Slashdot Mirror
Collateral Damage as UK Censors Internet Archive
An anonymous reader noted the latest developments in the controversial censoring of the internet by UK ISPs. Apparently since some content of the Wayback Machine is bad, the whole thing needs to be blacklisted.
[ed. note: in the following text, former FreeBSD developer Mike Smith gives his reasons for abandoning FreeBSD]
When I stood for election to the FreeBSD core team nearly two years ago, many of you will recall that it was after a long series of debates during which I maintained that too much organisation, too many rules and too much formality would be a bad thing for the project.
Today, as I read the latest discussions on the future of the FreeBSD project, I see the same problem; a few new faces and many of the old going over the same tired arguments and suggesting variations on the same worthless schemes. Frankly I'm sick of it.
FreeBSD used to be fun. It used to be about doing things the right way. It used to be something that you could sink your teeth into when the mundane chores of programming for a living got you down. It was something cool and exciting; a way to spend your spare time on an endeavour you loved that was at the same time wholesome and worthwhile.
It's not anymore. It's about bylaws and committees and reports and milestones, telling others what to do and doing what you're told. It's about who can rant the longest or shout the loudest or mislead the most people into a bloc in order to legitimise doing what they think is best. Individuals notwithstanding, the project as a whole has lost track of where it's going, and has instead become obsessed with process and mechanics.
So I'm leaving core. I don't want to feel like I should be "doing something" about a project that has lost interest in having something done for it. I don't have the energy to fight what has clearly become a losing battle; I have a life to live and a job to keep, and I won't achieve any of the goals I personally consider worthwhile if I remain obligated to care for the project.
Discussion
I'm sure that I've offended some people already; I'm sure that by the time I'm done here, I'll have offended more. If you feel a need to play to the crowd in your replies rather than make a sincere effort to address the problems I'm discussing here, please do us the courtesy of playing your politics openly.
From a technical perspective, the project faces a set of challenges that significantly outstrips our ability to deliver. Some of the resources that we need to address these challenges are tied up in the fruitless metadiscussions that have raged since we made the mistake of electing officers. Others have left in disgust, or been driven out by the culture of abuse and distraction that has grown up since then. More may well remain available to recruitment, but while the project is busy infighting our chances for successful outreach are sorely diminished.
There's no simple solution to this. For the project to move forward, one or the other of the warring philosophies must win out; either the project returns to its laid-back roots and gets on with the work, or it transforms into a super-organised engineering project and executes a brilliant plan to deliver what, ultimately, we all know we want.
Whatever path is chosen, whatever balance is struck, the choosing and the striking are the important parts. The current indecision and endless conflict are incompatible with any sort of progress.
Trying to dissect the above is far beyond the scope of any parting shot, no matter how distended. All I can really ask of you all is to let go of the minutiae for a moment and take a look at the big picture. What is the ultimate goal here? How can we get there with as little overhead as possible? How would you like to be treated by your fellow travellers?
Shouts
To the Slashdot "BSD is dying" crowd - big deal. Death is part of the cycle; take a look at your soft, pallid bodies and consider that right this very moment, parts of you are dying. See? It's not so bad.
To the bulk of the FreeBSD committerbase and the developer community at large - keep your eyes on the real goals. I
Look, it makes absolutely zero sense to use a digital camera since 99.99% of the use of that picture is going to be put on .gov websites or sent to post offices so they can change the picture in the frame, or in publications that are probably made with something like InDesign. I'd imagine whatever advantages you got out of the film photo (which I was never a believer in until out wedding photos were done on an antique camera with the crank and everything out of a 50's period movie), would be lost in the scanning process.
I'd just have them take a picture with a polaroid. I can just see the huge ornate frame with a tiny polaroid taped in the center. All the other world leaders would either find it humorous and say "this guy is cool" or think I'm crazy enough not to mess with. (Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.)
+1 Delightfully Offtopic
It's not offtopic, it's an off-by-one error.
Programmer types do it all the time
Far more important (IMO) is what happened in the House of Commons today:
Background for non UK people:
The government wants to build a third runway at London Heathrow Airport. This will require demolishing a village near Heathrow, and mean there are more planes flying over London (noisy) and mean London doesn't meet the EU pollution reqirements.
A significant number of Labour MPs don't think the runway should be built (there have been other suggestions). A lot of environmental groups agree. Both the current and previous Mayor of London don't want it built either
Today, the government announced that the runway would be built. Some MPs wanted it to be put to vote in the House of Commons, but it wasn't.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7831091.stm (this one in particular, if you want to hear a Labour MP complaining about a lack of democracy)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm
You honestly think it'd be any better in the US? News flash: While people in the US may be allowed to have guns (pistols, rifles, small-scale automatics), the US military has much much bigger guns and other weapons that don't exactly require them to be anywhere near their target or anywhere in even the vaguest amount of danger of some militia with a bunch of uzis, plus research to make improved versions of same. And they have ready access to these funny little armored vehicles which can easily deflect their silly tiny bullets, and are armed themselves with ammunition far greater than the capacities of any civilian-available armor. And I can assure you that even the most hardened of civilian militias don't have nearly the amount of training to carry out sustained terrorist attacks the level of which are seen in foreign countries.
That said, if you're hinting at some grandiose revolution that will turn your country of choice into an enchanted fairyland where everybody is free and there's no government and unicorns fart rainbows and gumdrops rain from the sky AND you're paranoid enough about the gummint to suggest it, you're going to have to go into detail as to why you'd expect them to NOT pull the big guns to suppress an uprising, damn the consequences.