Slashdot Mirror
ZDNet Response to Gore2000
Enucite writes "ZDNet
has an article entitled "Gore's 'open
source' blasphemy". It talks about the Gore 2000 website,
then goes on to talk about the response on Slashdot"
I wish articles referring to Slashdot comments would
link the comment so that their readers could read the whole
thread and not just the 2 sentances the story writer felt
like sharing. And I wish they could figure out who
"Anonymous Coward" really is.
Ah well, nice to see we made some waves, but the offending
passage still apears on the web site.
Real journalists do their homework and wouldn't make such silly errors as referring to a "person" named AC.
Since there seem to be so few real journalists left in the world, why not put together a FAQ list for the press? Explain what slashdot is about, whatever is known of the user demographic (I think we know occupation and age, don't we?). Fill the clueless in on the identity of this mysterious, hyperkinetic "Anonymous Coward" person who seems to suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder and Tourette Syndrome, but sometimes shows signs of brilliance.
The FAQ could also direct writers to various sources of information on Linux, the BSDs, BeOS, etc.
slashdot broke my sig
Yup. And if he's elected, and the economy goes south, it won't be Al who did it -- it'll be the fed chairman he appointed. And if war breaks out, it won't be Al who did it -- it'll be the secretary of state he appointed. Al's a good guy!
Please, there is no excuse for the empty politics of appeal. You know why Ventura was elected: because he's a real person who says exactly what he thinks, not an empty automatron whose positions are injected into the campaign by staffers looking for keywords that the public will bite on. I'm so happy there are only a tiny minority of apologists on Slashdot. It means that reality is far more important than appearances amongst the geek culture.
Not for people who know what the internet is, you're not.
Media Lie: Gore Claimed to 'Invent' the internet. He didn't,
He did; the original story was written from a CNN transcript, not a reporter's idea of what was said.
Gore did two things which helped the Web take off. The first was to authorize the www.whitehouse.gov website. Before that went online closed proprietary systems such as Acrobat and Hyper-G were much more visible. The Whitehouse site legitimized the web. The other thing Gore did was to make all the agencies go on line first.
What kind of crap is this? What kind of idiots do you take us for? If there is one person now reading this who started participating on the I'net because of www.whitehouse.gov, please reply to this message and say so. If there is one person who believes that www.whitehouse.gov has done more for the acceptance of the net than any of the 100 top web sites out there... enough said.
Be especially cautious of the media - me included.
Thanks for the tip. Here's my tip in return: G E T - O V E R - Y O U R S E L F .
I think Bob Zelnick has been saying something similar on his book tour (he has a new Gore biography out). Al Gore was born into a rich, political family, and maybe he does feel like he has to pad his resume a bit, so he can look like he's done more than coast his way to national prominence. There is a grain of truth in all of Al's tall tales -- he was more tech-clueful than most members of Congress; he may have been a vague inspiration for one of the characters in Love Story, or at least a fragment of dialogue; in Tennessee, the Gore family owns lots of farm land -- they're now notorious for growing tobacco, thanks to Al's speech at the 1996 Democratic convention.
He's no more or less a tall-tale spinner than the average politician; it's just that he has this knack for doing it in front of large audiences :)
--
--
=8^
I agree, to a point. But the censorship tends to give bad signals, that's my complaint. MTV makes an issue of a marijuana leaf logo while being suckers for tits'n'ass (their censorship of "Justify My Love" was essentially a high-profile way to "disprove" that); they also condone product-placement for some items (a Mercedes, for instance) and not others (a shoe company logo on a t-shirt).
As far as Wal-Mart, do they inform customers that they sell censored (as in re-recorded -- not banned) items? I think they still have a policy of selling "cleaned-up" versions of CDs. If it's not plainly stated, it's a deceptive practice. Not all consumers are informed consumers, which brings us back to the original topic: we who take potshots at Mister Internet are just as clueless as Mister Internet himself.
--
--
=8^
I don't like the idea of censorship, but I also don't think you can fault Wal-Mart or MTV. They are privately owned companies. They have the freedom to sell/show what they choose.
If I owned a record store I wouldn't want people coming in and saying I had to have copies of the album XYZ by Holier Than Thou because I sell album ABC by CrakHoSmakrs. Come on. If you like a large selection of music, you probably don't shop at Wal-Mart or watch much MTV already.
You can't even use the excuse that it's the only store in a small town anymore. Thanks to the internet you can order CD's over the web and have them home delivered.
Later,
Xamot
?
RMS should demand a retraction.
Gore seems to have topped Quayle's hoof-in-mouth disease, and may even pass Reagan's.
Qualye at least realized he said stupid things (and later added, "I stand behind all my mistatements.")
Gore defends them, though. I'm becoming more convinced that the Gore in reality is pretty close to Quayle's media image . . .
Aside from the obvious technical blunders (such as Stallman's 1984 debut of Linux), ZDNet has missed the point.
It's not just that we're geeks who want to be sure you use the phrase Open Source right, but it's the fact that Open Source is a registered certification mark. The Open Source Definition sets conditions for its use, and as many of us pointed out in emails to Gore and friends, he's not even close to following those guidelines.
A certification mark isn't worth the electrons coming out of my radiating monitor if we don't call others on their misuses of it.
There has been too much media hype about Open Source, and with that media hype comes misunderstandings. And with any buzzword or catch phrase comes others trying to profit off of it in some way.
Gore's web pages are about as Open Source as a carrot.
Speeling doesn't mater. ;-)
If Quale put's an E in potato, but know's what a potato is, and how to use it, then at least he only put his foot in his mouth, and shouldn't choke on it.
If Al and Tipper want any respect, they have to realize they are not "our saviour" and because they think something is right, they force it upon us.
Let's redefine Open Source. Let's ban some records. Hmm, not even logically consistant. What if I put profanity and lude statements in the comment lines of my source code? Should we censor open source then too? Why don't Al and Tipper just go burn some books or something they would enjoy as a couple and leave the US population out of it.
Back the truck up, I think we missed a road sign when we ran over that guy....
WHAT? Your saying that censorship and banning content of music and art is acceptable IF it was done to get a position of power?!?
I must have miss understood that, because if that is true, it only makes matters worse. They were all for doing something they knew was wrong so they could gain power to rule more people... Hmm.. Even the worst villian's in history believed what they were doing was right, so, doing something you know is wrong to gain power would be what, super evil?
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 11:04:27 -0500 (CDT)
From: rob@current.nu
To: skelcher@hotmail.com
Subject: That's TM
Just so you know,
Open Source is a trademarked term I believe, not a copywright.
Be carefull what you say on the net, history will not teach you how widely you can distribute your ablility to put your foot in your mouth now, and in the future ;-)
We are consirned with politics, and a leaders ability to comment on matters intellegently. Tipper's PMRC is probably worse than Al's ability to insult the importance of technology and science.. but both are something to worry about.
Oh, and, speaking for most people in Science, if you have that little respect, please return your light bulbs and any other technology you have at your nearest conveniance.
PS: Secret Codes that you don't understand may exist on your computer monitoring your every move... maybe you should learn them.
--
"Robert W. Current" - email
http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu - work stuff
http://www.current.nu - personal web site
"Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam
Both rely on and encourage open standards and openness in general. No hypertext system whose renderers and browsers prohibited viewing source could ever have taken off the way the Web has.
The relationship and similarity between "Open Source" on the web and OSS was studied by Lawrence Lessig of the Berkman Center of Internet and Society (Harvard Law School). One can download a pdf file of his lecture (Open Code and Open Society: Values of Internet Governance) from Lessig's web site. I would also suggest that ppl read some of the other things that Lessig has written.
/. posted an article this past week about "Open Code" and the H20 project. These projects are Berkman Center initiatives and Lessig is the Berkman Prof. for Entrepreneurial Legal Studies.
In this lecture, Lessig talks about the growth of Linux and of the WWW. He makes some comments about HTML and HTTP being "Open Source" as one can view the code of someone else's web page. This, he explains, helped the early expansion of the WWW. I'm probably not doing Lessig any justice by trying to summarize his lecture, so I strongly suggest that you read it.
Why is this of interest to the Linux community? If you remember,
No, I understand the outrage at Gore's publicity stunt. And it was not the purpose of my post to pour more gasoline on the fire. However, I do feel that OSS will benefit more from Gore's use of "Open Source"; free high level publicity will only increase the level of curiousity in "Open Source." On a more humorous side, my actual 1st reaction to this was, "Wow, Gore must also hate Microsoft!"
As for Gore himself, I just would like to point out that he has been instrumental in IT^2, which will dramatically increase government spending in R&D in high performance computing and communications. According to administration statements, about 60% of the funds of this program will support university research.
As for Lessig's article, I strongly feel that everyone should read it given the recent inquiry from the H20 project to the open source community. (note: Lessig is not listed as one of the developers of H20). Furthermore, the message in the speech is important. If Gore has read this, then it may explain this latest course of action.
Your dislike of the vice president is blinding
you. Everyone knows that politicians aren't
hackers let alone programmers. You must credit
Al Gore for supporting the internet though.
As for the term "Open Source" I fail to see
the sacrilege here. Now one owns those two words
just as no one owns the word windows despite
Microsoft's claim.
Just get a life and get over it.
Despite his strange wife's agenda Al Gore is
good for the technological world, he may have
some things to learn but in comparision to
other politicians he ranks as one of the best.
that just make me wonder how Gore is even a possible Democratic candidate.
I'm still upset that he wants to launch a satellite with only a camera to overlook earth so anyone on the Internet can look at our planet at any time. Let's at least include SOME real science on the mission.
And if we can afford something like that, why does much of ISS's science budget have to be severely reduced after Clinton's redesigns....
Yes, I'm venting, but Gore just seams like a waste of attention. This just has to be embarassing for the Democratic party. And I thought they already plenty.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Jesse Ventura did get elected as govenor based largely upon a very successful Internet campaign. Gore is a politician through-and-through. He has seen this medium used to great success and only a fool would ignore the Internet in these days. Recall that in one speech Gore reported that the tobacco companies must all be held liable for the great harm they have done to the American public, and in a speech the following week he took great pride in saying that he came from a family of tobacco growers.
I am one of the people Gore is meant to be stealling the credit for "inventing" the Internet. Like much of what passes for news in the media it makes a good story, but the truth is much more interesting and it is not hard to find
Media Lie: Gore Claimed to 'Invent' the internet
He didn't,he said he 'took the initiative in creating the Internet'. now invention and creation are not the same thing. I am one of the authors of HTTP, I spent 3 years working with Tim B-L 'inventing' the Web. I didn't create the Web though and neither did Tim we all did that together.
Gore played a significant role. Back in 1992 I was trying to evangelise the Web beyond the High Energy Physics community. I had been involved with Mallery and Hurwitz who were running the political participation project at MIT at the time. The Clinton Gore '92 campaign had been the only one to take them or Internet seriously. So I sold them the Web as the future of politics, media etc. We had about 100 users.
Gore did two things which helped the Web take off. The first was to authorize the www.whitehouse.gov website. Before that went online closed proprietary systems such as Acrobat and Hyper-G were much more visible. The Whitehouse site legitimized the web. The other thing Gore did was to make all the agencies go on line first.
The Web is an Operating System
When we were designing the HTTP protocol and the related security systems the only useful models I could find tended to be from the operating system world. But I fail to see the relevance to open source, open source was arround years before Linux, ask Linus T. if you don't believe me.
Open Source
Linux did not invent open source, nor for that matter did Stallman. RMS certainly started the ball rolling with GNU but anyone who has worked with RMS knows that there is a big difference between FSF and Linux! The GPL is completely wedged with a lot of unnecessary political positions aimed at coercing the rest of the world to partake of the RMS world view. Linux and the Web are much more open, thats why Red hat and Netscape could exist.
I trace the 'open source' movement as distinct from the GPL ideas as being the emergence of the apache group.
Will the Gore site be trully 'Open Source'
Hey I really hope so!
Don't discount the possibility. About 80% of politicians on the Hill live up to the media stereotype, they are interested in power and their own personal status. The country can go to the dogs.
A few politicians on both sides remember why they got in. These people really want to talk about the issues but the media only want to talk about Monica, or whatever the scandal of the day happens to be. Political journalism in the US is treated like sports reports, who scored most hits against the other side. I know your politicians are all weasels, I have worked with them. I have also worked with your press, they rank way, way down bellow weasel.
The politicians who actually care about politics and issues want to debate them and be elected on their positions on the issues - not what the media claim their positions to be. The media mutation of 'initiative' into 'invention' is just one example. The Time 'cyberporn' story which spawned the CDA and COPA is an example we would all agree on, one journalist knowingly uses an undergraduate term paper to misrepresent the entire Internet community. Why - to sell copies of Time magazine.
The politicians that care about issues have good reason to arm other politicians. The real enemy is the media.
Its About Power
The media want you to let them do your thinking for you. Don't let them./i>
You don't have to be a Gore supporter to want to check the facts before you flame about them. It is easy enough to get the original Gore quote. If the New York Times doesn't give a URL you can check its probably because they want to pull a fast one.
We built the Web understanding how communication and power are connected. It is not a coincidence that the Web is damn near censor proof. Along with many others I worked damn hard to make it that way.
Don't just be cautious of politicians, be cautious of everyone who is trying to tell you what to think. Be especially cautious of the media - me included. If anyone wants to they can go to www.ietf.org and pull out the HTTP 1.1 spec and you will see my name in the acknowledgements.
Normally, Gore's as intersting as a dead tree.
but for the last couple of weeks,
he's shooting scandals all over us,
making noises (funny noises) and using ou-of-conext buzzphrases.
HE DOESNT COUNT ON THE GEEKS!
He count's on the geeks TO LAUGH AT HIM, thus, GIVING HIM MEDIA COVERAGE!
Although I remember how laughable was Perot 3 years ago,
he was a clown, he mocked himslef to everyone.
people today have no idea what open source is,
and who invented the internet,
but if the geeks are mad at him, it must be important thing.
(thinking redneck: whooo, geeks hate him? he must be good!)
We're just giving him attention,
that's what he wants.
if we ignored the whole thing,
then nobody would know about it, and nobody would care.
btw,
i think Segfault ran a piece about "anonymous coward is not one person".
They should have read it.
---
---
I'm going to live forever, or die in the attempt.
This is just another example of him being far more into the politics of things instead of the issues at hand. He'd rather be percieved to be a technological advocate than to be one. Machivelli wrote about this kind of behavior.
If he's the candidate then it's just going to be another election where everybody loses.
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
...but doesn't walk the walk.
Trying to fit in with a subculture simply by using their jargon just makes you appear silly. If you were to visit East London and start talking in rhyming slang because you thought it'd make you fit in, you'd just end up sounding an idiot (and would probably attract the attention of some burly Cockney lads who thought you were taking the mickey). So it is with Al.
Gore may not be as dumb as he seems, politically speaking. Technologically, he is incompetent, but then, so is the vast majority of the electorate. Gore's recent mistakes have alienated but a small portion of the population: those who actully know what the Internet is and where it came from. I would contend that his mistakes have drawn far more people to him than they have driven away.
We live in an age where the most popular computing books can be described by "* for Dummies." It might as well be "* for Al Gore." People can relate to him. The majority of computer users think Gore is on their level, the "Dummies". His mistakes prove it. The people do not want a hacker controlling the Internet. Joe "AOL/Microsoft" Newbie wants to be able to pretend he understands computers, or that he doesn't have to. Gore, by being the political figure for all things computerish, provides that illusion, and more.
It's not just Internet neophytes who want Gore in control. Most of those people who don't use computers, and who have an opinion about
regulation, want the computer industry regulated. This is a vast voting block. Mention the word "Internet" to these people and images of promiscuous sex and child molestation flash across their minds. Mention "hacker" and you'll get the image of a teenage punk causing terror and destruction with a computer instead of a knife and spray paint. Gore is the cadidate who appears to have just enough knowledge to be able to control the Beast, therefore he will get the votes.
Who has he alienated with his untruths and mis-used jargon? The hacker comminity is one block. It is also tiny, and not necesarily very politically active. There are those on the fringe of the aforementioned group, but not really a part of it: those who know what the Internet is and how
it came about, who know what open source software is, and think they are both good things, but can't code anything worth while. A good cross section of this group is provided by sampling the readers of Slashdot. This may be a slightly larger block, but still not as significant as those that Gore is pulling towards him.
Gore is a politician, not a hacker. Hackers make things work while politicians get enough people to believe that they work. Mr. Vice President is doing an excellent job at the second. That he cannot do the first alienates those who can tell the difference. This is a small group, politically not worth appeasing. "I was tired," is not a valid apology. The masses, and in politics the only thing that is important is the masses, will eat up what Gore has to say. In this way will he win.
As I understand it, Al Gore was one of the main pushers of the Clipper Chip. In general, he's never seemed to me to be the greatest friend of free and open expression on the internet. He's the sort of guy who can be dangerous when he's championing your cause, because you just know he isn't on the same page as you.
In any case, we live in an age of gross misrepresentation of science and technology and their associated experts by the media (I tend to lump campaigning politicians in with the rest of the media). For example, have you ever seen the movie "Deep Impact"? Despite some things I read that insisted that it was well fact checked, I was hard pressed to find anything in the movie that they actually got right, aside from the fact that a large comet hitting the earth makes a big boom. The thing is, most people beleive this stuff, and I think Al Gore would probably be one of them. At the very least I'd hope that, if he were president in such a situation he'd have at least enough sense to evacuate the coastal areas before the last minute.
Anyway, that's how Gore stikes me. Like the average professional American who wants to think of himself as a Power User and thinks that it makes him an expert. The average American wants to think of him/herself as techno-savvy and living in a country that is technologically (and politically and spiritually and intellectually and militarily, but I won't get into that) superior to all other countries. At the same time, the average American doesn't want to learn anything if it can be avoided. If a device takes more than a minute to learn to use, it's too complex. Most people just don't want to deal with any of the details, but still want to celebrate the technology.
I emailed the campaign. I noted that, between the positioning as the "online" candidate and the reaction he is eliciting out of the software community, he will have a similar problem to a law-and-order candidate that can't get approval from the cops. I suggested that he either back off on the online stuff (I don't know his stances elsewhere), or hire a hardboiled geek as a point of reference. Maybe he should just listen to his own Webmaster... There's no need to shock or get angry at Gore or the Gore campaign. If this hurts nothing but Gore and his campaign, all we should do is inform the fool of his folly. If they listen, Gore may become the online candidate, or at least give up the idea altogether. If not, he marches off the precipice alone.
--The basis of all love is respect
The difficulty here is one of semantics. Politicians have long been known for taking a turnip and calling it an apple, turnipness notwithstanding. What matters is not the content of what is said but rather the affective qualities. Does Gore make you feel all cozy and warm now that he appears to be on the technotwink side? Go to Iowa at the time of the early caucuses and you'll see the same techo-Gore wearing a seed-corn cap and riding a tractor. Like any modern politician, he's after the image of "Gore the Computer Hacker" (original meaning intended), "Gore the Farmer," "Gore the Transexual Plumber From Boise." Whatever images he has to plant to get the votes, that's what he'll do.
The inherent difficulty arises when the same politician tries to appeal to a community, such as the scientific communities, the medical community, or the computer/info tech communities, who expect and rely upon precision of speech. Gore simply had bad advice from his staff, I'd guess. He saw the technologically savvy as a virgin to woo; he (or more likely, his staff) underestimated just how anal this same group of people can be when it comes to language, though the incessant sparring over whether it should be called Linux, GNU/Linux, LiGNUx, or Linux/GNU should have clued them in had they done a little legwork.
To take his "Open Source" offer at face value could be a dangerous legal move; it's doubtful Gore or his staff understand what those words mean to this community, and I doubt they'll toss away any of their perceived legal rights just because they are ignorant of what they said.
Incidentally, I don't see this snafu as being any worse than Kennedy's eating pizza with a fork. Kennedy alienated those in the community he was trying to reach, but as a side effect he probably impressed scads of wasps out there with his impeccable table manners. My prediction is that Gore will not only survive but will likely gain more votes by wowing housewives with his techo-laced Newspeak than he'll lose from this community.
I find this more and more troubling each time I see it. News organizations taking quotes from slashdot comments (sometimes, out of context) and posting them to a news story. To me it seems they are scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources, so they leech from what we say here.
On the Gore2000 topic, I sent an email to him stating that he is violating a trademark that is only licensed to project that meet the open source requirements which his does not. I also let him know that he is losing MANY voters over this and we'd be better off with Ross Perot in the whitehouse. (The Ross Perot thing was just to get a reaction, heh.)
I wonder how many other people have emailed them about this?