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.

Comments

Stereotypes, Marytrdom and Growing Up.

[Aleris]

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

He still doesn't get it

[Zico]

A couple of thoughts come to mind after reading Raymond's latest reply:

• It's possible that I might have missed it, but I never see Raymond ever mention the possibility that people might have honest disagreements with him. No, if anyone has a disagreement, it's because they're a "Slashdot kiddie" or someone who doesn't take time out to think before they post. This is what gets him so roundly flamed; the audience starts to notice that no matter how politely their objections to one of Raymond's viewpoints are written, Raymond always takes it personally and can't manage a reply without throwing in some cheap shot or insult. Future writers are less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt, so they throw in insults of their own preemptively, knowing that they'll receive a snotty reply no matter what they write anyway.
• The first point leads to a specific instance in his latest writings: his idea that all disagreements should be done behind closed doors instead of in public. To him, everyone who spoke out about his endorsement of the APSL was jumping in without thinking, and private email should have been used instead. This is wrong. Should there have been 100 posts here on Slashdot about how great the APSL is without any rational rebuttal? I'm sure that he would have preferred that all disapproval have been in the form of flames, instead of clear arguments like Perens's, so that they could be written of as written by immature flamers. Then again, it seems like he views any disagreement as a rash flame.
• And that last point leads me to this aside: If the APSL did indeed meet the Open Source ideal, why is he still working on a new version of the APSL with them? There's nothing wrong with this, just like people tried working with TrollTech to improve the QPL. But how about having the intellectual honesty to admit that you were wrong about the original APSL meeting the Open Source ideal? Is it ego or Apple money that prevents this?
• Lastly, I can only shake my head when I see him mentioning the importance of "look[ing] like sane, credible responsible adults to the non-hacker world." This from the person who proudly displayed the Bill Gates as Hitler/Microsoft as Nazi Germany image on the Open Source home page. This from the person who hijacked people's attempts to get companies to change their Windows preloading/licensing policies by running around in an Obi Wan Kenobi outfit.

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

Watch out

[HoserHead]

esr speaks of us 'blowing our chances.'

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.

A plea for civility...

[reverse solidus]

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...

Terribly optimistic

[kirk]

I agree - hasn't ESR been on usenet and project mailing lists long enough to realize that there are always going to be arguments and flamers? I haven't been around half as long as he has and have already given up trying to find a solution.

Secondly, I really dislike the way he states some of his points:

...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...

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?

Open vs. Closed

[dvdeug]

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.

I'd still like to see an apology.

[RobotSlave]

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.

Change Us or Change Them?

[purp]

ESR makes the statement that we must change our method of communication; we must soften the hard edges and make nice with those who would represent us as well as with those who would scrutinize us.

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

You can't please everyone; most of the time you can barely please anyone but yourself. If someone can prove me wrong on this, I'm going to start looking for a star in the East.

Those who flame too often marginalize themselves

There are people out there who seem to be stuck in either hysterical or condescending mode; often they're stuck in both. Most of the time they get earplay/eyeplay for a while until folks tire of hearing them panic or condescend; from then on, the flamer becomes background noise.

This is a smaller version of what Mr. Raymond is concerned about: nobody likes an unreasonable, unreasoning fanatic. Eric's concerned that the Linux/GNU/Open Source/Free Software community as a whole will marginalize itself because it is not presenting a comfortingly united front to the corporate world. He's right; we aren't and by refusing to do so, we do run that risk in their eyes.

I don't know that it worries me much. The world is looking at us because we've got a good thing going...wouldn't changing the way it works risk changing what we've got?

Things still proceed, mostly

Despite the bickering, whining, hate mail, and other assorted namecalling, code still gets written, projects still progress and improve. As Archimedes said, "And yet, it moves."

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.