Slashdot Mirror
Understand My Job, Please! (ESR explains)
Jamie writes "ESR tries to clear things up, and suggests a few things for the hacker culture's future.
Read it from the mouth of the man. " This puts things more into perspective-and it's good to see things have simmered down a little bit.
I use IRC a lot, and if anything I've seen the reverse. One person I know was banned for life after telling a newbie to dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda.
:)
Sorry if this makes no sense, it's late at night and I'm tired.
before you try to take the speck from your "slashdot kiddie" brothers.
Isn't it ironic that his gratuitous insults contradict the plea he claims to make. How is making insulting generalizations about this web site ("slashdot kiddies", "testosterone poisoned twerps") going to help anything? And how totally hypocritical of him. Is this rising above the flaming he denounces?
True, flaming is annoying and non-productive but it takes two to tango. It takes two immature, people to have a flame war. If someone writes something contrary to your opinion, but it has some factual basis and reasoning to it then learn from it. Consider it. If someone "flames" you and there is no factual merit to what they say or it is just a totally unfounded attack of character then do this: ignore it. Forget about it, offensive as it might be. This is hard to do, but *that* is how you rise above it. ESR can't follow his own advice.
He should get over himself and realize that this is no "cathedral". If you're a proponent of the open, "bazaar" model of doing things realize that, no, you are not always right, and yes people have a right to criticize and disagree with you, publicly.
My respect for ESR's work is limited to two things:
1)a handful of well written and insightful essays
2)his dedication to proselytize the ways of Linux and open source.
A couple of well written essays does not give him the right to the position he's trying to claim among the likes of Linus or RMS.
Linus is very wise and humble enough to not try to dictate to everyone who "we" as a community are. He benefits from others work and graciously acknowledges that. He doesn't claim to always be right or above criticism. In fact he doesn't claim much of anything he just writes and oversees code and he does it very, very well.
RMS is a stubborn, fanatical egotist true, but at least he has a lot to show for it. You have to give the guy credit for all that he's contributed with GNU.
ESR, you do not have nearly that much code to show as credential. If you want to rise to anything remotely close to their ranks and if you want to help this community then I suggest you don't go crying like a baby and threatening to quit when someone "flames" you, i.e. disagrees with you. That kind of immature attitude is more counter productive than any inconsequential flames.
I don't distrust his efforts to sell Linux to business. Business will benefit from Linux. I work for a company that is constantly wallowing in a "Vietnam" called "Windows maintenance". I often point out that if we used "open source" solutions to solve our problems we could spend more time doing our business. I don't own Linux; but I sell it every chance I get. Selling means advocating and demonstrating a better way to do things. I don't distrust someone who believes in and works hard for a good goal.
Shouldnt ESR have gone to BP and RMS first with the APSL and asked 'What do you think?'
From all that I have read, he didnt do this, it was announced publicly 'yea verily this is Open Source' and that was that. BP and RMS didnt agree and they said so.
Starman97@Gmail.com (bring it on spammers)
*Why* do people post carefully argued, well thought out articles as ACs? This sort of writing makes me think "I want to read more of what this person has written", but I can't.
--
Xenu loves you!
RMS refers to "free software" because he doesn't like the term "open source", but apart from that you can substitute one for the other in his article. RMSs problems with the APSL translate directly into possible OSD violations. The two terms still mean the same thing to everyone, even ESR and RMS.
--
Xenu loves you!
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Well, flaming and taking shots at each other certainly seems to be a part of the culture here. Most "nerds" I know can't abide cluelessness, and there's something to be said for that.
But the Linux/Open Source community needs someone like ESR to deal with folks like myself -- the mainstream press. The community needs people to take all of these wonderful ideas, translate them into English, and communicate them in such a way as to get everyday, mom-and-pop people excited about them. ESR did a pretty good job of that. His ABCNEWS.com chat was widely visited, and the transcript has been accessed over and over.
I don't think the Linux/Open Source community needs leaders, per se. It's a democracy of the masses, and for the most part, and for reasons still quite unknown, it WORKS. But you do need folks to translate for you. I'm not the most clueful press person on the planet, but I can tell a flame from constructive criticism. Not every reporter can do that, however. That's why you need folks like ESR.
And he's also right about one other thing -- there are certainly folks who could stand to lose the flame-throwers every now and then.
Top dogs in the computer world have big egos: Steve Jobs, Bill Gates? Is he more of an ego-mainiac than those guys?
A Note to Eric Raymond :
Mr. Raymond, the last of the pimples left my face many years ago. I work for a living, doing systems programming in the corporate world. And I take exception to being stereotyped into the "pimply-faced geek" group simply because I think you've gotten a little too carried away with yourself. Not all of us are "testosterone-poisoned twerps", contrary to your assertions.
The aspect of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" that I enjoyed so much was it's substance and lack of rhetoric. It wasn't propaganda, it seemed, until Netscape got hold of it and suddenly "Open Source" was the politically correct terminology for free software. As a programmer, I'm a very pragmatic person; rhetoric is lost on me and in fact, tends to lead me to believe that it's being used to hide something. It bothers me that you use language in such a way as to produce the impression that anyone who disagrees with you, and says so publicly, is an enemy of the Linux community.
*That*, sir, is why folks accuse you of egotism.
Your appeal to this community consisted of the fact that you were the voice of reason, that you were willing to negotiate and discuss and bring this community together. Many of us saw you as the primary spokesman for those of us who wanted to see a healthy free software community; even through your missteps over the last few months, many of us continued to believe.
Even, God help us, through the APSL debacle.
Many of us had problems - major problems - with the APSL, but for the most part we didn't blame Apple. Apple has the right to do their licensing any way they want, so long as it's legal. We didn't really have a problem with OSI backing the APSL. That's OSI's call.
But when you write something like "Take My Job, Please" - in which you stereotype vast tracts of the community, wrap yourself in your own marytrdom and play the "I'm the leader, why is no one following?" game, something is wrong. When the press carries your "retirement" by stating that the Linux leader is stepping down, something is *very* wrong. And when you publicly state that public discussion on these subjects is a liability to the success of the Linux Cause, it's time to stop things and start over.
You're not the Fearless Leader, Mr. Raymond. The future of free software does not hinge on what you say and do, and if the only way to "win" is to fall in line (or "grow up" as you put it) and goosestep behind you, then let's all please declare defeat, go home and get on with our lives.
Please?
Rob Warren
aleris@iag.net
>Rather the idea, surely, is that when someone asks as a *spokesperson* for a movement, organisation, whatever, they should try to make sure that what they are
> saying is acceptable to as much of that movement as possible *before* saying it - and that it is the spokesperson's responsibility to do so.
Precisely. Perhaps the solution was in front of us all the time. The OSS licences that went off most smoothy went through a "beta" phase to make sure that all the "bugs" were removed before they were finally accepted.
Businesses understand and accept the need for consensus -- it's almost expected that when you're dealing with a community that some public consultation takes place. It takes place before an ANSI standard (ISO too?) is accepted. It takes place before many standards are put into place. Why not for the OSS trademark?
If you have a problem with a person or group, and you want to solve it, and they don't have a history of ignoring you, you go to them first.
Bruce et al, and RMS didn't do that. Makes me wonder which of the three predicates fails.
-russ
Bruce et al, and RMS didn't do that. Makes me wonder which of the three predicates fails.
-russ
Two things. First, ESR should have gone to them before he started a media hoopla over it. Once it was out, they felt they needed to tell the world that the APSL wasn't free. Second, ESR does have a history of ignoring them. That's why Bruce Perens quit the OSI.
Why doesn't ESR ask "What do you people think?"
Because it is your job to tell him what you think. He's not a pollster or an elected representative any more than he's a boss or leader. He's an opinionated man who gets listened to by the media. If you want him to speak for you, you'd better bother to convince him of what you think.
Given what he said in this article about the APSL debate, it seems to me that he'd prefer that if you have a problem with what he's said or done, that you do the simple and easy thing of emailing him, rather than posting "ESR Betrays Free Source; Film At 11!" to Slashdot. This is hardly an unreasonable request.
This isn't a matter of censorship or of ESR refusing to respond to public critiques -- as should be obvious, he does respond to public critiques. It's a matter of politeness. If someone says something mistaken or stupid in public, it might just be better to ask him/her in private "Did you really mean that? Did you consider the following implications?" rather than denouncing him/her publicly. This gives him/her the chance to amend his/her previous statements without losing face, as well as maintaining a level of civility.
I for one think that ESR should make it clear when he speaks to the media that he does not speak for all FS/OSS authors or users. I don't think he thinks he does, but it's obvious that the media would rather think of Open Source as a single, monolithic organization (like Microsoft) with a single leader and viewpoint. The media are not used to reporting on a movement that can't give press releases, so they interpret an OSI or ESR or Red Hat or BP press release as being a speech on behalf of all users.
In a certain sense, we are neither a "community" nor a "movement" in the classical senses of the word. We have no government, no Party Central Committee, no platform. We aren't like the SDS of the '60s, college students staying up late nights drafting manifestos; when we stay up late, we're writing code, configuring kernels, or just using the software. What we have in common is the code and really not much else. And this is a good thing; the more we recognize this, the more time we will spend making the code better instead of harping on political nonsense.
Frater 219 writes:
... Mail me" message in some appropriate forum, they *would* have voiced their conccerns to him in private, beforehand. So quite obviously, he *hadn't* done that.
[Quoting the previous poster]
"Why doesn't ESR ask 'What do you people think?'"
"Because it is your job to tell him what you think."
Uuhh... How can we, if we don't know *what* he'll release an opinion about until he *has* already made it public? Should everybody constantly bombard him with all their thoughts on the philosophy of free software / open source, licensing issues, and everything else, on the off chance that the precise thing they're thinking about *might* be the subject of tomorrow's "Open Source Community"-stamped press release by ESR?
"He's not a pollster or an elected representative any more than he's a boss or leader. He's an opinionated man who gets listened to by the media. If you want him to speak for you, you'd better bother to convince him of what you think."
But then, unless you want thousands of people to flood him with e-mail on everything between heaven and earth -- how the heck would he have time to even *read* it all, let alone to do anything else? -- for that to work, for people to be *able* to "convince him of what you think", *he* would first have to announce his *intentions*. By posting on a newsgroup, here on Slashdot, or on some mailing list, something like "Hey guys, I'm thinking about announcing this and that -- what does everybody think? Mail me at..." Does he do that? Not that I know of; and if he does, apparently he doesn't do it in the right places.
"Given what he said in this article about the APSL debate, it seems to me that he'd prefer that if you have a problem with what he's said or done, that you do the simple and easy thing of emailing him, rather than posting 'ESR Betrays Free Source; Film At 11!' to Slashdot. This is hardly an unreasonable request."
Yes, it is.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong -- I don't follow *all* the news in the free software world, so I might have missed it -- but wasn't the first thing *anybody* (other than Apple and ESR) heard about the APSL, the public announcement that "the Open Source community" had endorsed it? It sure was the first mention of the whole idea that *I* saw.
P/A/J and RMS had to announce their concerns over the APSL *after* the fact, after ESR had told the world that "the Open Source community" had accepted Apple calling it "Open Source". I'm sure if ESR had posted a "Guys, I've been approached by Apple with this suggested license
This mess, and others like it, is wholly ESR's fault -- for facing the community he claims to "represent" with the fait accompli of his own unilateral actions time after time. What way is that of "representing" anything?!?
"This isn't a matter of censorship or of ESR refusing to respond to public critiques -- as should be obvious, he does respond to public critiques. It's a matter of politeness. If someone says something mistaken or stupid in public, it might just be better to ask him/her in private 'Did you really mean that? Did you consider the following implications?' rather than denouncing him/her publicly. This gives him/her the chance to amend his/her previous statements without losing face, as well as maintaining a level of civility."
Then those previous statements shouldn't have been *made* public under the label of representing something we don't yet know for sure that they represent -- i.e, the considered opinion of "the Open Source community" -- should they? For behaviour like that, a "representative" *deserves* to lose face, IMO. As an "ambassador", it's part of his job to make sure the community gets a chance to ask "Do we really want to do that? Have we considered the following implications?" BEFORE something is made public "on behalf" of those he claims to represent.
Christian R. Conrad
Christian R. Conrad
MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
Christian R. Conrad
mail me at iki.fi ; same user ID as here
I'm a scientist, and have lived with "peer review" for quite a while now. I would like to assert that the whole open source movement is really the same thing. Perhaps taken to even a harsher level. By looking at how science does the process, maybe we can figure out a better way for our hacker culture to deal with itself.
/. is like a scientific meeting with thousands of people. Everyone says alot, not everyone is worth listening to. We need the equivalent of "invited speakers", and a peer moderated and reviewed feedback mechanism for actually _valid_ more official views that are worth listening to.
/.? How about making a discussion group equivalent to a scientific journal. Make it peer reviewed by people who know what they are doing. Rotate the reviewers. Either it gets published, or its crap. You can send it back for revision. Invite guest posters who are especially knowledgable about something. Take into account who they are and their standing in the community.
/. responses for what they really are. 90% unknoledgeable people comparing how big their dick is to the guy who just posted.
When I do science that sucks, I get told about it. When I'm wrong, people flame me in journals or at meetings. It is my standing in the community that is affected. If I contribute insightful things to the scientific community, I am respected and revered. If not, I'm flamed and forgotten. You pour the acid of doubt on everything. That which is left, must be good.
The hacker culture is really the same. If your code sucks, you're forgotten. Your work must be held to the light of your community. Everyone can tell you what they think, and you must learn what to believe and what not to believe. That's one of the reasons I like Linux etc. It evolves like scientific thought.
The problem I see in the hacker community is that people who don't know what they are talking about are listened to too much. If I listened to what some ignorant people said about my science, I'd never get any of it done and I'd be fraught with lack of confidence about things I know are correct, much the same way that ESR feels now. You have to be selective to who you listen to.
May I make a suggestion to
Then, ESR, go read _that_. If you get flamed there, you deserve it, and you should examine your views and your actions, just like when I have to when other scientists call in to question my research. Then we can read
Just my $.02.
To work for the community you have to be part of the community. I don't think you should go to everyone.. but I had not heard a thing about gaining Apple's open source acceptance. It was out of the blue. Right now I have no idea what other companies you are trying to get acceptance from. In a week it could be Microsoft for all I know. I would recommend putting an agenda on your web page that gets updated often. By doing this you also put pressure on the company to accept open source (because they see that the whole community knows you are trying to get their acceptance). Just an idea anyways.
The word 'civility' is an important one, and I'm glad to see it arise in this discussion thread. In particular, I would like to draw attention to the primary definition of its adjective form:
Of course civility makes things run more smoothly-- humanity discovered that thousands of years ago. The open question for us to debate is "is our culture broken?"
Is the fractious, heated cacophany of voices you're seeing in discussion forums like this one a sign of strength in cultural diversity, or is it an indication of weakness related to division and prejudice? Does this question sound like I'm talking about just us hackers, or am I really asking about the larger society? (Answer: just us hackers, for now...)
I have an opinion. Here it is. We're not really any more or less broken than that other culture-- you know, the one that is represented by folks like the Software Publishers Association-- but we're in a much better position to make self-appraisals and work for change within. This is our strength.
ESR, while perhaps not providing the best example in making his point, is right to bring this to our attention at this juncture: our biggest weakness is that our system of civil discourse is a little primitive.
I'll trot out my favorite example to make my case. Compare the level of civility you see in the IETF working group discussions with the levels you see in the discussions we've been seeing in public about open source licensing issues. Big difference. There shouldn't be.
jhw
I see your point but.... What is he supposed to do? Write a post to /. asking "Hey what do you think of this...?" then wait 24hours (or whatever) until he has read a bazillion /.ers howl over the issue? And from this he is supposed to get an idea of what the "community" wants? How is he going to "hear" from people? Which people?
-David Utidjian-
utidjian@remarque.org
"Don't sweat the technique."
I truly am worried, however, that esr feels that "blowing it" constitutes Free Software in general and Linux specifically not getting into the mainstream, PHB mentality. I'm sure that the majority of people don't care if Free Software (Linux) is used or believed in by PHBs. Does the fact that you haven't seen a car accident make it any less true?
I agree with you that it does no good to a revolution if everyone gets fed up. There are differences, but the reason anything ever gets done anywhere is that people get over them. Thus far, the Free Software community has done a pretty good job. Why would it fail now?
I think it was good of Eric to follow up to the community after his statement about potential retirement. However, I would have to suggest that, in keeping with his theme of everyone acting mature and being more together on things, that he try to do the same. I was starting to feel warm and fuzzy, until he stuck in some obvious side remarks about Bruce Perens, and his expression of feelings towards script-kiddies were just as qualified to be flames as much as any response from slashdot.
By the end, though, he did come back with a lot of good things to say about issues that really matter. He really is a great writer.
A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading Raymond's latest reply:
In summary: Eric, look to how you might change your own behavior before lecturing the rest of the communinity on theirs.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
A simple point:
Many people are taking the phrase "Slashdot
kiddies and their spiritual kin" to mean
that *all* people on Slashdot are kids
who don't deserve to be taken seriously.
It's an obvious variation of the phrase
"script kiddies". Does using that phrase imply
that anyone who uses a script is a kid?
(Yes, ESR is a good writer. Would that we
were all good readers.)
Linux needs no commercialization to "survive"... Linux's popularity and long-term viability as a server OS depend on the trust and support by those in the know: the type of people who already know what linux is, and don't need Dell and Intel's support to convince them to use linux.
As far as I can tell, this is also Stallman's point of view. But my opinion is that the source code is much more interesting than the ideas, and I'm disgusted by all the flame wars about these ideas that are really not the most important thing.
Why write free software if someone else will be deciding how companies use it, for example?
And this is exactly why I'd use the Berkeley licence for my code or even public domain, but not the GPL. It's too restrictive.
I tend to disagree with people in public but congratulate privately, to avoid AOL syndrome. However, you don't publish one, so I'm forced to agree in public...
--
Xenu loves you!
First, I'd like to say I'm grateful to ESR for the publicity work he does on the behalf of the Open Source community. I have a deep respect for his work and his accomplishments.
But I think ESR misses several points.
1) The article focuses in part on OSI's negotiations with Apple. If ESR is representing OSI as being some sort of spokesorganization for the community he's rather mistaken. The trust credits for OSI are not that large. The organization simply has not been around for long enough. If anyone could hold any claim to being a spokesorganization it would be the FSF because while not everyone agrees with the FSF politics and RMS, at least we know where they stand, and they're sticking to their mission. With OSI, who knows? We have the stated goals but no history and no real track record. We have some history on the members, but little record of the actual policies and political position.
The FSF is also aware that they represent a subset of the free software community. That awareness isnt entirely apparent from OSI. Not everyone will be happy with the commercial orientation of the OSI. Those who are not have every right to express their opinion.
Of course negotiation with Apple will be easier. There are only two parties involved, Apple who wants to keep as much control as they can and still call it Open Source and OSI who wants to make certain it falls within the OSD. But if you wish to be an ambassador for the community you cannot just represent OSI, because OSI does not represent the community. And being an ambassador for the rather opinionated political minds of the community is a lot harder. Unfortunately, the ambassador who negotiates outside of his authority will not be met with undivided feelings of gratitude at his homecoming.
2) The Open Source trademark suffers from similar problems. It has a media value, but it's uncertain what it really means. The dispute around it and the use of it to legitimize debatable licenses dont increase the trust either. If a company wishes to place code under the GPL, again, we know what that means. If it's 'Open Source Compliant', who knows? One thing is sure, if it's not BSD or GPL it will get torn to shreds unless it's totally watertight and of some real worth to the free software community, not just a free bugfix ride. Any such license certified compliant just reduces the value of the Open Source trademark, and the less value it has the less benefit there will be for commercial companies to comply to the terms. Trust isnt just there. It has to be earned.
3) Apple and OSI published the APSL. If you go out in public with something you get a public response. If you wish to avoid public responses you keep negotiation under wraps until such a point that all parties who are likely to voice an opinion are satisfied, or you are at least aware what the public response will be. That is a lesson anyone involved in publicity will have to learn.
People who wish to retire generally do not do what ESR did. It is no surprise that he had to back-track considerably with today's post on tuxedo.
:)"
If he *did* want to retire, it would have been much more effective to release a simple statement that didn't point fingers. It would have been classy instead of petulant. People would have discussed it with more fervor and it would have been more of a "big deal" because people would have taken it more seriously.
Try this:
"For a variety of reasons I have decided to step aside as the de facto leader of the xxx movement. I will remain in the position until a suitable replacement is found. I would like to thank the people I've worked with over the last xxx months -- it's been a blast and I've learned a lot. But it's time to move on. I will continue to play an as yet undecided role in the xxx movement after my vacation
It's obviously not perfect, but it's short and to the point. People would have figured out the reasons for retirement on their own (or with a little help from "AC" posters <g>), and he would have received far more sympathy. More people would have gotten the "wake up call".
However, it is now very clear that he wasn't intending to retire. People who were suspicious of his motives were, in fact, correct. Now he claims he was trying to stop us from "pushing (ESR and other Important Hackers) nearly over the edge". If that's true, he should have said that in the first place instead of posting something that turned out to be bullshit. It just damages his credibility.
Just my opinion. I realize that it's easy to second guess people, and I recognize ESR's herculean effort. But he wouldn't have had to post the clarification today if he had gotten it right the first time.
The subject says it all.
Yes, that sounds good.
Sorry, did you have another suggestion that was better, such as perhaps arbitrarily appointing one person to bestow the approval of the community without soliciting any opinions at all?
--
Xenu loves you!
One of the reasons ESR got flamed so badly is because of the ridiculous article he wrote. He defintely has the ability to create original and careful thinking as we have seen we such things as The Cathedral and The Bazaar.
But such worthless prattle as "Take My Job Please" deserves to be flamed. It was probably just as hastly produced as some of the flames. It seems the main purpose was to say that he is such a great guy and beyond criticism. We learn that he got to meet Steve Jobs and had a groupie (but she was fine)
Plus, in my opinion, he will scare off "the suits" as he so politely calls them. It's this immature attitude of his which is not good for our community. Dispelling FUD against Linux can be accomplished in a much quieter, more dignified manner.
Furthermore, it is rather hypocritical of him to complain about public backstabbing when he himself has no problem putting down RMS and Bruce Perens among others for their views.
Lastely, he called us, - Slashdot kiddies. We are just as a legitimate part of the Linux community as he is.
In conclusion, carefully thought out essays like "The Cathedral and The Bazaar" and some of the good articles he has written for magazines like the Linux Journal, should be praised, but the trash like "Take My Job" and his bizarre ranting about Sheriff Ed and "the zombie army from the fetid mists of Redmond" deserves every flame he got.
"But the real reason I'm making an issue of this is not personal -- it's because we need to learn not to pull this kind of immature crap in public any more."
Maybe it's just me, but I like the fact that our community "pull[s] this kind of immature crap in public". As an employee of several companies which pulled it in private, let me tell you the public way is better. One of the best things about the way our hacker culture views software vis-a-vis the way Microsoft sees it is that we see it as a scientific enterprise, whereas they see it only as it effects their bottom line.
As a company, you want to present a unified face to the public, to look like everything is peachy and reassure the stockholders that their money is well invested. Science doesn't forgive that sort of crap, however. Science demands that you tell the truth, if you don't, other people will notice and call you on it.
I don't think Eric has sold us out. Certainly I don't think he intended to sell us out. But what I do think happened was that he became quite caught up in the (very) exciting prospect of Apple (of all companies) releasing the source code to OSX. I'm excited about that prospect, too. But the scientific rigor our community rightly prides itself for demands that we not give in to the power of our excitement.
Eric is not evil. But he did make a small mistake, and RMS and Bruce rightly called him on it. While keeping these kinds of things under the covers may make us look better in the popular press, secrecy will ultimately reduce us to being no better than the proprietary models we are fighting against. Only scientific rigor and openness will allow us to deliver a system that kicks the pants off Microsoft, et al.
Honest men have nothing to fear from the truth.
Sean
Blowing our chances for what, particularly?
I don't know about anyone else, but if the proprietary software world, or the so-called "real" world, can't handle the fact that every single community has disagreements -- yes, even in their precious Microsoft -- then I don't want them. The only difference between any large software company and us is that our squabbles are in the public.
I say, let us blow our chances. If our chances involve us bowing to pressure from corporations or conglomerates, I want nothing to do with them. That's not what our community's about. It's never been what our community's about.
After all, we do want World Domination -- but we're taking it on our terms.
Pointless flames happen. We all know that. ESR should know it all too well. Noone likes getting flamed (well ok, maybe some do... but generally I think most of us get along pretty fine without being insulted on a regular basis).
:))
So I'm really with him on complaining about it. But cooking up a topic that wont change anyway isnt useful for whatever case he's on either.
The sad thing is, yes, it is part of the culture. Actually it's part of the whole internet culture. Just because we all know that it sucks wont make it go away. We gotta learn to live with it just like we learned to live with all the other ignorant idiots on this planet. (Heck, actually I haven't even found a proof way to do that.)
Let's just concentrate on the work we obviously have to do and try to be able to filter the constructive critiscism from the flames.
(Wish I had a comment filter in RL
the community already exists in which we can live without crappy software
That's fine, if you can live, work, and play entirely within the confines of the community. I think RMS has managed to do so; I know of no one else who has. Everyone I know at some point has had to deal with commercial software, and much of it is crappy. I have a family to feed, and if I lose my job, and the only job I can find the day I start looking is an NT admin job, I'll have to take it. THAT is ESR's point. If the open source/free/liberated software comunity loses the momentum it has gained in the last year in penetrating the corporate world, it will take a long time to build up that momentum again. The longer it takes, the greater the likelihood that there will be some point in YOUR life when economic necesity will force you to deal with crappy software.
Another thing to keep in mind is that freedom means freedom for everyone. When some are free and some are not, we have a situation not unlike that in the US between 1776 and 1865. If you fight for freedom of speech for yourself and *actively oppose*, by your words, deeds, or indifference, the same freedom of speech for others, you deserve (at best) to be spit on. Why should freedom of software be any different? And before you suggest that the comparison is unapt, consider how I'm communicating.
But the Linux/Open Source community needs someone like ESR to deal with folks like myself -- the mainstream press. The community needs people to take all of these wonderful ideas, translate them into English, and communicate them in such a way as to get everyday, mom-and-pop people excited about them
You're probably right with that but the problem is that it's pretty hard to 'translate all those wonderful ideas into English' with that amount of wonderful ideas. There's no way to avoid getting criticized when doing that. (And there's no way to avoid flames if you are in that spotlight position anyway.)
I wouldnt want to get the heat he gets but I definatly cant understand why this surprises him - especially if he is the opinionated person he appears to be. Those things happen. And in the case of constructive criticsm it's vital for the OSS movement.
That was well-phrased, but I think that you're shirking your own responsibility by waiting for him to ask you what you think. His email address is easy to find. He's not hiding from you.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Rudeness is like pouring sand into the gears of our social machinery. People who aren't mature seem to think politeness and civility are a waste of time. Our social system doesn't work all that well to begin with, and they are not helping.
Occasionally people do need to be slapped down, sometimes the harder the better. But I do mean occasionally. I wish more people would think a second or two before they unloaded the flamethrower.
I read two paragraphs, deemed to be important by LT. I read the original essay, and found it to be overly petulant. More importantly, I've read literally dozens of great comments on /. in these past few weeks complaining about this or that aspect of ESR's latest Open Source® move. If he's pissed at legitimate content-free flames, fine - I'm with him. But if he wants to dismiss all complaints as "noise", he's no better than a disingenuous despot. When I hear of a "new and improved" ESR, I'll take the time to read him again. I've read enough for now; I know the drill.
It doesn't surprise me that you got censored by Linux Today ... you're lucky Rob's more lenient than LT.
My LT post has now magically appeared. Maybe they're just not as quick as Slash in posting comments. Maybe they were on a lunch break. I don't know. I hereby apologize if I've insulted LT by my offhand remark. I hope to apologize to ESR someday, but I'm not holding my breath :)
--
--
=8^
Nice to know he isn't retiring. He made some good points in both articles.
Honestly, I've always thought he was kinda cool, never realized there were so many people that didn't agree with him (or just didn't like him). I guess that's part of the point of his essays-- we sometimes see things from only one perspective.
... if we wish to truly make Linux and other open source elements the shiniest toys in our collective toybox. It is the transparency of the process, including the arguments and the flame wars, that allows us to truly form our own opinions, and to plot the course we each want to take on the Ocean of Open Software.
In Neal Stephenson's article mentioned yesterday on Slashdot [ http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning_print.html ] he notes that in the bug-tracking and fixing process, the fact that one can access the questions and comments of other users is essential to the process of open source initiatives creating truly superior software. I think the same is true of creating a truly superior culture surrounding the software, we need to see the "bugs" in the process, and hear the arguments back and forth about which are truly bugs, if we wish to move our tent to the section of the bazaar that suits us.
Our advantage lies not in the fact that we present a coherent illusion of the products we create communally, but in the exact opposite phenomenon: that such a diverse and undisciplined group of individuals creates something useful to all of us without any of us explicitly agreeing on what we are doing.
I don't think we need leaders, at least not in the sense that we need an analog to Jobs or Gates to advocate a coherent "product" that we are building for the common good or to battle MicroSoft. In fact, we tend to rail against such people, because (a) we aren't getting paid by them, and (b) we never agreed on anything in particular except that stable software is useful to us. Perhaps by trying to position himself as such a person, Mr. Raymond has inadvertently drawn the lightening that we are always sure to generate when presented with someone attempting to narrow, or to make coherent, a "movement" that is the antithesis of coherent, monolithic effort.
When you are building a Cathedral, you need an architect. I don't think we need Mr. Raymond or anyone else to come to the bazaar and try to impose (or even abstract) a structure on something that is by nature fluid and chaotic.
bild, www.categoryweb.com
People are too quick to use the word "flame" to describe all disagreement. That is a dangerous precident to set. Open dissention, such as RMS's public 'bomb', as ESR called it, are the necessary results of open software being truly open. Please don't ask the community to present a false facade of 100% agreement with each other. To do so would be a lie, and would stifle openness.
For the most part I do feel sorry for ESR and all the flak he has recieved, but in this one instance I have to disagree with him. The last thing in the world we want to do is hunker down into a clique and only allow open debate within that clique and not in public.
I find ESR's suggestion that RMS should have brought the issue up in private instead of public to be a scary, appalling suggestion. I also found it truly surprising because it goes against the very openness that ESR keeps pushing for. I was surprised to hear those words out of ESR's "mouth".
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm not saying that ESR doesn't have a right to say what he did but isn't it a little disingenious to make fun of the people who read Slashdot in one breath and then talk about how much their comments hurt in another? ;-)).
I'm surprised that ESR even cares what people think. If he is sure he is doing right, then why should it matter what I think of him? If he is vindicated in the end, I will look like a fool and be forgotten or held up for ridicule. If I'm right, well Eric still doesn't have to do anything about it (He wouldn't know me if he stepped on me
I guess the real question is what kind of discussion, criticism and questioning can ESR and other people out front of the Open Source movement accept? Can they bare having people disagree with them? Can ESR accept that people might not think everything he does is correct?
I'm trying to not flame or be juvenile. These are real questions stuff like ESR's essay raise. Is it ok in the open source movement for the people who aren't leaders to have opinions? Should we just keep our mouths shut? I've come to feel that outiders aren't exactly welcome on the linux-kernel mailing list and this is probably correct. I really can't contribute much of anything to the discussion so I just lurk now, trying to learn.
Is that how Slashdot should be, though? A place for only a few to post?
Disagreement, rudeness, and even out right flame wars are a fairly natural part of life. They don't feel good and quite often are wasting time. But valuable learning can ocur, new ideas can be presented only in a free and open environment. Some people (not always the same people) will get mad and write things that are hurtful. But shouldn't we all be a bit tougher about flames. The old saying "Sticks and Stones break my bones but words can never hurt me" comes to mind. Sure words can and do hurt but that is part of the price of communication. If you never want to be hurt don't be around people.
I don't know. I wouldn't want to be in ESR's shoes and I wouldn't like having so many people atribute so many bad motives to me. But I would like to think that I could rise above the hurt feelings and understand what was being said and for what reason.
Keep the battle intelligent, mature, and public. A cultural division made public makes everyone in the cluture grow by forcing people to decide what they believe. Division in private does little good to anyone.
TheOrb40
My apology to ESR. The above posting is lacking in politeness. The message should have been more polite.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
First he starts by admitting that, no, he did not really mean "take my job please" when he said "take my job please." As many of us suspected, it was a slightly underhand way of saying "shut up and stop criticizing me."
Secondly, I disagree with his constant calls to stop criticising people. If somebody does something you disagree with, by all means, say so. Say so civilly, not with flames, but say so nonetheless.
His whole tone seems a bit condescending and presumptious. The constant references to "we," as if he speaks for the entire Free Software community, are annoying, and so are the references to "Slashdot kiddies" (many of whom include prominent people in the tech world).
His off-hand dismissal of Bruce Perens's well-written and well-reasoned essay is disappointing. None of the points in Perens's essay are addressed. It would seem that Mr. Raymond is afraid to take the points into consideration.
I wholeheartedly disagree with his entire premise regarding the APSL debate. He criticizes the Perens open letter and RMS's reply about it, and says they should've been private rather than public. That is incorrect. OSI's decision regarding the matter was public, so it follows that all commentary on that decision should be public. In addition, the APSL is a license that will impact the Free Software community, so it is important and desirable that the Free Software community be allowed to discuss the effects and possible problems of the license amongst itself. Stifling such discussion to save the ego of one man is not acceptable.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Why don't we stop fixating on the "immature Slashdotters" and actually focus on ESR's job? If he can't handle the Bazaar when it bazaars him, maybe he should recant CatB. I would rather have the input of some of the better /. ESR-critics than have Eric "fight the good fight" on his own. If he insists on being the Lone Martyr, I no longer have time for him or his communiques.
If this is a "flame", then you know where you can stick it :)
I might read his article later. ESR's essays are no longer very high on my "to read" list.
--
--
=8^
>Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is
>whine and bash someone. If you cannot debate
>issues publicly in a civil manner, then just
>stick to writing code and keep your mouth shut.
Is this irony?
The Free Software community follows the model of a capitalist democracy like those found in W. Europe. No, not everybody in the Free SW community is equal, just like the hypothetical bum with the squeegee is in no way as valuable to society as, say, Alan Turing or Erwin Schroedinger. However, both the bum and the greats have an equal right to state their opinions. Just because AC or I don't have anywhere near the credentials of ESR or RMS, doesn't mean we don't have a right to speak out.
Apple created the hoopla, the OSI contributed by allowing the endorsement (or proactively requiring it, we will never know because that was a "private discussion").
But why should these discussions (about whether or not the APSL deserves the Open Source stamp) be held in private emails or conversations and not out in the open? You have yet to present a credible argument other than that misconceptions could be handled better in private. The arguments presented against the APSL may seem like "misconceptions" to you, but to many they are show stoppers to ever using the code. Instead of addressing these issues, there is nothing but whining about how so and so went to the press. Why not just answer the "misconceptions" with facts?
One of the problems is that we don't tend to speak as loudly about what we like as we do about those things we don't like.
Look at all the NEAT things our government does "for" us. Usually it is as a result of a vocal few whining about some privelege they want. Suddenly, we - the quiet majority - are paying the bill for the desires of the vocal majority.
Time to wake up people and offer kudos to the ones in the Linux community who are in the spotlight and in the crosshairs on our behalf, or we WILL lose them. It becomes too easy to believe that the feelings of the vocal minority are actually the beliefs of ALL of us.
Benny D. Helms
benny@ptinet.net
Horndog
Linus not an egotist? Hmmm. I think you could find several people who would not agree with that. He does have rather strong opinions on some things. However, it seems the opinions he cares to strongly voice are mostly technical things, and things that are possible to discuss in a rational manner for a lot of people.
You're right about the road Linus is taking. It is the only one that is possible to take and keep out of the way of the flames. Anyone can hold strong opinions about politics, but only a few can, or even cares enough to, argue about more arcane subjects like kernel policy.
He still doesn't get it. And I'm starting to believe he never will. In all his wining and dining the suits, he's taken on their motives.
Perhaps it's you and all the other flamers who don't get it. Disagreeing with him on APSL, venting that disgreement on a public forum, as he states RMS and Bruce did, this is all perfectly reasonable, to a certain point. Flinging personal accusations ("overblown ego", "lack of moral integrity", "being a media whore", "not being a true hacker", "fetchmail is shit") like you and your kin insist on doing, is not only useless and childish, it is demeaning to the community to which you sadly strive to take part in. This is IMHO what he was talking about when he referred to you Slashdot kiddies.
But you would never understand that, because you are fat, bald, dumb and ugly!!!
See now, did that look like "valid critizism" (sic) to you?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I think you should look at Slashdot comments/stories before 6 months to one year ago and look at them now. I have been thinking Linux/OSS/free software have been going downhill at an increasing rate lately. Not that this has anything to do with ESR. Just saying.. I don't see what is so improved (that you see), but I do see many things that have degraded.
"The argument culture" is a fine book written by Deborah Tannen ( at amazon ) which discusses the culture which is really prevelant not just within the free software community, but within America as a whole today. We are culturally conditioned to argue rather than discuss, and it is a fairly tough thing to overcome, but a very strong first step is learning about the problem and learning to recognize the elements of unnecessarily confrontational language or thought processes in yourself.. and, as is pointed out rather clearly in this text, some of this culture comes up in places we are so used to, we just dont even recognize it as confrontational any more.. ... remembering that we are all ultimately either going the same way, or we have gotten so caught up in the culture of confrontation that we have not taken time to see how we can and should be working together..
and something else interesting has happened especially within the geek community.. a certain degree of competitiveness and really strong incentive for putdown even amongst the nicest and most well intentioned people. A good friend of mine, and perhaps a truer geek than many of us in ideals, calls it 'the alpha male geek syndrome', and although the statement may be a little far-reaching, i really encourage everyone to think about this, read this book, and examine your own interactions with others
strongly worth a read, and a thought.
peace
I believe that a lot of what is passed over the net in general is totally in the eye of the beholder...which makes "communication" a very clumsy thing. When you read ESRs paper, you are NOT reading his feelings/self/mind so much as yours, and vice-versa for his reading your stuff. That may not be totally true, but I think it holds some ground. Let me ask you: Who are you fighting? Who are you changing? Just an idea...
-Haifen
Look somewhere else for a sig.
Nope...but it is anger and frustration.
--Rick
ESR says good ideas do not win out without being sold. This is true. But what does it mean for these ideas to win out?
Or more specifically, what benefit do we expect to get from corporations? The job of a corporation is to make money. The corporation cannot benefit free software, except indirectly (well, and they can hand out drivers too, which would be nice). In fact, just a lawyer may act 'immorally' on the client's behalf, IT IS THE JOB OF THE CORPORATION TO EXPLOIT OPPORTUNITIES FOR MAKING MORE MONEY. Apple is doing what it's supposed to do when it tries to exploit the free software community. I have no axe to grind, this is plain fact.
The free software community is the most vibrant, creative community I've ever had the privilege to be a part of. The best rationale I hear for inviting in the sharks is along the lines of "I think winmodems suck" or "I want to use Linux at work". What the hell kind of tradeoff is that? It seems to me we are risking something that already is proven great for something I can't even understand.
understand your job? I won't spend five seconds in my life, ESR, begging for anything from you. Would you stop begging for all this understanding from me? Just Go Away.
I always like ESR because of his writings, but he started to concern himself too much with that OSI/OSS/I'm-better-than-RMS crap and almost forgot who he was.
Finally I can hear him again with all his meaningless drivel. That's what makes him great.
I read slashdot. When he said Slashdot kiddies, I did not think he was talking to me.
If you think he WAS calling you a Slashdot kiddie, then, yes, he was reffering to you.
You call Parens essay well-reasoned,
but call Erics letter presumptuous.
Both of them made similar mistakes.
They both presume to be talking for everybody.
They both critisize others(or the actions of others) in public, even when it helps little.
But both are probably nice guys.
So take it easy.
...of the "hacker tribe" system that ESR so reveres. I sympathize with most of his article, but I do think he is incorrect to castigate Perens, RMS, et. al. for their public airing of their concerns over the APSL. Without such public debate (which sadly sometimes turns flamish), the hacker culture would not have acheived nearly what it has. The Bazaar applies to more than just source code.
Yes. "You're absoultely correct" messages aren't terribly useful. You usually respond to something to show why they're wrong, or at least incomplete.
If you're trying to change people's minds, you don't point out their errors to the world at large.
I don't think Perens and RMS really care what ESR thinks. They care what Apple calls thier license and how the community feels about the license.
Geeks do it all the time. Geeks are bad at human relations. Right?
Non sequiter. Geeks also communicate by email. Does that make email bad?
I know this is an overgeneralization, but arrogance seems to be a major undercurrant in tech culture. It shows itself on a cultural level (we're the "knowledge bearers" of the modern world) and an individual level. (the "everybody else's code is crap" reflex)
If we really want to wrangle this behavior it would behoove us to find it's causes, both psychological and cultural. What promotes it? Is it created by tech culture, or are arrogant people attracted to the tech culture?
I don't thin our aim should be to eliminate our arrogance, though. It can be extremely useful, even essential, especially in the business world. But, when midirected, it can be very self destructive.
Some measure of public discussion before a licence can be certified as open Source doesn't seem like an impossible position, so far as I can see if you are still negotiating with Apple, as you mentioned in your essay, then that's effectively what's happened anyway.
Having reached a licence you're happy with you (or Apple / whoever the licensor is in the specific case) could post it publicly with your opinion and a request for public discussion before "official" certification.
What makes you think that the more vocal (that is someone who bothers to post) readers of slashdot are representative of the Linux/OSS community as a whole? I would cede that the people that post comments on slashdot are representative of the people that post comments on slashdot.... it does not follow that they are representative of the community. I doubt they represent even a tiny fraction of the community. Can you claim otherwise? I think slashdot commenters are more like a special interest group.
"Don't sweat the technique."
>it seems to me that he'd prefer that if you have
>a problem with what he's said or done, that you >do the simple and easy thing of emailing him, >
huh?
Are you sure you're talking about ESR? Isn't he the same guy who *overruled* the whole OS board on a couple things?
It is sad, but I've noticed a dramatic increase of elitism in certain parts of the Linux world, especially on IRC. Newbies are often ridiculed or told that they can upgrade their kernels by typing "rm -rf /" instead getting genuine help. Admittedly, many people do not take the time to read documentation before asking questions, but it
truly saddens me to see this happening. Instead of encouraging more people to learn about Linux, they are giving it a bad name.
If you'd taken the time to "sift through" his entire essay (which is probably considerably smaller than the incredible volume of flame mail that angry, immature Slashdotters can generate) you might have found plenty of useful gripes as well, including advice to read and think carefully before you flame.
First of all, I'd like to say that a lot of this article does make some sense, i.e. the parts about how we should show some decorum on a public forum, if only because it's true.
:-/
That bit about Perens, Jackson, Akkerman, and RMS "throwing bombs"... do I smell smoke? The rest of the article is about how we should NOT flame, and then what does he do?
You gotta love his revisionist history bit about Bruce pushing the APSL into the spotlight. Need I remind him that Apple and OSI went first in claiming that the APSL was Open Source with capital letters? Bruce was pointing out specific areas in which the APSL failed to comply with the OSD. And if you read SI's response, they only successfully refute the one where Apple goes belly-up, thus you can't publish your changes to them. As for the termination clause, what if Apple can't tell the developers which sections of the code are infringing??????? They could potentially decide to pull all the code so as not to reveal the specific code under litigation.
Bruce and I have talked right here on Slashdot, and I see nothing that deserves ESR's treatment of him in his article. Bruce is nice and terse, doesn't use loads of confusing technospeak, and DOESN'T FLAME IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH HIM! Ironically I was on ESR's side in those debates on the grounds that the OSD is too wide open for interpretation
As for RMS... He wasn't even talking about the APSL being Open Source, he was talking about it being a Free Software License, two (unfortunately) different terms! Plus RMS wasn't flaming him either... he was actually being rational about it!
One word about the flames on Slashdot... That's what Commander Taco put "comment threshold" for. If you want to, you could read only the 3,4,and 5 star comments (though then you wouldn't see any of mine, I've never gotten above 2) and see what the intelligent people think.
Finally, I expect a "leader" to respond to any kind of criticism, friendly or hostile, in an intelligent manner. Instead ESR takes this opportunity to bash Bruce and RMS like, he says, many did to him. And even though he makes decent points about how we shouldn't flame, he does it in such a way that he doesn't sound much better than the flamers, though He hasn't used the f-word yet. Indeed, after reading through his articles, I wonder if his maturity level is really all that far above the "Slashdot kiddies". Granted, I actually enjoy reading the comments when trolls come up -- must be ESR has no sense of humor.
In conclusion, I bet ESR will think this is just another flame from a "Slashdot kiddie." Fine. I really don't care. ESR has like 0 credibility left for me after those two articles. "Ooh, I'm getting backlash from everybody now that Bruce has dragged the APSL into the spotlight!!! It's just too much! Guess I'll retire now -- Sorry, just kidding! I'm only going on vacation to practice my shooting so I can kill all the Slashdot kiddies that disagree with me!"
OK, I made that last part up, but that's about the tone of this last article. I hope he's feeling better after that vacation of his, because we need a united front before the rest of the world starts laughing at us (again)... I can hear it already... the only part of his article that I liked, BTW, although I'm sure he wants it on his terms.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Eric acknowledged that among his objectives were to take a vacation, work on quiet, behind-the-scenes talks, and not be so overexposed.
/. like Perens and Stallman did.
I'm glad for that.
I'm concerned that he suggested people aren't asking him questions directly as opposed to sending articles to Linux Today or
Maybe that's the bed he's made for himself, that even people as supposedly clued-in as RMS don't know how to talk to ESR without "going public."
I don't know. All I know is that when ESR is doing his primary job (which is ambassador, not "prankster,") he does it well, and he does it well in ways that most of us could not appreciate, nor credit fully. I'm glad he doesn't feel like he should retire before he finds someone else who can do what he does.
Because at this stage in the game, what he does is essential.
J.
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
This will seem very unnessecary to many, but I just have to agree on this one (don't have the time to write the same thing myself). I hope that ESR reads this and understands that not everyone agrees with him. I don't want to think the way he does. Infact, I believe he is wrong in many cases. Altough I don't write as well as ESR does, I have a firm belief in how things should be, and I think RMS is much more right than ESR is (not that I agree on everything RMS says either). My advice to Erik is to go back to doing code instead of playing leader/advocator for the free software "community" (don't really like the term community; I'm my own person and do things and think things that I like, not what a "community" thinks).
There should be a "check and balance" mechanism to make sure Eric stays loyal to the hacker community in his handling of "Open Source." For example, Eric should be responsible to the SPI, who shall have the final say over anything controversial. Or the OSI shall license the trademark "Open Source" from the SPI in its marketing activities.
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
It doesn't surprise me that you got censored by Linux Today ... you're lucky Rob's more lenient than LT.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Much better! I see that the force is with you :)
John Waalkes
jwaalkes@edge.net
I've always liked Eric's writing. He's NOT a leader, anymore than Thomas Paine was an actual Leader of the American independence movement. Paine's "Rights of Man" was incredibly important advocacy in the independence movement. And there was disagreement with it.
The "Cryptonomicon" mentioned on a previous article is equally as important as "Cathedral and Bazaar". I disagree with minor points of both essays. BUT Both are clear documents that really explain the ethics, the mindset, the intent and the direction that the community wants.
We as a community deride self promoting demagogues and others who seek to co-opt the free & open source community for their own ends. This is healthy, neccessary and appropriate. What is happening, however is the same lack of basic understanding and Thought that we love to bitch about in "Lusers, AOL'ers, Script Kiddies" is coming from "Slashdot Kiddies".
I for one, am not impressed. For crying out loud, don't you insert favorite epithet here people Think?
-- Perl Hack, Web Hack, SQL Hack, Guitar Hack
Blowing our chances of what? Of maybe creating a healthy and supportive community that will carry this movement beyond the current hype and actually continue the work that is being done until finally, Finally, we can (as ESR puts it) live in a world without crappy software.
A revolution doesn't last if all the revolutionaries get tired of fighting and go home. If you give people a reason to take up arms alongside, they will. Equally, however, if you give people a reason to remain neutral or to ally with the enemy, they will. A revolution is not built on good ideas alone. A revolution is the product of people working and fighting together towards a common goal, often reconciling their own differences for the good of the movement as a whole.
That possibility...the possibility of actually creating a movement of solid and lasting potential...that's what we might be destroying.
The phrase "our terms" refers to a plurality. "Our terms" are defined by the community as a whole. You're not talking about "our terms" here...we have never defined "our terms". You're talking about your interpretation of the "terms" which just might not be correct.
- deb
"At one point, he expresses a pleasant surprise that ~50% of the comments on /. were expressing support for him; he's obviously reading through a lot of this, and sorting out the immature people from the real people."
I can't find a way to read this that doesn't equate "maturity" with "agreeing with ESR". This is precisely the fault that the higher-scored posts in this thread accuse ESR of.
--
Xenu loves you!
You should at least have consulted SPI, the holders of the Open Source(tm) trademark.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
First of all, the people that are expected to grow up, for the most part, likely see little incentive to do so. Part of the reason is that they are dabblers, chirping disagreement with any issue, in order to reinforce their own comic book anti-hero self-image. Many people grow out of it. Some do not. This isn't likely to change.
Second, there are no obvious repercussions for being a hyper-reactive asshole. Oh, as a community we feel it, but I suspect this loud minority doesn't think twice about their comments after they hit 'send'.
You can't silence those that will jump at the chance to criticise things that they don't understand. Those that do understand, however, do very well to put forth the effort to explain to the unwashed masses.
If you have something with more worth than a simple opinion, post it and let the world know. The people that are willing to listen will see the clear contrast between fact and flame.
If you are going to accept the position as a spokesperson, performer, or cult leader, you are
spinning your wheels if you are trying to change your audience. It is you who need to adapt in order to let them resonate with your message.
>>esr>>
Everytime I hear this argument it makes me sick.
I'm sorry I have to be the one to point this out to you, but not everyone in the community is equal, nor should they be equal. I don't agree with RMS very often, but his work on the FSF and GNU (and even Emacs) gives him high stature in the community. ESR has done a lot of quality work as well, which gives him high stature. Linus has contributed to the community and is similarly held in high regard.
For myself, I don't count myself as equal to the likes of RMS, ESR, Linus, or hundreds of other community members who have given so much more than I have. I've made some small contributions here and there, but nothing to their scale. As for you, Mr/Ms Anonymous Coward, if you don't feel like using your name, your stature must not be worth much ... certainly not worth that of RMS, Linus or ESR.
Equality is an idea that the masses like to cling to because it helps them pretend that they're better than they really are. No one is really equal because no one's contributions exactly match those contributions of another. That doesn't mean that everyone is worthless if they haven't written an OS kernel or a mondo-text editor or explained why free software works. It does mean that community members are more likely to respect and listen to those people who have contributed the most. If you want to be listened to, all you have to do is contribute ... instead of flames.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
I would certainly agree that the level of flames directed at ESR, and other notable members of the community (eg. RMS, Linus Torvalds and Bruce Perens) has been much higher than it should be. If you disagree with someone, a well reasoned argument is far more effective than a flame. On the other hand, if you can't take the heat, get out of the oven.
ESR has been here for a very long time, he should be very familiar with flaming. He should have known that by trying to speak for the "Open Source Movement" he is setting himself up for flaming. If such a person can't handle the heat, they should get out of the oven.
ESR explains his job as My job, the job I've been doing one way or another ever since picking up the Jargon File in 1990, is to describe and explain and reflect the values of the tribe of hackers. Not to lead it.... That job, I have no problem with, I think he has done it well. The Jargon File, the Cathedral and the Bazaar, Homesteading in the Noosphere, all of these are excellent essays. I may not agree with every point made in them, but they are still very useful and important works, he should be applauded for them.
But with his position in the OSI, he has been trying to lead, regardless of how much he denies it. He has tried to lead Businesses to change to his view of what a license should be, and he has tried to lead the various hacker communities to accept his view of what a license should be. When the APSL issue came up, it became clear to me that I don't agree with what he thinks a license should be.
My problem is not with Apple, they acted in good faith from everything I've seen. My problem is with ESR telling Apple that if they do their license his way, people like me will be happy with it. I can't speak for "people like me", and my opinion won't affect Apple one way or another (I have no plans to get MacOS X Server). But if ESR insists so vehemently (more vehemently than Apple, who apparently plans to change the APSL) that the license is "Open Source", than I have to say the term "Open Source" becomes useless to me, since I won't be able to trust that an "Open Source" license gives me the freedom I want in my software. I'm not saying that all companies should switch licenses to my definition of Free, I am saying that ESR's drive to get companies to change their licenses is pointless as far as I'm concerned, since they aren't coming up with Free Software licenses.
If ESR is looking to get someone to replace him in his stated job as anthropologist to the hackers, I will be sad. He is the best person for that job. If he is looking to get someone to replace him in leading the community away from freedom, I say it is a job better left undone. And no, I don't think that loss of freedom was his intent, I think it is a side effect of him picking an impossible task to do, and the compromises that had to be made to attempt it.
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Pointing out your position to the world at large seems a good idea if you're interested either in influencing the opinions of the world at large or in receiving the opinions of the world at large.
You make your opinions public, don't be surprised if people debate them publicly. Whether that's being good or bad at human relations probably depends on which (and how many) humans they're trying to relate to.
True, views on slashdot may not be representative of the community as a whole. But it is probably the best approximation we currently have, if you can suggest a better way to get the "community's view", please post it. Just dismissing the idea out of hand with nothing new to replace it, is not considered _constructive_ critism. The issue at this point is that ESR didn't try to solicit feedbacks and opinions from the community he claims to represent before pronouncing the APSL OK. So it comes down to this - getting some feedback from a minority of the open source community is better than no feedback at all!
Well thats point, there is too much garbage and emotional immature ranting most of the time in Slashdot comments to make it worth spending anytime ever looking at the comments let alone trying to find useful ones. I make a point of only looking at comments for only 1 story a day, because of the high "garbage" level.
The problem is simply that he dismisses anyone who disagrees with him as immature. He flames and calls names and expects us to revere him. He, of all people, should know that this is not how things work. Apparently he doesn't read what he writes.
Well Bill Gates and Steve Jobs don't have really bad teeth.
Greetings,
Public discussion is a waste of time if the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. What is accomplished by arguing about an illusion?
The shattering of the illusion. If one person holds an illusion, in a community as large as ours there's a good chance that others do as well. If it is brought to light, then it can be answered where all can see.
Also, any organization the likes of OSI can not spend its time answering thousands of one-on-one questions. The best one can hope for is that they answer publicly and quickly the issues that bubble to the top out of community discussion.
Public discussion is never a waste of time. If you are wrong, you learn and others who might believe the same learn. If you are right, then the issue is brought to the table. Even if you are wrong, the fact that people misinterpret what you've said is a valuable piece of information for any public organization.
Speak publicly, be proud of speaking up, and be willing to acknowledge when you're wrong.
Cyberfox!
No-one else is reading this thread now, so... send me an email!
cheers,
--
Xenu loves you!
I remember a story I once heard of a joke the Athenoi used to tell. It went something like this:
When we have an issue, we discuss it at length with logic and rhetoric. We come to an informed decision.
When the Spartans need to make a decision, it's usually decided by who can yell the loudest.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
I agree wholeheartedly with your post. There is no doubt that the salient feature of the last two ESR essays has been that there should be backroom, closed negotiations with ESR as a conduit between business and "us", whoever the hell "we" are. I admire his maintenance of the Jargon File and his undoubted ability to communicate but I fear and distrust the goal of "selling" Linux to business. Selling implies specific ownership being exchanged. ESR and his "Open Source" buddies seem to be acting as poorly-paid middle men.
ps. please disregard all of the above comments: as I disagree with ESR's viewpoint I am undoubtedly one of his immature Slashdot kiddies.
However, although I disagree with Eric on a variety of topics, I do sincerely hope that he stays with us. He is an important contributor to our community, an excellent writer and shrewd Speaker To The Press.
Somebody wrote that Eric has had to much corporate coffee in the last couple of month. Perhaps some holidays spent with emacs and source code can recharge his batteries and flush out the suit-poison ;-)
Stephan
The issue is that he makes his announcements before he has a chance to hear from people.
What's new is now the folks who are flaming and the subjects of their gripes are getting harder to destiguish and are often at the same rung on our social ladder. What we see here on slashdot is essentially what goes on in the coffee room, but now it's written down for all to see and respond to, including the gripee. I, myself, have never been in an organization of more than 10 people where the social dynamics didn't get ugly at some point. Gossip, cliques, bigotry, (sometimes even mutany) are everywhere. They've just never been so obviously visable and well recorded before. If this is going to be fixed, it is going to be a fundamental change in how people behave. Getting the leaders to take their dirty laundry out of the public forum would be a good place to start and would set a nice example.
Good luck.
Davo -- Free speech, free software, AND free beer.
Rather the idea, surely, is that when someone asks as a *spokesperson* for a movement, organisation, whatever, they should try to make sure that what they are saying is acceptable to as much of that movement as possible *before* saying it - and that it is the spokesperson's responsibility to do so. Otherwise it is all too easy to predict that parts of the movement will disown the spokesperson's words and arguments and worse will follow.
I guess you might achieve this by asking any self-appointed spokesperson to make a clear distinction between *their own* views and *their movement's views* - the making of such a distinction would seem only polite. Some ESR things fall clearly into the "own views" category, such as the immensely foolish Gates-as-Hitler picture -- far more childishly alienating to the outside world than anything RMS has ever done -- while others are far more broadly acceptable both within and without the community.
I did read it on the other hand, so I'll flame it happily where it needs to be flamed.
What Eric seems to be missing throughout this paper is the reason people are so quick to publically and vocally flame his decisions and statements. So far as I can tell, and indeed so far as anyone can tell, Eric appears to make statements and decisions based solely on his opinion. I have never seen Eric ask "what do you people think?" of the community. If he would start asking for and representing the views of the community he claims to represent, people will be more likely to accept him as a representative.
So far he has not been representing my views. Because his personal views are very much in conflict with mine in all too many ways, I have a hard time trusting that Eric is going to do the right thing. As long as I can't trust him to do the right thing, I'm going to have to remain very skeptical of him and his announcements.
I have watched Eric make a number of what I consider to be grave and even dangerous errors in judgement. I'm certainly not the only one who thinks so otherwise he'd be getting a lot less flame mail. My suggestion to Eric is therefore that he stop trying to lead the community. He is not IMO doing a very good job at it anyway. Eric may consider himself an ambassador, but that isn't how he's been acting or if he has he's not been my ambassador and likely not yours either.
By acting rather than first thinking to consult the group which collectively is far more important than any one man's ego, he invites flames and other public figures in the community to openly oppose him. This is where statements like those from RMS and the joint statement issued by Bruce Perens, SPI, and Debian come from.
Eric, take the afternoon off. Go home, spend some time with your family, go out for ice cream or something... Come back tomorrow morning and think about what I've written then. You'll get a lot further if you don't try to do everything yourself.
ESR makes public statements and actions, and people who disagree with him follow with public statements, that seems reasonable to me (okay, some are pointless flames but not all).
You seem to be saying that to be polite you should send any disagreements to public statements privately, but the person to whom you were responding (and with whom you were disagreeing) had an email address shown. Did you email him privately or did you just respond publicly to his public comments? Why do you think others should behave differently to that?
I think you've got a good point. Technology's rise to "hipness" has definately contributed to tech culture hubris. Previously geeks had little or no reinforement for any feelings of superiority gained from technical accomplishment. Now that's been completely turned around.
I didn't mean to imply that all Slashdot users were Linux users. That's fine with me if you like Windows 98 and Solaris. Computers in general are fascinating, and whatever gets the job done is fine with me. One thing I've always loved about Linux is how well it gets along with other operating systems.
I still maintain that the reason ESR was flamed so badly is that "Take My Job" was a hastly written obnoxious article. Notice, that I also praise ESR for original clear thinking with other articles. I just think he's rather immature when he brags about who he met, and objects to being criticised. Someone like him who can do great things, and is a public figure should be alot more careful about what they say in public, whereas an AC like me can afford to be a little careless.
"As a culture, you have a nasty habit of disagreeing with me -- of demanding moral integrity, of understanding that I have a huge ego, of coming up with good and valid critizisms. This has to stop. We've got to grow up into media whores."
He still doesn't get it. And I'm starting to believe he never will. In all his wining and dining the suits, he's taken on their motives. Not that he had all that much understanding in the first place about what the movement was about, since he tried to unhook it from the philosophy. But he's gotten worse. He wants marketshare. Yet free software doesn't need it. He wants to beat Bill Gates (for personal reasons, no less). Yet that's not neccessary.
All we need to do is keep on doing what we've been doing for the last 15 years, all the way back since Stallman started it (and, yes, Stallman started it, no matter how much ESR wants to take it from him). Marketshare doesn't matter. "Growing up" doesn't matter. Morals matter. Freedom matters. Integrity matters.
--Joakim Ziegler
Rather than attempting to convince corporations such as Apple to imbrace free software, it will be far more effective to found new companies that use free software to compete head-on with their proprietary software. While I deeply respect ESR as an individual he definitly does not represent, us, the free software community. At the same time that I disagree with his philosophy and strategy, I would defend to the death his freedom to be as wrong headed as he wants to be. To me, freedom is the thing that is most highly valued. Cheers GBS
Quite possibly it is that the original poster is not afraid of a public debate about the issues that face us. ESR seems very afraid to talk about anything in public except for himself.
One. Eric rightly states that the job of leader is not his to give away. But even if it were his, it would not be something for him to give away any more than a President gets to choose his successor. Leadership is gifted by the masses, not handed down from father to son.
Eric should be the first to realise that the media all too easily confuse 'spokesman' for 'leader', simply because spokespeople often are leaders and the two often blur into one. But what has Eric done to counter this and ensure the he is seen as a voice, an eloquent and inspirational voice, but only one voice? As has been said elsewhere, why does he think that his personal qualifications form the job-requirements for someone else doing similar work? Similar. Not a drop-in subtitute-Eric doing exactly what Eric chooses to.
Two. Any thriving culture or microculture is not afraid of arguments. Eric almost seems to be saying 'Don't argue with me, cos it makes us look silly'. What?! Relegating RMS, Perens and Jackson to the rank of squabbling children only shows (to those looking for proof) the sense of arrogance which Eric has become associated with. We should not be lectured on swallowing our adverse feelings on issues such as APSL in order to avoid upsetting those working to improve the situation. Nor do we want testosterone-burdened flame-throwers to have a field day and make people's lives miserable, but the two should not be confused. Responses to APSL from those well-known were rational expressions of concern, and I for one am happy to see people express themselves freely without feeling a need to seek Eric's ascension first.
The media at large is not used to seeing arguments within a group as a positive thing. Political divisions within a party are pounced upon with glee as a sign of weekness, and you NEVER get to hear of Ballmer/Gates flare-ups. But ARGUMENTS CAN BE A GOOD THING. We make progress through rational and well-reasoned arguments, as otherwise we would rarely find with hindsight that a decision we had made had been the right one.
We have Prime Minister's question-time, not so that we can all have a good laugh at everyone tearing each other apart, but so that we can have confidence in our leaders and hold them to account. The arguments make it plain to see when a gaff has been made, and equally plain to see when an action has been well thought-through.
Just my thoughts.
I've also been somewhat perplexed at the amount of backlash directed at ESR. Yes, we must be very careful as free software grows larger as a blip on the mainstream radar screen. But without the OSI's efforrs, without Raymond's efforts to improve our community's image in the eyes of those who (for better or worse) run the industry, we'd still be very much an enlightened backwater, unable to get the ideas of intellectual freedom beyond our own little community.
I started using Linux in the summer of 1996. I was amazed that something so powerful was free. With source code, even. I wished that one day the rest of the world would discover it too. Thanks largely to the OSI's efforts, that wish is coming true.
So back off. Flaming ESR without suggesting a alternate, rational course of action only gives Mickeysoft and their defenders in the press the ammunition to make us look silly.
-brian
This Slashdot mob thing is really quite interesting.
There's many different factions that know what's right and wrong.
The one that interests me is the one that says GPL or Hell for software, because proprietary is bad, but then can't wait to pay 8 bucks to just see another trailer for George Lucas's next proprietary media event.
It is up to you. Those you -- for some reason -- desire private feedback from, you should ask in private. Those you want (or can live with) public feedback from, can wait until the public announcement. Expecting people to make private comments to a public announcement is simply absurd.
;-)
Another possibility would be to do like Netscape, and explictly ask for feedback on a "beta" version of the license. Kind of like a bazaar approach to drafting the license, rather than the cathedral approach you and Apple used
Arrogance can be annoying on a human level, but some of the most arrogant assholes were also great geniuses (not ESR though) such as Sir Issac Newton. Perhaps it is that ego among other things which drives a person, gives them the motivation to do great things. In other words, some of the great people in history who contributed so much to our ideas, wouldn't make very good friends.
I think just about any online forum, be that an audiophile newsgroup, cooking mailinglist, or knitting irc forum is full of these flamewars. The only difference with slashdot,is that you get to read cool news. If ESR would like to represent any online community the way he does with OpenSource (like a spokesperson for the Sewing Grannies Online) he would get just about the same amount of flame. It's simple, most people are stupid bastards. Zed
I agree there are always idiots who write too fast and think too little. I agree that anyone in any public (read: leadership) position must be able to take their share of flames. But we as a community also *must* mature. Though we get things done, how much more could we accomplish without internal strife? Anyone remember when scoop took freshmeat down? Every couple months there are serious problems over these issues. Thank God scoop brought back freshmeat, but we can't afford to lose sites like that, or advocates like Raymond. Though we are still getting code written, we could be doing **so** much more!
Erik
This statement shows that you consider yourself on top. It's obvious that RMS and Bruce are the people to talk to, as they are the one's with the knowledge and opinion of software licensing, and they are the people who "lead" the community. But you feel free to dismiss them.
As for polling Slashdot, that's what Netscape & Troll Tech did, by having the wisdom to post draft licenses that were posted and discussed on Slashdot.
That goes hand-in-hand with Gleef's observation that Eric brought the debate into the public forum with his endorsement. Apple probably requested it of Eric; I hope he agonized over the decision. If not, then I hope he at least understands how that event set the stage for public rebuttal.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Linus, acting quite within his rights, doesn't get flamed because he doesn't get involved. He hasn't tried to persuade anyone to Open Source a previously closed codebase. He hasn't discussed the merits of one licensing scheme over another. He wants to hack the kernel, so he gets flamed about his kernel-related decisions.
It's good that Linus does that, but it's also good that not everyone does.
--
Xenu loves you!
Nothing is going downhill. Just think of it as a firestorm and Linux is hot. ESR has been busy laying the foundation for the future of free software, from maintaining sunsite and now promoting Linux to the top dogs in the industry. Since Linux is hot, the folks at the top are worried about being burned. ESR is helping those who would otherwise get burned by the free software concept find a business model that will strive. He is too valuable to quit. We won't let him! :)
If Eric can't stand the heat, the bazaar has an exit door. Three cheers for all the wonderful things he's done. But I don't care about "what will They think?"; I don't care about "winning" wars or World Domination; I don't care about adding to the Buzzword Files of miscellaneous PHBs and CEOs. Considering the general insensitivity of /. posters (and I'm not referring to The Kiddies), why should I suddenly become a bleeding-heart about peoples' desires to replace their workplace BSOD devices with Linux boxen? People are dying in the Balkans, enslaved in the Sudan, etc, etc, and I'm supposed to unconditionally cheer ESR on as he tries to "liberate" your workplaces?
I'm burning my tribal membership card. Good riddance to me. I will henceforth attempt to be an individual, one who is trying to use and write Free Software. Over and out.
--
--
=8^
Depending on who you listen to, freedom and open process are the driving forces behind this big phenomenon that we all get so excited by. And that's precisely why there was an uproar over the proclamation that the Apple license was "Open Source".
Who said that the license qualified? Not the community. ESR said it was good enough for us, and we had better praise Apple for it. But that's not how it works. The "screaming at the top of one's lungs" came from members of the community who were concerned that ESR was trying to make our decisions for us, and that those decisions were wrong. To be a truly effective spokesman, ESR needs to recognize that there will be conflicts between his own beliefs and those of many in the open source community, and he needs to deal honestly with those conflicts. I don't think anyone expects ESR to do all of the things that he seems to feel are necessary; communicating the strengths and advantages of open source is more than enough.
Regarding slashdot kiddies:
Yes, there are some quality comments. However, the ranking system is an obvious admission that there's an enormous amount of noise.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
Okay, so OSI's opinion that the APSL is Open Source was made public - true or not? Others' opinions that the APSL is not Open Source was made public - true or not?
Both "sides" expressed themselves publicly, what's your problem?
should probably not contain characterizations of people who disagree as "slashdot kiddies and their spiritual kin". It's needlessly inflamatory. It sounds good, and I'm sure it was satifying to write, but it cuts against the whole stated purpose of the essay. People who disagree with ESR are evidently "glib" and "stalwart would-be defenders of cultural purity" and "twits going on a rampage". They may be, but calling them that is descending to their level.
And to forstall one set of objections, this particular stalwart twit spends his spare time working on a couple of GPL'ed projects, with uncertain effect, but great conviction...
Now send that to him in e-mail.
esr@tuxedo.org
Or did you miss the point in his latest essay where he ASKED YOU TO DO JUST THAT?
Or is that YOUR egoism talking, that you want a reply from the guy in a public forum?
J.
damned vulpine http://sb.drtwister.com/
Because the other's opinions were of the form "You are in error. Here's why". If you're trying to change people's minds, you don't point out their errors to the world at large. Geeks do it all the time. Geeks are bad at human relations. Right?
-russ
"As a culture, we have a nasty habit of eating our own -- of demanding unattainable perfection, of assuming the worst, of flaming before thinking. This has to stop. We've got to grow up."
This falls right in line with what Cmdr Taco wrote earlier today. Flame, flame, flame...
If Linux and Open Source software fail in attaining world domination, it won't be because the code sucks.
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Think about it...
>>esr>>
I agree that ESR deserves a measure of respect for the job that he has done.
But, the problem that I have with his position on this issue is that his main complaint is that the community (or as he puts it, "the tribe") would dare to disagree with him.
He says that Stallman and Perens "threw bombs in public" when all that they did was to post their thoughts in a public forum. If anything, isn't that what this community is all about? We take pride in judging each other by the quality of our thinking (usually expressed in code, but sometimes in English) instead of by other more mainstream measures. We let each other state their case and then choose a position based on the merits of the argument. But when members of the community express a position contrary to that of ESR, he resorts to the ad hominem attack.
If ESR really wanted Perens, Stallman, et al to approach OSI and Apple privately, he should have consulted with them privately BEFORE he publicly stated his opinion that the APSL met the requirements of the Open Source Definition.
Why should Bruce and RMS have gone to ESR first? The APSL was a public license released to the Free Software community. Bruce and RMS had problems with that license, and told the Free Software community about it. Their intent was not to criticize ESR/OSI, but to point out to the community at large the problems with the license. I appreciate that. I would not have been happy if Bruce and RMS and ESR had all sat behind closed doors and discussed this all amongst themselves, leaving the rest of us out of the loop without any input on the matter. Public debate on a public license is good.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The benefit is that corporations will pay
or otherwise expend resources to develop free
software for their needs. The software will
then be available for everyone. It is likely
that the added code will be useful to others.
I believe a lot of GCC development was funded
by companies. It takes a lot of mythical man months to develop powerful and useful software.
The negative side of this is when companies
create unfree licenses just to get the public
to develop their software for free. Here's
the WidgetPro source, please fix the bugs and send us the code! Thanks!
-Kevin
I just spent 15 minutes trying to put this very idea into words, but I like your version. I think that this is exactly why ESR runs into such opposition: members of the community hear Eric "speaking for them", but they strongly disagree with the things he is saying. Any "spokesman" for the open source world needs a big dose of humility. With the huge mishmash of opinions out there, how could anyone claim to "represent" open source? We need good, honest, informed reporting of the truth, not wheelin' and dealin' and speechifyin'
This guy's hubris is out of control, we need to ditch this peckerwood before everyone thinks all Linux users are like him.
Secondly, I really dislike the way he states some of his points:
Why are the stakes too high? Big companies won't invest in Linux? I don't think so, they already have. Linux won't continue to grow? The self appointed "leaders" will quit their jobs? I don't think that would be a bad thing. I'd like it if someone could give me a good reason why "flamers exist on slashdot - traced back to usenet - film at 11" would be such a damaging story to Linux.
1.People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public instead of approaching OSI and Apple privately with their concerns.
This point really gets me. I thought the free software/open source community was different - that it was a public forum for discussing ideas. I would very much like to see the debate between Apple and the free software community (not just ESR or RMS or Bruce Perens, etc.) before Apple decides. I think many people would start getting disillusioned if all the "important" decisions were debated and resolved before we even heard about them. Why write free software if someone else will be deciding how companies use it, for example?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of sloppy readers out there who didn't catch the message, Mr. McKenzie among them.
If sarcasm was posted on the Net, would anybody notice?
I'd just like to point out that there are bad apples in every group, and this particular community happens to have especially noisy bad apples. Remember, though, that for each pointless flame or baseless attack, there are dozens of users who are 'pleased as punch' with their chosen (free) software but who perhaps haven't yet found an appropriate way to contribute to the community. I should know; I'm one of them.
There are lots more of us than there are inane Slashdot posts.
...and that's not a bad thing. Right?
What "media hoopla" are you talking about? OSI labelled the APSL Open Source, rightly or wrongly. ESR, our president, spoke for us. Bruce etal had a problem with that -- but went straight to the press with it. RMS had a problem, but went straight to the press (to his credit, he's currently talking to us about it).
OSI does not have a history of ignoring them. That is not why Bruce quit the OSI -- remember, I was *there*.
-russ
I appreciate picking up the fruits of your efforts while not really doing a damn thing to support the community.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
That being said, we all can learn something from the events of this week:
Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is whine and bash someone. If you cannot debate issues publicly in a civil manner, then just stick to writing code and keep your mouth shut.
Encourage each other to communicate more effectively and factually. Do not argue just to impress your friends or self.
Remember that people like RMS/ESR/Linus are afterall human. They can make mistakes, they can act stupid, they can say stupid things. When they do, we need to politely deal with the situation. We don't need to start fragging them.
If you do get angry about an issue, try not to make it any worse. Sometimes you can, sometimes you won't. But, for gosh sakes, at least try people! We *ARE* on the same side!!!
For Rob et al. at Slashdot: Please consider removing the Anonymous Coward facility from the site. It would not be censorship. Let us be individually accountable for our commentary and do not give us a cloaking device that 99% of the time ends up being abused as a way to insult, ridicule and hurt people. If someone doesn't want to post unless they can anonymously, then let them go. We as a community do not need them here. They are a liability, not an asset.
My friends, we *do* need to grow up like ESR says. Many of us are immature, but that's ok. You can be forgiven, if you also are willing to learn from your mistakes and from others. If you are not, then please go somewhere else. This is a serious issue, one that has been becoming more and more volatile in lots of places. I for one will try to be more patient and civil...I hope my fellow tribefolk will do the same.
--Rick
The last six months have been pretty good for those of us using OSS/Free software, mainly because of spokesman like ESR, et al. He makes several good points here.
I, for one, am glad he's sticking around.
Go plug a few for me, Eric.
This is just a thought, but I believe the arrogance stems from the heady rocket-ride to power geeks have had over the past couple years. In the past, people who were technically-inclined were portayed in the media etc. as societal rejects - unnaturally-pale basement dwellers with tape on their glasses. Suddenly, in true "Revenge of the Nerds" style, the technical skills these people possessed became valuable and even, dare I say it, hip.
Frequently, an ascent to power breeds arrogance, particularly in people who have never sniffed mainstream popularity before. It's true that knowledgable techies should have a reason to be proud of themselves and confidant in their skills. But arrogance and confidence are not one and the same. You don't have to be bossy or disdainful to lead people and you don't have to act like you know it all to prove you know what you're doing(look at Linus!). Geeks would do well to remember what it feels like to be stepped on and/or dismissed.
What does everything think? Am I even vaguely on the right track here?
Rather than waste my time restating everything, I'll just say "read my other replies on this page". Brevity is kewl :)
--
--
=8^
There's a time for taking things in the open, and there's a time for talking person-to-person.
Consider this: The open letter approach is often used as a rebuke against those who are otherwise unresponsive.
That's not a very good way of starting a discussion. Don't bring out the big guns without reason.
For one thing, it's not useful to start out from a position of conflict.
Second, there is no need to use a public forum for the correction of a few peoples' private, personal misperceptions. Take it open if there appears to be ample evidence of a willful attempt to mislead or betray the public. Simple misunderstandings or disagreements don't count. A person's confusion is not adequate cause to call for the Bright Light Of Open Truth To Rain Down.
Further, taking things public tends to bring out the ego. Rather than a civil discussion between colleagues ("Hey mack, what's this thing mean?"), each party tries to out-rhetoric the other with pompous verbiage ("We the undersigned believe that Slim Goodbody has overstepped the bounds of his role, and grossly mispresented the goals of the MP3 Player GUI Widget Association"). Before even trying to clear things up, the parties have fortified their positions.
This is not the way to progress.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
I would like to start by wishing good luck to everyone who WORKS for Linux. I am not talking about me or any other 13 year old nerd-wanna-be (Hell I never wanted and always laughed at them!)
Good luck then to Linus, ESR, Stallman(get less crazy), Debian, RedHat, SuSe, Slackware...
I can't list them all now can I? Oh and Alan Cox! He patches kernels faster than Lucky Luke shoots his gun!
Now if you guys ever need to breathe, send a comment here, and I will send 1000 reply of support, even if I don't agree with you. Then when you are well, I'll tell you if I don't agree!
Now I wish to come to the point of free speech. We love it we users of Linux, and I love it. But people, all people, don't see it this way. If Stallman flames Linus in public (Linus didn't do it!), these people will only talk about division NOT free speech. So yes, I think we should keep flames between us, and show a common front to outsiders, especially the media.
Microsoft would love to use this as soon as the DOJ gets out of their. Believe me, they'll do it.
I wouldn't even be surprised if they started paying media to interview Stallman et al. just to show businesses how fucking crazy the Linux Community is!
Anyway, Good Luck, and KEEP THAT FRONT at least try to do it as soon as Microsoft deals with DOJ!
I would very much like to see the debate between Apple and the free software community (not just ESR or RMS or Bruce Perens, etc.) before Apple decides. I think many people would start getting disillusioned if all the "important" decisions were debated and resolved before we even heard about them.
:-)
You have a good point, but I think you're missing ESR's. It wasn't just that these other people expressed their views in public, but that many people openly attacked Apple's license, as well as ESR and OSI. Rather than responding with "Don't you think that this could be improved by [insert-your-favorite-addition-here]?", they said the whole thing was evil. Of course, I'm not referring to everyone here, as some people were actually behaving rationally.
On the other hand, ESR doesn't seem to be taking the same stance he did at first on the license -- I could be wrong, but this is the first time I've seen him admitting that there could be something wrong with it. Even if this is true, he made a mistake, and it's not an irreversible one. Cut him a little slack
When writing to extremely open-minded people, flame can get results, but no matter who you write to the results are almost always better if you explain your position rationally (some people respond to neither, but that's not the point). Also, bear in mind that when you're the recipient, large amounts of flame can easily drown out the support you may have, and provide a picture that is a lot bleaker than the reality.
So... in conclusion, ESR is not perfect, but he is trying to do the right thing here. Keep that in mind before you get mad at him.
David
Yeah, only the geniuses caught ESR's brilliance. Egos...
I have to disagree. ESR's recent "* My Job -- Please" both were arrogant and condescending to the free software community, as others here have adequately explained. I used to respect ESR, but reading these two pieces gave me a sick feeling in my stomach...
I got the same sick feeling when I read BP's anti-KDE rant many months ago. But, BP has learned from his mistakes, he has even admitted them, and has gone out of his way to point out when misconceptions still exist which could be traced back to his QPL rant.
ESR has done no such thing. He thinks that polite disagreements are personal attacks.
You say that "both presume to be talking for everyody" -- well, Perens' recent work wasn't just Perens, it was SPI and Debian as well. The Debian representative (Wichert Akkerman (sp?)) was *elected* by the Debian developers (>400 of them!).
ESR represents himself and his opinions, and presumes to represent all of us. Perens et al (especially the et al!) represent themselves and their opinitions, and have a legitimate claim to represent many of us.
Perens was very active on Slashdot after he posted his APSL response, defending and discussing his position. I think we all wish ESR would do the same (perhaps not on Slashdot, but in a public forum somewhere...) (And please don't call ESR's presence in this discussion "particiption", he has so far not followed up on the responses to any of his posts... though I hope he does.)
ESR mishandled the APSL. Why can't he just admit that? There is no shame in being wrong once in a while, but there is great shame in trying to blame your mistakes on others. He would gain my respect once again.
But then I'm just a slashdot kiddie. Why should he want my respect?
--Kirk
This is the biggest problem,that faces us is not microsoft.We need to act like adults not 12 year old script kiddies. If you want to flame people
.It is arrogant pride (slashdot kiddie)
go back to IRC!
ESr earned my respect,and I am damn glad he around.
For those who dont know what hubris is
I don't really get the whole ESR v. RMS thing, seems like they are all working on different sides of the same problem, but one thing really bothered me about this essay. Raymond says:
"1.People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public instead of approaching OSI and Apple privately with their concerns."
This seems kind of hypocritical--if software can (and should) be developed by a community, shouldn't this apply to liscenses, too? Can he advocate code being developed in public while it's liscense is decided behind closed doors (or private channels of communication)?
Anyways, I think the OSI should pick a single liscense that they stand behind and just refer anyone who wants to jump on the bandwagon to that, rather then naming liscenses "Open Source Certified" as they appear.
joeld@acm.org
(recovering AC)
One man is not going to bring Linux any closer to the forefront of worldwide perception. It will take the continuation of hard work and the imagination of the thousands of programmers like ESR that have gotten Linux where it is today. It has been said that flaming and negative feedback slows Linux' march to the top. I say that it's Linux' lack of a cohesive vision that keeps it where it is. Microsoft dominates because it has a vision, one motivated by greed and power, but a vision none the less. This is OSS's biggest and its greatest strength: its freedom. But what is freedom, if you don't go anywhere with it?
Disclaimer: The original version of my post was apparently censored by Linux Today.
--
--
=8^
What the debate about the AAPL says to me is that the definition of Open Source (tm) is buggy. There is not much actual disagreement about the idea that a license which allows the original author to revoke subsequent authors use rights, at the orignal author's discretion, due to circumstances beyond any author's control, is undesirable for the open source community. But there is apparently disagreement about whether the Open Source Definition allows a license with this property. If ESR, Perens, and Stallman (representative of experienced readers of software licenses) can't agree about this, then there is a problem. The Open Source Definition should be fixed so as not to allow undesirable licenses and to not be ambiguous about what it says. It isn't shocking to find out that there is this kind of loophole in the definition - there will probably turn out to be others. But it's reasonable to expect that whatever organization or group of people is in charge of this definition will take perform suitable maintenance on it. Until such steps are taken, this whole debate about what should or not be allowed, and who did or didn't jump the gun, is just another version of the justly ridiculed position that "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
And yes, I've been forced to use proprietary software as my "bread and butter." Of course my aim is to change that, if not now, in the future.
Assholes. I for one, am glad that ESR is staying on board. However I do have one suggestion. Just as you should not go around sniffing ....., you should in turn ignore most people's opinions. Most of what is posted on SlashDot, and related discussion groups is just trash, and not worth the stress it can cause you. Stay focused on your goals, ignore the ranting, and keep up the good work. The same goes to RMS, Linus, Alan, and the rest of the gang. Ignore the trash, there will always be more of it than should be. People love to complain, but rarely like to compliment. It is an odd habit of us Humans that we desire aproval, but tend to only dish out disapproval. Hmmm, well, anyway, know that your efforts are appreciated by the silent majority of us. Keep up the excellent work.
-Master Switch, one more element in the machine
If we do not improve in this very area, there will not be a culture.
Immaturity is a problem, but "growing up" isn't really a solution. For every 12 year old flamer that "grows up" there are a dozen 11 year olds ready to pick up the torch.
/. has going on, it's too bad RMS can't have someone wade through his email and do the same.
Any Id10t with an uninformed opinion and a shoulder mounted chip can blast away at out figureheads without any accountability. This reeks. How can we tell the men from the boys?
I like the moderation that
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!
Really, let's can the conspiracy theories, please. Let's just write good code, hack cool ideas, and move forward. I for one support Eric and the work he has done, even if I haven't always agreed with every decision he has made. Here's one supporting you Eric!
Thanks,
Brad Neuberg
To throw my $0.015 into the ring...
...it's because we need to learn not to pull this kind of immature crap in public any more. The stakes are too high now; when we squabble like children, the trade and even the mainstream press will pick up on it and nail us as a bunch of fractious flakes who can't even be trusted on the playground without a keeper...
To me this is the most important paragraph of that essay. I respect ESR, and I generally try to avoid discussions centering on him or RMS because I think they rarely lead to anything positive, and they often serve just to incite flames. (Maybe Rob just wants to do a trial by fire of the new moderators? (: )
That being said, the whole community (slashdot 'kiddies' and all) needs to grow up. The cold hard fact is that our favorite os _won't_ even be trusted by techies, much less PHBs if we let the community splinter badly. We're not there yet (or even close), but I'd sure hate to see that happen.
Read Rob's essay on flamewars... Think about things before you say them. Realize that people like ESR dedicate their LIFE to linux, and that no one will put up with this stuff very long.
Can the community stand to lose Linus? Do you want to try?
It's unfortunate that esr wrote off anyone who criticizes his actions as either ideological "stalwarts" or testosterone-crazed Slashdot kiddies. Yeah, there are a lot of flames, but there are a lot of well-thought critiques on these online forums as well. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't going to help.
And here's my "testosterone-crazed" opinion: Why does the community need to present a unified face to the world? esr's argument was that otherwise, the mainstream press and corporations would lose interest. But how important is that interest? For all the corporate interest in free/open-source software lately, relatively little code has been freed. There's practically as many lines of new licenses as of new code from various companies.
In my opinion, the individuals are more important than the corporations.
Greetings,
If I feel that the OSI or SPI or ESR or BP or whomever has made a mistake, or more specifically I disagree with them, I have a responsibility to make it public. I agree that it's not necessary to make it public in a nasty, furnace-heated fashion, but it is absolutely essential that it be brought to light.
Why?
Because that's the essence of democracy. Because if we have speakers, we must have a method of informing them that we disagree, and showing others why, so that they too can decide to agree or disagree with more information, or even to shoot down our information if it's bad. Private disagreement (email and such) is good, and a useful thing, but it doesn't get the issues out in front of people who may not have thought them through yet.
This is fundamental to our community, and ESR absolutely has to understand that. In fact, anyone who claims to speak for us, has to be aware that their every action will be publicly discussed, and that this is a good thing.
It's healthy.
If public second guessing of your actions bothers you, then you need to not be in the public eye. There is no public figure who does NOT recieve constant second guessing, and in the case of our representatives (which ESR is trying to be), this is 100% appropriate, as it should help guide them.
The most valuable thing in ESR's latest essay is that they did take a look at the Apple license, and are negotiating a 1.1 version of it. To quote:
I wasn't much injured by learning that many people thought the license was broken and OSI had made a wrong call -- I've got a bit more courage than to collapse over that, it just meant OSI had a duty to re-examine and maybe re-negotiate.
This is the fundamental nature of directed public outrage, and public debate. What he calls an electronic lynching bee, I call the voice of the community. Certainly, when people flame personal attacks, it seems much more like a lynch mob, but the core fact is that the sheer level of community outrage forced a reexamination of the license. Hopefully it forces a reexamination of the future licenses they consider as well.
So what does this all mean?
It means don't hesitate to air your disagreements in public. It's not 'immature' to discuss and disagree in public.
It means do hesitate to call names, spout vitriol, and all the other things you should know better than to do already.
It also means that ESR himself shouldn't resort to these things as well (although he does write them much better). I think that RMS and Perens disagreements with him were appropriate and absolutely necessary for the community to see to be informed, and to raise the necessary public outrage to get them to renegotiate. His backhanded insults to them and their public comments are just as unnecessary as the worst Slashdot kiddies and their spiritual kin, only written much better and more subtly.
In the end, though, I consider the statement that the OSI is renegotiating a 1.1 license to be the (sadly lacking otherwise) acknowledgement that they did make a mistake, and are trying to fix it. This makes me much happier personally, because it means that they are listening to the community. With that knowledge, I feel substantially more secure about their goals.
Cyberfox!
Um.
Whether you like it or not, ESR's personality and personal behaviour does figure into this. I never said "Fetchmail is shit". From what I see, it's a reasonable piece of code. Not that I've had the need to use it all that much. Nor did I say he's not a true hacker, at least by the definition he sets down in the Jargon File, he is, and by my own somewhat stricter definition (which excludes myself), then he still is.
I did, however, say that he has an overblown ego. And I stand by that. To me, it's apparent from a lot of his essays and writings (the one about how he learnt that he had supernatural powers and stuff is particularly interesting), and his behaviour.
"Lack of moral integrity" stems from both the blunders with the Apple licensing stuff, and from what I perceive as attempts to steal a lot of glory and respect from RMS.
"Being a media whore" is one thing he does, and does well. The overexposure he talked about is a result of that. Note that it isn't neccessarily a bad thing, it's something that most people with some degree of fame in the public eye have been doing for quite some time.
But. My point isn't that ESR is doing something that's all that bad in "the Real World", it's just his insistence that we mix all this "Real World" stuff in our community. The attempts to establish free software culture as a "gift economy" in the Cathedral paper is an example of this. He's trying to apply economical thinking to something that's not driven by economy, because altruism and the desire to do good things doesn't seem like believable motives to him.
The same thing with "Open Source". He doesn't see that Free Software can exist nicely without trying to work in the "Market", and he tries to decouple if from the philosophy that made it, so he can mix it into the marketplace.
His vision, thus, is rather narrow. And these are the points he's missing.
--Joakim Ziegler
I used the word "twit" because ESR did. I do not consider myself his equal or Perens or RMS, I just wanted to point out that ESR thinks that Perens and RMS don't have the right to criticise him, but he has the right to criticise them. As for me, I'm nobody important.
Hmm... I see ESR getting flammed a lot, and RMS perhaps less, but still to some degree. When was the last time anyone remember Linus getting flammed? Why is it that Linus seems to remain unscathed?
There are probably a couple of reasons. The biggest I think is simply the fact that unlike ESR and RMS, he's not an egotist. I admire him greatly for that. I know that if I were in his position I would have a hard time being as humble as he seems to be. He also seems very reasonable, not overly reactive. ESR is REACTING to the flamers, yelling back, although in a much more civilazed manor perhaps, but you can still see the 'Shame on all of you evil people for flamming be, you should all go home and feel guilty', between the lines. It is true that were a very hostile culture, especially toward anyone trying to be a 'leader', but I've always seen the hacker culture as sort of anarchistic, we dont really go for leaders. Just do your own thing, share, and it will all work itself out in the end. That seems to be the route Linus is taking, no politics, no marketing, just do what you do and it will work out, build a better operating system and they will come. They have. Yes, to some extent I would like to see Linux embraced by the corporate world, so I could use it at work, but really, I dont know if I want to see it embraced by the corporate world because it's marketed better, I'd like to see it win because it's better technology. Maybe that will never happen, maybe corporations need marketing to convince them. After all the only thing that keeps Microsoft going so well is marketing (oh yeah, and that pesky monopoly thing). Still, I dont want leaders and I dont want marketing. I dont want a movement, or a revolution. I want good software, free software. I write software because I enjoy it, I use linux because it's good. Nothing else matters. Go ahead and flame ESR, or dont, it really doesnt matter. He's done really cool things in the past (Jargon File, Cathedral and the Bazzaz), but right now, all he does is marketing, and marketing I could do without.
Sorry for the randomness and lack or paragraph structure, I'm not feeling very organized today
And as much as I occasionally disagree with Bruce Perens, I really appreciate him posting his views and opinions on Slashdot. If only ESR and RMS were more like that.
Because that's the essence of democracy.
This community is not a democracy. The OSS movement is more like the Klingon High Council: if you do something, you get to decide how it gets done. The more you contribute, the more decision-making power you have.
You disagree with how someone has done something? Don't complain about it...do something about it.
Democracy? No. Not even close.
- d
Sorry for the genius post. Moderate it down, please.
I may not have made much sense to you in the first post, but I still believe that ESR made a mistake.
Are you saying that his two rants were self-referential? The only way they make sense is if he meant to illustrate the idiocy of masturbatory, nonsense flamage by doing it himself...in a fancy Gen-X post-ironic way. I, personally, didn't see it that way - seems more like a standard "open source leader has bitter, egotistical fit" to me. I'm sure the people who flamed him before will continue to do so; in fact, he has thrown more fuel on the fire. He should know better than to feed the trolls. I mean, come on... "Don't pity me -- I walked into this job with my eyes open. I knew the road would wear on me. I expected some people on my own side would damn near bury me in immaturity and bullshit" are sentences uttered by a character in the climax of a grade 11 literature assignment, not something that should be used without irony by an adult in a leadership position.
Plenty of people took his "retirement" seriously. If enough people miss the "message" -- enough to warrant a whole new essay explaining the first one -- I'd say mistakes were made, wouldn't you? Or is it easier to be smug and decry the poor reading comprehension of everyone who actually took ESR seriously?
L. Ron McKenzie
Sloppy Reader and Slashdot Poster
It's interesting to note that one of the points that ESR makes is that the Open Source modus operandi of screaming at the top of one's lungs whenever something looks out of whack needs to be tempered when dealing with the public/media. It's somewhat akin to not shooting your own in war/consulting (same difference), and generally is a good idea.
This is not to say that if quiet discussion doesn't solve the problem it's not apropos to scream really loud, just keep the two in order.
Just my thoughts, or reasonable facsimiles.
1. A lot of it's my own ego; I don't like being told to shut up for my own good. I don't claim to be egoless any more than Eric does. But this isn't all about ego. If it were, I wouldn't be following up on this thread.
2. I could care less whether or not someone such as you replied to my post.
3. My post was public because his essay was public. I thought it was made clear that I don't care much for the "let's keep it private" mode of conversing. Also, I don't have a personal beef with Eric, unlike apparently many folks around here.
4. My post stands.
Rob Warren
I could call your response worthless prattle. But I won't, I will respond to it. And I don't see what you say in his letters. He is basically saying he doesn't deserved to be flamed constantly. And I am sure that you cannot write flawless essays most of the time. These read like HTML-ized e-mail responses. They aren't meant for publication to the world, just to people who want to know why he is acting this way.
Flaming other people just means that you don't have a good counter arguement. And Slashdot is full of people who act like idiots, contrary to what you might believe. There are some threads are so pointless it is beyond belief. So Slashdot kiddies is pretty accurate, for the people he is describing.
And some people on Slashdot aren't Linux people. I'm not, I use Windows 98 and Solaris mostly. I am not one of the Linux community, but I am part of Slashdot. Does that make me bad?
No. Just different. If anything, you should notice that people should cooperate or we will keep having Kosovo, Somalia, or Rwanda happening again. I use Windows. So what? I seem to have a more sensible mind than some of the Linux people around Slashdot. You can have your bitter opinion, but there are other opinions that might be better than yours. And no one has the right to stop you from complaing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" - F. Voltaire.
I agree with part of what Eric says. We need to put more work into settling our internal disagreements in a manner not reminiscent of a bunch of 12 year olds.
On the other hand I an disturbed by the idea that RMS, Perens and the rest should have complained to ESR without making their concerns known to the rest of us. Most of us are not license lawyers, and the problems with Apple's license are subtle but very real. I think it is in the best traditions of the community that they raise their concerns in public (perens was even very polite about it). Consider what would have happened if ESR and the rest had agreed to complkain to Apple and Apple had done nothing ? Others would have noticed the problem, but some people would probably have used Apple's code illegally or been caught out by conditions they did not understand.
So how do we do conflict resolution properly ? I think it should be done in public, where we can all participate, that it should be done without flamage and personal attacks, and that we have to make it clear to the 'suits' that that is how we work. Some of the problems with the APSL seen to come from its having been discussed in private were only the OSI could review Apple's decisions. Understandably they missed some things.
The problem is that, all too often, the people bringing their concerns public haven't thought them through yet either.
Public discussion is a waste of time if the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. What is accomplished by arguing about an illusion?
Private discussion should be used first to clear up any and all misunderstandings. Once they are gone, only then can any effective discussion take place.
The ambitions are: wake up, breathe, keep breathing.
ESR got all whacked out and ended up bending completely over for Apple. Now he's upset that
everyone else didn't bend over with him.
The license Apple drew up was all about making
OpenSource into Apple's Bitch(TM). ESR almost had
me feeling sorry for him that first "resignation"
post. But after reading the second I'm beginning to think he's a real wanker.
Just because we have this nifty Internet communications medium doesn't turn the rules of human interactions on their heads. Do you think everything is discussed via postings? Of course not--there's a lot of e-mail between folks to resolve things privately.
Like it or not, the open source/freeware community is a sort of government, with attendant parliamentary rules. It's still too new for those rules to have firmed up to the point where most folks abide by them, but rest assured, they will not differ radically from other rules for deliberation, because this community is composed of free people, and people have been debating weighty matters for a lot longer than we've been writing code.
Now on the subject of the Apple license debate, I think Eric hit the nail on the head. How has it been better for the community to have the universe observe this explosion of disagreement versus having Eric privately explain what was up to those who had questions? Come on, can't you see how it looks to reasonable people: There's some serious agenda pushing going on. These folks are unable to overcome their ideological differences and work together for their common good. Why, this open source/freeware thing is just what UNIX has always been, with lots of incompatible versions all over the map. We're talking about PHBes who unfortunately wield power and influence suits who wield even more power, as well as investment fund managers, and even potential users!
Well here's my 2 cent's worth on ESR's messages. First he's right on about the stress's involved in being the "spokesman" for any sized group of people. Everyone has their own opinion and most people think they are smarter, could do a better job than you or that they don't even need you. I've been there I can feel his pain.
As for the public debate, I manange a small group of programmers (no I'm not a pointy haired boss! I actually still manange to do some coding) and if any of those guys went over my head on something I'd done without comming to me first I'd be real pissed. I'd have no problems, if after comming to me they felt the situtation still wasn't right, and then went "public" with their problems. The key here is NOT that they went public but that they didn't respect ESR enough to go to him first!
Now the subject of do we need visible leaders, that are "people friendly" at all. Sure OSS and Linux will stay alive is ESR/Linus/whoever go away tommorrow but would it continue to grow?
History should have taught us that it isn't technical merit that gets people to use software it's mind share. How many companies were releasing Linux software 3 years ago? Not many! Do we need it? I do! It's my job to make money (gasp... not the M word) for my employer and I'll use the best tools for the job, be they OSS, commercial or a combination.
The point I'm getting at is that for OSS and Linux to continue to grow we need people in the public eye to speak for the software and the community and that realize that some of us have to sell our products. Does the movement need coporate/user buy-in? If not my bosses probably wouldn't buy into my using it and thus any contributions my team could have made to the community would be lost.
What good is the best tool if 99.5% of the people don't use it?
BTW was anyone else scared sh*tless at ESR's comment about Linus also getting fed up with the hassel. Imagine the field day MS would have with Linus's exit from the picture. I can almost see their new slogan "Don't buy Linux, even it's creator couldn't put up with user community".
--Dave
Are you holding others to a higher standard than you hold yourself?
--Kirk
Occasionally people do need to be slapped down, sometimes the harder the better. But I do mean occasionally. I wish more people would think a second or two before they unloaded the flamethrower.
It's not about rudeness, it's about content. There are great writers and orators who can be rude as hell, but in an edifying or entertaining way. Conversely, there are lots of ill-willed politicians, diplomats, writers, and others who can be as polite as a visitor to Buckingham Palace. Look past the surface. Sometimes a flame is not a flame. Sometimes politeness has sharp fangs. I won't go into one of my infrequent rants about how American schools seem to suck these days, but critical thinking seems to be at an all-time low in US society.
2 deposited.
--
--
=8^
Why did you post this? Do you think that ESR really doesn't understand what's going on? Do you think that his obvious generalization of slashdot readers as "kiddies" actually applied to everyone?
Perhaps you should have taken the time to read the whole article...take the small biting criticism for a moment, but then read on. Perhaps you would have seen the part about being civil to one another, and about not burning out our advocates.
Your flaming is not only unnecessary and uninteresting, it's also foolish in the face of the article to which you are reacting, *particularly* because you didn't read the whole thing.
Civilized discussion and the open exchange of ideas is a good and proper thing, and it's one of the things that makes this community what it is. Unbridled flamage is just a waste of everyone's time.
To mangle a Confucian saying:
"If words are not better than silence, keep silent."
Or, to mangle a cliche:
"If you don't have something constructive to say, don't say anything at all."
I think that's maybe the crux of ESRs article...the foundation of what he's trying to say. You should read it.
I, for one, know that he wasn't referring to me when he called slashdot people "script kiddies". Truth always hurts more than lies.
- deb
Galileo, surely? "epur si muove" or something like that. But I think he only said that in Brecht's play, anyway.
However, after reading these two articles by ESR, I don't understand how anyone in this community can possibly not respect him. Yes, you may disagree with some of his viewpoints; yes, you may think that his approach to some things could be improved. But none of that changes the fact that he is out there doing these things, and we all reap the benefit.
I can understand his position, because if I were there, I'd be doing the same thing he is: I'd carry on in the work that needed to get done, but I'd get mightily pissed at all the people who couldn't seem to appreciate what I was doing for them. (And yes, he does it for you, even if you didn't elect him to do so.)
If I had the wherewithall, the background, and the experience to do what Eric is doing, I'd have been one of the first to email him and tell him I'd love to help out. I realize that his efforts are vital to this community, and I think that we would all be worse off without him and his ilk. Alas, I cannot, because I have not been a part of this community long enough, I have not hacked enough code, I've never modified the Linux kernel, etc. So, for now, I can only sit on the sidelines and watch and learn, and hope that people like Eric continue to arise, and not get beaten down by the masses.
-Snibor Eoj
Interesting that this essay should show up right on the tails of Rob's on flaming.
The man's right, but I believe he's fighting an unwinnable battle, at least as long as Linux remains anything less than the most widely-used OS on the planet.
Proponents of alternative operating systems have, for years, been jumping into flame wars over how ours is the best, yours sucks, and who's keeping ours from #1? Many of us have seen this played out by Amiga users, or Mac users, or NeXT users, ad nauseum. I'm utterly convinced that (as I've seen suggested by ESR, Katz, and others) the geek culture is overflowing with young men whose testosterone levels have gotten way too high, and who will use any excuse to lash out at anyone that looks like a good target.
Why does Linux and other free software attract people like that? Several reasons that I can think of (not necessarily in any order):
1. They love software they can hack on, either to improve their skills, or just for the sheer hell of it.
2. It's free. These aren't people with huge budgets.
3. It's not mainstream. That's probably what attracted me to Linux in the first place. Using fringe software provides a feeling of superiority (look at those poor bastards who don't know any better), attention from the unwashed masses (What is that you're running?), and a chance to be an expert in something relatively few people know much about. It's all about a feeling of power, really. Unfortunately, once some people feel they've got power, they don't know what to do with it -- they just need to use it however they can. Often, it means becoming a bully, picking on every little shortcoming they perceive in another. Other times, they look for a big, visible public target and aim there, in an effort to show everyone how powerful they are.
There are really only a couple cures that I know of: new toys, or maturity. If a shinier new toy comes along, some will move on to that, and find other targets to attack. Others will simply grow up, and learn to deal with people on a rational level, learning to contruct rather than destroy. It just takes a little time.
Unfortunately, we're going to have people like this around as long as Linux is still the shiniest toy in the toybox. It's just the way it works.
One of the things ESR complained about was that Perens and RMS openly discussed the problems with APSL. Isn't that part of what the community is about, that most problems can be discussed openly, that we usually don't work behind closed doors?
Also, if ESR wanted the problems to be quiet, he should have discussed it with Perens, RMS and others before coming out with a press release. If you send things openly on the net, they will get discussed openly.
Well, I didn't think he was retiring. A couple of things bother me in this most recent ESR piece.
1) The accusation of "Bomb Throwing" levelled against Bruce Perens, RMS, et. al. The points that these people raised were carefully considered and valid. ESR's rebuttals have been largely ad-hominim, and I think he owes these people an apology, rather than the announcement of a planned vacation with his preferred firearm.
2) The dismissal of Slashdot as a forum for "kiddies". Sure, it's a public forum, and it has the disadvantages of such (though moderation may change this). The fact of the matter is that there is a great deal of good thinking to be found in the comments here. Dismissing Slashdot is disingenuous-- if Slashdot just a bunch of kiddies, then why does ESR feel compelled to mention it at all?
Slashdot is widely recognized in the mainstream press as the premier public forum for debate on issues surrounding open source and free software. I think OSI can only be held accountable for their actions by the community that they wish to represent, and they dismiss the prefered forum of that community at their peril.
Yes, ESR deserves our support, and our thanks. He also deserves to be held accountable by those who he is trying to serve.
Ok I apologize that was a little strongly worded.
Bad post..BAD!
Let me rephrase
He is dissapointed that people did not happily follow him into the deal with apple.
People did not want to see OS become just another tool in Apple's bag of tricks.
I felt his "resignation" post was somewhat redeeming but upon seeing this most recent one, I feel the presence of Jedi Mind Tricks.
I apologize for the previous post.
I'm the one not doing a damn thing. Eric's working his ass off.
Just wanted to clarify the last post.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
. . . nor have to listen to testosterone-poisoned twerps ranting ``who elected you?'' or ``your ego is out of control''?
If this character thinks that anybody who disagrees with him is a "testosterone-poisoned twerp", his ego is out of control.
I've read both of his bitch sessions, and I realize that we all need to get things off our chests sometimes -- but his attitude is 100% defensive. Nowhere does he admit the possibility that he might ever be wrong, or even mistaken. He just flames.
People who should have known better (Perens/Akkerman/Jackson, RMS) threw bombs in public . . .
No, esr, NO. I very carefully read everything Perens had to say about it (including a lot of his posts on slashdot) and he was not throwing bombs. He was raising sensible concerns in an extremely polite and considerate way. If Eric Raymond perceives all disagreement with his views as "throwing bombs", then Eric Raymond has a very serious problem with his ego -- namely, that it's out of control.
Basically, Raymond seems to have perceived Perens' concerns as a "challenge to his authority", which is the one thing Perens was clearly trying hardest to avoid.
we need to learn not to pull this kind of immature crap in public any more.
Raymond's tantrums (e.g. this one) are extremely public, far more public than those of the average AC. Raymond has a number of things in public which many members of the community have considered extremely "immature" -- but if we dare utter a word of this, I guess we must be "testosterone-poisoned twerps" or something. Look, the Gates==Hitler thing was the work of a classic testosterone-poisoned twerp. Those who stood up in public and said so deserve a medal.
When you see twits going on a rampage, speak up against it without descending to their level.
Eric, you have not gone on a single rampage in the last several months but that I've spoken up about it, and I have always made an honest attempt not to sink to your level. For example, I've never pasted a picture of your face onto a picture of Hitler's body -- nor will I, ever.
Ain't'cha proud of me?
The energy we spend on fighting each other is energy we're not spending on our work
You're right. The energy you spend flaming slashdotters in general is entirely wasted. Then again, it's your own energy, to do with as you please. It's a free country, innit?
Must we?
This uncovers an interesting question: how much of our identity is tied up in how we communicate? How much of who we are -- the geeks who hack code because it's fun and make it free because it's right -- is the free-for-all, raucous, often rancorous debates that rage for days, weeks, and months on our mailing lists?
This sort of debate used to make me very uncomfortable. I cringed when someone was on the receiving end of a lambasting. Then I noticed some things:
There's always someone flaming Those who flame too often marginalize themselves Things still proceed, mostly What does this mean? I don't know. It appears to me to mean that despite being overwhelmingly short of resources and despite facing active resistance from within, we get things done. Not bad. =]
One other noteworthy bit: all of the above goes on in the Corporate halls, too; anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional. The difference? We don't get to see them argue...and we don't get to tell them when they're wrong until they've already committed to a course of action.
As I started this essay, I intended to leave the question open because I didn't think I had an opinion; as you can see, I didn't, because I found I do. If you want to represent this community, do it with dignity and don't be ashamed that we're different -- it's that very difference which has gotten us so very far in so short a time.
I think the point is blowing our chances for respect and acceptance in the "mainstream" world. He's talking about making it acceptable to the PHB's and businesses of the world that WE can use OUR software to do OUR jobs and for our personal lives, instead of being forced to use cruddy, 'other' software because it is 'acceptable' by some measure.
If the door is slammed on open source by commercial entities, it will still exist, but there will be much less momentum and fewer people to work on it.
I think that is where we can really blow it.
is he god now?
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"