There are some good write-ups on the technical decisions here:
https://urbit.org/blog/precepts https://urbit.org/blog/precepts-discussion
Funnily enough, most of the "mystique" isn't really intentional. It's that the inevitable "muh Curtis" arguments that always show up have discouraged many of the team from bothering to engage in explaining the project (here moreso than anywhere else) and instead focus on building the thing.
Summarization: Urbit is a reaction to Unix-driven software complexity that dominates modern software development. The thesis is that cascading complexity cannot be solved without a complete rewrite of the computing stack, and that goes all the way back to the operating system. Here's an even better summarization: https://twitter.com/pcmonk/status/1201298411011629063
Alternative summarization: the internet, being built on a hodgepodge stack of tooling that wasn't made for people to communicate the way that they actually do now, has major incidental flaws. Urbit is a completely rebuilt computing stack that better maps to what we want to do with networked computers. That involves things like, but not limited to baking a non-fungible, valuable identity into the networking layer.
This is another good summarization, although the sections after "Urbit ID" are out of date: https://urbit.org/understanding-urbit
I keep reading explanations about Urbit along these lines but what's perplexing about this explanation is Urbit does nothing to achieve this goal. Regardless of the fact that Urbit is referred to as an operation system it still isn't one. It relies on a conventional OS, often UNIX family OS's like Linux to run. Urbit just layers a new even more complicated software and networking stack on top of the 'Unix-driven software complexity' that still underpins Urbit. Urbit does nothing to address these problems, it just makes them worse. Urbit's underlying software stack (Nock, Hoon, etc.) is just bizarre and non-nonsensical. For example, this gem from the docs:
"A loobean is a Nock boolean - Nock, for mysterious reasons, uses 0 as true (always say "yes") and 1 as false (always say "no")."
Wat? Why?!? And it doesn't end there. Urbit is littered with these WTF design choices and terminology. No one in their right mind is going to build professional software solutions on a platform like this. You might as well just be developing software in something like Brainfuck.
Beyond that, your comment doesn't say much. Computing and networking as it exists today, you say, is bad. Urbit is a ground-up rethink of all of it. OK, but there are 10th graders with the same idea (just as there were when I was a 10th grader). What makes Urbit worth taking more seriously than those ideas?
The founder divested himself of the project yet the current top comment doesn't want to touch Urbit as if it is cursed by his ghost.
It's these same sorts of comments that drag down all discourse because they prohibit any other state than negative. It's these same comments that pollute any healthy attempt at discourse around crypto here with the Evil Eye that just pushes any one with a different idea to the HN hivemind out.
> What makes Urbit worth taking more seriously than those ideas?
This is explained, in technical and philosophical depth in the links provided you.
In Ron Garrett's words:
> The mere fact that Urbit is still a thing, that it has not yet collapsed under the weight of its own intentionally induced baggage, is worrisome to me. Something is keeping that project alive, and it's not technical merit. I don't see a lot of viable options other than some kind of fanaticism.
Looks like he and his ilk are just wrong and having a hard time believing that. It's alive because an increasing number of people want it to be, and no amount of theorizing can deny the reality of actual growth — which, in case everyone forgot, is what the OP is showing.
But, whatever its technical merits, do you think it can ever get to a point where it reached enough users to be useful (in the "chicken and egg problem" sense that platforms need a critical mass of users to be useful platforms), given the millstone around its neck? Do threads like this (where detailed, technical explanations get downvoted to oblivion, and "I heard Yarvin is racist" is the top comment) make you want to throw in the towel?
If this kind of stuff made anyone want to throw in the towel Urbit wouldn't be a thing anymore. There's only a millstone around its neck on HN, but HN is gradually becoming more and more irrelevant. To our base and the people finding us, "I don't think about you at all" reflects their sentiment for HN conversations and the tenor of conversation that happens here.
I'm just here because someone told me (from within Urbit) that this post went up, it's Friday and I don't have as many meetings, and I couldn't resist myself. You seem fine though, so boot a comet and hit me up on the network if you want a planet or something to keep the conversation going.
Is there some progress there btw? Last I checked there was no way to discover apps other than hard work, and sharing them (installing an app someone else had written) was pretty arduous.
edit: and I know HN isn't the whole world, but I suspect it is representative in this case. I just can't imagine any person learning anything about urbit from any source that doesn't get the 2-3 worst things Yarvin has ever written appended to it within the first hour. It's hard to imagine how it ever gets really popular under those circumstances.
Having a large audience of pre-existing users is nice (and ditto for dev ecosystem for tooling and libraries) but ultimately what makes Urbit a good idea is, as Josh says, that we want computers to primarily be doing one set of things and they were originally designed to do a different set of things (with the things they currently do added as a complicated afterthought). A blockchain protocol is in the end a p2p application. It benefits hugely from running on a natively p2p networked operating system with a built-in cryptographic identity infrastructure. If Urbit's technology works, people are going to build on top of it because they need it, and their customers will come to use what they've built because it works better. If the tech didn't work, it wouldn't matter how many people tried it.
You're correct that there is no "Urbit Store" analogous to the Apple Store or the Android Store (this is a feature not a bug for many users, although I sympathize with both perspectives). I'm not sure what you mean about installing apps being arduous - currently you start typing the developer's name into the homepage search bar, it autocompletes, you are given a list of apps they've published, you click the one you're interested in, installation is a few seconds to a few minutes.
First, you have to know the developer's name, and then find the apps that developer produced. This is literally the opposite of what most people do: search for an app (not for a developer) and install it (or search for an app category, and install an app)
My worry would be that "and I wasn't able to find the name of anyone who develops apps!" is complaint #10 on a list of complaints where ##1-9 mean these kinds of people are never going to use Urbit much anyway. In which case we'd have to put a certain amount of work into vetting all these apps and their updates and real users would still find apps the same way - clicking on links to apps their friends are recommending.
This is people's experience, period, not limited to Urbit.
> most people just follow a link from the developer's web page in practice
Or, rather from widely available lists of "10 best apps for X right now".
How do you expect anyone to find any apps in Urbit if there no sites to speak of and no lists of apps to speak of? Here was my experience trying Urbit out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31124587
> is complaint #10 on a list of complaints where ##1-9 mean these kinds of people are never going to use Urbit much anyway.
Yes, it's possible number #10 on a list of complaints, but they are not in 1-2-3-...-10 order. It's all of them together.
Put yourself into the shoes of a person starting with Urbit. Download Port. And then tell me what exactly the new user is to do? Suddenly "it's not a huge part of people's experience on Urbit" becomes "the biggest part and the biggest part #1" because there's literally nothing there.
|install ~dister-norsyr-torryn %canvas
edit: yes, there's an ecosystem of developers shipping software now. Here's a screenshot of my homescreen, which I cleaned up a couple of days ago to remove some apps I don't use often: https://imgur.com/7keFr7Y
Of the apps you can see, 13 were created by distinct developers. Some people are more prolific.
Second, why it's so weird: it aspires to be "done" someday, as in no new features to add, no bugs left, just stable forever (sometimes called Kelvin versioning). It's design makes no sense unless you understand this; the bespoke languages it's written in are designed to be too simple to have any unexpected behaviors (as opposed to being designed for ease of use or performance).
Third, you can't understand it without being aware that the founder got #cancelled for his (unrelated to urbit) right-wing blogging, so most of the responses in this thread will be from people who really dislike that guy and dismiss urbit as a result.
I don’t buy this. Why does “no unexpected behavior” require the amount of obfuscation which they have in Urbit? I’ve been trying to pick it up a few times and I’m constantly struggling to understand how it behaves.
I'm not selling it, just explaining it. More info here: https://urbit.org/blog/toward-a-frozen-operating-system
in some parts of the world germans still get a negative reaction because of their countries history.
it's unfair, but unfortunately showing that those influences in urbit are gone or were not even there in the first place, is going to be a long and hard battle.
it's similar to the problem blockchain has today. for no fault of the technology on its own, blockchain is tainted by the massive amount of scams in the space.
and as urbit also uses a blockchain too it now actually has two problems.
i appreciate you joining this discussion, but think about what you end up doing here. you spend energy defending the project against arguments that have nothing to do with its technology. energy that you probably would rather spend elsewhere.
but the reality is that you are likely going to have these arguments for the foreseeable future with many that might otherwise join the project.
and if you hide those issues you will be accused of doing that instead.
germany is doing a lot of selfcriticism in order to atone for its history and it's making an effort to welcome immigrants, and yet there are people who don't believe their intentions as well as there are some germans who still reject immigrants.
it is going to take a few more generations for germany to overcome this, as it is going to take a few decades for the blockchain to overcome its reputation as a scam. likewise urbit will require some effort to get rid of this ball and chains.
i do wish you success, and i sincerely hope that these non technical problems won't be an achilles heel that bring the project down
I think you can, although I admit a lot of the discussion here is likely to focus on Yarvin himself. That is, there is a good argument that Urbit reflects Yarvin's politics in itself and as these politics are, clearly, broadly distasteful it's entirely reasonably that someone opposed to Right Libertarianism and ignorant of Yarvin would find Urbit undesirable on its own merits.
I don't like Yarvin either, but I do want a product that meets this use case. At this point I wish someone would clone urbit, since the hatred for the founder seems to mean it'll never get traction no matter what it does or how it works.
I mean, the left politics of Stallman _very much_ influence how Free Software ends up being used and incorporated. Consider how the GPL encodes the norm of working in common with one another, dragging profit seeking corporations into that as well, or into defending against it. It's like a whole thing.
> At this point I wish someone would clone urbit, since the hatred for the founder seems to mean it'll never get traction no matter what it does or how it works.
Right, what I'm saying is, even cloned, Urbit's going to be a non-starter for a lot of people. Rigidly hierarchical, rent-seeking obscurantism isn't, uh, popular. I _do_ think Kelvin versioning is compelling though. TeX comes to mind there as an excellent example.
What is the current state of the web?
Rigidly hierarchical
All internet governing bodies wield absolute power. Most of the computing experience is completely controlled by a handful of global corporations that are more powerful than many nation states.
You don't control or have any influence over most of this.
Rent seeking
AWS, domain names, social networks? The web is rent-seeking at every level.
Obscurantism
Most of the code we use is worse than obscure, it's literally proprietary.
I would say these qualities are very popular today.
Sure. I think the important difference here is the web has _become_ this way; the things you point out are problems to be solved. Whereas, Urbit encodes these norms as a social good.