Slashdot Mirror
The Battle Between Purists and Pragmatists
Glyn Moody has a thoughtful piece taking a long look at the never-ending battle between pragmatists and purists in free and open software. "While debates rage around whether Mono is good or bad for free software, and about 'fauxpen source' and 'Faux FLOSS Fundamentalists,' people are overlooking the fact that these are just the latest in a series of such arguments about whether the end justifies the means. There was the same discussion when KDE was launched using the Qt toolkit, which was proprietary at the time, and when GNOME was set up as a completely free alternative. But could it be that this battle between the 'purists' and the 'pragmatists' is actually good for free software — a sign that people care passionately about this stuff — and a major reason for its success?"
All I know is that my gut says maybe.
Purists are just pragmatists who believe that moral imperatives are an adequate tool for achieving effective collective bargaining.
When the bargain fails to materialize, the purists blame a defective culture. And the pragmatists just roll their eyes.
Define success.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
The purist seeks to change the world to fit him, whereas the pragmatist changes himself to fit the world.
Ergo all progress relies on the purists. :-)
Like anything he writes, it's both original and non-obvious. However the non-obvious bits are not original, and the original bits are obvious.
Obviously, I didn't read it.
At the bottom of the
is beneficial. It provides calibrated feedback into the guiding philosophies of information freedom, making sure that all perspectives are considered.
The Shadows had it right, until they tried dominating their own dynamic tension. At that point, the balance was broken and tragedy ensued. The same can happen in the Open/Free movement, if it becomes dogmatic and polarized. (For sufficiently small values of "tragic". Does someone envision millions dying because Microsoft won't open-source their office productivity suite?)
As long as the relationship is at least slightly respectful and communicative, it helps.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Define "define".
On par, AIDS doesn't improve the human spirit, even though people get impassioned by it. The lust for victory that arises from a battle doesn't mean the war is an indicator of healthy relationships between the warring nations.
The battle over open source is bad not because it separates, but rather because it has created a false dichotomy. The way that the current question is phrased proves this. "Purists" are viewed as ideologues not because of existing conditions, but rather because of the failure of the open source community to understand the fundamental posit that free software is built upon: that non-free software inhibits the pragmatic use of all software. If the current argument did not exist, the success of open source software would not be viewed as a proof of a particular approach to designing software that has proven itself economically sufficient, but rather as a proof of a more fundamental rejection of non-free software.
It can backfire.
For instance, take the whole mess with BitKeeper: The pragmatic option was to use a product with really obnoxious licensing terms, because it was good and worked at the time. Then one day Larry McVoy got really annoyed with Andrew Tridgell, and decided to refuse to even sell licenses to people associated with the OSDL, including Linus Torvalds.
That's the problem, while it works everything seems fine, but when the rug is suddenly pulled from under you, it suddenly creates a lot of complications that get in the way of getting useful things done. I think there's quite a lot of value in making sure that you'll be able to use tomorrow something you're using today.
Discussion is helpful to educate and to flesh out and refine arguments but frankly it doesn't accomplish as much as taking action. For example, for Free Software(and for user freedom) to get where it is today has required: Getting the word out. Providing free software to people. Installing it for them in some cases. Educating them about cases where their freedom has been limited. Writing good software and releasing it under a free software license. Helping document and support free software.
There are so many facets that everyone can find a way to help. If debate is your thing, cool. If you can write well, great. If you can code, awesome. If you can't do any of the above, you probably buy technology from time to time. Make sure free drivers are available or that it works with free software. Just do something. Freedom is unique in that one person can not have it without a significant number of others also being able to exercise theirs.
Famous purist on game consoles - "That's why there is no possible ethical way you could use one, and so you shouldn't have it."
Fuck purists.
I think that pressure from Gnome and the fundamentalists helped make Qt change their license to the LGPL.
On the other hand, Qt's innovation list have provided the Gnome project with a lot a good ideas for feature work.
There's a give and take here...it's not so much a zero-sum battle as a mutually beneficial collaboration...without the parties believing they're cooperating;)
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
i side with the pragmatic, the GNU/GPL makes a great philosophy but a terrible religion, i will use GNU/GPL as much and as often as possible but when i cant i fudge a little, i have flash and Nvidia's blob video driver, when gnash and noveau mature enough to do just as good or better from a performance and technology point of view i will start using them and not a minute sooner...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
People who label themselves as "pragmatic" simply aren't willing or able to consider their own interests on a longer timeline. A lot of them tell me that they finally realized that RMS was right about something, but it took them years, including a bad experience that was their own fault, to realize.
Bruce Perens.
You know, if you're playing on online match, and you only use the original proton pack in Ghostbusters:The Video Game, you will be awarded a title called "Purist." (PS3 and Xbox 360 versions only)
Are you not fascinated by the disclosure of this fact?
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Yes the End justifies the Means -- because the means becomes part of the end.
If you must destroy your world to save it then you have a saved, destroyed, world.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It's really a hierarchical system based on making software a commodity -- most of the technologies in the open source world began as fully proprietary, then moved into the pragmatic domain for practical use, then became implemented by purists when the ability to develop it for cheap by hobbyists existed.
I could go into significant history of things such as UNIX, but for example, if it were not for Netscape, Firefox would not exist. Firefox would not exist in its current form if dogmatic people prevented the integration of Flash player into it. Eventually, a free and open source alternative will make a commodity of what is currently provided by Flash Player, but one able to run existing Action Script and what not. Then Firefox will finally be "pure."
Meanwhile, true purists are likely still using links2 on Plan9, which has capabilities far more than what existed commercially 15 years ago, but are practically useless today.
The bottom line is that with Open-Source Software, purists can only thrive because of the works of pragmatists, and the pragmatists can only thrive because of the works of proprietary systems.
On a related note I think the whole community is becoming more pragmatic. when Eric Raymond commented on the usefulness of the GPL licence and it was covered in a slashdot article peoples arguments were pragmatic. Examples being the GPL is better for business, not religious war on which licence was more free.
I don't agree with everything he says but, if Richard Stallman had not have taken the stance he had, there would not be any free/open source software. A GPL licence is one thing but it wont protect you if there is not an actual threat of legal action, or many eyes watching you're every move.
Don't think were in a natural environment, modern open source software, had to be built and nurtured by Stallman and those he inspired. Before anyone mentions software used to be free, that world was changed with the advent of companies such as Microsoft, who incidentally had to work very hard to change that world.
There are periodically arguments of ideological integrity vs. pragmatism in all areas. I usually react by asking "which foot do you use to walk?" or "when you climb a mountain, to you look at the path to the summit or to your feet?". Both ideology and pragmatism are required. If you use only ideology, you will not get anything practical done; if you use only pragmatism, you get something done, but it may well be in the wrong direction.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
A few months ago, some usenet crackpot posted his latest mathematical research. Among the usual nonsense and ravings about a world-wide conspiracy of academic mathematicians, possibly under the control of aliens (the space kind), to suppress his work, there were some points of mathematical interest--some potentially neat patterns and relationships in how he was wrong.
I spent a very enjoyable few weeks investigating these, using Mathematica to aid in this. I was able to find things using Mathematica that I would not have found otherwise--even using the best current free mathematical software, and those taught me a lot, both directly, and from the books I then consulted.
The most pure purists, such as RMS, take the position that I should not have done that mathematical investigation, because I could not do it without using non-free software. I'm supposed to wait until I can do it with free software, and maybe contribute to developing said free software if I want to speed things up.
If life were infinite, I would consider that. Life is not infinite, so I will go ahead and use the tools that let me get done the things I want to get done during this short life. I see no difference between, say, riding in a vehicle like a boat or plane where I cannot inspect and study the engine and using a piece of software where I cannot see the code. For the boat, all I care about is that it accomplishes the task I need--getting me safely to my destination. Same for software.
Could it be that some people prefer one language to another (modified) language?
Bias: anti-Mono, feel free to skip
After a lot of discussion on why Mono may be a needed by some as a migration/interface tool -- but not as a default install and not for general purpose applications, we reached the inevitable (but perhaps intended) divided state.
Linus coherently persists in his position of being a non-partisan in a stark contrast with RMS activism.
What I find worrying is that any doubt -- no matter how well articulated -- gets dismissed by Mono folks as delusional, akin to hypochondria (interestingly, Monomania means obsession or excessive enthusiasm with one subject).
Lastly, Mono defensors started another division: they, the real FLOSS enthusiasts and we, the faux ones.
"Faux" as in fake, as in "imitation of a genuine article" (as if Mono weren't a faux .Net) -- but more importantly, "faux", pronounced as "foe" -- if I ever have seen a subliminal message, that would be a prime example.
Why don't they distribute blue and red T-shirts with "Good" and "Bad" logos?
Yeah, right.
Purism may seem to get in the way at times, but if everyone was pragmatic, and no one put their foot down and demanded that things be done in a certain way, then many of the advances we have made in the last decade or so would never come to pass. For example:
As stated in the summary, purism is what gave us GNOME. Purism is also responsible for getting Qt under the GPL. Regardless of your feelings about GNOME, you can't say that it is not at least a good thing we don't have only one major DE to choose from. Also, who knows what could have happened to KDE had Qt still been exclusively proprietary when Nokia bought Trolltech?
Purism is what gave us gzip and PNG. Instead of just complaining about LZW, developers made completely new formats, and generated enough momentum around them to virtually replace their patent-encumbered predecessors, all the while creating superior technologies in the process.
Purism is what gives us Web standards. The Browser Wars were one of the worst times in Web history because everyone was being too pragmatic. Browser vendors were only interested in locking in users to gain market share, and Web developers were only interested in coding for one browser and just pointing everyone who wasn't using that one to a download link for it. The Web is becoming a better place because of the growing purism among both browsers and developers, not in spite of it.
Exactly, however the other people see it a different way. You and me might never look into the source code of any kernel just like I rarely look under the hood of my car. However, for the people who do write kernels and other lower level software the fact it is open source may be a huge plus for them in working out bugs. Similarly, good engine documentation would help a mechanic. Most people don't care about their engine unless there is a problem, if there is an engine design that can get me a cheaper mechanic who has to do less work and cost me less money that is preferred to an equal engine that costs a ton of money to get fixed. However, you have to consider the engine, an open source lawnmower engine is good for mowing lawns but not for driving on the interstate.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So, should you get off the fence before you figure out which side to come down on?
Or are you saying you are inclined against both sides?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
So, how did the alien-math troll react when you proved him/her/it wrong? Unlike most long debates, math seems to offer the ability to have once-and-for-all results and doesn't rely on weighing a thousand factors against a thousand other factors, which just degenerates into a stalemate about which factors weigh more.
Table-ized A.I.
Some people think that religion itself ought to be pragmatic.
Not to say that I think the GNU GPL makes a good religion, ...
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
This is a false dichotomy and a red herring.
The argument is over putting mono in the default install by way of tomboy. It has virtually nothing to do with either purism or pragmatism, except, perhaps, to the degree that some of the mono devs feel slighted that they aren't granted a higher status than the ruby crowd.
No, that's gonna induce a red herring, too.
They want to be granted the status that java has, on the basis of tomboy. They are also frustrated that their attempts to build "compelling" apps that will necessitate mono in the default install aren't automatically met with absolute approbation.
They also don't seem to understand that Java in the default install is only tolerated.
And they don't seem to understand that mono is not that spectacular a language, nor does it really fix all of java's faults.
And it's only some of them, but they feel slighted, so they are trying to make it appear that there is some unfair prejudice involved.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Funny that you bring up math in defend of pragmatism. For a practicing mathematician, purism is not even a choice: it's an occupational hazard.
But the underlying argument is not purism vs. pragmatism.
There is no real pragmatism in putting tomboy or any other particular mono-dependent app in the default install.
I personally think there are too many things in most of the default installs (plural) as it is.
If there is an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink install, then, definitely, tomboy and mono would belong in the default install of that.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The argument is whether to put tomboy, and thus mono in the default install of Ubuntu.
Fedora is expunging mono from the default install, but not from packages starting with the next release. RHE already did.
They are discussing this over at Canonical, and those who are convinced that mono is suffering a slight are up in arms and claiming to be pragmatists.
If there is an all-the-newest-fancy-gadgets-to-try-out install, then maybe tomboy and mono belong in the default of that, sure.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
As a 'purist' in this sense myself, I feel somewhat justified in claiming that without the purists, there would never have been such a pragmatist movement as there is now. Let's face it: in all likelihood, if I were a pragmatist, I'd be using proprietary software tools to write programs and share information--because that was, and perhaps still is, the easy option. Purists, on the other hand, reject compromise when that compromise will eventually result in their freedoms being restricted.
Actually, free software is the pragmatic option: it guarantees that, in the future, I'll be able to code using free, compatible tools. Software that compromises on freedom will eventually fall into the trap of convenient, non-free, proprietary software that will eventually restrict my freedom in the future to write and share and change programs in an upstanding, moral way.
My two cents.
So which action do you suggest?
Put mono in the default installs of Ubuntu or remove it?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
But what does that have to do with putting mono in the default installs of Ubuntu?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
The most pure purists, such as RMS, take the position that I should not have done that mathematical investigation, because I could not do it without using non-free software. I'm supposed to wait until I can do it with free software, and maybe contribute to developing said free software if I want to speed things up.
If life were infinite, I would consider that. Life is not infinite, so I will go ahead and use the tools that let me get done the things I want to get done during this short life. I see no difference between, say, riding in a vehicle like a boat or plane where I cannot inspect and study the engine and using a piece of software where I cannot see the code. For the boat, all I care about is that it accomplishes the task I need--getting me safely to my destination. Same for software.
Say you are a sea on a boat and it breaks down. Say also, that the engine compartment, electronic navigation system, etc are all locked shut in a way that you cannot look at how the system works, let alone repair it. Say also that the radio is malfunctioning, and you cannot call for a rescue.
How do you feel about your boat now?
--
DK
Pragmatism is the the most selfish of all philosophies.
It means you satisfy yourself and nobody else.
Ideology is a phenomenon. It does not exist.
Halooooo? I could heat my house with your diplomas. Haloooo?
Would a pragmatist be arguing on Slashdot about the difference between purists and pragmatists? I think not.
This is *not* their position. RMS and his colleagues worked on computers with proprietary software to create the GNU operating system. They are saying it is better to use free software if free software exists that does what you want to do. They understand you using proprietary software if an alternative doesn't exist, although they would want to advise you about the risks of lock-in that you are running.
Their argument is that if you are *creating* software then you should offer it under a Free Software license. The creators and extenders of software are the people they are appealing to.
Videos are for the mass and the mass only enjoys entertainment. There's no substance in that video other than entertainment for zombie citizens. Work, eat, shit, sleep. Pick up a book.
I don't remember what his reaction to this particular one was. He's a prolific crackpot, and all his theories and reactions are hard to keep distinct in my mind. This might have been the one where he decided I really was a top academic mathematician, coming to usenet to undermine him before he could carry out his plan to take us all down by having everybody's tenure removed. (I am not a mathematician, and am not in an academic position).
If you would like to examine some of the works of this prolific crank, he publishes them on his blog. If you want to enjoy his insanity away from the computer, an alternative is his book.
His early work is not covered at the blog, though, so if you want his proof of FLT, you'll have to dig in the usenet archives.
Not just in license issues; in standards too.
For example, the XHTML crowd had pretty much the "Purist" view (throw out everything, start out new) while the "Pragmatists" won out with HTML5 (which adds features on top of HTML4). I pretty much hate that, myself (because HTML4 sucks), but I can appreciate that browser vendors don't all want to have to change their rendering engines.
What an AMAZING thought. Progress comes from conflict... Gee...
An often used and not entirely right example is WAR, what is it good for? lots of an lots of research. There is the broken window falacy but this is only partially true. War not just leads to a redirection of spending but also to a more focussed use of resources.
In peace time, there might a be dozen people researching medicine but a lot of that medicine will be crappy stuff like botox injections. In war we get peniciline. In peace we get the F-22. In war we get the Mustang.
Conflict is not just war but lots of people pursueing the same goal in different directions. We got the Mustang but there were also lots of loser planes. But the F-22 pretty much stood alone, less a product of pursueing the best plane as finding the way to get lots and lots of funding/support.
In science a lot of people sitting around agreeing with each other isn't going to do much. You need some crackpots flying of on their own trying to proof their own ideas are right and everyone else is wrong. That is science! Just flying off isn't enough. You got to PROOF it (which is where global warming deniers go wrong).
And in opensource, lots of people doing different stuff is what allows opensource to progress in areas that closed source just can't. MS has ONE desktop shell and that means ONE person decides how it should work (or worse a commitee who work for one guy) and then you get Windows ME or Vista.
Of course, there is also a price to pay for itall. The war spending can only happen by redirecting lots of money to fund all the research. The science progress can only happen if you are willing to spend money on crackpots and opensource lacks a clear goal. Unlike science there are no absolutes in design. there is no right dinner-plate. Square, wood, plastic, it alls works and has its uses. KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment/Fluxbox the list is endless and they all do their own thing. It is a drastic change from MS or Apple where you can have any desktop you want as long as it is black.
It allows these various desktops to pursue different goals and it is very possible that if one group achieves a goal, others adopt it.
The conflict between purists and pragmatists gives us a way to pursue two goals at the same time. On the hand, opensource will be death very quickly if it is riddled with closed source. Imagine that flash was not just optional but required? That you could not install a media player on Linux without paying a fee for the DVD codec? Mp3 Codec? Linux is really big on "hidden" installs like for instance my logitech G19 keyboard. Do you REALLY think this would be the case if it required lots of closed source each with their own licensing and possible fees?
On the other hand, you got to be practical. With no MP3 and DVD support, desktop linux is completly dead.
So ideally, we the users want the purists to keep pushing for a completly opensource world where all codecs and such are free while we can use closed source from the pragmatists in the meantime.
But I think it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that if we give in all the way to pragmatists that we would quickly end up with a linux that is no longer linux. Linux is not just another OS like Windows or OSX. Opensource is a different way to think of the way software is both developed and owned.
I just put together a grate, how would it be if the hammer and nails and the wood and the idea of a crate is patented? It would be a terrible mess.
But that is what is happening in closed source land.
MS LOVES to tell about the TCO of Windows vs Linux. They TOTALLY and completly forget to do the TCO of Closed source vs Opensource.
Imagine you had to PAY for ALL windows software. No 7zip. You pay for it. No open-office. You pay for it. No firefox (and you think that if IE had no competition, that it would be free?). For that matter if MS had no competition, do you think all the included programs with windows would be free? If so, look up the Plus packs for Win9X
The purists keep linux linux. The pragmatisits make linux usuable. We the user need both.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Life is not infinite, so I will go ahead and use the tools that let me get done the things I want to get done during this short life. I see no difference between, say, riding in a vehicle like a boat or plane where I cannot inspect and study the engine and using a piece of software where I cannot see the code. For the boat, all I care about is that it accomplishes the task I need--getting me safely to my destination. Same for software.
That's fine as long as you don't expect from others to trust your calculations or use your code.
It's obvious from the way you open your post, "A few months ago, some usenet crackpot..." and "Among the usual nonsense and ravings..." that you had no intention of putting both sides of the debate. I stopped reading there. It rather set the level of argument you were about to offer.
It is always the same. The majority of people just go along with the flow of things. They change nothing. It doesn't matter whether the system is corrupt, whether the politicians are fascists, communists or capitalists, they just accept it and try to get on without putting their own head above the parapet.
It is invariably a small minority of people, sometimes led by a key individual, who fight for change. And often, the majority who did nothing, reap the benefits without ever having taken any of the risk, or contributed any of the effort. They are leeches.
The 'pragmatists' belong to that majority. They reap the benefit of lower prices on the software they buy (because of competition from the software written by the minority) and use the extra functionality in the commercial software they use (driven by free software competition) but contribute not one iota to the betterment of the community.
In the software world, their excuse, "I just use the right tool for the job" marks them out for what they are, shallow, selfish, and ignorant.
Without Stallman - for all his faults - there would be no gcc, no Linux Kernel, no Red Hat, Ubuntu and Open Office would never have been written. Microsoft Office would have stagnated, Windows 2008 would be out, and indistinguishable from Windows 98. Gates would still be CEO and Ballmer would never have performed the monkey dance... well, OK, maybe there are some things which would have been better.
You may be sure that when a man begins to call himself a "realist," he
is preparing to do something he is secretly ashamed of doing.
-- Sydney Harris
Get a life people...
Deleted
Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft. 'I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own itches." It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree,' says Torvalds. 'So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That's the point of open source â" the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the "your" in question happens to be.'"
This story's article is word salad.
Your brain is not a computer.
Doesn't RMS take the position that, even though the GIMP is not as good as Photoshop, you should use the less effective tool because it's more "free"...?
You have demonstrated yourself to be an idiot, since it was obvious from the first paragraph that the material about the usenet crackpot (and yes, someone who claims that a world wide conspiracy of mathematicians is suppressing his work is a crackpot) was background material, and had nothing to do with the position of either side in the purist versus pragmatists debate.