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.
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
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
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.
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^
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
If we do not improve in this very area, there will not be a culture.
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
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
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.
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.