[[Solving Agriculture]]

	=Links=		=Links=
	*Solving agriculture - [https://ronnietractors.com/rebirth-of-family-farm]		*Solving agriculture - [https://ronnietractors.com/rebirth-of-family-farm]

Marcin: /* Media */

2022-06-22T01:31:08Z

Media

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:31, 22 June 2022
Line 111:		Line 111:
	*MJ note - as the note above indicates, the Oggun is not Open Source accoring to [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. But people think it is 'open source' because the words 'open source' have been corrupted in the mainstream media.		*MJ note - as the note above indicates, the Oggun is not Open Source accoring to [[DIN SPEC 3105]]. But people think it is 'open source' because the words 'open source' have been corrupted in the mainstream media.
	*Oggun tractor, in the media.		*Oggun tractor, in the media.

			=Links=
			*Solving agriculture - [https://ronnietractors.com/rebirth-of-family-farm]

Marcin: /* Technology */

2022-06-22T01:30:44Z

Technology

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 22 June 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:
	The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.		The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.

	What is the takeaway? Open System must be open source, otherwise, how do you argue for the large scale replication? As long as we're charging parasitic fees (license fees) without open source knowhow, we're limiting the dissemination to only those who take on the licensing agreement. This can work, but it will not distribute the wealth as easily as knowhow to which open access is provided.		What is the takeaway? Open System must be open source, otherwise, how do you argue for the large scale replication? As long as we're charging parasitic fees (license fees) without open source knowhow, we're limiting the dissemination to only those who take on the licensing agreement. This can work, but it will not distribute the wealth as easily as knowhow to which open access is provided. This is also going to be an issue when the founders die - will the enterprise live? That is a question. For open source - the product is immortal. It will be harder to develop the open source product - but if we are interested in solving [[Pressing World Issues]], there is no easy way out.

	=Communications - 2022=		=Communications - 2022=

Marcin: /* Technology */

2022-06-22T01:29:16Z

Technology

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:29, 22 June 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The concept is sound.		The concept is sound.

	MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution as a universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a different [[Depth of Modularity]] - more 'shallow' - where 'shallow' implies more of a construction set appraoch at the different machine level. According to the Depth of Modularity concept, I would claim that the OSE module (Power Cube) is modular at the module level. I would further argue that the UPP is modular at the part level. This is an insufficient depth of modularity to claim the 'construction set' that Oggun claims. There is too much modification work to fit into a different machine, thus limiting the ease of attaining modularity at the product ecosystem level. And I don't mean a small number of products - I mean an unlimited number of products. For an unlimited number, the modularity must occur at the part level _and_ at the module level. This means a more complex ecosystem - but one that I would argue is more [[Generative]]. In this sense,		MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution as a universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a different [[Depth of Modularity]] - more 'shallow' - where 'shallow' implies more of a construction set appraoch at the different machine level. According to the Depth of Modularity concept, I would claim that the OSE module (Power Cube) is modular at the module level. I would further argue that the UPP is modular at the part level. This is an insufficient depth of modularity to claim the 'construction set' that Oggun claims. There is too much modification work to fit into a different machine, thus limiting the ease of attaining modularity at the product ecosystem level. And I don't mean a small number of products - I mean an unlimited number of products. For an unlimited number, the modularity must occur at the part level _and_ at the module level. This means a more complex ecosystem - but one that I would argue is more [[Generative]]. In this sense, the OSE system can produce any machine with 'reconfiguration at the module level' - not just the machines that are created via 'specific redesign at the part level.'

	The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.		The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.

	~~Because OSE~~		What is the takeaway? Open System must be open source, otherwise, how do you argue for the large scale replication? As long as we're charging parasitic fees (license fees) without open source knowhow, we're limiting the dissemination to only those who take on the licensing agreement. This can work, but it will not distribute the wealth as easily as knowhow to which open access is provided.

	=Communications - 2022=		=Communications - 2022=

Marcin: /* Technology */

2022-06-22T01:18:02Z

Technology

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:18, 22 June 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The concept is sound.		The concept is sound.

	MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution as a universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a ~~higher~~ [[Depth of Modularity]].		MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution as a universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a different [[Depth of Modularity]] - more 'shallow' - where 'shallow' implies more of a construction set appraoch at the different machine level. According to the Depth of Modularity concept, I would claim that the OSE module (Power Cube) is modular at the module level. I would further argue that the UPP is modular at the part level. This is an insufficient depth of modularity to claim the 'construction set' that Oggun claims. There is too much modification work to fit into a different machine, thus limiting the ease of attaining modularity at the product ecosystem level. And I don't mean a small number of products - I mean an unlimited number of products. For an unlimited number, the modularity must occur at the part level _and_ at the module level. This means a more complex ecosystem - but one that I would argue is more [[Generative]]. In this sense,

	The Oggun can be successful as various ~~indvividual~~ machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.		The Oggun can be successful as various individual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.

	Because OSE		Because OSE

	=Communications - 2022=		=Communications - 2022=

Marcin at 01:12, 22 June 2022

2022-06-22T01:12:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:12, 22 June 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:

	In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?		In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?
			=Technology=
			Oggun has a Universal Power Platform (UPP) - https://siteassets.pagecloud.com/thinkoggun/downloads/Open_System_Design-ID-9e9fed2f-ac4f-4652-a69e-cf68cf7432f5.pdf

			The concept is sound.

			MJ Assessment: I am not seeing the execution as a universal platform. The UPP is effectively OSE's [[Power Cube]]. However, the Power Cube is much more generalized. In other words, the specific adaptations of the UPP to various devices are almost as if very little of the common platform remains in any specific application. The same parts may be used, but they must be reconfigured. In the OSE case, the same parts are used, but they do not need to be reconfigured. Thus, in the OSE case, we have a higher [[Depth of Modularity]].

			The Oggun can be successful as various indvividual machines, not really the [[Construction Set Approach]] that OSE offers.

			Because OSE
	=Communications - 2022=		=Communications - 2022=

Marcin at 00:54, 22 June 2022

2022-06-22T00:54:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:54, 22 June 2022
Line 2:		Line 2:

	https://ronnietractors.com/		https://ronnietractors.com/

			<html><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IrnjKQRQP3g" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></html>

	In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?		In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?

Marcin at 12:57, 28 April 2022

2022-04-28T12:57:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:57, 28 April 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	https://ronnietractors.com/		https://ronnietractors.com/

	In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source}}?		In our last exchange prior to 2022, the tractor was not open source. 'Open Systems' is not open source. Why do I [[Bitch About Open Source]]?

	=Communications - 2022=		=Communications - 2022=