Slashdot Mirror
Free For All
Future Perfect Free For All's subtitle ("How Linux and the Free software movement undercut the high-tech titans") well expresses the attitude that Wayner lets filter through every page of this book. Wayner writes as if from the perspective of a computer historian 10 or 20 years from now, mentioning casually the tools and methods which allowed (past tense) the Free software movement to flourish as if dismissing in many cases the overwhelming dominance of closed software today. Most desktops, it's true, are running some version of Windows, and despite the popularity of Linux and the BSDs, there are still chickens left to hatch before the count. But in the 1920s and 30s, there were still plenty of horsecarts, too: Wayner proclaims that the internal combustion engine of the day is the virtual engine under the hood of our computers.
It's a forgiveable act of hubris, though, considering that Wayner also points out the plentiful high ground that Free software has newly gained, recently regained, or never lost claim to, and it's a convincing list. Slashdot readers, for instance, may know that Apache serves the majority of today's Web sites, but does the average Barnes and Noble browser, even in the computer section, know just what Apache is? This book wastes few opportunities to point out areas where Free software is the obvious best choice, not just a grin-and-bear-it low-cost alternative to something better.
Historical perspective Wayner sets most of this book in the 1990s -- the reference to Linux in the title makes that a clear and sensible decision -- but makes frequent and welcome trips back in time to temporal locations from the age of Big Iron in the 1960s to Richard Stallman's 1984 GNU Manifesto. To those of us born in the 1970s or later, these episodes serve as welcome reminders of all the history we can learn of only through such means.
To that end, the book offers details and anecdotes about the creation of the Unix and Unixlike operating systems that are on the rise now, from the post-breakup copyright battles over the original source code of AT&T Unix to the serendipitous ignorance of Finnish student Linus Torvalds, who didn't know that there already was all-but-the-polish of a free Unix system already available.
It's not the case, though, that the entire Free software community is presented as one big happily family. More like an extended family with skeletons in several closets and some bickering both around the dinner table and otherwise, but for all that a generally harmonious bunch. The issue of licensing, and of hotly debated terms which might seem to an outsider hopelessly semantic, are raised at several points. Wayner contrasts Richard M. Stallman's vision of Free software (whether you see it as humble or grandiose) with the viewpoints of Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens and others. Stallman and the GNU project seem to get the lion's share of attention, with the obvious justification that without the GNU tools, a free Unix workalike would seem like a quixotic dream.
The time-shuttling approach that he takes with each chapter brings a benefit that makes this book an easy one to put down (for a few minutes, at least) -- it means that each chapter stands as an interesting monologue on some aspect of the Free software movement, and can be read as an enjoyable short essay. Taken together though, the chapters don't just entertain and milk nostalgia from silicon: they make a good case for the premise of the title. Ironically (if you see it this way) this means undercutting some of the arguments that Microsoft is a monopoly. Perhaps Microsoft was a monopoly, but the cut is made and the tree is toppling.
Interestingly, among the copious information about the origins and present state of the various BSD projects (Net, Free, Open), Wayner speaks a good deal about the whispered-about (and shouted-about) animosity between OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt and the developers of the other BSD varieties. While de Raadt spoke openly with Wayner, and the NetBSD developers seemingly did not, what ermerges is a slightly more interesting picture than I've seen before about this, and it confirms some positive things I've heard about the whole OpenBSD project. (A project which I think has caused improvement in many other software projects with its unyielding security focus.)
Minor Gripes Wayner's writing is informal -- no stiff upper lip here. That's not a bad thing, but the prose slips regularly into casualisms and jargon, parts of which work better than others, but none so distracting to detract greatly from the story being told. (As if I'm one to complain about that!)
The other problem I have with the storytelling in Free For All is the litany of rhetorical descriptions of hackers which are introduced in order to refute them for no clear reason. No, not all hackers have long scruffy beards; Yes, RMS and Alan Cox do. No, not all hackers are pale and anti-social; Yes, some of them are. Maybe its just that I've heard these things said before so many times that it just doens't seem relevant any more. Perhaps many of these "human interest" elements really will fascinate readers who'd not considered them before.
Recommended Reading Who should read this book? I mentioned that I'm recommending it to my father, for the simple reason that this is one of the few books I've seen which are down-to-earth readable but still meaty enough to walk away from with a satisfied feeling, not like you've just been Dummied.
In fact, it reminds me of Stephen Levy's Hackers, in part because it shares a sense of exhiliration and admiration for the people involved, as well as a freewheeling, back-to-the-story-in-progress story telling style. The hackers who make the BSD projects run, and the Linux kernel expand and shrink as code is cultivated and reined in, may be inspired software geniuses. But they share in the unglamorous, painstaking dogwork as well as the glory, and beam a kind of virulent enthuiasm for the cool stuff they're constantly on the cusp of. Wayner gives an over-the-shoulder peek at what that means which doesn't require a C.S. degree, and serves as its own character glossary.
Add this book to the pile that includes Hackers, The Secret Guide to Computers and Open Sources for readable, fascinating, fun computer history that's also relevant for your pointy headed boss.
You can purchase Free for All at Fatbrain.
Why must the idea of free software always be associated with gangs of hackers working in concert to produce better software than gangs of corporate programmers? Why don't people think of the products of individuals- individuals who happen to share their work with society under a free software license? Those exist, but maybe since they are _not_ vast overblown projects they fail to be noticed? I would think the important part is not forming a committee and getting 10,000 eyes behind the code, it is getting the stuff out there in a way that allows it to be re-used (and in my way of thinking, in a way that furthers the intent of getting more stuff out there under the same terms.)
When did Theo de Raadt get a "van"?
You'll be putting the text of "Running to the Mountain" online? Nice! I still bought it but that is great news, next I have to check out "geeks".
--
Scott Miga
suprax@linux.com
When we did the Debian dependency-based package system, there was a lot of new work not in any Unix. RPM came later and copied Debian, you know. I mentioned Electric Fence before - as far as I can tell it embodied an invention. There are lots of others.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What has Microsoft done that isn't a "workalike" for something produced either in academia or in some other corporation? I'm asking out of a sense of irony, by the way.
"Many eyes" are not the absolute enemy of creativity -- it's just that genuinely novel (cf. "innovative") ideas are damn rare.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
Name me three long-lasting technologies that DIDN'T start as an open project.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Another reason for the left inside wall of my wallet to get aquainted with the right inside wall of my wallet without all that nasty interfering money in the way.
Damn you, Slashot! And damn you too, Cthlulu, for making me with this insatiable lust for tech history!
-TBHiX-
Any reference to worshipping Cthlulu in the above is purely in the interests of humour. In reality, Cthlulu worships me.
Well, one point to consider re: UNIX alone is that the work done by the UCB CS dept makes up a lot of the stuff in both commercial and free Unices. I don't know the breakdown, but it's hard to separate the work done by Berkeley folks and considered so good that AT&T wanted to own it and that stuff done at AT&T / Bell Labs itself.
... but actually *getting something made* is another thing. If a sculptor could replicate (fairly, using his own brain, hands, eyes) Michelangelo's David in front of you, using 15th century tools, would you just say "Eh, it's only a copy. Give ya 50 cents for it ... "? :)
Another point is that the most important creative thing with Free software (IMO) is not any particular feature or program, but the underlying scheme of massively distributed re-use and re-release. Even if your factory turns out cars just like mine, if you can do it using volunteer labor, have happy customers, and hand out free toolkits (guess I've got ITBWTCL on the brain, but stephenson wasn't the first to come up with the analogy), then haven't you invented something worthwhile, even if it's hard to tell by examining the product in isolation?
Few inventions can't be traced back and called the derivative of *some* other invention; early cars were basically just re-implementations of horsecarts with a little different kernel
idle thoughts,
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Everyone always trots out Apache, Sendmail, the Linux kernel, and Perl. No offense intended to any of those projects, but let's start citing some different examples, 'kay?
-
So I found myself coming back to some topics again and again in different contexts because they were such touchstones for the movement. This will probably be a bit more grating for those who regularily read Slashdot because many of the ideas are already familiar.
True, but don't be too hard on yourself- You're not like a two year old kid watching TeleSlashies, you're already in post graduate school.
Bah! no dissing the teletubbies!- But I hope that the extra fill in and repetition makes the book more accessable to everyone else.
One of the reasons that I bought this book, was that I find it interesting to follow how much intellegent, well informed non-geeks can understand about computing issues, and to see what information is avaivable to them. It is useful to get a bit of perspective every now and then. Eg, another book I have read recently is "In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson. "Buy this book, read it, then give it to your boss" wouldn't be a bad plan for a lot of people.Like I said in my original post - I'm enjoying reading this book. I would say that the style of this book works well - it is the kind of book that can chat in an informed manner about kernels, but still be accessible to people who don't know what a modem is.
Excelent book,
many thanks,
G
ps.
MODERATORS: look at the parent to this post. When the author of the book that is being reviewed posts a comment, that is (Score 5, Interesting). Put down the crack pipes and moderate accordingly.
-
Ironically (if you see it this way) this means undercutting some of the arguments that Microsoft is a monopoly. Perhaps Microsoft was a monopoly, but the cut is made and the tree is toppling.
Uh, if we stop chopping now, I think they'll find a way to prop themselves back up.US antitrust law is meant to see to two things - that the illegal activity is halted, and that the playing field is leveled out, for competitors who are at a disadvantage due to the illegal activity.
That means that there is a legal right to punish Microsoft for the way they have behaved.
Let's make Bell Gates and Steve Balmer our bitches.
What have this gang of people done that isn't a "workalike" for something produced either in academia or in a corporation.
Gnutella?
Actually, even that's probably a workalike for something created in academia. The fact is, that there are precious few new ideas coming from anywhere. Most software from corporations are also "workalikes" of research projects or academic projects. Outlook, Windows, MacOS, IM, all of these are workalikes of some other system developed in the halls of research either in a corporation of academic environment.
Gah
Yeah, but all of your examples started as government/university funded projects.
Agreed.
To me, and probably to the original poster, "free software" in this context means more than just what is endorsed by Ricahrd Stallman. Most people who pose questions like the orignal poster do not distinguish be "Free", "Open", "Public Domain", and "Academic." Yes, the differences are significant. But an even more important distinction is between closed/proprietary, (you can't see the source, it all owned by a for-profit entity) and these "open" categories (you can generally get at the source, non-commerical use is typically no big deal).
For this broader, sloppier view of "open", my claim holds.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Xerox PARC was very definitely a closed project owned by the Xerox Corporation, who have always attempted (in a haphazard and half-assed way) to patent their inventions.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Ok, fine, but how many people know exactly how their cars run, or even what type of engine they have? For most people, knowing what kind of machinery makes the thing work isn't really important. So long as the car drives, the web browser surfs, and the world goes round, everything is good. Let the Slashdot readers, the people who actually have to set up the web server, know which ones work well and which ones don't.
It's also clear that programs like Gnutella, for instance, are technically superior in some ways than their commercial bretheren like Napster. Again, these guys didn't create a workalike, they redesigned. Yes, technically they worked for AOL at the time, but I think that AOL's disavowal speaks for something. It was sort of a garage project.
There are also many areas where free software is just better. GNU Emacs, for instance, still rocks. No ands, ifs or buts.
There's a bit on the author's website ( http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa/ that addresses that point. He points out that someone has to pay for the paper. Plus, the book is non-fiction so all of the details in it are open-sourced. You can reuse them all you want.
It's coming - hopefully in the next two weeks or so. We'll be putting it online.
Yeah, I'm that guy.
PS Though it was mentioned that you can buy "Free For All" at ThinkGeek, you can actually get it cheaper elsewhere.
Alex Bischoff
Interested in building a roof over your cubicle?
---
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
I love reading computer books and about technology, and this one fit in perfectly. The title threw me off a little bit until I read the subtitle, which mentions Linux; otherwise you would think it's an American history textbook. :)
Wayner explains everything carefully so the beginner can understand and the seasoned user can also follow. This is the type of book I would give to a friend wondering about linux, or someone running Windows and dosen't know about the "alternative" operating system.
It also gave me some good knowledge about BSD history that I didn't know before and some in-depth people information about important people in the community. While I knew the majority of the information being covered, it just gave me that warm feeling after finishing the last page.
I would recommend this book to anyone who enjoys computers, linux, or anything remotely close. It's not too simple, yet not too hard. Written in a good, strong langauge, Free for All is a excellent read. I have it linked at http://suprax.org
--
Scott Miga
suprax@linux.com
You have 10 or 20 years to realize that you've missed the point here.
There's an exchange near the end of "Pirates of Silicon Valley" where Jobs says to Gates "we're better" and Gates replies "it doesn't matter". The shoe is on the other foot, now. Gates says to J. Random Hacker "I'm richer" and JRH replies "it doesn't matter".
The Gates and their descendants will continue to be amongst the worlds richest people long after the last box of Microsoft software is shipped. Red Hat may never turn a profit. It doesn't matter. Free Software is not only morally superior, it is in almost all cases technically superior.
People used to look at the Gnu tools and say "nice, but hobbyists can't write a whole OS". Now they say the same things about RDBMSs, and they will be proved just as wrong.
There will be professional programmers, just as today there are professional musicians and professional athletes. We will find a away to pay them because we value what they do. Closed source will be as absurd a concept as a copyrighted touchdown.
--
--
E_NOSIG
I'm reading it for a bit more of the human background to open source, and I'm enjoying it. But... for any software engineers out there, it reads like a waterfall development model. It seems to introduce a new idea, then go back, then explore the new idea in the next chapter, where it will kindof introduce stuff from the chapter after it. It seems to loop around somewhat.
There is just something about the style of the book, that makes me thing I'm watching an episode of Teletubbies.
Eh, maybe it's just my bad. Maybe I'm getting forgetful in my old age, and just keep reading over the same bits :-)
Here goes the quibbling....
... was created by the US government ...rather than hackers. Agreed. I have posted elsewhere, that for the purposes of the original post, I choose "open" to mean "non-proprietary." The difference betwen "open" and "public domain" are signficant, but I believe too fine for the bluntness of the original question.
TCP/IP
the concept of WWW was derived directly from HyperCard. er,um, kinda. At the time, a lot of "hypertext" ideas were in the air. Remember Xanadu? hypercard was certainly closed, and definitely predated html -- but WWW also owed something to gopher and WAIS, which I believe were non-proprietary.
Few of the technologies you mention are revolutionary Well, perhaps. By this high standard, almost no software ideas have been revolutionary since, oh, Babbage. Could you please suggest what you do consider revolutionary, and decide whether or not it was proprietary?
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
What have this gang of people done that isn't a "workalike" for something produced either in academia or in a corporation. I'm asking out of a genuine interest in the answer, by the way; I tend to think that, whatever "many eyes" do, they are the absolute enemy of creativity.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
I like to see books like this. Free software not only has its utility value... I think it also has cultural values which might help us to play fewer zero-sum games with one another.
One of the ideas that I'm constantly wondering about is that productivity is mainly fueled by greed. I won't deny that sometimes it is, but I get worried about reducing it to that equation, which is what happens sometimes when I'm talking to those who favor very hands-off/invisible hand economics (and frankly, I plan to tell my children that the invisible hand is something like Santa Claus). I think it's ideas like this that get us into some of the trouble we have today... see if you can think of a few recent legal cases where profit and greed come up against individual rights...
One of the things that I like very much about the free software community, is that its existence is a strong refutation of the idea that greed = productivity. People create software because they like to. The fact that they recognize that their contributions may be useful to others and benefit them doesn't change this... along with throwing out greed = productivity, you also get altruism included in self-interest (whether or not RMS and ESR can get along).
Just some thoughts...
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
The motivation for this sort of selective-history is the stock value of the business at hand. Shareholders like to believe in the myth of the Strong Man At The Helm, the alpha-figure who will enrich them and in whom they can trust. They don't like to be reminded about the pale, wan, tempermental and a-social geniuses that are actually the ones to credit (or blame) for a high-tech's fate.
Free Software doesn't have this burden of mercenary mythology.
(don't forget that if you want to avoid NYT registration there's always username:cypherpunks, password:cypherpunks)
The Internet
Internet Explorer. IE started life as Mosaic, one of the original browsers. Like all of the origninal browsers, Mosaic was open source. Microsoft bought the browser idea from its Open Source inventors.
Apache. This is the direct descendant of the original web server (it too was open source), and it dominates the web. Microsoft has tried to copy Apache's functions, but has had a tough time keeping up with Apache's pace of innnovation.
sendmail . Essentially all of the email that goes across the internet does so thanks to sendmail. The orginal (open source) developers now also run a company, but the orignal accomplishments all happened open-source.
BIND The Internet works on IP addresses (eg. 135.23.43.121). Any time you type a URL (letters) into your browswer, you are using BIND. This was invented open source (the B is for Berkely).
TCP/IP These are the two protocols (among others) that make the internet possible. In a sense, they define what is "internet." Developed and implemented open source
Eric Raymond addresses "creativity" issues in his essays.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs