To be independent is supposed to free you of the processes that bind professionals. A lot of time independence is begat by the sheer will to emulate your peers, but can also be that the idea you have simply isn't saleable. It's engaging, but nobody has seen it before and you have to knock it out, having something to show for your ideas before it can be taken seriously. This kind of creativity can be freeing but it is also the down fall of a lot of projects. Projects fail all the time. People never get anything off the ground and a lot of stuff never leaves the ideas phase. The guy that came up with the concept of hypertext, Ted Nelson, was/is trying to devise a system (Xanadu) to overcome this kind of chaos. What he inadvertently helped create was the world wide web - you can gauge his success by that fact.
I too wish to devise a method of filtering this chaotic energy, and I feel it is redeemed by the fact that I pretentiously call myself an indie. In the future, I'd like to create a system for developing interactive media in a collaborative, live environment. Not Unix - which is what Unix is perfect for but built ontop of it, maybe one of its free derivatives. Here's looking at you Linux. This kind of environment wouldn't be what is used in industry, it would not be an industrial tool. Monolithic. Structured. It would be hackable, intimate, clumsy. But that's fine because we're indies - we can get away with it. In my mind it can scale in places we won't even imagine yet.
I want to build her on top of SSH, so that users in the LAN can patch in to my local machine and then we have the means to build worlds. My choice of SSH is because that'd make the beast pretty hackable. Some dare say dangerous, I know I would. A network protocol with shell access. Something in me is appealed to by this flexibility. It'd be slow as hell though, I doubt it's the kind of thing that I could use for worldwide development. Hell but maybe we don't need it. My co-collaborator sits in the same room as me at the moment. To build worlds together, though. That'd be exciting.
I see a bash session opened up on one monitor, and a game window open on the other. The stuff I'm typing in to the bash session is populating the game. I look at the other monitors and it's happening on there too. Someone changes a resource in an image file. The client registers this and we dump the sucker out. RAWR - live collaboration, a bunch of tinkers, a fleet of cooks spoiling each other's broth. Laughing it up. At the push of a joypad button their changes are committed and stuck up on a public repo for the world to lap up. I see it as gameplay and development at the same time... I don't suppose my idea will ever get off the ground, but it's something I'd like to do - since I'm technically indie.
I have to draw another parallel with Xanadu vs the explosive growth of the web, since I think it might have taught me a lesson. Growth is wild, and unpredictable. If you order a tree to grow somewhere it'll grow anywhere it damn well pleases. You can suggest its direction but ultimately what must grow becomes what it is out of necessity. However, out of this chaos that has spun out of control you can devise systems of order. You can trim the tree, all bonsai-like, or even chop it down completely. You can photograph certain bits of it, look at them side by side. Remove parts of it and change them. This analogy sucks but my point is order is in the eye of the beholder. Cohesion is a state we force - no, overlay on the chaos. We scale the erratic, anarchy - to get a handle on the untameable. We. The people looking, amidst the chaos. Those observations can be pretty watertight, and from there we can observe more. If they're soft observations, we can decouple them completely, turn them inside-out and create something new. The less order we impose, the more chaos we can scale. Modular chunks of anything, pocketed in soups of logic, rounded together in userspace by new inclinations instead of assumed insights. It's like we're building with bricks that barely exist.
This is why I prefer GNU/Linux over BSD in a spiritual sense (even though I prefer the BSD licence and love the fact that BSD is historically Unix) - a distribution is a Frankenstein (or Frankenstein's Monster to pedants) of ideas off the shelf, packaged together with enough tightness to make sense. BSD is more about the whole. I think both are ace, but it's this little foible that colours Linux a more messianic light. That and its userbase.