Slashdot Mirror
De Icaza Responds To Stallman
ndogg writes "It's no secret that Stallman doesn't like Mono. Miguel, however, has been pretty quiet about those criticisms, until now. It seems he'll no longer be quiet. He's responded strongly to an article by Stallman that criticizes Codeplex about its aims due to its origin at Microsoft. Miguel says Stallman is fearmongering, and is missing an opportunity by his criticism."
Microsoft should ask for its money back. de Icaza is a terrible troll.
Stallman is of course right to point out that he is a Microsoft apologist - he is a notorious one. It is beyond argument that Microsoft spends significant dollars in direct and "personal" attempts to crush free software development projects such as Linux through the most indefensible barratry. It's also widely known that this is only one of a multi-prong strategy that includes coopting competing projects, through many means, including hiring key team members, and PR efforts, including hiring astroturfing firms - some of which patronize this very site, and you will meet some of their employees (or contractors) today. :)
Miguel must chuckle at himself when he writes things like "Fear mongering is a vibrant industry." It is too rich in irony for him not to know it. Yes, he suggests Microsoft is our "ally." A hilarious notion that, when he writes it, makes it clear what contempt he has for you, the reader.
If you judge someone by their actions, then there is no need to discuss how we judge Microsoft and their relationship to free software. It is easy to understand the lense through which we see codeplex even if they were to say nothing controversial. But apparently one of their goals is already clear - to throw another line of men at the front of the rhetorical "war" between free as in beer and free as in speech.
Just keep in mind that this is pure wasted time. RMS correctly points out that the war was won long ago - by a recognition of the value of the GPL and of free software. It's quite easy to understand - most people, when they give away their work, have a common moral compass, and they share certain values about how they would like to see that work go out into the world. i.e. They would rather some 3rd party not get paid for what they did for free. And they would rather others have the freedom to tinker, just as they did. Most ("important, widely used, active") open source software is free software for this reason. Of course, the "debate" will never end, either. But let's just keep it in perspective.
Ah Miguel. His rant may have virtually zero actual content, but at least he gets points for plugging "The Power of Nightmares." Just a few years too late, alas. From that and his Bush-based name calling, he may lose the conservative portion of the audience he is supposed to be reaching, but as I said, MS should get a refund.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
Richard - "The first thing we see is that the organization ducks the issue of users' freedom; it uses the term "open source" and does not speak of "free software"."
Miguel - "The creation of the CodePlex foundation was an internal effort of people that believe in open source at Microsoft. "
Open source on whose terms?
He and others written a useful, complex and (hopefully) well implemented set of software components through much in the way of blood, seat and tears.
So of course he's not going to agree that what he did was either a waste of time or evil. I'm not exactly sure which side of this debate I fall on. Doesn't affect me too much as a C programmer...
A lot of people dislike Stallman and his positions, but even his biggest detractors have to admit that he's a principled man. You know where RMS stands on issues before he even comments on them because he's had a consistent message for a few decades now.
De Icaza's position seems to be that short-term convenience wins. Period. I just can't credit him with the same credibility or integrity as RMS. I mean, I guess he's at least consistent with his position, but I'm also consistent in liking the taste of peanut butter, and that doesn't win me any points.
If I had to pick a side - and I think it's becoming apparent that we do - then I'd have to go with RMS. Some of his conclusions are a bit... out there... but he solidly argues them from solid principles and it's kind of hard to disagree with him. Finally, he has a track record of making some pretty bold predictions that turn out to be dead on many years later. The Right to Read, anyone? When de Icaza has a couple of decades of predictive accuracy behind him, I'll start paying more attention to his words.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Stallman and de Icaza have completely different goals, as do the larger Free Software and Open Source movements they are part of. There is unfortunately a tendency on the Open Source side to obscure this difference by claiming that Free Software is a subset of Open Source, often through the use of equivocation with the ambiguous English word "free", but Free Software is not a subset of Open Source.
The Free Software movement's position is essentially ideological, based on the philosophy that closed source is ethically and morally wrong. The Open Source position is essentially pragmatic, based on the theory that closed source (the cathedral) is less efficient than open source (the bazaar). Free Software is an ethical stance; Open Source is a high-level development methodology. The two sides end up shouting over each other's heads more often than not, as they are today, because they are using much of the same terminology to describe completely different things.
As such, de Icaza is wrong when he says that Stallman is missing an opportunity here. From the perspective of Free Software, especially given Microsoft's well-documented past behavior, cooperation with Microsoft is not an opportunity, it's a trap with a flashing neon TRAP sign above it. Conversely, it might well be an opportunity for Open Source, at least insofar as the literal issue of "open source" is concerned, though probably only in the short term.
Closed source software vendors ultimately make their money from artificial scarcity. Yes, it is possible to make money with open source, but the kind of money that Microsoft and most of its peers rake in comes only from closed source. To the extent that they are publicly-owned businesses, and therefore exist to make as much money as possible, they will only expend their assets -- including opening some of their source -- if they believe that it will lead to greater profits. Stallman is entirely correct to be wary of Microsoft here. Microsoft views the Free Software and Open Source movements as competitors, just as they view other conventional closed source companies as competitors. To expect them to behave in a genuinely cooperative fashion with groups that are, in an increasing number of areas, eating into their profits is to live in a utopian fantasy world.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET.
Neither have I, but I know what they are.
He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is.
So you disagree with RMS: fine. But you're doing yourself a grave disservice by dismissing him as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Love him or hate him, he's a sharp guy who knows his stuff.
And he has no idea of what the legal situation is.
I'm sure the founder of the FSF and the author of the first GPL is wholly ignorant of legal issues in software development.
Don't be stupid. Again, it's OK to disagree with the man. Just don't do it on the grounds of "he's old and doesn't know anything", because it's possible (in fact, certain) that he knows more about it than you do.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
The leadership of MS is on record as calling FOSS Un-American, a cancer, and other pejoratives. Their leadership has also been caught red-handed more than once attempting to sabotage FOSS. The recent nastiness with the anti-Linux patent package intended for troll use comes to mind. The actions of MS' leadership are far more relevant than the fact a few coders in cubicles don't bear FOSS any particular ill will. Now I don't hate MS but distrusting MS isn't in the least unreasonable.
Stallman has never programmed in either Mono or .NET. He has no idea what the relationship between C#, CLR, .NET, and Mono is...
That's preposterous -- it's like saying someone is in no position to judge whether or not the Nazis were evil... unless he speaks German.
Stallman's position is that anything built on Mono is built on a foundation of trust in Microsoft, which means a foundation made of sand.
You don't need to write any Mono code to judge whether or not his contention is true. All you need to know is that, time after time after time, Microsoft have demonstrated that they are not to be trusted.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
When Stallman started the GNU project, the software he was cloning had been created by a big, litigious, evil monopoly called "AT&T". There was a good chance that they were going to shut him down for copyright and patent infringement. He took that risk, and the rest is history.
The situation surrounding Mono is actually far less serious. Yes, Microsoft is a big, litigious, evil monopoly, but they actually have made a pretty watertight commitment to keeping those portions of .NET that Mono relies on open and free.
There were no software patents back then. Only copyright and very proprietary (read: expensive) software licenses. RMS started creating work alike and very often superior software. The software was written independent of any of the Unix source code to avoid any chance of it being tainted by that same source code. There was no chance of AT&T shutting down GNU software; because, they didn't have any legal leg to stand on.
"I'm sick and tired of the attacks on everyone who might go against the juvenile group-think on this website and actually feel some of the things microsoft produce have something to offer the world and would like to extend it."
Sorry, but after years of trying to undermine and bring an end to the free software and open source software movements, Microsoft needs to make the first move. Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
Palm trees and 8
Is there some 'sane' reason to include languages like C# for purpose of installing GNOME and other vital parts of the system ? I could not agree more with RMS here.
Such words might be effective against someone who doesn't read both articles, but it seems fairly clear RMS has important content, namely that codeplex's positioning seems designed to add confusion on software freedom issues, which is both dangerous and consistent with Microsoft's notorious predatory policies towards free software and its developers.
Only those without principles or with friends in perfect agreement all the time have the benefit of never "attacking their friends." Perhaps you are more concerned with relationships than principles.
If in your own post you pointed out all of the places where codeplex and Microsoft clearly do understand the open source and free software distinction, and make a clear effort to avoid confusion... If you had some possible explanation for Microsoft's massively ugly behavior towards linux, or open document standards bodies, etc...
But you have none. You seem to find the incidental, but correct observation of your widely-known status as a Microsoft apologist to be the greater issue, and you devote most of your words to denying that, along with some vague name calling, a few appeals to emotion by metaphor, and (probably ill-advised) political sniping.
It is your own writing that is quite clearly without content, and it's my professional opinion that you know it. Thus, the term "cynical hypocrisy."
I find your suggestion that Microsoft could be an ally (however much you deny you've made it, or if you even choose to) to be laughable.
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
No, "apologist" in this context is clearly a reference to the fact that Miguel has fairly consistently defended the Microsoft position, that's what that word means. It's only a pejorative if you think Microsoft is bad. If you approve of Microsoft then you really should approve of Microsoft apologists, that's coming from a proud FSF apologist of course!
Despite all the mud that gets thrown at him, RMS is actually very honest about what he does and doesn't believe and why he believes it; anyone who's used to serious political debate (not what you read in the papers or see on TV) will find it quite easy to digest the polemical style of RMS and won't wind themselves up by reading personal attacks where there are none.
Also, I find it hilarious that Miguel links to an apology from RMS about an inaccurate claim he made regarding Mac OS X as proof that he "makes up facts". That's a clear show of intellectual dishonesty, and, dare I say, an astonishingly bold use of a classic trolling technique!
Nick
Holy shit Batman, do you hear what you are saying?
They ARE JUST A SOFTWARE COMPANY!
They can't actually ruin your life. They really can't FORCE you to do anything.
We're not talking about genocide here, lets keep things in some sort of sane perspective.
You can end MS "tyranny" very easy. Stop using their products. Period. Really, thats it. You don't actually have to have them to survive.
You can, in fact, never use a computer and still survive and function.
You have to be really fucking spoiled to make the comparison you just made, I'd hate to see you having to deal with an actual problem in your life.
You, from your statements, are completely out of touch with reality, just like Stallman himself. You've elevated crap like 'licensing agreements' to the same level as 'genocide'. You treat Microsoft as if they've detonated a nuclear bomb in the heart of a peaceful city.
You sir, need a tall glass of perspective and soda.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
That's not a personal attack.
"Apologist" often has a negative connotation, especially when paired with a subject that is widely considered not worthy of any such defense.
And in the target audience of these letters, Microsoft is widely and for very good reason considered unworthy of defending on the subject of Software Freedom (if not everything else).
RMS knows this, and he intended it as a pejorative. MdI knows this too, which is why he considers himself attacked, and denies the claim.
But therein lies the end of the argument for me. He simply can't claim Microsoft hasn't been a consistent and ongoing enemy of Free Software, but also claims they're safe to work with. Microsoft threatens Linux with hundreds of imaginary patent violations, but we're going to welcome a bunch of actual MS-patented tech into Linux on purpose and under MS' watchful eye? If you're going to tell me that isn't insanely stupid, you better at least be willing to be an apologist for Microsoft.
The enemies of Democracy are
As a fellow Debian user, I too am incensed that Debian developers, without consulting the user base have taken a monumental leap away from the projects original stated goals and ideals.
What leap? Mono isn't DFSG compliant?
What else do you want from Debian - follow your personal agenda where it doesn't matter whether something is FLOSS or not, but so long as it has any relation to Microsoft, it's automatically evil?
The context was Stallman noting it as (when viewed along with the fact that the background of other board members) a basis for wariness about CodePlex, but dismissing it as a basis for concluding that CodePlex's actions will be bad, before going on to focus on specific actions and statements of Microsoft and CodePlex are to point to areas where those statements, rather than the identities of its board members, were reasons for concern.
The paragraph referring to Icaza as an "apologist" is, in full:
This is not a pejorative use. It is pointing to a relevant source of bias as a basis for concern that future actions might be tainted by that bias, and then also stating that that bias is not alone a basis for concluding that future actions by the biased actor will be bad.
It's also the only reference to de Icaza in the article; both Icaza's claim that the article is content free and his claim that it features are personal attack on him ring rather hollow. One might disagree with the importance of the Free Software philosophy that Stallman embraces, and (even if one does not) one might validly disagree with his painting of the particular actions cited in the article as reasons for concerns about Mirosoft/CodePlex's intentions with regard to Free Software, but it is ludicrous to paint the article as content free, and even more ludicrous to paint to the reference to the relationship of board members including Icaza to Microsoft as a "personal attack" on Icaza.
Stallman and the FSF have a history of just making shit up when they decide they don't like something. Look at some of the stuff they've written about trusted computing for examples of this. Miguel is right - the guy plays fast and loose with the facts repeatedly. I see lots of people praising his consistency in this discussion. Well guess what - it's easy to have a consistent position over a long period of time when you flatly refuse to accept factual reality.
I often wonder where your real motivations lie Miguel. Between your efforts on Gnome and Mono you seem to be a one man wrecking ball designed to destroy Linux on the desktop. In particular you were a prime mover in creating the fissure between KDE and GNOME, which has so fragmented the Linux desktop world its unlikely to ever compete against Windows and the Mac on the desktop. I've certainly given up on it ever mattering as a desktop OS, Now you are trying to infect Linux and Gnome with Microsoft patented technology which seems to be an even more overt and blatant attempt to wreck Linux to Microsoft's benefit.
In my attempt to fathom your motivations the only answers I come up with:
A. You actually think pushing .NET and C# in to Linux is a good idea, and you actually think Microsoft is a nice company. If so you are either naive or just not very bright because Microsoft has always been and still is one of the most ruthless of tech companies and its prime directive is and always has been to destroy all its competitors. Linux is a competitor, not their friend. .NET and C# are quite interesting technologies but no one with any sense would think they are appropriate to introduce as a core technology in Linux.
or
B. Sometime ago you actually started working for Microsoft under the table and you have been working to destroy Linux from within, at their behest, by pretending to be a member of the open source community while you've pushed one agenda and then another designed to complete wreck Linux as a desktop OS.
Now its kind of tin foil hat to go with B) but when you think about it, Microsoft was faced with an existential threat from Linux and they couldn't use the same tactics to destroy it they used on more traditional incorporated competitors. Bill Gates is, if nothing else, smart with a heavy dose of ruthless, and to be honest Miguel, your whole agenda for years seems to be a perfect fit for the role of a mole Microsoft planted in the Linux community to destroy it from within. Planting a high profile mole is, when you think about it, the ideal strategy for a company like Microsoft to use to sabotage a community based threat like Linux.
Stallman is kind of abrasive and his religious purity can be annoying to no end, but I can be sure he is what he appears to be, his heart and mind are relatively pure and he does have a great track record for spotting snakes in the grass. By contrast I don't think I would ever trust your motives. It is impossible to tell where your heart really is and seem to bear a striking resemblance to one of those snakes in the grass Stallman is so good at spotting.
@de_machina