ESR Advocates Proprietary Software

mvdwege writes "Apparently, Eric Raymond has decided that proprietary software is now a good thing, according to The Register. I must say it is rather revealing how easily he is willing to compromise on this particular freedom. Is his earlier vocal proclamation of the importance of freedom (still visible on his homepage) mere posturing? And if so, how about his vocal support of other freedoms?"

Comments

That's not quite what he said.

[squiggleslash]

Much as I'd love another excuse to blast ESR here, that's putting an awful spin on an article that doesn't quite say that about a speech that doesn't quite say that.

ESR is suggesting the open source movement concern itself with making sure GNU/Linux et al works out of the box, and if that means in the short term accepting some proprietary software, then that may be necessary. His belief is predicated upon the notion that the move to 64 bit computing means people are about to make choices about the next generation of operating systems. If they get a 64 bit machine, they're going to either chose GNU/Linux, or a proprietary system like Windows, and once that choice has been made that's it.

I think ESR is wrong in believing that. But if he believes that, then it's legitimate for him to believe that a short term acceptance of some proprietary software, that can be rewritten later, may be necessary to "get us through" to the point that the system most likely to end up being 100% FOSS is the dominant operating system.

My belief is that this is all bollocks, and the move to 64 bits will make no difference whatsoever in terms of which 1970s technology OS is used, as ultimately the major candidates are. But it's legitimate for him to think otherwise, and doesn't even represent an ideological "shift" (as the article implies) to believe that in order for FOSS to win-out, it may need some non-FOSS code in the short term. That's always been the case. Even the FSF accepts that, hence the LGPL, a license they like to discourage the use of but nonetheless one they invented anyway and want to see used for certain projects. The entire point of the LGPL is exactly the same as ESR's point: you have to integrate with proprietary software in the short term if you want to move beyond proprietary software in the long term.

The only way to read the meaning the submitter attributed to ESR is to believe ESR cares more about GNU/Linux's popularity than he does about free software. I seriously doubt that's the case.

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[dnoyeb]

We call those initials, not an acronym. Now if someone were to say "The ESR" that would be a different story.

Re:That's not quite what he said.

[squiggleslash]

POSIX and Windows are both operating systems that use hardware memory management to seperate otherwise unsafe (written in liberal mid-level languages like C) processes from one another, using a security model based largely upon user ownership. If a large number of jobs have to be done that require communications between the different programs performing the different jobs, a single program - running in its own memory space - is generally written that manages all the jobs, rather than the jobs being split out one-per-program.

Programs are loaded from files on disk, from a simplified file system that uses hierarchical name management and that's based upon arbitrary length binary files. From the point of view of the user, there are running programs and files.

This is essentially classic 1970s computer technology. In terms of where it became the standard for system design, that's roughly when it dates to.

There have been serious attempts since then to reform that model, but generally they haven't gone anywhere. The 1980s was full of simplified systems where all processes ran in the same memory space - Windows, Mac OS 6+, AmigaOS, Sinclair QDOS, etc. At the other end of the spectrum, there were many abortive attempts to break up operating systems into more simplified units protected from one another. None of these design changes are present in Windows, Mac OS X, or GNU/Linux, either the simplified or the microkernel strategies (with good reasons for both.)

The 1990s saw the beginning of managed code. While this probably does represent the future of computing, we're not seeing it yet. As yet, managed code only exists in mainstream operating systems running as high level processes at the same level as other ordinary user applications. Mac OS X, Windows, and GNU/Linux do not use managed code, they merely support it.

File systems have been reformed several times. DEC VMS supported native rich file types with record indexing. This has yet to appear anywhere else. Mac OS introduced forks and added creator and type information to the file system. While present for legacy reasons, Apple has deprecated support; Microsoft technically supports file forks in NT but has made no effort to use them or encourage their use; GNU/Linux has only recently started to support additional metadata, and the feature is barely used. Systems like Smalltalk, NewtonOS and PalmOS blur the differences between files and other objects. Achieving minor success on PDAs, their approaches have yet to really have any serious impact.

Essentially, Mac OS X, Windows, and GNU/Linux, are the latest, most optimal, versions of what you saw in the seventies. That's not a terrible thing, but 64 bits gives us the opportunity to rethink why we're programming the same way we did thirty years ago. In particular, the combination of managed code and the massive 64 bit address spaces gives us a chance to revisit the question of how we can most efficiently prevent operating system and application components from treading upon one another, and how we can keep the system secure.

ESR has a point

[yagu]

One of the most salient paragraphs from the fine article:

With iPod holding a massive market share and Windows Vista coming down the pipe, Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.

This is true. This is the nature of the commercial world. And this will kill linux if it isn't addressed.

I already have various "paid for" applications on my linux machine -- I think it's a responsibility to support the linux and open source world -- not everyone can afford to put something out there for nothing.

And, almost the only reason I still maintain Microsoft machines and use them is there are certain critical applications I use still not available on Linux. Why? I've corresponded with some of these vendors and their responses to my gentle request for a Linux version of their applications were surprising.

What I expected was a dismissive "not big enough market" argument. While that was part of the argument the surprise was from a couple where they said they weren't about to give their product away for free -- they just couldn't afford to do it.

Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash. Open Source crackers.

Really, until the mantra "free" is clarified (and I don't think it is entirely), businesses and providers will only take from the Linux community, not give.

In my discussions with some of these providers I've assured them the Open Source community is willing to pay for product. Maybe we aren't. But if we're not, and continue with the attitude that everything should be free, ESR is right, Linux stands to eventually lose a war regardless of any battles it wins.

It's the nature of the beast.

Re:ESR has a point

[Mr. Slippery]

[From TFA]: Raymond warned that Linux risks getting locked out of new hardware platforms for the next 30 years unless it proves it can work with iPods, MP3s and WMP.

Nah. The question is not "Why doesn't Linux work with my iPod?", it's "Why don't iPods work with my choice of operating system?"

While digital personal music players are certainly here to stay, the iPod itself is a fad, a trend, which in 30 years will be as meaningful as the original Sony Walkman is today. For the Free Software community to compromise its core principles for compatibility with a fad would be foolish.

Uhhh, duh.

[RingDev]

OS Software is good, proprietary software is good. The two will always balance eachother in order to match the market, demand, and availability of developers. Saying one is "evil" compared to the other is just blind fundamentalism.

-Rick

Re:Uhhh, duh.

[kclittle]

Rick, you are being logical, rational and open-minded. Your privileges here at Slashdot is hereby revoked.

Everybody Loves Eric Raymond!

[TheRaven64]

Sorry, had to be said.

Not the target audience

[Scarblac]

Raymond, a champion of all things open, said it is vital to the future uptake of Linux that the community compromise to win the new generation of non-technical users aged younger than 30. This group is more interested in having Linux "just work" on their iPod or MP3 player and "don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity",

Indeed they don't. So?

It seems that ESR has started believing that "overthrowing Windows" is the end goal of Linux. It's not, it's having a completely open and Free Unix system. That group he talks about, they'll just use Windows or whatever, and be happy. I don't see how that matters for Linux' direction.

Re:Not the target audience

[babbling]

You're right, but I think the idea of overthrowing the Windows empire is often played down. It would definitely benefit Free Software if there was a greater diversity of operating systems being used by the general population. All of a sudden every document being in Microsoft Word's format wouldn't be acceptable, and open standards might become important.

Proprietary software isn't a threat to Free Software, but proprietary standards are, because then Free Software users begin to be excluded from the rest of the population. Open standards are an issue of fairness and equality.

Exactly right, this is just todays 'rant' article

[jmorris42]

Yup, I also disagree with ESR's reasoning somewhat but agree that if you accept his reasoning his conclusion is perfectly rational and pro Free Software. But this is slashdot and for some reason there is a large contingent that loves to slag ESR so the editors are throwing a little raw meat out to get some pageviews on a slow Saturday.

I think ESR is wrong because most people aren't ever going to notice the 64bit transition, at least nothing like the 16-32 bit horrors of the 1990s. Both Linux (almost flawlessly on RH based distros and fairly useable on Debian ones) and Windows have made it all but unnoticable whether one is using 32 or 64 bit apps for 90+% of users and uses. Only those who need to malloc gigs need concern themselves.

But even ignoring all that we might want to consider compromising enough to capture desktop share. It wouldn't be unprecedented, GNU itself was developed on closed platforms because ALL platforms were closed, and after all the FSF is still wanking with HURD.

It isn't the 64 bit barrier we need to worry about, it is the ability to play multimedia content, which ESR also is concerned about, that is a real problem. We CAN'T write and distribute Free Software for most of that stuff because of patents. Yes I hate them as much as the next geek (and had the consistency to launch a big "Fuck you" to Tivo over yesterday's patent troll by them) but until we can change the rules of the game we are mostly stuck with them. Yes [I] can go get mplayer and most of [YOU] can get it, but corporate america isn't going to take a lawyer bumrush from the MPAA/Franhaufer/etc over the issue. And newbies are being put through a horrible rite of passage when they try to join us.

GNUpod, gtkpod etc.

[Psionicist]

"We have a serious problem. Whenever I try to pitch Linux to anyone under 30, the question I get is: 'Will it work with my iPod?," he said. "We are not yet as a community making the painful compromises need to achieve widespread desktop market share. Until we do, we will get locked out of more hardware."

Of course it works with iPod. Take a look at:

* GNUpod and gtkpod
* iPod Shuffle Database Builder

And then there's another one with a funky name I cannot remember.

Misconceptions in the commercial community

[jmorris42]

Again, they said they weren't about to give their product away for free! So, like it or not, there is a perception out there by vendors/providers that the Linux community not only is a small community and not likely to bring in big money, but they see the Linux community as cheap! Network trailer trash.

There is a lot of FUD among the commercial vendors, much of it probably being spread by a certain behemoth vendor and allies. Yes, many less clueful ones still think a Linux port has to be free, as if the GPL would taint their code or something. Others do subscribe to the belief that Linux users are either Free Software zealots who wouldn't pay regardless or are all a bunch of poor starving students. Some of us are hard nosed realists who refuse to be fooled again by being subject to the whims of vendors to the greatest extent possible. Some of us realize the Free stuff usually works a hell of a lot better than the piles of steaming crap vendors want to exchange a pile of cash for.

We just have to educate them. I will pay for software under very limited circumstances. If there is NO Free Software that can do the work I'll pay. If it isn't important (games) I'll pay. If it is going to process content I create it MUST write that in an open format, I won't be locked to a single vendor's whims. So I wouldn't buy Photoshop, even if Hell froze over and they ported it, unless I had an absolute requirement that The GIMP couldn't satisfy but since it writes many open formats I would buy it if I had to. Games are't a problem though. I really hated to see Loki go out, I did buy stuff from them.

At work we do the same thing. We have bought software before and will almost certainly buy it in the future. Just because I prefer Free Software doesn't mean we can refuse to computerize an operation just because there isn't a Free program available and we certainly don't have the man hours available to write an accounting system from scratch. That is just an example, yes there are some free offerings but none are anywhere ready yet. None can yet handle vital functions like payroll.

Not Just The Under 30 Crowd

[Prototerm]

The problem Eric Raymond is running up against is the cold reality of a shifting market share. Once upon a time, the Gnu/Linux community was composed mainly of programmers, system administrators, hackers, and the like. In other words, people capable of adapting to the learning curve of a Unix-like system. Now, however, an increasing number of people are interested in it who do not have those skills, or who feel that those skills should not be necessary to operate a computer.

If you cringed while reading that last sentence, if you felt a burst of bile rise up into your throat, then you're gonna *love* the future, because more and more people who feel precisely that way are joining the ranks of the Penguin every day. As the article says, "This group is more interested in having Linux 'just work' ... and 'don't care about our notions of doctrinal purity'". There will continue to be friction between the Old Guard and the N00bs, as more and more people abandon the Redmond Upgrade treadmill, until Gnu/Linux either fades into obscurity, collapses into chaos, or a compromise is found that's satisfactory to both groups. In a way, FOSS is becoming a victim of its own success, although that success has not been the sort Raymond and others had hoped. Somehow, it will have to find a way to adapt.

ESR is not associated with Free Software movement.

[jbn-o]

ESR, Eric S. Raymond, is not associated with "FOSS". FOSS is a term used when one wants to give credit to both the Free Software and Open Source movements without favoring either. ESR is a proponent of the Open Source movement and one of the people who started the Open Source Initiative over a decade after the GNU Project and the Free Software movement had been going.

The Free Software movement advocates exclusively for free software because only free software respects users software freedoms (the freedoms to run, inspect, share, and modify software). The Free Software movement examines these issues in terms of ethics, speaks to all computer users, and takes a far broader view than the Open Source movement which never discusses user's freedoms and examines these issues in terms of a developmental process that is chiefly aimed at businesses.

The OSI has given a remarkably disrespectful view of the differences between the two movements, reducing the difference to "ideological tub-thumping" in their FAQ. The Free Software Foundation has a far more informative and respectful view in an essay on the differences between the two movements.

Freedom is not "choice".

[jbn-o]

No, the definition of freedom is not choice.

Choice can be a scam that can railroad you out of something more important, such as your software freedom.

For some time, web users who wanted a (then) modern GUI web browser had Microsoft Internet Explorer, Opera, and Netscape Navigator to choose from. You only need two alternatives to have "choice" but here one had three to pick from.

None of these choices respect a user's software freedom because all of those programs are proprietary.

Re:Free and non-free don't treat users the same wa

[RingDev]

And we must also discuss and pursue the developers freedom to keep private, protect, and profit from published software.

-Rick

Mod This Parent Up !!!

[viewtouch]

Hear! Hear!

Mod This Parent Up !!

We all use the GNU compiler, GNU tools & the vast body of GNU software. Who is using the OSI compiler, OSI tools and the vast body of OSI software? Nobody - because it doesn't exist. Next time they ask you the difference between what the Free Software Foundation does and what the Open Source Initiative does, mention that.

It takes more than a catchy phrase to cause a revolution - it takes a lifelong dedication to writing the software to launch and to perpetuate a revolution - and that would be GNU.

Re:Mod This Parent Up !!!

[j-pimp]

We all use the GNU compiler, GNU tools & the vast body of GNU software. Who is using the OSI compiler, OSI tools and the vast body of OSI software? Nobody - because it doesn't exist. Next time they ask you the difference between what the Free Software Foundation does and what the Open Source Initiative does, mention that.

You have to look at time and circumstances though. There was a need for RMS to build a whole open source system from scratch. When ESR wrote "The Cathedral and the Bazzar," there were GNU/Linux distros already out there. These days the GNU foundation does alot of advocacy. Most of the user land utilities are pretty stable. The compiler, glibc, classpath and such are actively developed. However, all of those would continue if the FSF were to fold. The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment. It does however, accept copyright for open source projects and provides advocacy and legal aide. The OSI, on the other hand, was born in the midst of a world of Free Software. It's purpose was to question some of the ideals of Free Software, develop its own, more business oriented ones, and advocate them. Would it be benificial if the OSI started sponsering some open source projects? I think so. I've personally given to the FSF, and never to the OSI, and my beliefs are more in line with the OSI. This is partially due to GCC and such. I outright disagree with software as a basic human right. However, with what the FSF advocates, and the state of the world today, I'm not worried about closed source software being outlawed any time soon.

Re:Mod This Parent Up !!!

[Jack Action]

The FSF is not comissioning any new large scale undertakings at the moment.

This is just blatantly wrong.

What do you call Gnu Flash? Other projects FSF is directing include Free Bios and an open 3D Card driver. More projects are listed here. Just like gcc was needed in the 80s, these are the utilities users need now.

At the risk of being modded for flame bait, I'll also point out that it seems most criticisms of the FSF are based on plain ignorance.

Re:ESR is not associated with Free Software moveme

[CRCulver]

He wrote a few utilities and a book or two, but short of maintaining the Jargon file, it's hard to see what he did on a day to day basis that allowed him to be quite so prevelant.

ESR's essay The Cathedral and the Bazaar inspired Netscape to open-source its browser code, which resulted in the Mozilla browser and Gecko, one of the best browser engines around. Netscape's decision in turn paved the way for open-source ventures from a number of hitherto opaque corporations. That "book or two" got quite a ball rolling. That's why ESR is so respected today.

64-bit OSs overrated, overhyped, ...

[AHumbleOpinion]

His belief is predicated upon the notion that the move to 64 bit computing means people are about to make choices about the next generation of operating systems.

Then this writing fails. 64-bit OSs as overrated and overhyped. The move from 16- to 32-bit was dramatic. A lot of people, including those around here, seem to naively believe the move from 32- to 64-bit will be a similar event. It will not. 64-bit will be meaningful for some servers and some other high end applications, for the rest there will be no appreciable immediate benefit. *IF* Joe User gets all excited about 64-bit in the near term it will probably be due to a successful Micorosoft marketing campaign designed to artificially create an upgrade cycle. Barring this there will be a slow migration to 64-bit as Apple and Microsoft make the 64-bit versions of their OSs the default version, not an optional upgrade. In other words Joe User will get 64-bit when he happens to buy some distant new machine (4-5 years ?). The near term upgrades and build-to-order options will be a minority. I'll do it, I'm a programmer, I want my code to be 32/64-bit clean.

I respect and agree with you, mostly, but

[viewtouch]

It's fair to say that Linux might well not even exist without the work that RMS and his cohorts did in the first years of the FSF's existence.

It's also fair to say that it's NOT true that if RMS hadn't done what he did that someone else would have. It is not to be taken for granted by anyone that without RMS & FSF, sooner or later we would have ended up in essentially the same place we are today.

I know what it's like to have to get a company's permission to write software on their computers, and to pay them a LOT of money for the 'privilege'. NOT FUN. RMS has changed all of our lives in a way that we can only understand by knowing the history and by sitting back for bit and actually thinking about it.

I can't say that for ESR. All he ever did for me was threaten me for using his US service mark 'open source' on my web site, a service mark he didn't actually have. I find it easy to ignore him.

XP 64 vs XP 32

[metamatic]

The only reason anyone uses XP 64 right now is if they have an app that requires it. Otherwise, they're just asking for misery.

And this is different from regular Windows XP how, exactly?

Re:Slashdot's wonderful humor

[Overly Critical Guy]

Uh oh - you're a I'm in a hole, I'd better keep digging kinda guy huh?

Maybe I should wait for you to get back to me when you learn to write proper English so I can understand you.

It's 'common knowledge' that goldfish have three second memories, but that's incorrect too.

Your strawman argument notwithstanding, it's still completely common knowledge that Stallman's goal is to get rid of proprietary software and have everyone using Open Source, because he considers proprietary software to be evil.

I'm actually ignoring you because you're incorrect. I honestly can't believe that you're so stupid that you can't see the difference between someone saying "I don't like cabbage" and "I think the government should ban cabbage".

I never said Stallman wanted the government to "ban" proprietary software.

Beyond stupid - you've decimated my position by stating something is common knowledge?

Absolutely. I'm glad you're finally catching up.

This thread is going to form the basis of my new sig! This thread is a spectacular example of someone who can't back up what they say, but are too stubborn (stupid?) to admit they're wrong.

I've backed up Stallman's position countless times and could continue to do so indefinitely. I've given you an interview and could give you more. Everybody knows Stallman doesn't believe in proprietary software and wants to do away with it. You're obviously in denial. I'd love to be in your sig. It will serve as a constant reminder to you that I completely owned your ass in this debate long ago, to the point that you're now actually arguing that you never had a position in the first place. Please.

Next.