Slashdot Mirror
ESR Wants to Retire
hexix writes "ESR
wants to
retire from his job, and he is looking for someone to take over."
Eric says the stress of being away from home, having too
little quiet time, and the community's reaction to him is
burning him out.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I'd like to ask why Linux needs to be in the mainstream. For me it was always the need for more hardware support. NDA's aren't very free software friendly. Just admit it. You people want Linux to kick Microsoft's ass. The "retirement" article even mentions Redmond. Linux doesn't need the mainstream to survive. Infact its my belief that Linux will do much better without the strive for the mainstream audience. Right now the Linux community is anything but one. If we quit pushing Linux things would get much better (look back about one year ago at the Slashdot comments). The only thing that Linux will get IMO is a loss of free software developers. Its great that we have advocates like ESR, but maybe he is advocating the death of Linux. Developers don't want to feel like their hard work is being abused by commercial companies. This will happen over time. Companies do not care about Linux, nor the community. If you have had any job in America then you would understand that companies (in America anyways) only care about one thing--money.
Anyways, lets quit advocating and get back to the community (the same one which creates a fake transparent xterm screenshot for looks--and later creates real transparent xterms. The one which created Wilber and Tux).
I agree, I've been using Linux for a year and a half only, and sometimes forget how Linux started. What made Linux so strong is the liberty of expression of it's community, but also it's good sense.
Sometimes I get the feeling that flamers think they have such a small role in the developpement of Linux that they rather flamer to get heard, since it's an easy way of getting noticed.
It's kind of like comparing Windows and Linux by saying "windows sucks".. it's an easy flame, but not a smart one. Linux rocks way more than windows can suck!
To get back to ESR, he knew how to prove that Open Source was benefic, and at the same time he was unintentionnally (at first) reprensenting a very large community. I mean, if he said stupid things, where would we be today?
Maybe we should create more documentation on how to adopt a flamer's perspective to the Linux-advocacy? (I know a HowTo exists, but not many flamers read it). I've started writing a little, but I write in french, and I'm not really good at it.
Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
Think about what his essay said - do you think you could do his job better? Free software would have probably still broken through without him at some point, but would it have done it as fast or as thoroughly as it has.
I certainly don't think I could do what ESR did better than he did it. Even though I disagree with many of the positions he took, I am surprised at how well he did what he set out to do.
Personally, I think the thought of a community this large having one spokesperson is silly. Take a closer look, and see that what might appear to the suits as one community is actually several communities with many common interests, and the idea becomes insane. I think that's why ESR started by evangelizing Open Source to business, but fell into the trap of evangelizing businesses to the various communities, it was the only way to wring something possible out of the herculean task he set out for himself. But we don't want to hear about all these corporations who want to be our friends, we just want to see more code under good licenses.
Rather than replace ESR, I think it would be best for all for him to retire back to coding, and his self-appointed position can fade quietly. If businesses want to come to us, that's fine there are plenty of people they can talk to, once they do their homework. I see no need for us to go out and attract businesses the way ESR wants us to do.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
> The Mozilla Organization would not exist;
Possibly... but it's the people who write/wrote the code that make the real difference.
> We would not be getting the press we are today;
Unfortunatly this is true. Perhaps the press will ignore us now.
>Numerous products, including Apple's OS X, would be fully proprietary
I'm unimpressed by Apple's "open source" operating system. The "open source" parts (mach, bsd stuff) were already "open source". What's so special bout that?
How can one man (or one organization) represent an eclectic group hackers/coders?
It's not possible. ESR turned off all the hackers that didn't like the mixing of free software and business. Open Source turn off those who thought it was too broad, and could be abused too easily... but it struck a chord of truth with many.
I believe (or maybe I hope) that each of us... all of us coders out there... will form their own beliefs, and who is right will always be up to debate.
A person out in the field, out posing as a representative to hackers, will always have critics. Some critics are flamers/etc/etc, but most aren't... they're hackers that disagree. Disagreement is allowed. What if there isn't one true way for everything?
I'd be much happier myself if all these people (notably ESR and RMS) would stop preaching for a while and let their ideas speak for themselves. It's hard to force a revolution.
As for me, I'll still be coding. My fame pales in the light of Linus or Richard or Eric, but does that make me less of a person? Less of a hacker? I'll still be coding with my friends, in real life, and online, maybe someday with someone who's reading this... but as long as I feel that what I'm doing what is right, then fame looks less important.
Now before you start flaming, realize something. That he wants to be there and works hard at being there is not a bad thing. In fact, it's inevitable. Someone will take that position if it's open. This time it happened to be someone who has been around 'the bandwagon' for a while. It easily could have been someone who just hopped on. I know none of you would ever admit it, but I'm fairly certain most of the people reading this first heard of ESR through his 'evangelizing', not his coding. If someone else had gotten in early and started making big noise with the corps, it really wouldn't have mattered who they were as long as they sounded good and provided a focal point.
Now, I'm really not sure how tongue-in-cheek this little essay is (more than a little, I'd wager), but it does make a couple of good points. That you have to want to be in that position. And once in that position you're a huge target. So when you screw up (and you will; we're all human) the napalm will flow. It really is part of the territory. There's no doubt in my mind that ESR knows that, and is willing to live with it. No doubt he's really feeling it right now, and wanted to vent a little. No prob.
Just keep in mind that whether you like him or not, or agree with him or not, he or someone like him is going to be in that position. It's How Things Work(TM). So those of you who don't like Eric Raymond, Open Source Frontman, keep the flames coming and maybe he'll change his behavior more to your liking, or maybe he'll leave and let someone else take over. But those of you who just don't like having a frontman, IMNSHO you're wasting your time. The question isn't whether there will be someone who professes to speak for the community; the question is only who it will be.
But, is anyone ready to take on the responsibilities ESR has? I think he's saying, "If you want my job then come take it."; if not then let me do it the best way I can.
I may not agree with everything he says or does but I find I agree more than not. We can debate his decisions without personally impuning him.
As for ESR, I've got a word or two for you. We need someone with your experience - just don't expect us to follow blindly - we are peers not subjects. Whether or not something is Open Source or not will be decided by logical and informed debate - not by one person.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I use to support a lot of what Mr. Raymond was doing, providing guidance to corporations on how to get into this groovy 'open source' stuff that was totally happening. The NPL, whose final status as a free software license, can be at least partially attributed to him (were others very involved? I can't remember). I am looking forward, in a big way, to Netscape 5.
As time has passed, however, he has felt the need to engage in more self-promoting behavior to keep his position, until he was doing as much self-promotion as actual work. I think the new Apple license is the final thing that made him lose acceptance with a lot of free software and open source advocates.
In my opinion -- and it's apparently an opinion shared by many here -- the APSL is a marketing hijink and a joke. Although Mr. Raymond supports it as Open Source (which is his right), it is very clearly not free software, since among other things it can't be used in other code, even personal changes are controlled by a central corporation, etc.
I certainly have questions about whether the job Mr. Raymond has been doing needed filled -- I use proprietary software, and I'd rather know I was using proprietary software than thinking it was free -- but more importantly, I think that if the job is going to be filled, the applicant needs to avoid being used as a marketing tool.
I'm afraid that I think that's what has become of Mr. Raymond -- a company can apparently now manage to compromise the community from which Mr. Raymond hails, with his support and belief that it is helping the community.
Here's to your ideals, Mr. Raymond, and I'm sorry we live in a world where they are compromised.
--Matthew
I think that the person who would take ESR's job be a "top notch coder" is important. The reasons are that the person:
;)
* should be respected by those they're advocating
* should have a proven track record of believing in the principles they represent, and not just be in it for the fame
* should be able to answer specific questions if visiting a company they're spreading the gospel to with authority (eg., "In my experience with that..." means more than "I'm here to promote this at all costs, regardless if it would benefit you" to the person you're speaking to)
* needs to understand the underlying concepts of software development, because open source [tm] is about software development, after all..
Beyond that, I think the programmer has more personal interest in the matters (for instance, when discussing licenses, the programmer can consider "Would I actually want go for this as a developer, or is this just hype").. Also, as a proven achiever, they are less likely to whisper to the corporate head "You can probably get away with making this less free, but you didn't hear it from me...", in order to show "fruits" of their labors.
By no means do I think only coders should be able to advocate the concept, however. I agree non-programmers can be great at reprsenting us. The problem is, if they get elevated too far, what keeps them honest? If you're highly visible, you *will* get flamed. For instance, RMS is not going to go away, and, neither are his followers, so I think we can count on anyone out making compromises in the name of Open Source [tm] will find an endless stream of opposition. I think it's far too likely for someone with no vested interest as developers to turn around spout dirty laundry over the whole thing. And, if you've got a way with words and are photogenic, a lot of people are going to listen.
What's the whole point of open source?
To increase the amount of freely available source code, to increase personal freedom throughout the industry and to increase the rate of innovation.
*promoting* open source is a periphery activity...If it becomes our main activity, then we've become a parody of the sad "marketechture" that corporations spew out in order to sell their products.
In the world at large, RESULTS matter. In the business world it's "SHOW ME THE MONEY". In the hacker world it's "SHOW ME THE CODE". This priniciple is the decicive factor in most subjective disputes. It explains why Linus is good at running the kernel - got an idea? Show him the code.
The truly sad thing are the people who insist on moving AWAY from "technical superiority" as the end deciding factor. KDE vs. GNOME is a sad example of this (because BOTH ARE FREE - yet people continue to wage war over it). So many people are wrapped up in their own personal crusade to be noticed that they don't realize they are NOT contributing to things, they're just spinning their wheels and making lots of noise.
We have to be honest with ourselves. If you want your voice heard (beyond Slashdot's forums), you should prove your contribution to this community, either through opened code OR documentation (for those that can't code).
Show me results, not talk.
-Stu
Firstly, I'll state that I don't mean to sound negative about ESR, although I disagree with his views on a large number of issues, and also the way he often went about his "role" as "open source advocate", I'm sure he did what he thought was best, and life is nasty that one can't go back and try things differently to see whether other ways would have infact been better.
:)
But, assuming for the moment that we do need to have someone in the "open source advocate" role, my question is why is being a top notch coder a requirement?
I realise that some of the people involved in open source may not accept a non-coder, or even someone with only average coding ability. But why not? To me it makes perfect sense.
There are hundreds of people who can't code but would like to contribute something useful. These people DO have much to offer. They're often better public speakers, or writers, or have better people skills, or are better managers, etc, than most coders. So why should we insist that they must be a top notch coder to represent the interests of open source?
I think the best way forward is to free the people who's primary interest is in writing code from the responsibilities of these sort of "advocate" positions. There are plenty of people out there who have more time, are more willing, and are just plain better qualified to do those things. By letting the people who like to code just code, then we get more code written, which can only be a good thing.
The free software/open source message affects everyone, not just those writing the code. Computers are such a big part of modern life that to suggest only the "nerds" have any interest in their future is foolish. And what better way to reach out to the vast majority of people in the world who are not coders than to have people who are in a similar position explain what open source is about to them? Seems far more sensible than to send some computer geek, as lets face it, coders don't have a reputation amoungst the general community as someone you'd want to listen to or read about.
If a celebrity wants to write a book, they usually get a ghostwriter to assist them. If I want to build a house, I get an architect to draw up the plans. So why shouldn't the "coders of the world" who are interested in open source software be happy to have someone who's more qualified to speak on their behalf? Or do we find that concept just too threatening?
I guess I'm an exception to everything I just said above though, because I'm a programmer who'd rather be spend more time in philosophical debates and discussion, and less time coding. Though I'd never want to take on the role ESR had. But I do think the discussion that goes on in the open source world is at least as important as the code itself, and hence that's where my dislike for the idea of measuring everyone by what code they've written comes from. Each opinion starts out equal, it's up to the words the speaker uses to prove or disprove it, NOT who the speaker is.
Qualifications, Smalifications. You don't have to be qualified to be right, and being qualified doesn't prove that you're right. It can help in reaching a position where you have the knowledge to be right, though.
So in brief, I think what we should look to is a future where ESR's sucessor doesn't need to be a "hacker" like he was. In fact, I for one am hoping they're not.
"Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal." - Supertramp, The Logical So
One of the things I have seen so many times with the internet and the free software community is that sometimes the most "devastating" loses, end up being just a "short term" problem.
When the net lost ihnp4, we didn't get another major site that handled a large percentage of the email, we got a dozen less important sites that actually worked better. The transition was painful, but not fatal. The end result was a much more resilient system that had a total capacity far greater than ihnp4.
When Rich Adams stopped developing BNews, two groups of developers tried to fill the void. One worked on BNews 3.0, I forget their names. The other group developed CNews. When Henry Spencer stopped developing C-News, Rich $alz kind of replaced him with INN. It wasn't an exact replacement, but the result couldn't really be said to be worse, it was just different. Now a days, usenet is quickly being replaced by the web and things like slashdot. They aren't the same as Usenet, but I don't think they are worse.
I can think of a dozen people who fit most of the criteria that ESR spelled out, and the criteria that they don't meet would probably mean that they would just perform slightly different jobs, instead of being an exact replacement for ESR.
So, I have a great deal of hope that if ESR, RMS, Linus, Alan, Rob, et al stopped doing what they are doing, that the void they leave would be filled, sometimes with a much better system. In particular, if ESR stops doing what he is doing, I think he will be replaced by many people, all having to do a smaller job, all giving a broader range of views of the OSS community, none of them as likely to burn out. I have hope, and I have history to back up that hope.
Still, losing ESR would be a very real lose. I don't wish for him to go any more than I wish for Linus, RMS, et al to go. I think it would be very wise to think about our actions to all of these people, and for people far less famous. Why should anyone get the flames that RMS, Bruce Perens, or ESR get? They are not evil. I don't even think they are misguided. In fact, I think they are better guided than most of the rest of us.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.
What I really don't want to see is a public relations committee without a figurehead. (The last thing this community needs is another committee.) I personally hope that Mr. Raymond makes a comeback, but until then, God help the poor media as it tries to understand the leanings and dynamics of today's code hackers.
I hereby nominate Cmdr Taco as spokesman. He doesn't have enough to do. No, wait. Perhaps then Jon Kat-- Oh, I can't even finish that joke. Alas. Goodbye, Mr. Raymond.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Well, I read "the job" requirements as described by ESR, and... hey, what a coincidence! They describe ESR's resume to a tee!* In fact, I can't imagine "the job" being done by anyone with any different background whatsoever! Wow. Self-serving is as self-serving does, I suppose. But rather than just sling easy mud, perhaps we should look in earnest at what "the job" does require, now that someone says they're vacating the position. Most of what ESR laid out is still useful, though he might just as well have added: open to criticism, charismatic, and experienced with grassroots organizing/politics. But then... Anyway, I nominate Miguel de Icaza. It doesn't take CNNfn to acheive world domination, when MTV will do just as well. Here's to version 2. * Actually, I never bought that "anthropology/sociology/psychology" line. "Cathedral" wouldn't last two minutes in front of soc sci peer review.
I am not a big believer in ad hominem discussions. The merit of a position stands and falls on its own validity, not on who says it. I preface my comment with this statement, because in general I work very hard in my postings to stick to the ideas not the people behind them. But since Mr. Raymond laid down the ad hominem gauntlet in this latest letter, I have no choice to respond in kind.
/.) dare to attack his positions, then he's going to take his toys and go home.
It is true, that people relate to people more than to abstract ideas. So any political or philosophical position needs a spokesperson to have it spread and be accepted in a broader forum.
Anyone who takes on that role, must be prepared for all the aspects that go with "spokespersonhood". A good part of that is being criticized, fairly or not, not just for what you say, but how you say it and what you do. It's part of the territory. Those who are being "represented" can justifiably hold their leaders to a higher standard. For if you are going to speak in MY name (especially if I didn't choose you to do so), then you damn well better be equal or better than me, in every way. A leader should be a source of inspiration, someone people look up to, not someone who shames us by their words or actions.
Unfortunately, many, if not all leaders, become totally identified in their own minds with their ideas. They take attacks on their positions as personal attacks. It is very hard to avoid this egotistical disease.
In fact, in the world of free software, the ONLY leader who so far has managed to avoid this, and given his nature probably always will, is Linus Torvald. Nick Peterley compared him to Tom Bombadil - a man over whom the ring of power has no influence. What an apt description. Linus is in fact a holy man, an exceptional human being whose ego is just the right size.
Eric Raymond, however, isn't. It is clear from this latest diatribe that the fact that many people strongly disagreed with calling the Apple APSL as open source, got his goat. He took the attack on Apple as a personal attack on himself. I read alot of the discussions. There were lots of strong opinions, but very little that can be characterized as ad hominem attacks on Raymond as such. His reaction in this letter can only be characterized as pitiful for a man who wants to be a leader.
In this "response", Mr. Raymond has resorted to the cheapest of demagoguery. The sad part is that so many people fell into his trap. Basically, what Raymond is saying in his letter is I am a god and anybody who criticizes me is a worthless ingrate. Instead of responding to the merit of the arguments against his positions, Mr. Raymond resorts to threats and insults to silence those who disagree with him. In a fit of pique worthy of a four year old, he says that if those worthless little ingrates (presumably on
Quite frankly, I am willing to bet anyone on this list that Raymond isn't going home so fast. It is quite clear from his letter that he enjoys the "face time" (what an ugly expression) with such "luminaries" as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos, and all the other "perks". Well good for him. But that shouldn't stop anyone from standing up and speaking the truth when the truth needs to be said, even if that truth is uncomfortable for a man who just exposed himself to the world as being egotistical, childish and unworthy of leading an intellectual revolution as important as the free software movement.
Remember all those /. articles you've read that had quotes from ESR? Their easy to remember because they almost always mention that Eric wrote "Cathedral and the Bazaar". Nearly everyone knows who wrote that paper.
And yet he didn't list being able to write as one of his qualifications. Even so he's already (26 comments so far), getting flamed for that list. Despite forgetting that you should be able to write too, he still gets flamed!
Fat chance finding anyone to replace him! It's hard enough to find a great coder, let alone one willing to work for free. And then ask that he be good at speaking in front of large audiences! Hehe. Suuuuuuure. No problem. Oh, and can he be creative and write really well too?
Don't think that he needs to be replaced? That's what I thought too. But we all know that just because you make a great product doesn't necessarily result in winning the game. And up until ESR retirement I'd just taken it for granted all those quotes and speaches. Now too late I understand the need. Hopefully enough of the people that flamed him before will too.
This kind of excrement is worth refuting...
Open Source and Free Software has come to a point where mainstream press would have noticed it. It is vital that people get in there and provide facts and refute all the FUD out there.
The Micro$hafts of the world have a large number of spin doctors that there entire job is to help solidify their position. Free Software/Open Source? Only the self-propelled, self-proclaimed, arrogant guys are willing to step forward. Thus ESR climbed to the top. I hope another as self-assured as he rises to the top.
Gordon
It's easy to feel sympathy for ESR for the grief he gets from hormone-hyped adolescents, as he describes it.
But in generalising about the source of criticism in this way, he fails to recognize and accept that there might be valid criticism out there as well.
For example, none of the reasons ESR cites as generating criticism bother me at all, yet one that he doesn't cite I find very important: his continual negativity regarding RMS, FSF, GNU and everything in that general neck of the woods.
If ESR did just as he writes in his essay and was an entirely positive embassador then I would support him totally. But I find it hard to support people whose visible strategy is to knock other well-regarded folk in the movement at every opportunity.
We don't need an either-or scene here. The success of free software and open source rests on everyone building upon everyone else's valuable efforts, ie. cooperation and not confrontation. Ambassadors need to be positive.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
This is likely the worst news I have heard this year, maybe since I started using Linux a year and a half ago. Not being blind, I can see the damage that the unyielding bad attitude towards variation can do. I try my best to not tolerate intolerance at our LUG meetings and inspire conversation. People who believe that any philosophy other then their own is wrong will only bury us. "Us" being the people who want to share the knowledge that there are many better ways than the status quo, that anyone can choose.
Choose being the key word.
The friendly press are going react negatively, and the negative press are going to rip, Linux, GNU, and open source wide open with this. Many of those people who could benefit from Linux and open source stuff and are yet unaware of it's virtues could will be further alienated.
I hope it is not to late to keep Eric, but if it is to late, perhaps we could learn somthing from this.
That treating people's varying philosophies about things like "what open source is" like they are morally wrong, will only make the rift larger. Fight that kind of ignorance like you are fighting a bloody war, and only then do we stand a chance.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I don't think they're so much ignred as much as not acted upon. It is the lurkers in the shadows that hold the real power here in their voices that are so often not used. Even a short letter of thanks to a developer or a service provider (say slashdot or freshmeat) can and does make a difference. I've submitted a small peice on this and I'll try to write a few more on other topics as well maybe they'll get posted. Some things that hide in the shadows need to be brought into the light alittle more.
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
Slashdot Longhairs flame ESR for trying to make a point. I can see it now. Amazing that the guy has feelings. You'd almost think he was human or something.
I mean is it really to much to ask that makers of software and people doing a service to the open source community not be flamed at every turn or even thanked once in ahwile? is there so little respect that we can't atleast recognize another for their achievments and actions?
At what point does the ego take a back seat and we try to work toghether? why should an idea be a reason to totally discredit a person? I have an idea. instead of flaming try to make your points of disagreement known and if you don't have any points to say don't say anything you'll help your self in the end by showing your intelligence is above that of a 12 year old who just got a new computer.
"We want to take over the world, but we don't want to do it tomorrow, it's OK if it's next week"-- Linus Torvalds
"The pack of Slashdot flamers?" - i.e. anyone who didn't like ESR? A lot of the flack ESR got was well-deserved - the APSL clearly wasn't open source, for example. I'm not really all that unhappy about him retiring - all the other FS/OS leaders are known for brilliant work on FS/OS projects - RMS/(GCC, EMACS, GNU), Linus/Linux, Larry Wall/Perl, ect. ESR's biggest project was Fetchmail, and he really isn't know for that.
Many of us have been banging on about the benefits of open source code (as opposed to totally free software) for some time, but it was ESR who stuck his head out, took the flak, and stuck the phrase "Open Source" on the map.
The two things to learn from ESR are: free software, if it's to be adopted more widely, needs a "mainstream" image, even if that image is a little off-beat, and secondly, you have to build that image without alienating the people you're trying to help - many of whom may want their software how it is, and don't care whether it's embraced by a wider world.
First, let me say: when you hitch the trailer to the tractor, it's the kingpin that takes the stress.
Second: who asked ESR to promote the open-source community and concept? Well, some people expressed an interest, and he stepped up to the plate. I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT! You see a need, you fill it! Hello?!? Isn't that what every reactionary "corporations suck, free software rules" author here espouses -- solving problems?
I dunno. Here I was thinking that the people who were really into free software believed that if you don't like something, do it better instead of whining. So why is it I hear nothing but whining from people who don't like what ESR is doing, instead of seeing some fuckin' action?
Foul language? Crude expressions? Yes -- there's a reason, I'm pissed at the hypocrites who stand around badmouthing ESR without doing a damn thing to improve the situation themselves.
Flames to garrett@memesis.org, slashdot can do without your 2-bit opinion of me.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
I loved what ESR had to say. He summed up everything that I hate about the well-intentioned-yet counterproductive "advocacy" that is so popular these days. Note to newly-converted linux fans: sometimes you can do more damage than good with your hollering and chest-beating.
When you feel like backseat-driving, just ask yourself "What have I ever done that makes me such an authority on this subject? Why must my voice be heard?"
Remember, linux was built from the effort of hundreds of fallible, flawed humans. Many of them are justifiably proud of their accomplishments. If you hassle them, they just might take their efforts elsewhere.
I'm here today when companies like Creative Labs are just now waking up to to Linux, through the help of those TLAs you disdain. There are still a large number of mfgrs out there that aren't convinced that Linux is worth their time, and they won't be until it is more 'mainstream'.
One point that's worth remembering is that most of us are more directly exposed to ESR's self-promotion and general promotion of OSS than the people he actually targets. That's because his targets are busy reading generic trade rags such as the Wall Street Journal and are getting bombarded by far more marketing from a wider set of angles than most of us. In contrast, the average hacker gets his news from finely tuned websites and Usenet groups with appropriately configured killfiles, filters, etc..
A great many people I know in the open/free/whatever software world try to isolate themselves from the general marketing thrash 'out there', carefully filtering what they're presented with using kill files, spam blockers, staying away from TV, etc. As a result, ESR represents a much larger blip on our radar screen than the radar screens of corporations at-large. This is a natural side effect of the hackers' desire to control the relevance of information in their lives.
The result is that ESR appears as a tireless self promoter, and the hacker community ends up proving that it's not so tireless in its ability to put up with this seemingly non-hacker behavior. That's why I believe ESR comes across so strongly to everyone in the hacker community -- he's cranked the wattage so the suits can see him at all, but he's overpowering our receivers as he does it because we haven't learned when to tune him out.
Don't let ESRs high-wattage broadcasts regarding OSS overpower you. Just because you're not immersed in Microsoftia all the time doesn't mean the suits he's trying to sway aren't.
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Agreed. It is a shame that usually the ones that posses the loudest voices are the ones with the smallest brains.
When people in the Linux community start thinking before they start speaking, much more good will come of it.
in fact he said this when the whole 'open source' thing started; that he was extroverted enough to be the outspoken advocate he has been, but that he didn't want to do it for very long. so this shouls really come as no surprise.
I think of all the people, we should look at what Martin Lopez has done for not only the Open Source Movement, but for all of humanity as well. If we are to seriously interact with the "suits" we need Lopez's mild-mannered, yet persuasive peronality as well as all of the contacts he has made over the years.
ESR is being rather subtle and kind in his resignation paper, but it comes across - at least to me - that much of the reason he is resigning from his community-appointed post as Senator from the Bazaar is heckling from those he represents.
As this brilliant communicator fades into the background, I ask you to ponder where the Open Source movement would be were it not for the actions of this one man. To prod your mind, I list a few likely probabilities:
Tip your hat to your departing representative. Don't try so hard to alienate the next one.
Before you dismiss this message because of its length or because of the headings, or even because of the bluntness of the first paragraph, I would like you to know that this message is composed, not just written in a fit of rage
ERIC'S FAUX PAS
I concur with other readers who have inferred that Eric's harangue is an attempt to impugn and silence his critics by augmenting, through clever prose, the stature of his achievements and the relevance of his qualifications. Evidently, he has no immediate plans for abandoning the role to which he appointed himself; of that there is no doubt in my mind. So far, we had been quite willing to let him play "leader of the (moderate) hackers"; whether we thought that he did a good job or that he was merely a tolerable annoyance, most of us (I think) believed that he was not and could not be harmful. It is interesting that his papers warn of the cruel fate that will befall members of the community who bestow honors upon themselves (whether humbly or flagrantly, deservingly or otherwise) because his actions are not consistent with the wisdom he professes. I think most of us could forgive his mistakes if he were to admit to having made them, graciously and without reservation; this is what other highly visible members of the community do, and that is why they are able to remain highly visible and relevant. I am sure Eric must have written this somewhere, too; perhaps he has forgotten.
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE (AN OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON)
After the fashion instituted by Eric and other evangelists, I would like to take advantage of this latest episode in the ESR saga to propose that we consider the following questions:
The first question is almost irrelevant: whether or not we need spokespersons, we already have several; we should instead ask ourselves whether we want even one of them to be able to claim that he or she speaks on behalf of a majority of us. Indeed, an "official" spokesperson should be able to issue statements that represent the views of the community; in order for this authority to be derived from the community, he or she would have to have its confidence, unambiguously and certifiably, which would in turn require that we devise formal election (and disavowal) processes. This all seems undesirable at best and terrifying at worst; the will to a system, someone said, is a symptom of a lack of integrity. I believe that the present system, if we can call it that, in which leaders are not elected and in which every pronouncement by even the most visible individuals is subject to ruthlessly democratic scrutiny, is flexible and (thanks to the Internet) scalable; what I mean is that the present way of doing things, which looks a lot like a lack of a system, exhibits the virtues of being adaptable in real time and of providing for nearly optimum accountability by design. Or, should I say, "lack of design"?
CENSORSHIP OF THE "LEADERSHIP"
Of course, this position begs the consideration of ancillary issues like these:
Eric is correct in pointing out that a lot of people do not understand our (his?) culture, and so one could make the case that it is important to correct the misperceptions that individuals whose views do not represent those of the community might contribute to the mainstream; this includes Eric, of course. Obviously, in the model I advocate, it is impossible and undesirable for the community to arrive at, let alone issue publicly, a single position censuring an individual; one viable alternative, already in practice, is this: let every individual member be responsible and contribute, according to his belief, to the defense or downfall of the individual in question. While I cannot conceive of a likely scenario in which an individual would incur the unanimous wrath of the community, I have seen several instances of censure so brutal that the individual had to withdraw from public life, effectively censoring himself/ herself. In any case, I pity he who were the object of such a dispute; I hope Eric will recover from this round of beatings (and from the soft living to which he alludes) and return to hacking as soon as possible - if that is really his wish.
NO OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSONS
I believe that we do not need an official spokesperson, and that we already enjoy the leadership (sometimes quiet and sometimes not so quiet) of several individuals, each of whom unquestionably represents a non-negligible fraction of the community, namely:
I know that I've left out many people, even important people, out of this list; these are just the people whom I perceive as having the authority to represent a "non-negligible fraction" of the community. Allow me now to digress for a moment. Amongst these people, Larry Wall is probably the least controversial figure, and therefore most likely (in my eyes) to speak "on our behalf" without triggering flame wars and without undermining our credibility. Do I think Larry should take Eric's place? No, and I suspect you don't either. Nobody should take Larry's word as gospel (and I mean Larry's, rather than that of the Author of his story), nor is it his wish that anybody should. I also can't see Larry embarking on a tour of corporate offices preaching the excellence of our software products.
THE RETURN OF ERIC, THE HACKER
So, where was I? Ah, yes. As I was saying, there already are individuals who, without devoting their lives to the task, issue occasional pronouncements that can be construed as the voice of a significant fraction (sometimes a majority) of the community. I think this is already good enough. I would even say that this is the best we can ask for. If politicians had fulfilling lives outside the scope of politics, we might be better off. Eric is a politician, and this is one of several reasons why he is not fit to speak on my behalf; whether he speaks on behalf of somebody else is not my business, of course, but I suspect that others have reached similar conclusions. A politician thinks in fairly simple terms; he understands that his career hinges on people's willingness to take sides, perhaps more than it does on the particular beliefs of the people whose support he seeks. I reject this premise; I reject Eric's worldview. I would even suggest that we do not need to present a single "face" to the rest of the world in order to thrive; in fact, I think we stand a better chance of persuading others that our way is also valid if we present ourselves as a diverse community in which dissent is tolerated and even encouraged. Eric has a low tolerance for dissent, and this renders much of what he says suspect in the eyes of many, myself included; more importantly, it renders him, by his own definitions, a stranger to the community of which he claims to be a member. Eric has a right to expect gratitude from us; he does not, however, have the right to demand it. Perhaps Eric, the anthropologist, should tell Eric, the politician, to turn over his folders to the FSF, or SPI, or even Larry, and get reacquainted with Eric, the hacker; it is a much less glamorous life but, according to Eric, the philosopher, a much more rewarding existence. I think Eric has thrown down the gauntlet before himself, not before us; at his most lucid, he would have seen that. I want Eric, the hacker, to come back. Take it away, Eric, the Open Source leader!
While ESR can be somewhat annoying at times, he has still done quite a bit. He is one of the few people that has pushed the open source movement into the mainstream, and attempted to make contacts with the corporate world. I mean, he IS open source. The question really is, who could take this over? Almost anyone who I could think of fails at least one of the qualifications set down by ESR.
It's going to take someone with guts to stick their neck out for a cause that is only popular in a relativly small circle.
Would you do it for some scoobie crack?
I've got to agree. There's not a mention of retirement in this whole essay. Reads more like, "if you think you can do all this better than me, then do it". And judging from some of the responses that I've read here, all of ESR's venom seems justified. When I first read the "resignation letter", I had a good chuckle, but after the Slashdot response, the dead seriousness underlying the humor is pretty obvious.
The link was not really plagiarism by ESR.
It was a parody by me.
(That seems to have slipped by a few people)
If you can meet these quals, please tell me and take my job now. I want you to have it. I need someone else to take it before I burn out. Show me competence and I'll back you to the hilt. I'll hand you all my press contacts, make whatever introductions are needed, and disappear offstage so fast your head will spin.
He's going to retire when he finds a suitable replacement. That's the best date that any responsible person would give.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
So when all hardware goes proprietary, and Linux will only work on old hardware, and the world demands that you live and work in it, what will you do? If you don't shape the world to your ideals, the world will shape you to it's ideals.
If the Linux "community" keeps silent, and lets the world go to hell, and everything becomes proprietary and corporations own everything but the equivalent of some hobbyists commodore64s in their basement, what will we do? If we stand silent and watch the world degenerate, what good will Linux be? If we silently give consent to information being as hidden as possible, what good will Linux be?
As Eisenhower said, "People who value their priveleges above their principles soon lose both." If we just sit the corner and do our own thing, what will we do when the hardware that we are running fails, and their are no open replacements? What will we do when everything is proprietary, and corporations own the world?
People have civic responsibility, even if they don't like to admit it. No one should have what they do belittled because "it was their duty". I'd never be ungrateful to Linus and claim that he did no more than his duty. But where would he be if he never started Linux? And if *BSD was never written?
If we don't try to leave the world a better place than we found it, we're pretty much guaranteed to leave it a worse place. Of course, given a fiarly large lifespan, like thirty or fourty years, we'll probably get to live in a good portion of the decay that we didn't prevent. If we make nothing good, what will we do when we look for good things? When the rivers are going to overflow their banks, we must shore them up, or we will drown. The corporate rivers are poised to overflow their banks. Shall we sit by minding our own business and be drowned in them?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
I think he admitted in this essay that his judgement is not as sharp as it once was, given the job he has to do and the stresses that come with it.
It's true that he's responded to some things that may have been well-considered differences of opinion as personal attacks. But he's also taken a lot of flak that was just mean-spirited personal attacks, before he did anything that deserved much disagreement. I know things like that can get to wear on you - after a while it gets hard to tell the difference.
Think about what his essay said - do you think you could do his job better? Free software would have probably still broken through without him at some point, but would it have done it as fast or as thoroughly as it has.
You have *got* to be kidding. I guess it's because I read his columns for years in InfoWorld and I know his schtick. Petreley is an honest guy and not a bandwagon-jumper, but he is prone to over-reaching in search of a grabber headline and frankly, his understanding of the free software/open source world is shallow.
As anyone could tell from his talk at Linux World, I'm afraid to say . . .
-------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
You want him to go away, but he just stays longer.
You say you can't stand the song he sings, but it runs around your head and you hear it everywhere he goes.
You hated it when he switched from acoustic to electric, but you bought the albums instead of listening to them at your friend's house.
You said he was a jerk, a publicity hound, a copycat, a has-been, a never-was, but he got to perform worldwide.
You applauded when he retired and then begged him to come back in the next breath, but he was never gonna retire anyway.
------
I can't say whether ESR will be *the* troubadour of open source, but what he's done so far reminds me of this:
Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.
--------
Bill Gates Is My Evil Twin.
It's hard to understand WHY people in this community are so bent on getting corporations to embrace oss, if you forgot that some of use don't want to live in a world with:
-hardware released with proprietary windoze-only drivers, and no available specs
-NT servers that we can all go to work and pull our hair out over, because that's what the boss bought
-near-monopoly in the os market from a certain empire
-winmodems
wait, that's where we live right now! Except because of the efforts of people like esr, businesses are moving the other way. Sure, free software will get better regardless, but some of us would like to also use it at WORK. And sooner, rather than later. Ok, so ESR hasn't improved linux *lately* (he did code a lot - more than most of us) but his job now, as he calls it, is important in its own way. So what if he promotes himself? Don't forget that he was instrumental in Netscape's freeing of the code.
And if you, for whatever reason, genuinely don't care whether or not companies embrace linux, please respect the fact that some of us do. Raymond isn't trying to pervert 'the cause', and, though I don't know him, I would guess that his goal is not to boost his ego.
Guys, he's one of us.
Vidi, Vici, Veni
I must agree wholeheartedly... it's amazing the extremes people can go to.
It's really kind of tragic to see how people in the Linux community, which is centered around one of man's greatest (imho) achievments of idealism, generousity and unselfishness, can often be so petty and quarrelsome (and nasty) - not just about this but many other issues as well.
This equality of enterprise is bigger than any one individual. This movement is moving on, and like any tempest that ravages the land, it will eventually disipate into a thousand other things, but will have left its indellible mark. These marks will mostly be things that people did, like write an operating system, or herald a cause, or start a foundation, or bring a community together via a website.
We the supporters of the open source community need heroes, and we need these heroes to help carry the message to the masses. I feel like it is to our benefit to have as many heroes in the public eye as the public will have. For this I hope that as ESR redefines his role in this community we will be capable of supporting new people who can carry our message to the masses. Just like the kernel is now too big for Linus, ESR is telling us that the soapbox is too big for the current crew. From one perspective, this presents a unique and interesting problem that some of us will find inviting, and will want to attack. At risk of drawing too many parrallels with kernel development, we should be concerned that we don't present too many interfaces that won't stand the test of time. Having trusted focal points for the press and others will ensure credibility. So while ESR says that he would leave the stage I would hope that there would be a happy medium.
bnf
p.s. Anyone here realize that Microsoft's Stock has reached an inflection point, signalling that the rate of increase has stopped growing. This is generally caused by a stock reaching its market cap or by an encroaching competitor gaining market share. They know what's happening, and we've begun to see the FUD roll out with finer craftsmanship. This is the time when we should stand strong as a community and intelligently communicate our messages.
this space intentionally left blank (oops)
Despite our attempts to conquer the world, the Open Source Movement is still not quite there yet, and I think I know why.
Because everybody who represents it is ugly.
I mean, think about it. ESR? He looks like a stuntman from "Erik the Viking". Richard Stallman? Guy gives me the creeps. Linus Torvalds? The man is practically a penguin himself. And I'm not going to get into the older generation - Ken Thompson and the gang. Sheesh.
Yes, I know that none of the representatives for Microsoft and the other big corporate bullies is very good-looking either (and let's not get into Tortoiseman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HBillG himself)... but that's compensated for by their heavy use of brain-washing subliminal propaganda.
So what I suggest (other than getting Eric a facelift) is that we get ourselves a good-looking representative. Preferrably a woman. Someone that can, in the true time-honored tradition of American business, uphold our worthy ideals of freedom, and still have every technosavvy man drooling all over her.
If we do that, I bet we can have everybody getting the cracker/hacker thing right in no time.
So what do you say? Any takers?
--
Kaufmann, Ugly Boy
[rnedal@olimpo.com.br]
P.S.: In case you haven't noticed, none of this is supposed to be serious.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
That's his point and he proves it well. But he couldn't possibly expect people not to argue with him when they think he's made a mistake (APSL).
Why would anyone not express what they think only because ESR's feelings will get hurt? He's not a little child after all. He's a carate blackbelt!
... Slashdot isn't mankind. Yes, the flamers make it seem like we have a fractured community, but this is not representative of the vast majority. Personally, I know 9 people who use Linux regularly, including myself. Of them, only two or three of us read slashdot regularly and I'm the only one who ever posts anything. And even on slashdot, most posts aren't flames.
Obviously ESR receives alot of flames from the vocal minority and that can get depressing - a long time ago I did work for an advocacy group (nothing to do with computers) and we got flamed alot from people on our own side who didn't always agree with the way we did things, but in the end we were good for our cause. ESR is feeling the stress of this and he knew he would get it. Sure, it would be nice if everyone would disagree in a constructive, civil manner, but that just isn't the case and sometimes people will get burned out.
To be sure, corporate mindsets will have to change in order to accept Linux and OSS, but ultimately, if the business world accepts OSS and Linux, it will be because it will have been a good decision from a business perspective, I doubt it will be stopped by a handful of vocal flamers who don't want it to happen. There has been no shortage of people flaming Windows over the years yet it has been accepted by the corporate world.
man it makes me feel bad to read reports like that (recent article: Take my job, ... Then once we have gatherd all these items, using our main 'tool',
please!).
Sometimes i feel like the best thing this community has to offer, is also gonna
be its downfall. In a way it represents the way whole of humanity is structured.
We learn how to get a great new tool, be it fire, nuclear power, or be it linux,
then once we have mastered this tool, harnased its power, or some of it, we use
it to burn our selves. We kill millions of people, just to see how well this new
bomb can go boom. Now sometimes it seems like the same thing is happening to the
linux comunity, we have a great tool, something that can revolutionise the way
we see the world, the real and virtual, the way we deal with econimic issues,
and more
our voices and opionions, we again, as a human race, not just hackers, use it to
burn our selves.
I just wanted to let you know i feel for you, and want to express my deepest
apoligies, for my self, and other fellow coders, who have just a little more
social skill then a chimpansee...
Hope you'll hang in there for now, till we can have this situation sorted out,
and again, may the power, and source be with you my friend...
-- Chris Chabot
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
Why do people insist on bringing religion into everything. In my opinion, FWIW, Linus Torvalds is more like Brian (from "The Life of..."). A bunch of people who just *have* to have someone to worship have latched onto him.
;)
News flash : Linus is a hacker, guys, not a messiah.
As for ESR, he's doing a PR job and as such says PR-man type things, one of which is to insist that it's a dirty job but someone's got to do it. Take with a grain of salt, but I think there's some truth in his complaint, and I know that if I was in his shoes I'd want to get back to coding as soon as possible.
(I'm tempted to add that if you want to look for someone with a messiah complex you're more likely to find them in the FSF, but that would just be flame bait
IMHO, I think that ESR's 'replacement' should not be a coder. If the goal is, in fact, to push OSS and Linux into the mainstream, a 'business' person is needed. Perhaps someone like Steve Jobs in the early days.
The hackers have been reached. They've been brought on board. It's time to stop preaching to the choir, it's time to preach to the unwashed masses:) But to do that, it's going to take a little more respect than a bunch of unwashed, GenX/GenY hackers. To convert, we need someone in a nice suit, who can speak and write well, and probably someone with at least a few gray hairs.
Lee Iacocca maybe?
-George
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
I think you miss the point somewhat.
ESR never represented me. He didn't express my views. He wasn't elected in a democratic process. He saw what he thought was a need, and he filled it.
For that, he deserves praise. That is the spirit of Free software.
However, I believe in "hard line" Free software. Not Open Source. Not collecting scraps from Netscape's and Apple's tables.
ESR doesn't represent my views. The Free Software Foundation represents my views. RMS represents my views.
FWIW, that doesn't mean I'm in favour of flaming ESR. He did what he thought was best, and I take my hat off to him for that. But I'm not going to fall into line behind someone I disagree with.
I think it is unfortunate that ESR doesn't seem to have gleaned any wisdom
.signatures that make him sound like a
from recent experiences and is instead whining about people giving him a
rough time. Has he ever stopped to consider that sometimes HE is the
problem and that sometimes these "critics" are RIGHT? That maybe he should
give some consideration to other people's WELL-CONSIDERED OPINIONS?
Is he so egotistical to think that everyone is just trying to knock him down
a peg. Those who are disagreeing with ESR, often on some minor point, are
usually just trying to help, and they really are trying to respect his
position and his feelings. Often, what starts out as a simple plea or
suggestion to ESR, often first submitted in private, turns into an all-out
war, because ESR never backs down, never admits he was wrong, is always
shooting from the hip, and engages in fierce, mean-spirited attacks against
anyone who disagrees with him instead of trying to reach common ground or
deciding that a diversity of opinion on a particular subject is OK. Does he
really think that every person who airs his opinion is trying to claim the
post of free software spokesman?
There really are other spokesmen for the GNU/Linux and free software causes.
We could do just fine without ESR, or with a more subdued ESR. I think
Linus, Bob Young at RedHat, the folks at Caldera and Corel, Larry Augustin,
and Nick Petreley are doing a good job promoting Linux and free software to
big business. I have to admit, I'm a big fan of RMS and I think that his
writings, opinions, and style have a definite appeal to the academic
community and people who favor personal empowerment (freedom) and
egalitarian principles, so he definitely has a role to play as spokesman.
The GNOME, Apache, and Samba guys seem to handle the press pretty well and
manage to appear at conferences. IMO, the free software community has a
good supply of articulate spokespeople.
I think ESR should slow down and stop working so hard to generate
blockbuster announcements (the Mozilla release was cool, but we and the
press are tiring of the stuff). He should work harder at building consensus
or at least avoiding conflict (most of the above mentioned spokespeople
manage to avoid conflict most of the time). He should respect "third rail"
issues like the GPL and the primary importance of FREE software, RMS, gun
ownership, and libertarianism, unless absolutely necessary. This means no
more dumb, provocative libertarian
crazed computer geek who snapped during a marathon dungeons and dragons
tournament. No more cheap shots at RMS. Eric, take a look at what happened
to Gingrich. Free software is too big now, we don't need bomb-throwing and
publicity stunts as much any more, and sometimes they are detrimental.
I think ESR's note itself is an interesting comment on why he is such a controversial figure. It's a very smooth piece of writing, and it's clear from a lot of these Slashdot posts that many people haven't fully groked his piece.
You'll note that nothing he wrote makes it look particularly likely that he's going to retire anytime soon. Indeed, it seems like one of his main points is that the job he's doing is one that requires some pretty hard-to-find qualifications. And, you'll notice what his punch-line is: if you can't do it, then stop being such a mean-spiritied critic.
And this brings it back to why ESR is so controversial: he's very slick. He wants to reprimand his critics, and he does so, while slicking past most of his audience that much of his point is to reprimand his critics (Bruce, are you listening?)
Personally, I don't mind ESR too much, and I don't take him too seriously. I think he has been filling a useful function, and I think, despite his protestations, that he probably likes the self-aggrandizement that goes along with it. But that's par for the course and I for one am not complaining.
But I don't think of what he says as gospel, and I understand why he makes some people nervous.