Slashdot Mirror
RMS Immature, Slashdot and Community Arrogant?
Non-Newtonian Fluid writes "There's an article over at ZDNN that claims RMS is "immature politically" and "insists on a reward for [himself]" for claiming Linux should be called GNU/Linux. Furthermore, in a lengthy talkback article, Slashdot and the Linux community as a whole are accused of the same arrogance. Perhaps this merits a discussion of the way our community deals with outsiders.... " Now, before everyone turns on the flamethrowers, let's think about the matter-is this true? The problem with most of these situations is that they do have some inherent truth to them. The question, of course, is how much?
I think that there is obviously a lot of truth in this. However, it's really only a half truth, in that while the observations may be correct, the conclusions the writers have drawn from them are less so.
For the RMS article, one has to agree that at times things do get sidetracked on to silly issues like the GNU/Linux one. However, the writer of the article fails to realise that to a lot of people, the political (ie freedom) aspects of open source/free software are just as or more important than the code itself. Thus it's neither surprising nor counter-constructive that a good proportion of discussion about such software is spent discussing these sorts of political issues.
Basically, the author looks on from the outside and percieves a problem that is only there because of his ignorance of the people and issues involved. Yes, it may look bad to him, but what would be worse is that people who don't know about free software never got the chance to hear about what the free is really supposed to mean.
Are some elements immature politically? Again, probably true, you can't expect everyone in a group as large and diverse as those who write/use/advocate open source software to all be informed or even interested in politics. In RMS's case, I believe this is true, he is politically immature in that he desperately clings on to the idea that he's a capitalist when all his writings on GNU's philosophy page are far more compatible with a socialist system. But he's not the only one guilty of this, or other contradictory political thoughts.
As for the second article, well, that is the nature of the beast that is the internet. If you speak out in a forum where there are enough people, you're bound to get flamed by at least a few. It wouldn't matter if it was Linux, MacOS, Windows, BeOS, FreeBSD, or something non computer related. He even acknowledges that he did get help, so I'm not quite sure what his problem is. He should just ignore the flames, and use the useful information, rather than taking them personally.
And it hardly takes a genius to point out that zealots of all OS religions are pretty much the same. That's why they're called zealots, dammit! If he's going to judge the usefulness of the software, or even the quality of the "community" based on the rantings of a few quick to flame zealots, then he's going to come up with the wrong answer every time.
As for his thoughts on slashdot, well, since he calls it a Linux site (It's news for nerds: stuff that matters - which is a whole lot more than just Linux), I think he shows himself to be so ill informed that it doesn't even need a response.
There are things we can take away from these articles, but nothing that wasn't already known by a lot of people - that some people in the open source/free software community are too quick to flame, and also that some of our "celebrities" aren't perfect, and don't necessarily know everything about everything.
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
I read the article,
I read the talkback,
I read the essay on the "security hole" in open source.
By the same token this fellow should watch his back. His mechanic might put a bomb under his car just in case he doesn't pay up. His banks can be robbed by their employees, and his system administrators may design back-doors in his trusted networks.
After all the IE security holes, backorifice, the PGP exploits etc... this fellow has the gaul to say that a closed source system is immune to malicious backdoors? The only peer review closed-source seems to get is in backdoor exploits!
Excuse me while I kill my locksmith. He knows too much.
If he wants to make a point, he should at least place emphasis on the kind of subtle attacks which are possible. Unfortunately, I don't think he knows enough about computers to be able to recognize them.
I think I'll go put a floppy in my drive and "comprimize" my "top dog" access on my NT box. It is certainly harder to prevent than slipping backdoors into Linux.
(Damn, I've just wasted a half-hour of my life... oh well.)
I think some slashdotters are arrogant. Comes with the territory, like it or not. But while there is a kernel of truth here, in true ZDnet form, this is more FUD than Fact.
I think it would be more accurate to say that many in the technical community are looking for the Right Thing, both in coding practice, and in social convention. This doesn't suprise anyone one bit - except people new to the way things work around here.
--
The essence of his argument runs like this: the bad evil hackers can change system binaries because they have the source! ph34r them! Closed source systems such as NT are perfectly safe, because the evil bad hackers will never be able to install any malicious software.
I got news for you: your gate is only as secure as your gate-keeper. If you're afraid of your admin and how he might be corrupted by having all that source code lying around, you need to find a new admin. Here is the letter I sent him.
I must say respectfully, sir, that you have only a dim illumination of what you are talking about. As far as I can tell, the crux of your arguement against open source is that a person can recompile and install software with hidden trap doors. Please correct me if I am wrong.
To be able to install software (especially system software such as a kernel) on any normal Unix-like system, one must already have root access. How did one get that access? One is either already a trusted administrator (most likely) or one has "hacked" into the system by whatever method.
Let's look at the first scenario, and the one you seem to address most directly in your article. A person is able to modify critical system binaries because he or she already "legal" root access (they are the designated administrator of the system.) It is no big surprise that the administrator is able to easy do a wide variety of damage, both overt and subtle, on *any* machine, including closed source systems such as Windows NT. They do not need source code for this. They can just walk over to the machine hit it with a hammer, or simply rm -rf /. Or they could install their own version of sendmail that cc's everything to their inbox. Why? They are root. They can already do *anything* they want, read every users' files, and so on. Sure, having source code availible greatly simplifies some of the more subtle tricks. But not having it availible certainly doesn't mean the system is now secure even against a malicious administrator.
Regular users cannot do any of this kind of damage unless the particular system is hopelessly buggy or malconfigured. In which case they deserve to be hacked, as it will teach them a lesson. So, besides administrators and regular users, that only leaves outsiders who gain root access to worry about. Never mind how he got access ... maybe your sysadmin talks in his sleep, or maybe he just guessed passwords, or maybe he exploited a hole in network software. All systems, closed and open source, are vulnerable to "social engineering" hacks. And it has been well demonstrated that open-source systems are much more likely to get security holes patched in a timely and efficient manner. No matter what kind of system you have, if it is mission-critical, it pays to keep up with security announcements and updates.
Do you think not having source code availible will prevent a stranger who has root access from being able to do harm? Let's say I gain root access on a closed source system such as Windows NT. I then proceed to install my replacement login program that I wrote & compiled on my own system to *appear* to be the NT login manager. I now have everyone's passwords forwarded to my hotmail account. How is a closed source system more secure because the kernel source isn't availible?
You say:
How do you attack an open source OS? Find the rule that gets into your way and change it. Compile the program. And, install the new build. Simple and unlimited. And, possibly not detectable.
If someone can "install the new build" of system software, or install a hacked Windows explorer.exe they can F*CK you over no matter what. And if you don't trust your own system adminstrator, who can you trust? Find someone trustworthy or do it yourself.
You present no convincing arguements whatsoever. I wonder if you have ever administered a real system in a production environment. Your lack of insight into the way security works in the real world is astounding.
Thank you for your time,
Anonymous Coed (I sent him the email under my real name.)
Maybe I'm just a little wacked out, but I can understand where RMS comes from.
Language shapes how we think. By insisting on saying GNU/Linux RMS creates a mindset in the people who do it. I don't think it's an ego thing for RMS, I actually don't think he cares if he get's the credit, but he does want The Free Software Foundation and GNU Project to get credit, if for no other reason than to help promote their cause. (he dosen't want to call it RMS/Linux)
People do this sort of thing in general. We teach children not to swear. We in trying to promote equal rights take offense to the term Nig*er. We are right to do these things, for it is a positive change to be made in the society.
RMS is an idealist. Frequently people confuse idealism with immaturity. I think this happens because people start out more idealistic when they are young, and then become more cynical when they get older. When people encounter an idealist, they confuse if with youth (and immaturity).
I like RMS for his being idealistic.
This SHOULD NEVER be confused with his being immature. (just because the press is cynical dosen't mean that RMS should stop trying)
I find it quite humorous that RMS is frequently refered to waging a holy war, as he is an atheist.
But I can understand where he is coming from, he sticks to his principals.
So, if you agree with him, change your language. If you don't, be vocal in not saying GNU/Linux.
But stick to what you believe. Thats what's amazing about this group.. you stick to what you belive and focus on being productive, and working together on common goals. This is exactally what Christian Churches are unable to do, Ironic isn't it. Don't end up where the christian churches are!
In short: Stick to what you believe and go code!
("I am Religous, but I frequestly find my self respecting those who aren't, and what they say."
-Play on an RMS quote)
In any unorthodox movement such as OSS is, there is going to be a wide variety of people involved, from the overstating zealot to the timid, level-headed thinker. The problem we see here is not one of an overzealous and arrogant community, but one of perception. Because those who speak the loudest are heard the most, they are assumed to represent the whole, when they really only represent a small portion. I love Linux. I love it a lot. I probably love it more than I should, but I am not going to condone the actions of RMS simply because of who he is. He is human. He has done a great amount of good for the software world, but he makes mistakes. The biggest fault of the OSS movement that this exposes is not arrogance. It's that we are to ready to jump onto whatever bandwagon certain persons in the community create.
No matter what the world thinks of the maturity of the OSS movement, it's here to stay, and we all know that. Let's stop talking and prove it.
------------------------------
So, now that we are faced by an influx of PHB types, press, and other assorted newbies who aren't used to this sort of behaviour what should we do? Nothing. They will get used to it. In the meantime, the heated debate that goes on will shape our policies and make our world (and our software) better places to live and work in.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
One of the things that I always appreciated about the 'hacker' community, was that you simply couldn't establish yourself in it without the respect of your peers. The general perception that there was a desire for knowledge and a desire to share knowledge, along with a certain lack of respect for those who did not have that ideology, made for a place where one was judged by ones contributions and not by ones status.
The development of Linux and the free software movement has always seemed to me to be a culmination on the kind of G-File hacker/phreaker of the 80's, with the benefit of resources that allowed an international and inexpensive media upon which to frame our world-view. The end result has brought a commercially sound status to what was never truly a business concept. Political skill was NEVER a benefit in this case. You can be an asshole but if you are right, someone is going to know. If no one knows you are right, well you tried.
Now alot of people are "NAMES" which is often a dangerous position. I remember associating with NAME hackers and knowing that for some of them, the NAME was all they had. This is true in ANY community, where past achievement is rewarded. The person who founded X or created X or did X is remembered with respect no matter WHAT they contribute recently.
Not so with Hackers. Respect for knowledge and skill is always there, and we worship some of the same idols, but to sustain a name in a world in which anyone can take your intellectual contribution, and modify it and make it theirs, requires a certain sense of promotion either by ones own effort, or by others.
The fact is that when I choose a product, I rarely base my opinion on that product on the specific person who invented it or the person who made it. We rely on umbrella organizations, corporations, research institutes, to give a mark of quality.
In the case of the Slashdot world, the people arguing over such things as the merits of different licenses to some extent are a rarefied breed. The majority of linux users don't care about the legal ramifications of using software because they would have taken it whether the license permitted it or not. By showing source code, it is all over. The license be damned. The fact that the corporate world needs those licenses to contribute to the movement, and the fact that the corporate world is BUYING the concept that those licenses have some value and that equivalent licenses (Apples) with certain restrictions, will be honestly followed, is a bunch of SHIT. Once I have your source code, you have to prove I have it. The hacker outside of the US doesn't have any obligations. The only thing that prevents abuse is HONOR, and that is a case in which any LEGAL effort is immediately suspect.
Control of information is not truly possible. Just as Microsofts patent on use of XOR to allow proper rendering of an onscreen pointer is absurd, so is the licenses. Those who create this show of legalese with terms like free or open as the adjective are marketing. The news sees the marketeers, they see the hype, then they realize that those 'hyping' are not really altruistic, despite the common sense that says that NO ONE who fights for abstracts is truly altruic, then they are offended by arrogance, aggressiveness, a sense of cockiness, that was part of our community when the term hacker wasn't even used in movies, let alone in boardrooms...
Every piece of software I design I provide legal protection for MY right to reuse code I developped. I attempt to avoid stealing other peoples code, but I often learn techniques of coding by looking at source code. In the end, I protect myself.
That is the goal of most of the public voices, as far as the press is concerned. Most of us are just taking advantage of every resource we have, and our interest in being a public face on a community so self-interested is not there. We are too busy...
We contribute to the movement because when we find a solution to a problem, we contact others and let them have our fix. When we take someone elses work and make it prettier, we thank the person who gave us that original work by returning the effort. But it is all self-interest. We are all arrogant thieves, stealing from each other, and happily calling it freedom and openness. If the walls came down, we would grab all the free software before it stopped being free and would hide it and share it more carefully, but we wouldn't lose a step. We would simply develop technical methods of protecting ourselves where legal methods failed...
A bizarre little rant cause I think it is time to stop patting ourselves on the back. I have been programming for 20 years and I want to remind folks that Apple ][+ came with a reference manual with the entirity of the intellectual property of Apples chip design, rom design, and listings for their OS, and basic. Open source isn't new. I used to type in programs from magazines. We aren't special. We are lucky to have seen in 30 years a transformation of computers into community builders, from corporate slaves.
Lucky... Not better or special...
Any sense of arrogance was there from the begining. It isn't new, and it isn't controllable.
From what I see, Richard is asking for credit for the tremendous amount of work that many developers have put into the GNU project, often with little or no reward. All they ask for is recognition! Is this so hard to give?
/.'ers are arrogant, isn't that just the case of the pot calling the kettle black? I mean, often those reviewers aren't worth a grain of salt.
:-)
Richard's job is writing GNU code, with proceeds from talking. He gave a presentation on the GNU project a short while at my school (University of Waterloo) and he did come across as a very driven man. Driven by GNU? Driven by his ideals? Driven by his war against proprietary software? Driven insane? I'll not make that judgement. But I respect his views.
Personally, I view the name "Linux" as a short form for GNU/Linux. It means GNU software running under a Linux kernel. The name "Linux" is also easy to throw around verbally. Short and quick.
As to the opinion that many people in the {Linux,FSF,etc} community,
I wouldn't say arrogant. I'd say looking for recognition. After all, who would want to get recognition for writing that Windows crap?
M.
The Linux movement isn't just about Linux. It's not just about open sources and free software. It's a major change in the way information is perceived, in a social and political (as well as technical, of course) sense.
Technology changes fast. But social issues take decades to change, and political movements can take hundreds of years. We can't seriously expect human culture to keep up with technology... but people like RMS can help speed things up, and make change less painful.
Information wants to be free! (but is the world ready to let go?)
Linus and Alan and Dave and the rest of the kernel team get TONS of hacker points, because they are long on code and short on rhetoric.
The media keep asking Linus for sound bites, and he's very understated. That one of the things that the community loves about him.
ESR's output is historically high on code (I use fetchmail every day), but lately his code output has been overtaken by his rhetoric output. Word to the wise: In your own document, that points to people who have less respect in the community. Same goes for Bruce P. Guys, don't damage your rep like RMS has.
While I am very appreciative of all that RMS has done, his holier than thou attitude is getting a bit thin. RMS: Code some more.
Before you jump on my ass, NO I have not done major Open source works. A line or two in the kernel and 10 lines in xkeycaps.
-- Perl Hack, Web Hack, SQL Hack, Guitar Hack
Does everyone realize that this very discussion proves that OSS works? Do you think for a second that any place full of suits would be able to carry on about this? Wow, people holding thier social mores and ideas up to a mirror, and asking if they like what they see - no matter whom they are. Cool. A pat on the back all around ;-|.
Disscussing one's arrogance tends to soften it a little. Saying "I'm good at what I do" is somewhat arrogant, but if you've got the experience and accomplishments to back it up, people don't mind. Saying "I'm BETTER at what I do" tends to alienate people.
As far as RMS is concerned, he does seem to be immature politically - he should drop the GNU/Linux crusade, especially around corporate types (like reporters whose job it is to sel papers/magazines/web site hits etc.) who can readily ( and perhaps willingly) take him out of context. If he, actually any one who's extoling the virtues of OSS, is going into a pit of vipers, he'd better have some fangs too.
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
If anything, it should be considered a shallow learning curve -- for a given time period (delta- x ), the gain in proficiency will be minimal (a small delta- y ). Represented thusly (note: you may have to widen your browser to see the whole graph properly):
In reality, however, even this is somewhat misrepresentative. That's not the way people tend to learn any given product.
A "real-world" learning curve would actually have two focii, splitting the curve into 3 sections:
To wit:
Obviously, in this latter case, it is of little relevance to say whether or not the curve is "steep" unless you also mention what part of the curve you are referring to.
It is not alway correct to apply a generalization (the curve for such-and-such a product is steeper/shallower) to the curve as a whole. In the case of Linux vs Windows '9[58], for example, I belive that the initial part is much, much, much shallower (ie: harder to learn) for Linux, whereas once you get far enough along the curve, the second part becomes steeper (ie: easier to learn). Also, any comparaison is totally non-applicable to the third part, which is rather short and comes early in the case of Windows, but is much longer and comes much later for Linux.
Just my $0.02 worth (or by this point $2.00...?)
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
I would say that there is definitely some truth to the accusations. However, there are a LOT of posters on slashdot. If you just go by the ones that make the most noise or post the best flamebait, you're bound to get a bad impression. I think we're a lot more of a diverse community than that. Shoot, some
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
I have to admit, when I first started reading about RMS, I thought he was sort of a left-wing flake. BUT... On further reflection, I see how a passionate attitude such as his is a crucial ingredient to making something like GNU work.
At the same time, the way he has implemented the GPL is largely derived from practical considerations (at least that's how he describes it on fsf.org). No intellectually honest libertarian can find any fault with that document, or with the time and effort that he has devoted to the cause. In fact, much of the beauty of the GPL is that it relies on intellectual property rights to be enforceable.
He's really a living contradiction, and perhaps that's why I admire the guy so much. His leftish message rings true with a lot of people, it recognizes the inherently stressful relationship between a proprietary software publisher and their customers. But his solution for the perceived problem avoids the simplistic leftish approach of "pass a law to make it better."
The fact is, GNU needed somebody passionate and idealogical to get off the ground, and RMS filled that role perfectly. And to a certain extent, I feel for him, now that Linus is the new poster boy, the guy everybody (including me) would love to share a beer with. Linux without GNU would be fairly irrelevant, but RMS's eccenticities have pushed him and his GNU colleagues to the background, and, let's face it folks, that's gotta hurt. Shoot, fifteen years of creating software and giving it away, and this is the thanks he gets?
And you know, I'm as much a born-again capitalist as anybody, but I have to say, when I first went to install Linux on a second computer, it dawned on me... I don't have to enter a unique CD code to make it work, I don't have to buy a second license, I don't have to register in order to read the Knowledge Base, I don't have to accept a hundred license agreements everytime I update something. After years of reflexively worrying about that stuff, it's a *very* liberating feeling. I don't begrudge MS and such for doing things that way, but when it's not there, you suddenly realize just how nice it is not to have to deal with it. It has nothing to do with "freedom" in the way the word is used in the Constitution, but it *is* about freedom in a sense that the average person can relate to.
I think the fact that Free Software isues are debated openly makes disagreements SEEM larger.
Has anyone ever worked for a software company where there weren't serious disagreements over direction, features, etc.? Of course not. Can you imagine if members of the press where privy to every meeting in some of these companies? There would be non-stop articles like, "Serious battle at Abobe over licensing", "Microsoft divided over corporate direction".
The Free Software Community does not have one official designated spokesman to give reporters nice quotes that say everyone agrees and is happy. Instead, our discussions are open in forums such as slashdot. Any reporter (especially ones with FUD in mind) can grab an uninformed flame and quote it.
It's important for the public to understand that free software means input from EVERYONE. Of course there will be disagreements. That's a strength, not a weakness.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
No. Everytime I refer to that sucky piece of crap from Redmond, I don't have to call it Microsoft Windows 98. I call it windows. I don't have to call my mother by her full name either. I call her mom. I call my dishwasher a dishwasher, not Maytag Dishwasher model XEr74. Do you see my point here?
This is getting to be like the situation with hyphenated Americans, for crying out loud. No! He's not an Italian, or an American, he's an Italian-American! If you call him an American you are dishonoring his heritage and the contribution Italy made to his genetic makeup!
The fact that RMS thinks I need to call it GNU/Linux to pay homage to GNU and the FSF, that's just ridiculous. I have a great amount of respect for the GNU project. It's done more for computing than Microsoft ever has or will do. But I'm not going to call Linux GNU/Linux. First of all it's a mouthfull. Second of all, it sounds like a disease. Thirdly, there's no reason for me to do this. This is the computer equivalent of political correctness.
Every second he devotes to this little diatribe is a second he could be using to do something more worthwile. Even if he succeeded in getting people to start calling it GNU/Linux, what would be the point? It wouldn't accomplish anything.
This is all a huge waste of time.