Slashdot Mirror
Eric S. Raymond Answers
chromatic asks:
Astute readers know why you've reluctantly taken a position as a Linux
evangelist, open source sociologist, and prime target. Taking the
opposite approach, is there anything which would convince you to step
down, that your posts were no longer necessary?
This is not meant to be inflammatory ... it's just a roundabout way of asking how far along your goals are, and what your plans will be if you ever meet them.
ESR answers:
Three things could cause me to step down:
- One: someone emerging to do the public-advocate job clearly better than I do.
- Two: Linux's market share going over 50%. (Cool down, BSD guys -- I'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix win, it just doesn't seen very likely at this point).
- Three: a collapse in Microsoft's stock price. That would mean the end of effective FUD and countermarketing against open source.
ivo asks:
A while ago, we read from you that being the Open Source advocate you
are was wearing you down and influencing your life very badly. Did you
cut down on advocating and did it help? In other words, did you get
your life back?
ESR answers:
Not really. Something more remarkable happened instead; the community
responded to my distress call by growing up a little. I got letters of
apology from some of the worst flamers. Many people in the rest of the
community started pressuring the pinheads who had been making my job harder
to shut up or get constructive.
I have also cut down somewhat on my travel schedule, but not as much as I thought earlier this year I would have to. I'm also demanding (and getting) better travel conditions -- business class instead of the cheap seats in coach. It makes a difference, more of one than I would have thought.
Stephen Williams asks*:
I'm glad to see that, after a three-year break, the Jargon File has
been updated over the past few months. Is version 5.0.0 in the works?
Are there any plans to release an update to the print version, The New
Hacker's Dictionary, any time soon?
ESR answers:
I've discussed the possibility with people at O'Reilly. That might
be my second-to-next book, after "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and
before "The Art Of Unix Programming" (which is about half-done now but
could take me another nine months to finish). Whether I go with
O'Reilly or the publisher of the previous editions (MIT Press) the
fourth edition of TNHD seems likely to come out next year sometime.
Tom Christiansen asks:
I don't know how to ask this question without it sounding like
stirring the pot, but what about the growing chasm between free
software (giftware) and GNU software (the viral kind, not the nice
LGPL kind)? This is a real issue for some people in some
situations. Think about the many BSD resellers and vendors who have
custom packaging in highly competitive fields, like video editing?
Doesn't the friction hurt everyone? Apple has turned to BSD not Linux,
and the GPL is cited as one reason why. This seems to be
devisive. There are no end of flamewars on /. and elsewhere, and the
heat diminishes the light. What kind of reconciliation is possible?
Or is "take no prisoners" just the way it has to work?
ESR answers:
I don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing
and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of
licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements at
all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on
both sides.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
Tet asks:
You say you want to live in a world where software doesn't suck. I
couldn't agree more. However, do you see closed source
software on an open source OS as a
step in the right direction, or just
likely to be a more stable platform on
which to run your potentially bug-ridden software?
ESR answers:
Step in the right direction, definitely. As more and more
infrastructure goes open, and the remaimning closed-source
applications increasingly use it for leverage, the overall
quality of the applications will go up.
planet_hoth*:
Recent interest shown by large commercial tech companies (IBM,
SGI, Sun) seems to signal a new chapter in the history of Linux. Do
you see the participation of these companies strengthening the linux
communitity? Destroying it? Or transforming it into something
completely different?
ESR answers:
Look around you. What do you see, compared to a year ago?
Do you see fewer Linux hackers writing open source, or more? Do you see fewer hackers getting *paid* to write open source, or more? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Do you see our designs, or our licenses, or our coding practices being changed in any significant way by corporate participation? Again, I think the answer is pretty clear.
The truth is, they're not transforming us. We're transforming them.
asad asks*:
I know that you are on the board of directors at VA Linux, what
does your job entail?
ESR answers:
My job at VA mostly involves sitting in a board meeting once a month
asking searching questions about what the firm is doing and why. My role
there (as Larry Augustin describes it) is to be the official corporate
conscience. This mainly involves nipping bad ideas in the bud, before
they flower into something that would piss off the hacker community. I
have not had to do this often.
shawnhargreaves asks:
You've always been involved in hacker projects outside of just coding
(eg. the Jargon File), but over the last year or so the spokesperson
role seems to have grown into a fulltime job. How long is it since you
last sat down to write a major piece of software? Do you expect to go
back to fulltime development work anytime soon, and if so, what would
you work on? How do you manage to cope with the withdrawal symptoms?
ESR answers:
An astute question ;-). I haven't sat down to write a major piece of
software from scratch in months, but I am continuing to maintain
fetchmail. I just took over the gif2png beta code with
Greg Roelofs's consent; the 1.0.0 version might be out by the time you
read this. Today I did some work on gnuplot,
bringing the PNG driver up to date.
If I get to go full-time again soon, I want to go back to work on Trove, the distributed web-based code-archiving system I designed last year. I'd also like to work with Guido van Rossum on Python 1.6; there are some long-time wishlist features like rich comparisons and a full lambda facility that I care enough about to implement myself. I also have a strategy-gaming system I wrote back in the 1980s that I'd like to put a modern (Web-based) interface on. Finally, having contributed a bit of code to GNOME (the network-monitor applet) I'd like to balance things by doing something for KDE.
meersan asks:
This has probably been asked before, but I can't recall seeing the
answer to it anywhere. What originally led you to write The Cathedral
and the Bazaar? -- what I'm interested in is if there was some event
or impetus that prompted you to write it down. Obviously you'd have no
way of predicting the firestorm that followed, but it's always
intriguing to know about the spark that started it all
ESR answers:
I wrote CatB as a way of coping with my astonishment in the face of
the Linux phenomenon. What I observed was that the community around
Linux had evolved a way to write software that (a) was tremendously
effective, (b) violated the classic Brooks's Law rules, and (c) was
completely unconscious! Nobody reflected on what they were doing; it
was practice without theory. I wrote CatB as an attempt to help my
tribe become more conscious about what it has been doing.
Q*bert asks:
We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you
see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger
political push for libertarian, minimal government?
What conferences are you planning to attend this year? Do you have plans for organizing Geeks with Guns outings during them? If so, is there a mailing list or some other source of information about how to join?
ESR answers:
No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face,
I'm wearing a very evil grin....
See my speaking calendar for the conferences I plan to attend. As for GWG, there's no mailing list; would you like to host one? I rely on local organizers to find a range, and I don't have one for Atlanta Linux Showcase yet.
banky asks:
Linux, like all things in the computer world, will eventually become
obsolete or maybe just too much work to keep "up to date". Linus (er,
Dr. Torvalds) even said in his "Open Sources" essay that
(paraphrasing) someone else could come along and write something
better which will take Linux's place. How long do you think before
someone will have an offering that will obsolete (or at least prove a
competitor to) Linux and the BSD's?
ESR answers:
I doubt Linux will have a real technical competitor for a long time,
because I think it will probably just absorb new architectural ideas,
amoeba-like, as they evolve. Twenty years from now the core APIs may
have grown and changed tremendously, but we'll still think of it as
the `same' codebase and call it Linux :-).
scumdamn asks:
Is the friction between Gnome and KDE, BSD and GPL, Free Software and
Open Source, and the other sources of flame war a bad thing or a good
thing for the movement? Many people seem to feel that the competition
is devisive, but isn't it the opposite? We're always preaching that
competition is a good thing for the entire market, but then we
complain when any of our pet projects are pitted head to head with
another. The passion felt by the proponents of each philosophy seems
to result in better, more quality work. Isn't this proof that
competition is the Good Thing we've been saying it is all along?
ESR answers:
I think you answered your own question :-).
cemerson asks:
Which of the coders working on open source projects do you admire the
most? A particular big name like Linus, or someone less well-known?
ESR answers:
Hmmm. I don't think there's anyone I can say I admire the most.
There's a level of ability beyond which trying to make comparisons between
people just gets silly, because each of the people that good has
become a sort of perfect master of his own domain. Linus. RMS.
Larry Wall. Guido van Rossum. James Gosling. Going further back,
Ken Thompson or Dennis Ritchie. Anyway, I find these guys have gotten
their fill of being admired, so I try to be friends with them instead.
K asks:
Why isn't there an entry for "free software" in the
Jargon Dictionary? Was this a politically-motivated decision?
ESR answers:
Zounds! You know, until this moment, I didn't realize that entry was
missing.
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?
Paul Crowley asks:
In Understand
my job, please! you described Bruce Perens's
proposal that we have a team of Linux advocates sharing the load
as "glib". Could you say more about why you feel this way - isn't it
more likely that a job where the load is shared would be more
attractive?
ESR answers:
I think I answered that question in the same paragraph you quoted.
What makes the job rough isn't the workload, it's the second-guessers
and snipers from the sidelines -- among whom Bruce was, at the time,
nearly the worst. Connect the dots yourself.
jflynn asks:
Starting an open source project from nothing but people with a common
interest is difficult. It's been my experience that it is very easy to
founder with a bazaar approach to architecture and design. The issues
tend to get confused with religious wars about toolkits and license
choice, and just a lot of differing opinions about how to best
structure a program, no one of which may be *obviously* better.
Is it essential for individuals to first create a working model, incomplete and buggy it may be, before applying bazaar development? Or what would you suggest in terms of managing a bazaar approach to creating programs from a bare idea?
ESR answers:
I wouldn't. I think you're right; the successful projects have a
core of individual vision around which the bazaar community nucleates.
elutfall asks*:
Since, as we all know, cheese is the most powerful substance in the
universe, I was wondering what your favorite source of ultimate power is?
ESR answers:
That would have to be sex, because I'm allergic to cheese.
--
Next week: Bruce Sterling.
I meant ESR. of course I'd be interested to hear RMS's answer too. sorry...
You've come a long way baby,
To get where you've got to today.
You've got your own comic strip, now baby,
You've come a long, long way.
(if you don't know the melody to the Virginia Slims TV commercial, you're just too young a brat to remember it)
Interesting question. On the other hand, why are you not paying fees to the patent holder? If a patent exists. If a patent does not exist, you patent it. Get people to pay you. This is America, stand up for your right to put it to the other guy!
In short, the goal is, say it with me kids, "Total World Domination".
I bet that a part of Linus wishes he'd never joked around with that phrase. It sounds so, well, banal and piggish. Completely out of character for Linus.
What the hell is this? Some people....
It is a shame that a few tougher questions were not asked. I'm glad that he took time to answer a few questions from /. readers, but the end result was too much like the Chris Farley talk show skit of SNL. "Hey ESR, do you rember when you wrote The Cathedral and the Bazaar? That was cool."
GREAT essay! Please, take it out and put it in a website. This is as good as the ones from people such as RMS, ESR, and Bruce.
I'd be curious to hear what Eric thinks about the BeOS. I know its not Open Source, and its not UNIX, (although it does have enough posix stuff so that it feels a bit like UNIX), but it is a nifty little OS.
I'm a big proponent of OSS (or whatever you want to call it.) I've always shared my code. my tools. Whatever people wanted/needed.
But I'm confused here.
Let us suppose that I want to build a stereo system (mp3 player, for instance), in a black-box, to fit on a stereo stack. I want to sell these. Now, I decide to use linux as a the 'embedded' system. The outside user is given no access to the OS itself directly, and cannot modify it in any way. I have not really modified the original source, all I have done is compiled it with the appropriate kernel options to support my hardware, set it to boot from flash, and added my own software. Let's say I use other OSS mp3 players and such to construct it.
Do I have to provide source to everyone who I sell this to? I mean, I'm not really distributing software. It's not something they pay a premium for, it's a part of the whole. They can't touch it, see it, or modify it. I haven't actually changed any OSS code, aside from configuring and compiling a kernel.
Now, my question is, do I have to provide (or otherwise direct people towards) the sources for the linux kernel, and other tools that i've used simply because my product contains their executables? Do I actually have to state that my hardware device uses linux inside?
IMHO, the GPL was intended to keep people from taking others hard work and making it proprietary, and not contributing back to the software world. Using GPL'd code as an embedded system is a bit different, no?
Is it that the GPL only covers software when referring to 'the work as a whole?'
Eric, Thank you for speaking out and supporting mankind's right of self defense (against evil governments and individuals as well). I would be happy to host a "Geeks with Guns" in Cincinnati. Barry
WRT combining BSD and GNU GPL code. If the BSD is otherwise compatible with the GNU GPL, then what would likely happen from a legal standpoint is this:
If the point of the BSD license is to allow freedom of downstream licensing options to subsequent modifiers and/or distributors, and the BSD doesn't require imposing additional requirements on the licensed code specific to itself, then BSD-licensed software could simply be reissued under GPL.
As I understand the general BSD|X-style licensing philosophy, such a freedom in choosing licensing terms ought to fall within acceptable practices. It's little different from relicensing BSD code under a proprietary license -- except that the resulting license is in fact a public license.
Neither the GPL nor the LGPL allow portions of works licensed under them to be incorporated into works distributed under terms other than the GPL or LGPL. The LGPL allows linking works distributed under non [L]GPL terms to the library, but not the hypothetical you appear to be suggesting of incorporating LGPL code into the principal codebase of a program.
Karsten M. Self (kmself) posting a/c
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
Doesn't evangelism include refraining from making personal attacks? (Saying - "but he did it first!" belongs to Bart Simpson territory).
Try to follow this hint:
"What makes the job rough isn't the workload, it's the second-guessers and snipers from the sidelines."
It was only a flesh wound!
-LT
I guess you haven't been on the 'net for long then, if you haven't seen all the punk kids claiming all over the place that Linux is innovative, bleeding, edge, way radical kewl stuff.
oh and:
-having a smoking section in a resturant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
So as you see Linux is all about choice, you can choose to use Linux, or you can be laughed at and ridiculed.
what a threat, flaming a flamer is rude I know, but if that is is the only reason you're using linux (most dfeinately not I'd imagine) than I worry for you, and if there are other, better reasons, then why include this one?
Berlin sucks. Let's stick to X.
Very good! You've cited a perfect example of the lack of innovation with Linux. Microsoft is bogged down by the fact that there is some loser out there who will holler if they can't run a crofty old PC-DOS 2.1 application on NT Server. Linux on the other hand is bogged down by the fact that most of the useful apps (beyond all the TTY-based tools that are about as innovative as a Teletype) are bound to a hoary old Designed-by-committee monster called the X Window System (yep, didn't call it X Windows, did you think that everybody who thinks it's a horrible kludge hasn't seen a lot of it?). Berlin doesn't stand a chance, in an environment where everybody and his grandmother is out writing crappy little toys to run on the X desktop. It makes the KDE/GNOME battles look like a foodfight in second grade.
Linux isn't particularly innovative. The problem is, people try to pretend it is, and stop being innovative, because they think they are.
It seems like if sex is power, then we're dealing with someone into Tantra.
When you engage in Sex Magick, do you feel the power within, Eric?
We already knew you were a neo-pagan, and judging from the way people throw around made-up works like "grok" around you, you're probably a member of the Church of All Worlds.
This doesn't frighten me so much as it should frighten a lot of the more conservative people in the crowd cheering this guy on.
Ever heard about sarcasm?
Just seal up the box that the appliance you are talking about building. Slap on a "Reverse Engineering Prohibited" disclaimer. If you feel the need, configure it so that tampering with it in ways that violate the warranty blows the flash.
You can sue the pants off anybody who dismembers your product to discover what OS you embedded. In today's legal environment (and it seems to be getting even more that way) you're in pretty good shape to win.
> You attacked me viciously, personally, and in public. Like you did in the AUUG Terminal room in AUUG. It was pretty funny. > That's what I can't forgive -- and won't. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind.
Isn't it obvious what he wants on Slashdot?
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Obviously, political arguements about Open Sores isn't in that category.
Keep it up.
Statistics show that in households with guns, the most likely person shot is a member of the household, by another member of the household.
Keep killing yourselves. Make sure you specify in your will which relative you pass the guns on to.
Evolution in action.
BeOS is already technically superior to Linux.
I defy you to prove that. Yours is the burden of evidence.
We have a winner! Take a logic class before openining your mouth.
1) Linux has never clamed someone else's works as 'innovative' and then actively tries to drive the origional company out of business.
Absolutely correct. Linux is much worse. It takes somebody's work and dumps it out there for anybody to get for free, driving original author out of the business (how do you compete against free stuff?) without regard to how much his time and effort were worth. This is at least as bad as anything Microsoft is doing.
>Currently, this expresses itself as endemic piracy of closed source software, music CDs, movies, etc., but I suspect that when Open Source wins over closed source software, rampant violations of the GPL will ensue from asian corporations and developers.
Exactly what form would this take? The piracy problem consists of illegally copying materials. Since the GPL explicitly grants the right to copy and distribute (for whatever fee you can get), no piracy and no GPL violation.
I suppose you could argue that they will just compile and market under a different name, but why bother? There is a possibility of taking the code base and making some improvements to it and not releasing the code (a GPL violation), but the market will self-correct quickly (by someone else making the same improvements to the base code) if the improvements are worth anything.
One of the things that comes along with a position of leadership in a democratic, heterogeneous organization or movement is that the leader can only speak to the common interests of the group he represents.
For ESR, the common interest is the freeing of software, and the promotion of same. That's it.
Not all OSS people have the same political bent he has, and most certainly not all OSS people have his stance on firearms. Every time ESR talks about his non-shared personal beliefs in an OSS forum, he betrays those he represents.
I don't know what Bruce Perens' stance is on religion, gun ownership, or political alignment - and that's a good thing. Bruce (for all his faults) sticks to the subject of OSS. That's what he's there for. All else is noise.
ESR could take a lesson in this aspect of personal discipline from Bruce.
Or, if that's too hard to swallow, from Larry Wall. Larry is a missionary, fer crssakes (hee hee, see what I did there?) but yet while he never denies his religious side, neither does he preach. He keeps his Perl persona separate from his missionary persona, because he understands that not all Perl people share his religious beliefs - and in fact, may offend some.
ESR, count me in with those who think you do a good job on the software side of the house, but are offended when you drift into politics or personal artillery. I don't want to be labeled as an anarchist gun nut because I hack.
Of course not. Because with maybe one or two exceptions, none of that GNU software is good enough to compete with commercial software based on the features. When the only thing going for you is being free, all you can do is make other people make less money, you can't make money yourself.
And I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without having an original idea of your own! Oh, I'm sorry, Linux did it. I take it back.
If only politics could be handled the same way as coding..
if (personal.interests != ESR.interests) {
ignore(ESR);
}
if ((ESR.flame && Bruce.flame) &&
personal.mode | NO_FLAMING) {
ignore(Slashdot.article);
}
Maybe someone needs to write an open source program that will do our politics for us. Then we just have to sit back and code while letting the program decide whats best for open source.
Slashdot and its interviewees always back down from answering the most controversial questions. They did it with Tim O'Reilly, they're doing it with ESR, and they'll continue it in the future. Slashdot is afraid to take risks and its interviewees even more so. Yawn!
This is only if you count suicide.
If you decide not to kill yourself, this changes.
This study you are refering to also counted rival gang members as "acquantences" for the purpose of this study to make it look worse.
Of course there _ARE_ 2.5 Million crimes a year
prevented by firearms.
I found your comment more offensive.
Alex B.
Forget NetHack ... I'm still waiting for Teenage Mutant Ninja NetNews.
No, I would not like a society without any guns. I would rather take the small possibility that I might get shot over the certainly large possibility that I'd constantly get pushed around by those bigger than me.
And breaking into someone's house is not just equivalent to stealing their property--any more than rape is equivalent to verbal harassment. It's not just your property being taken, but the sanctity of your home and the safety of your family has been violated.
Finally, yes one should prevent evil governments by participating in the one you've got--but this isn't always enough, and one should always keep their options open. Keep in mind that just because a government is supported by 200 million people doesn't mean it's not oppressing the other 50 million.
I'm curious whether you wrote this before or
after youfound out sun was planning to release
solaris under their SCSL
personally, I think it's great, since
now i should finally be able to write
a decent UDMA driver for the beast...
But I suspect most linux coders will still stick
with linux. probably stealing much from the now
readable solaris code.
[which will probably then charge up some legal
battles when redhat/etc starts to use that
code in their distributions]
I spent half an hour writing that. :(
Linux and BeOS are now on the shelves at some big computer stores. I don't know about Linux, but the BeOS boxes have shrinkwrapped commercial BeOS apps on the next shelf. At this point, I would say BeOS is much better suited for the average non-computer type person.
But I think we're past the point at which developing a new OS in closed source is a viable option.
Damn, I knew it. The computer industry has gone communist. Microsoft is a corrupt western power (well, west of the Mississippi...). Everyone must share code and intelligence is against the law; copying only, no innovating.
I respect the elegance and ingenuity of BeOS's design
Do you honestly think you can make an elegant OS that isn't closed source? Isn't that what makes an OS elegant? The fun of a brand-new version, one company controlling the software, not 5000 hackers?
and because many people having guns increases the risk that confrontations will accelerate into gunfire
In states with liberalized concealed carry laws (more people having guns), statistics show that violent crime has dropped.
It would be great if the U.S. had had strict gun control from the start
No, it wouldn't.
The US would not be the country it is today if it didn't recognize that the citizens have the right and responsibility to protect themselves (whether it's from bad guys, bears, or other sorts of catastrophies). This idea is in part what led to the second ammendment.
You've surrounded yourself in open-source thinking for too long. It isn't as simple as open-source is right and all else is wrong. As a hacker, I love Linux. I love how it was developed and how it works. But that's because I'm a hacker/programmer. But I also know enough to see that it isn't suited for the rest of the world... the people who want to do useful things with computers while spending as little time as possible learning about computers. Be was designed from the ground up to be simple, direct, and elegant. That's something you won't find in the piece-meal world of Linux systems. Ever. So there is a place for both in this world. That's why they invented boot managers.
In my humble opinion, is it not better to have a company in control over the OS, a company that pushes it in a specific direction, rather than a bunch of enthusiast dragging it at many... I mean, who would know what kind of system anyone has after a couple of years, would anyone be able to produce anything for anyone but themselves ?
No, this is so wrong.
The same thinking has brought us the ever increasing amount of nuclear weapons, up to multiple overkill.
If only a few people have guns, there is hope that the other people have a clue and manage to treat this person so that he drops the gun and comes back to his senses.
By accepting the necessity for guns, you accept the usage, too (why else should you have one), and this leads to blood and death.
I live in germany, and we are horribly scared by the american people and their usage of guns. It's terrible to read about all the people who die because someone had the finger on the trigger.
You pick up the weapon, you give up peace.
Well, I won't try to dissect your argument,
but I have a problem with one statement you
made:
"Pretty much any kind of application imaginable
has been done long before.. well, just about
anything you use today, thank you ever so much.
Nowadays you can only make more powerful, more feature rich, more whatever versions."
Do you know how ridiculous this sounds?
Do you think they were saying this 10 years
ago? 30? 200? (In *any* field of endeavour!)
Wait! Stop innovating! It's all been done
already!
But then you say Berlin is innovation. I'm
confused.
And as far as completeness goes, a useful 1.0
is probably a good benchmark. Berlin is not
there yet.
Peter.
I'd put gun ownership at about 20% of the code geeks I know (in the U.S., Bay area). Of course, I buck that trend by being a member of the NRA who doesn't own a gun. Also members of the ACLU & Libertarian Partry. For some reason, I used to think they'd all be under the same tent.
>How would the world be without any guns? Let's see - NO GUNS in the world AT all.. Big guys trained with clubs and swords will rule the world - just like in feudal Europe and Japan were common people were serfs, and NOT permitted to carry swords. In East Timor and Rwanda many were masacred with CLUBS, spears, and other traditional weapons. (yes, they had guns too - but a significant number died from other weapons.) LOOK at prisons! They are some of the MOST dangerous places to be and they have NO guns amoung the 'guests'. Who rules the prison? ANS the BIGGEST and meanest. hmmm - removing guns will not increase liberty. if you truely believe that OSS=liberty, then you should believe in the right of the individual to self determination couplied with the right to protect your liberty from internal and external threats. Its about community, liberty, and human nature.
That's an appealing idea, but I can't agree.
No, a good deal of the push for Linux is simply
hatred of Microsoft the corporation. People hate
windows so much, that they are willing to write
software for FREE! Yes, for free. The odd developer gets paid if they can find work, but
most of them work because they know that their
contribution will slowly, steadily, help screw
Bill Gates over. It's incredible.
The momentum of Linux *is* fueled by anti-
microsoft sentiment. You can't deny it.
As an extra bonus, you get software that happens
to go faster, and not crash as much. Whether
it's actually better is questionable.
Peter.
You cite the free Unix's monopoly on hacking talent as a reason why the closed source BeOS can't succeed, but by this rational no new OS, closed or open source, can succeed anymore. It's hard to believe we've reached the OS promised land so soon and only incremental improvements of the current dominant systems (or just unix based ones?) lies ahead. What's needed are design tools, software standards, and the like to help developers leverage their talents across a variety of platforms while allowing users a choice in operating environments.
The people I know who are the most heavily into grudges and revenge are the satanists.
In fact, personal revenge seems to be one of the tenets of the Church of Satan.
While I believe that Open Source has the potential to provide excellent software in all respects.
In practice, I think open source software seems to run into a barrier going beyond merely having a quality implementation, where the user interface design and ease of use considerations only progress so far as the tolerance of the geeks developing the project allow.
I think it is only with the rare, extra-ordinary open source project _OR_ with a closed source project where UI design and ease of use will be dealt with seriously and well implemented. From the bulk of examples out there, it seems obvious that the typical open source development will not implement an interface beyond the needs of the developers.
ESR I wish you well in the pursuit of your faith, but I can tell you that BeOS takes care of my needs as a user MUCH better than any open source OS I have tried to this date.
For me, that REALITY worth a lot more than unfulfilled idealism about open source software.
My problem with guns is not the people on this page or the hunters or backcountry people. Hell I'd be shocked if any NRA member tried to mug me with a gun. Its the gun manu's and dealers. Bottom line is they could care less where guns go once they are sold. I used to believe in the right to own arms, but in this case a few bad apples have spoiled it for the bunch. Our framers did not have access to firearms that could be hidden under a jacket and kill 50 people. If they did they sure as hell wouldn't want the right for everyone to own them. Either limit gun clips to 6 of less for non-military and non-police or ban them completely. I'd prefer a complete ban, but then of course we'd get to see how level headed all of you gun owners really are.
Did you take the matchbook cover course on Political Economy?
Please, please, read more than Heinlein.
Actually 'chan' really means 'young child', although it tends to stick more on girls. Maybe Kitsune-kun would be more appropriate.
"...Their "just good enough to push out the door" coding style is starting to piss off even their most rigid supporters." That's FUD right there. Even many of Microsoft's lukewarm supporters are not getting pissed off at them.
I bet we could get a whole bunch of ESRs together and make a kick-ass Beowulf cluster.
=)
I don't believe in your opinion, actually a great part of the BeOS users are also Linux users.
The BeOS is not the same kind of closed OS as Window$.
Included with the BeOS things M$ CrapOS don't have:
- lot of GNU tools including gcc
- a complete development environment and documentation
- complete source code of most included applications.
You won't be wrong is the BeOS was crappy as Windows is since its first version. But the BeOS has the stable bases Windows never had in the past and will never have.
The close part of the BeOS is just what is needed to make it simpliest to use and not as divided as Linux and the open part make it easy to develop for, use better software and pay them at their just price.
OSS may not be good for everyone but certainly is more than closed OS.
Maybe something eternally between that may be a better choice.
---------------
Between Law and Chaos, the Eternal Champion will meet its destiny.
Huh?
"I think BeOS is beautiful but doomed." Doomed from what respect? The thing you misunderstand here is that Be is not bent on world domination. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. Be will continue to do well with what it has intended to do -- provide a fast, stable platform for multimedia developers. Anyone serious about A/V content creation and editing on standard PC equipment will eventually be using BeOS. Joe Consumer/Mom & Pop probably won't be using BeOS to email Junior in college, but they sure as hell won't be using Linux. They've already got Windoze and MacOS for this. But if I had to place a bet on which OS Mom&Pop would prefer, would find easier to actually accomplish some work with, between Linux and BeOS, it would have to be BeOS. Linux will never be a "viable option" to Windoze/MacOS for the majority of users simply because it was and is not designed with the average end user in mind. As long as this remains, Linux will forever be banished to the backroom -- which doesn't seem to bother most of us Linuxites...
Leo Laporte called, he wants his words back...anyway, I think in an open-minded community that Linux is, I was under the assumption that you would be quick to embrace anything that would provide a viable competitor to the Evil Empire...unless you've realized that BEOS is truly your competition, then you're got every reason to downplay its significance... Forgive the anonymous coward bit...but I'd rather not join you're community...Litestep will ease my guilt over botting into win95
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us. Yet, he flames Sun for opening up Solaris. That, if anything, make one a hypocrite. This is one of the things that really makes me tick about todays OpenSource(TM) movement, all are a bunch of hypocrites. Back in the old(REAL OpenSource(NOT TM)) days things like that would never have happened, it should not happen today. Just my $0.02, if you didn't like me saying what I feal, you're a hypocrite too.
Not very sincerely, eh? Judging by all the bile you're spilling on license-discuss.
The linux-community may have been open-minded once, but not anymore. If it ain't open-source, or rather the pure original, undiluted GPL form of open-source, then the linux community wants no part of it. At least that is the impression I get from reading slashdot.
Have you ever heard of open ... hmm ... something? However, the idea is that development in an open environment leads to a better end result than otherwise. The good thing is that is really works.
I want to live in a world where decisions don't sucks!
That would have to be sone HUGE leap in functionality for the BSD/Open(non GPL) to not just assimilate similar functionality. Seriously, if someone makes minor imporvements to the code and distributes these changes only under closed agreements, then these minor changes if signifiant are easily duplicated by the Open counterpart. Use of BSD/Open(non GPL) code to enhance non core functionality of other software (a la LGLP) is diferent since the core software is elsewhere.
Man you are pathetic. I bet you've never even read the Apple Public Source License, and even if you did, you lack the mental capacity to understand it.
No one can steal BSD code. They can make a modified proprietary version and use it in private ways. But they can't put restrictions on anybody elses use of the original. Sure they can use the dreaded "network effects" to strong-arm everyone into using their version, but that can be done with the GPL as well. Two things to consider: Anyone worried about some other organization gaining economic benefit from your effort should not be contributing to any form of open source. What do you think they are going to do with your code? Play only games and swear off prizes of any kind? Software is infinitely replicable and modifiable, like DNA. The way some people think about software would mean we'd have only one copy (or maybe two) of homo sapiens on this planet.
'Nuff said.
You seem to enjoy a certain amount of fame.
This fame seems to have arisen from you representing the OSS community to the larger world. Meeting a need there to understand this up-and-coming thing has rightfully earned you their respect.
However, it may be argued that if it had not been for the community, there would not have been a need in the larger world for your clear voice, and you would not have been famous.
The community created a vacancy, the filling of which caused your rise to fame.
Using this fame to make your voice heard on different issues than the one on which you are famous can be likened to a TV star featuring in commercials.
If you said: "I am the ESR of the OSS community speaking on a totally unrelated topic: I think allowing people to carry guns is a good thing" (or whatever it is you actually mean) you _would_ be using the fame you have accrued as an OSS ambassador to make your voice heard on different topics.
This is not your fault. In fact, the error is on the side of the listener.
You can and should (and apparently do) make any reasonable attempt to maintain the separation.
Just remember that your fame promotes and taints any opinions you offer.
And remember that when a community member claims that your talks about your non-shared personal beliefs in an OSS forum - or any other place where your OSS fame comes into play - you betray those you represent.. he is in part correct.
Instead of denying it, I think you should explain why he is in part wrong as well.
It is true that the community that has created the fame that amplifies your presence is betrayed.
It is also true that your statements is that which betrays the community.
However, the betraying is not done in the utterance, but in the reception.
In conclusion all I can really say is:
People will be people - for good and bad.
Fame has its curses - this is one.
ESR said: "I think we're past the point at which developing a new OS in closed source is a viable option." Really? Why? Have you any evidence to support this conjecture? I see none. I suspect that the recent and much deserved successes of Linux have gone to your head. Certainly as an OS designed by computer types for computer types Linux is great but even considering it's fantastic progress in usabilty recently it still isn't an OS that an end user could use without good tech support at the ready. It will be a few years, if ever, before Linux can seriously compete in the end -user market (by end-user I mean those who are not into computers for their on sake.) So there is no evidence that an OSS effort can or will create an end-user OS at all, much less one as innovative and elegant as BeOS. ESR said: " the free Unixes have soaked up so much hacking talent that I don't think BeOS will ever be able to grow an independently viable developer base" Have you ever tried doing serious programing in BeOS? As one who has worked with both I can tell you the BeOS is as close to programmer heaven as there ever has been to date. The API is a study in elegance. It is far easier to write robust, tight and fast programs in Be then any other OS I know of. Sorry but dealing with the hodge podge of libraries in Linux is a pain. But don't take my word for it, give BeOS a try, after writing one non-trivial program for BeOS you may never go back again. Those who program because they like to, given equal exposure, will overwhelming choose BeOS. I develop for Windows and Linux because I have to. I develop for BeOS because I want to and there are thosands who feel as I do. But like I said, don't take my word for it, give BeOS a fair chance, but beware, it may cause you to loose your religion :-) ESR said: "I thought it was a really nice try..." To paraphrase Mark Twain: The reports of Be's demise are greatly exagerated. BeOS is still growing its finding more and more shelf space in stores around the world, More and more vendors are supporting it and more and more users are trying it. Excellence is hard to keep down. Just as the excellent qualities of Linux causes it to prevail over the FUD, the excellent qualities of BeOS will do the same. Dan O'Bryant
Hi All, Just want to say that the future will have multiple operating systems, not just one. The internet has grown so much that there is such a niche for an OS. Video/Sound editing in linux? No, Linux is more of a network OS than a desktop OS. If you look around, linux IS ALREADY FRAGMENTING just like unix did. In linux, there is no single, standard distribution with a single standard GUI. Ever hear of the phrase "too many cooks spoil the brew?", yes that is what linux is now. A big mess. The ip stack isn't even multithreaded like NT or even BEOS. BeOS is for people who would rather spend time doing productive audio/graphic/video work. This is something linux lacks. VIRGO
Got to say it. First time I ever wished I was registered and a moderator. Maybe I should get around to it. Aside from the (actually) offmentioned fact that both the high and low profile people around here are, well, people(!) ESR just mentioned a valuable little tidbit. Let's all remember that the people who are in the public eye _perform_ - some of the time. And yes, the colourful speaker is better heard than the less colourful one.
Jee, people let him talk. I'd be glad to hear to hear ESR too in this thread. If they manage to keep it cool for several rounds, all will be settled. "not the place, not the time" Nah it is never too late or too early to do solve a problem. Anywhere, anytime, a discussion doesn't hurt.
First, let me say that I am a long-time Red Hat user. I still use it, but I've been moving to BeOS because it offers some things that the open source community is several years from having: (1) a pervasively, preemptively multitasking GUI, (2) a consistent GUI with all of the standards (drag 'n' drop, copy 'n' paste, etc.) between apps and between any app and the OS, (3) actual GUI standards that are employed with a good deal of uniformity among applications, (4) great speed, (5) and an attractive environment for startups looking to develop RAD tools, office products, and the other things that the open source community has been able to only dabble in. Alpha quality text-mode applications, window managers, very attractive desktops/icons, and a bewildering array of non-interoperable, non-uniform GUI utilities that one is lucky to be able to compile, let alone run reliably, is the hallmark of Linux. Some things will continue to be built better by for-profit, closed-source shops for several years. These developers are more likely to write for BeOS, where they can make a living based upon the proceeds from their code, as opposed to Linux/*BSD, where users are hostile towards paying for anything, especially closed-source apps, and most things are done by hobbyists. I think BeOS will get the big, complex GUI apps before X11/Linux, and I think they'll tend to be more reliable, more usable, uniform, and optimized for the OS, rather than being bad ports of Windows apps. It's entirely possible that BeOS will never find their way to their target users (are they advertising in digital content creation rags yet?), but right now, Linux is a hodge-podge of alpha-quality apps, not a streamlined OS with great profit potential and SOHO usability. I'm expecting BeOS to beat Linux/X11 to the punch on this, and Linux/X11 to eventually start cloning BeOS apps (just as open source developers spend all of their time trying to copy Windows apps). Linux, on the other hand, will continue to be a cheap, powerful server OS. Anyway, open-source/free software might turn out to be the wave of the future, but right now it's still a bit of a novelty, and no serious threat to the giants. It's much too soon to claim victory, and years until Linux/X11 has big-time apps, let alone ones optimized for X11. I still see BeOS passing Linux in the near future, and from then on, I think it's still an open game. If BeOS never gets the public's attention, it will probably be another OS/2 or MacOS, and hopefully by then, Berlin will be done, KOffice will rock, and we'll have C++Builder for Qt. And we still won't have than 1/10th of the SOHO market. But if BeOS catches on, there's a whole new contest between it and M$.
Enjoied reading this piece. By the way, while reading I've got this idea that I write here before I forget it: Why not create something like a distributed slashdot/newsgroup site. Actualy many sites each moderated by their respective maintainers. All of them might have the same front page but if you persue a particular topic you go to another site. There could be several sites for a single topic and you could select the moderation style you like This will solve all moderation problems - if you don't like one moderator go to another. Besides competeing, the moderators will also be able to cooperate for their own good, providing links and user comments to each other on mutual basis. This is technicaly possible, but how to go about building it I don't know. There is also the risk that without a lot of explanation it will not be understood. There are other benefits of this, like faster access, no down time. etc etc. As I start to think it looks beter and better. Anyone care to help getting this idea straight? - write to: sbozhil@math.luc.edu logged as an AC only because this logging thing could be better.
Alright I'll bite. Got any links to back this up?
>"the free Unixes have soaked up so much hacking talent that I don't think BeOS will ever be able to grow an independently viable developer base" If this is true, why is it that the few BeOS engineers have accomplished things that all these talented hackers still havn't been able to effectively reproduce? i.e. SMP, journaled file system, etc. >"Sorry, BEfolks. If it's any comfort, I thought it was a really nice try..." I didn't know that we were through yet? I do not need your false comfort. The same can easily be said about Linux. It was a really nice try even though the Linux box was hacked before the NT box...even though NT outperformed Linux in the benchmarks... But seriously, Linux is an excellent operating system, but there is room for both Linux and BeOS to coexist. However, if respected leaders in the Linux community continue to spread FUD like this, there will be a backlash. It is already starting. Linux is supposed to be about giving users a choice when it comes to their software. Not about dismissing every application that is not developed in the same manner as your precious Linux. Gmlongo
"Offensive" might be a bit too harsh. But this comment reveals immaturity. The same can be said about the question too. The whole thing reminds me about those kindergarten kids that when going to pee fancy themselves as going to have sex. That how it is my friend, people think about having sex in the same way as having a cigar. It looks especially popular among leaders...:)
Thank you for your input. I truly believed that BeOS was a RTOS like QNX (they certainly seem very close in performance), and I apologize for the confusion. I stand corrected.
Dear Mr Raymond there are many reasons as to why the BeOS might not succeed, your spurious claim would not be included among them.
The BeVeloper scene is active and productive. GNU-apps and drivers can and are easily ported: the BeOS profits doubly from Open Source projects; the apps themselves; and the increased awareness for alternative apps.
You seem to assume to that all quality programmers/hackers will go the Open Source route. What gives you such confidence? Have you read Machiavelli? Some programmers, even some of those quality ones, will want to make money from their work and how do you answer them? And even if it is "free", people will expect as much from a Linux distribution as from a commercial OS.
Neither the BeOS nor Linux are finished or perfect and the investments into both reveal different strategies: Be attracts application developes, Linux server-software and system houses. They are, still, complementary. A fact which is reflected in their reciprocal development. Ideas from the BeOS find their way into Linux just as apps and drivers from Linux make their way to the BeOS.
Billy Boy is scared of them both, which is just as it should be.
He can't get low latencies and stability under Windows NT; he can only dream of effective IA64 support.
Don't believe the hype! Steinberg, EMagic, Maxon and plenty more don't either which is why they will be at the first ever Euro BeDC and BeGeistert 003.
Heheh.. I like your .sig so much that I'm going to rip it. "I respect the elegance and ingenuity of BeOS's design." --Eric S. Raymond / Slashdot.org
I can pardon the length. I can't pardon the quality, however.
I'm astounded that anyone would consider this to be an example of a good essay. I'm very curious. How old are you? While reading this I felt that I was looking over the shoulder of an 10th grader taking an AP Honors English class. It was almost painful to read your clumsy attempts at poetic license. When reason's bullets are spent ?!?
At first glance, it would appear that you've constructed an essay. You've certainly mastered the art of putting sentences and paragraphs together. You obviously very much want to be a good writer. Unfortunately, your missive lacks the integral quality of a well-written essay. You failed to capture me.
Your essay meandered here and there while you tossed around ill sounding sentences ("Spats such as this...")with a license to bore. Your essay had an amazing feel of superficiality to it. I would wager that much of the feel is attributable to the fact that what you presented was a first draft. Am I correct?
Now submitting a first draft is perfectly fine for this forum. Most of us aren't professional writers and it shows. I'm just a wee bit amused at some of the reply's to your essay lauding you on your accomplishment. If your essay represents the state of fine writing, well, I guess I may need to dust off some of the classics.
Slashdot has become a favorite arena of practicing commentators. A kind of writing workshop, if you will. Occasionly we have the pleasure of finding a true practioner of the art of word-slinging. I don't quite think you are there yet. But, I imagine your essay achieved your goal: A post moderated up
Why does everyone think that we all have to get along to make this Open Source thing work? We're all individuals with different personalities. Obviously the shakers and makers in this arena have strong willed personalities that don't bend all that much. It's what makes you guys who you are.
I don't think a spat between you or Bruce will do damage to the OS movement. A couple of years ago perhaps but the ball is rolling downhill now. Nothing will derail the movement.
I think most people in the community respect both of you and are more interested in where else you will lead us.
I have $10 on Bruce kickng ERS' ass.
Brought to you by someone with too much time on his hands and the letter Q.
In short, the goal is, say it with me kids, "Total World Domination".
Well in that case, I hope Linux dies a slow painful death. I don't want to escape from the evil clutches of one empire only to be thrown into another.
Say it with me kids, "Death to Linux".
I asked her if she cared whether her OS was open source or not. She said, "huh"! End of story Raymaond.
I'll take that comment with a grain of salt. Even before all this OSS media hype started. People have been saying that Be Inc is doomed to failure. I've heard this being said Since 1990. Even an article in PC magazine back around 1995 predicted Iminent failure. I've heard countless nay sayers preditec and commenting in a similar fashion as our Beloved MR. Richards. Beuitiful but doomed. Bankruptcy, No Room for a new OS, No Apps, No developers, Tot little to late. Sorry people this is not "New News" to Be users. First Be started on the Hobbit Processors then they dissappeared. We heard Be is Doomed. Then Came PowerPC RISC. Steve Jobs pulled the Plug on that. "Oh god! Be is doomed for sure now:" Oops, Here comes Intel. Ported over less than months I might Add. oops Now Open Source is here. Be is Doomed for sure now! Nice Try! Doomed for almost ten years. And making progress. Now I call that failure. I I was gonna fail I'd want to fail like that! This seems like the logest failure I have ever seen! Like I said, Grain of salt Glass of water EgFrow
Sorry, but that's Bollucks.
My day-time job is a pretty typical "hacker" job. I am primarily the "production support developer". While the rest of the project team are off deeveloping new features etc, I spend my days fixing things that go wrong in our production environment. Perl, csh, ksh, awk, SQL. Whatever it takes to get it working again. That pretty much covers most of the various definitions of hacker. And you know what? When I get home, I am so happy to get away from that crap, and do some pleasant elegant coding for BeOS.
One of the jargon file's definitions of hacker includes "enjoys programming rather than just theorizing about programming", well in my experience the average hacker (and ppl like Linus etc are far from average) either enjoys programming at the expense of theorizing (which gives us software that works but is quite simply horrible - ie a kludge) or theorize too much (which gives software that is overly idealistic rather than usefull). X-Windows is a great example. The original design was too theorized (too many API levels, everything customisable) and the resulting system is under-theorized (IMHO horrible to use).
I think that you'll find BeOS attracts developers who appreciate some good old fashioned basic "design" in the OS. The free unixes have a design goal along the lines of "making a good free unix". Sorry, but that by definition cannot be a good design, bcs unix has grown so randomly, that the system they (linux/*BSD) are trying emulate/extend no longer has any real design.
High calibre programmers need/want more choices than "pick the free unix you like best". BeOS is one of those choices, and if you look at the Be Community, I think you'll find that they are making that choice.
-- Zod (I can't remember my password)
I paid $44 for BeOS (BeOS Bible Bundle) at www.insight.com. However, considering my PC has not crashed since I've been running BeOS (2 weeks), it's worth a lot more than $70.
Politics aside, Be sells a "demo" cd for $10 if you want to try it out without committing to the full price.
You can order it here.
Dicksize wars never end. Especially on the 'net.
We just have to deal with it is all.
The problem is that everyone forgets the "Oh, and scantily clad women" part. :)
It sounds much better that way. :) :)
Bruce, don't you remember that it went much further than 'just' criticizing ESR's opinions? I seem to recall your angry paranoid rant about how ESR was 'coming to get you' with a gun here on /. and how you used his pro-NRA beliefs to revile him. It was no mere 'professional' argument that got you and ESR to the point of not speaking, this is a personal thing between you and him.
But ESR *does* try and associate the OSS movement with a non-OSS movement, with his constant prattling on about guns, and the (American!) right to own them.
He flirts dangerously close to making the OSS movement sound like an arm of the National Rifle Association, or the Michigan Militia, or any number of highly armed, right-wing, and slightly unstable (mentally) groups.
I'm with the AC * -1 (heh, that was cute) poster. Keep libertararian politics - and especially gun control issues - the hell away from OSS.
OSS is not about politics, it's about software. Don't lose sight of that ESR
I *strongly* disagree with your sentiments. Competence generally isn't transferable, but cognitive skills are. So I really don't give a damn what some actress thinks about Alar (unless, like Heidi Lamar(?) she really does know more than how to act), but I *do* care about what people whose analytical skills I respect think... and why they hold those views.
The most extreme example of this was the late Robert A. Heinlein. Like many people I often sharply disagree with his positions, but I have never known him to take a position without careful thought. When we disagree it's because we assign different weights to benefits and costs, never because of flawed logic.
If ESR thinks that private gun ownership is important, I think it will be productive for me (as a person, not just a Linux hacker) to learn more about what lead him to that conclusion. I might still disagree, but I'll be better informed about the opposing view. If RMS felt strongly that private gun ownership was a bad idea (to pick on him solely because the urban east has more restrictive laws since there's no "I called the (sole) lawman for the county, but he's 200 miles away so we're on our own for 3 hours" factor), I would respectfully listen to his ideas and probably learn from them.
I only see this becoming a problem if people such as ESR, RMS and Bruce Perens started endorsing unrelated commercial products for a fee. But until I learn which deodorant ESR uses when facing the MS snake pit on summer solstices, I'm not gonna worry about it.
And as for the people who are unable to distinguish between ESR's personal political beliefs and his OSS observations (which he does *not* comingle, afaik).... they need to grow up. An individual's personal beliefs can affect my evaluation of their professional claims, but they have to get pretty wild before that happens. (E.g., violent racism like that shown by Aryan Nation, or preparation to join the Heaven's Gaters on the big space ship hiding behind the comet.)
Coyote-san on soon
ZicoKnows is right, the hypocracy reeks around here.
No one, that I see, ever claims that Linux is innovative and bleeding edge.
You either haven't been around for long, or you don't have your eyes open.
Microsoft steals ideas and claims them as it's own.
Sorry, but I've never seen Microsoft steal and idea and claim it as its own. I have read a lot of Linux FUDsters claim that, repeatedly and endlessly, to the point that others take such claims as honest truth and repeat it yet again... If you really research some of these claims against Microsoft, you'll learn that they don't have any basis in fact. But obviously, you haven't done that, you're just here to make baseless allegations. Your behavior is far more reprehensible than anything I've ever seen from Microsoft.
Linux cheerfully borrows good ideas!
Every advance of the art builds upon what has gone before. If it didn't, society would be limited by what one could accomplish in a single lifetime. Certainly Linux has borrowed a lot of ideas from Unix, both the AT&T and BSD varieties. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as it doesn't claim those ideas originated with it. In this, I see Microsoft and Linux as being very alike.
Sorry about the anonymous posting, I lost my password and for some reason I'm not getting the reminder back in the mail.
I think Eric is wrong here. Be Inc. has over 10,000 registered developers, which is on a par with Apple. One of the reasons (and one of the strengths of Be) is that a great deal of it *is* open source. I think that the biggest threat to the Developer Base comes not from Unix but Windows and Mac programmers who lack confidence in trying a new OS. Many Unix/Linux users already use the BeOS as well, and like it. I really believe that trend will continue as Be developes.
Whether an OS is open source or not doesn't matter quite so much as what that operating system can actually do. As you rightly acknowledge, Be is elegant and beautiful. It's also very powerful, with a lot of potential, and I think that if there can ever be a happy marriage between open and proprietry source, then the BeOS is going to be the one to deliver it. Don't mark us down as dead yet Eric. The sytem is developing very fast indeed, and could surprise you yet.
All comments made in a comradely spirit
What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous. Not being an OSS OS does not automatically mean that BeOS is garbage. Many people could not care less about OSS, since they will _never_ touch the source. Hell I paid more for a boxed distro FreeBSD set than I paid for BeOS. One other item that you _cannot_ deny is that BeOS is far superior to Linux in many aspects. Multitasking is one, for BeOS is a RTOS, unlike Linux. UI is another. SMP support is another. Hardware support, in that BeOS doesn't "detect" then install or require you to install drivers, it "just works". Speed is another, BeOS will quite frankly mop the floor with Linux when it comes down to pure OS/Graphics/Audio processing speed. Stability, BeOS is as if not more stable than Linux. What I detect here is a touch of jealousy aimed at the BeOS because you know that it is powerful. IMO, both FreeBSD and BeOS are more well designed, powerful and robust than Linux will ever _Be_.
Unfortunately, Jordan Hubbard, a Walnut Creek employee, is threatening legal action against anyone who wishes to make a new FreeBSD distribution. Walnut Creek is determined to maintain a monopoly on ownership of FreeBSD. Hubbard and Walnut Creek CD ROM want to chill investors into any competitive value added versions of FreeBSD. Anyone who uses the code to create a new FreeBSD distribution will be threatened with lawsuit. A terrible legal battle is in the offing for the BSD world, and it will make the USL lawsuit look like child's game of mumblety-peg.
Unfortunately, Jordan Hubbard, a Walnut Creek employee, is threatening legal action against anyone who wishes to make a new FreeBSD distribution. Walnut Creek is determined to maintain a monopoly on ownership of FreeBSD. Hubbard and Walnut Creek CD ROM want to chill investors in any competitive value added versions of FreeBSD. Anyone who uses the code to create a new FreeBSD distribution will be threatened with lawsuit. A terrible legal battle is in the offing for the BSD world, and it will make the USL lawsuit look like a child's game of mumblety-peg.
First of all, no business pioneer has succeeded by looking at the present. They all looked at the future, and envisioned something that was different from what they had back then. If I look at the evolution of BeOS/Intel from R3 to R4 to R 4.5, I am more than confident that R5 or R5.5 will address the most significant of driver and software issues, thus providing the market with an amazing allround OS - allround meaning "for the AV folks as well as for Mom and Pop (thanks, BTW, for the poster leaving me with this marketing cue). Also remember that R3 is a mere 1.5 years old; I doubt ANY other OS has made such progress in such a short time!
Secondly, I really wonder about the mental capacity and understanding of markets and its dynamics of those who discount BeOS because it is not OSS. If you look around BeBits, you will find a large number of either free or open source projects for starters.
Beyond that I have no doubt about the cooperation of Be, Inc. when it comes to enhancing the OS itself. They may even hire you. And lastly, there is nothing wrong with asking a fellow coder for help or code samples. The BeOS developer community seems very helpful and less narrow-minded than others. After all, they know the stakes at hand.
I think this "either go OSS or be doomed" talk is just stupid, unfounded blabber. If Linux was really that great, it would have produced a better and more modern OS foundation, a simple yet effective and easy-to-use UI, an installation routine that "Mom and Pop" can manage, too, and some impact on the mass market. So far, there may be millions of users, but Mom and Pop surely aren't amongst them.
BeOS has a much better chance of replacing Windows as a desktop OS and computing environment, but that seems to be clear to anyone but the "either OSS or be doomed" zealots.
As said before there is place for everybody; it's not about domination at all. BeOS has its purpose, so have Linux, Mac, Amiga, Un*x and Windows. Even the old GEOS has its place. The only question that really matters is how well the OS and its apps are marketed. And it is beyond reasonable doubt that Windows is leading the pack on this account.
So, I'd say "wait another year" and then we will compare Windows, Linux and BeOS again." You'll be surprised by the results.
Helmar "you don't know me, do you?"
RMS, what do you think of software patents, and how do you think the Open source community will deal with things if a day of reckoning comes? As the owner of a small software company (and chief coder) I can tell you that we are constantly afraid of being sued for using Xor to draw a cursor or something similar. We don't really have a contingancy plan except to beg for VC. what do you think the open source community would do?
What you promote is nothing more than a false dichotomy between personal belief and public believe. You are one of the countless victims to believe the myth of "seperation of church and state." That phrase comes from a Thomas Jefferson letter--who ever said he was right?? People have a right to take what they believe and *act* on it in a public manner. In fact, I think thats a sign of true character when a person does that.
Linux exists not as anything origional but as a copy of Unix. I don't see anything "grand" in taking somebody else's work, reverse engineering it and calling it something else. What exactly has the open source "movement" brought us anyway? A legacy OS that is almost as much hassle to install and configure and the origional (ie Unix). Has Linux and open source moved the computer industry foreward with new ideas and faster way of getting things done? I don't see it. BeOS is not caught up in the media feeding frenzy that linux seems to be...and that is possibly the fault of we the BeOS users not doing our part to get the word out there...but linux is surely not gaining ground due to any supposed superiority.
Eric, what's the story on the future of Nethack? A lot of us old-timers are left breathlessly waiting for sequel or "updated" release. Bill Tanksley (sp?) took up the task of reviving Omega. Any chance for Nethack?
Eric, this is more of a comment than an additional question.
We're all very well aware of your pro-libratinarian (sp?) and pro-gun opinions; I even share some of them.
It is, however, vitally important that you separate these activities from your Open Source activities. You must keep the Church and the State separate.
Imagine if a deeply religeous President started trying to make his beliefs law, or if he started to use Presidental privlidge as a formum to preach his beliefs.
It's OK to have strong, personal beliefs. It's OK to voice these beliefs. It's not OK when you use State position (in this case, your position as the Open Source spokesmodel) to advance your personal cause.
It is my opionion that you mix the two far too often. Please do more to keep them separate.
The Famous Hero
Eric, you've said to my face that Open Source isn't magic pixie dust, so why insist that it is essential for success, totemising the openness of source as essential for success?
"You know you want me baby!" - Crow T Robot
ESR,
Do you think that the shortcomings of Sun's source licence (SCSL) are because Sun want's to take advantage of the open source developers, or do you think that Sun is just scared about the possible results of loosing control of their codebase? I think that if Sun would fully be a partner of us open source freaks, both groups would stand to gain. Do you think Sun is really on our side but scared, or just using open source to help them?
Twenty years from now the core APIs may have grown and changed tremendously, but we'll still think of it as the `same' codebase and call it Linux :-).
For some reason, this statement disturbs me greatly. Sure, it's a nice idea to have the same relative base that's matured and been expanded, but I kinda like to think we'll have something more, well, exciting by then.
Of course, I'm still miffed that flying cars aren't in everyone's aero-garages yet.
-Andrew
That's complete and utter bullshit. There is absolutely nothing like this going on. Interestingly, I note you bring up Brett Glass. I won't delve further on that.
As long as you don't specifically call it "official" FreeBSD, there's no problem. There are systems based on FreeBSD out there.
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Why do so many Slashdotters feel the need to frame their choice of operating system in the language of war and conflict?
ESR's comment, read closely, is in the context of NOT fighting about things. It's about unity. And unity is not about being "united against an enemy." That's divisiveness and jingoism.
If you feel the need to have an I-win-you-lose scenario in your life, go sign up for a sports team. But stop telling me I'm enemies with Microsoft or Sun or Apple or whoever. I'm not. I'm united with the folks, even the ones at those 'big evil institutions,' that are using technology in interesting and exciting ways.
My affiliation is not "with Open-Source" or "against Microsoft," but "with hackers," be they CS majors, MCSE's, MacOS junkies, whatever.
I'm a citizen of the Internet, and I'm tired of you folks fighting in the streets of my home turf.
--
(...)
Two: Linux's market share going over 50%. (Cool down, BSD guys -- I'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix win, it just doesn't seen very likely at this point).
Three: a collapse in Microsoft's stock price. That would mean the end of effective FUD and countermarketing against open source.
I'm a bit confused by those last two reasons.. When you say you'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix "win", does that mean that they are somehow in competition with each other? I've found that using the right tool for the job often works best. Linux for workstations, BSD for servers. If we were to use market share as an indicator of who "wins", I'd say Microsoft would win.
Next, I'm not sure how you interpret the destruction of Microsoft as being the end of FUD against openly-coded programs and operating systems. Microsoft serves a very important purpose for openly-coded operating systems and programs right now. Their "just good enough to push out the door" coding style is starting to piss off even their most rigid supporters, and the more people that Microsoft helps us to convert to open systems in that manner, the better. Remember, Microsoft is not a software company, it is a marketing company.
If Microsoft tanks, look for Sun to start spreading FUD against open systems. Why? Because they stand to profit from doing so.
--
Absolutely. I totally agree with 'scumdamn' on this one. Linux itself, built on code licensed under the GPL, is an example of what can happen when a bit of the 'what's best for society' gets a word in edgewise. You have to be willing to put a little effort in for the community. Community isn't _built_ by selfishness, it is eroded.
You can have both selfishness and community- they do balance out and you can have both- but you can't have community by using only selfishness.
I, too, would like to see ESR back off from the griping about RMS, and the GPL. I _like_ the GPL, and I like the way it obsessively and unbreakably protects code from ever being withheld or taken away from the community. It's about maintaining flow of information, nothing more, nothing less. That's important- it's strategically important.
If commercial vendors don't want to give information to the community (which they can participate in with impunity, all they like, under the rules of the community), then they _should_ be writing proprietary software, instead of jumping on bandwagons they do not understand. There's sure to be many commercial vendors who _will_ give information permanently to the community (under the GPL, for instance) for reasons of their own, such as wanting to take a mindshare lead, or companies whose strength is support and services, or companies who distribute software so big that it's unappealing to try and download all of it, or companies which can legitimately claim to be releasing an 'engine' and selling an 'artwork' that runs on the engine and is copyright as if it were a novel or painting.
I don't know if ESR ever _will_ see things this way, but I greatly desire him to lay off RMS and the GPL. To some, this license and its colorful inventor are extremely important, irreplacable. Quit dissing on it.
Free Software: denotes a form of licensing (the 'GPL') that places the availability and flow of information above all other concerns, including the self-interest of the software authors. Free Software (as opposed to Open Source) can be considered 'information sharing at all costs'.
How's that?
Judging by your ad hominem attacks on the public license-discuss mailing list, I'd hardly think you're in a position to denounce someone for public personal attacks.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I ask, held us back against what? Seems to me that many (most?) quality pieces of Free Software were produced before the advent of "Open Source" - before it was even conceived. gcc and the whole GNU project, X, Linux, the BSD flavours, to name a few.
So, essentially, everything we needed was completed before ESR, Bruce Perens (sp?) and their cronies came along and started praching the Open Source mantra.
In my mind, Open Source has accomplished nothing of any importance to us. Netscape said that one of the major reasons for the NPL and MPL release of much Netscape software was because of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" - and, as it later came out, because of Jamie Zawinski's evangelism within the company. In other words, ESR had something to do with it, but Open Source wasn't even around then.
No, I haven't forgotten people like Apple with the monstrosity of a license like the APSL which it peddles. In my mind that shows the negatives of Open Source - that such crap can go on and be accepted and welcomed. Companies should come to us on our terms - on the terms of Free Software - and not the other way around.
Grow up, Eric. It's your New Hacker's Dictionary and all, but I can't help but notice there's an entry for open source in it. Why not tell people what Free Software is? Without it, there would be no Open Source.
Of all the software I've written, not a bit of it's ended up being sold retail -- rather, it's either been tools to help me in a separate job (admin tools, simulation software) or sw to be bundled with a hardware device (smart-card crypto sw). Any/all of this stuff could easily be released as OSS, with not negative economic effects except a somewhat lower cost of entry for ones' competitiors -- something hopefully offset by the decreased maintainence costs.
Your post (as I read it) assumes otherwise, being written entirely about commercial, off-the-shelf sw.
How about if you _both_ stop fighting in public? If either of truely represent the community, then you would know how bad this looks.
Grow up. Disliking someone is fine, but bitching about them in public is immature. I suggest you apoligize first to each other, then to the rest of us for the behavior of _both_ of you.
Open forums are not a place for revenge. Take this into the back alley of the next Linux Expo.
"You can freely modify the facts of this melodrama, but if you do so you must distribute your modifications in an open forum.."
Our debates have to happen in the open. We have to criticise the viewpoints put forward by the people who represent us to other cultures.
If what Bruce does is "sniping from the sidelines" I'd like to know what the hell valid criticism from another participant looks like.
--
Xenu loves you!
Please. Solaris could make the open source movement jump up 10 notches overnight if it was used to its potential.
...Steve
ESR didn't answer the question, because he didn't accept the assumptions on which the question was founded: The existence of a growing chasm between followers of BSD and GPL. He, correctly, pointed out that it really only is small number of fanatics on both sides who refuse to cooperate.
Your point is somewhat different than Toms, about the practical (rather than cultural and political) problems of reusing software between the licenses. This is a real problem. My advice is: Ask the owner (if he can be identified) for an exception to the license, that allows you to incooperate his work in your project. You will find that most people are willing to cooperate.
This is a real dilemma. Is it more sad that: /.?
1. I find myself wanting 'killfiles' for
2. I would ever want to killfile ESR and Bruce Perens?
It is this sort of public clashing among well-known advocates of Open Source/Free Software/Name Of The Week that enemies of such movements gleefully point fingers to prove the movement is doomed/falling apart/not business worthy.
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
That is one of the most inspiring thing I can honestly say I've ever heard ESR say. Not saying he's never said anything good, but this sticks out in my mind..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
As an avid Linux user for years, you're right, but they don't really 'compete'. BSD has borrowed from Linux, and vs. versa.. I'm not sure 'complement eachother' is the right word, but I don;t think it's a competition..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Constructive criticism would have been avoiding a flamewar -- coming to OSI and Apple privately
with your concerns.
Eric, this seems an odd statement coming from you. Since when is open-source (any aspect of it) supposed to be done by in private back-room deals?
Personal attacks are (unfortunately, not needless to say) are another matter, but discussion should be public.
--
The whole world can see for itself that "the community" consists of real flesh and blood people rather marketing drones. Keep up the good work guys.
We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger political push for libertarian, minimal government?
ESR answers:
No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face, I'm wearing a very evil grin....
Well, I have to admit that the open-source movement in particular, and employment in the computer industry in general, have made me more like a libertarian than I used to be. I'm still a pretty traditional European-style socialist when it comes to issues of the welfare state, especially education and health care. But I have more respect for the corporate world, with all its flaws, and more wariness of government in general since I've started working in corporations and since I've seen what the government is trying to do to on-line privacy.
At the same time, participating in this movement has given me an immense feeling of empowerment. I now find I have a very strong do-it-yourself attitude that makes me tend to seek solutions to social problems on a grass-roots, direct-action level, not through government. This is certainly a libertarian mentality.
PS: In addition, I believe that certain fundamental features of U.S. government make it harder for anyone but the centrists to express their views, and lead to deadlock: namely the two-party system, majority rather than proportional representation in the House, and the district system. I think that Americans who do not understand these distinctions should study them and consider them very seriously. (I'd be glad to explain them to anyone who em-mails me, too. :) )
I really think they are a problem. You Europeans, of course, don't have to study it, since you already have the "classic parlaimentary" government with all three alternate features.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Do you have plans for organizing Geeks with Guns outings during [conferences]? If so, is there a mailing list or some other source of information about how to join?
ESR replied:
As for GWG, there's no mailing list; would you like to host one? I rely on local organizers to find a range, and I don't have one for Atlanta Linux Showcase yet.
Actually, I don't know anything about guns. I just thought it would be fun to go and learn in a safe environment, and in good company. :) I will be changes jobs and moving (to the Silicon Valley, oh joy :P) in a couple of weeks. As a result, my on-line service will change. Once I'm hooked up again, I would be willing to host a Geeks with Guns mailing list. I'd really rather someone with a better knowledge of firearms host it, though.
If no one else steps forward, I will send a proposal to ESR to post on his home page. All you heavily armed hackers, please look there for info in a couple of weeks. ;)
PS: For what they're worth, here are my personal views on guns: I don't own one, and I don't know if I ever will. God forbid that I should ever have to use one even on an animal*, or worse on a fellow human being. In fact, I think the statistics show that societies with strict gun control are much safer than societies without it.
However, I think America is (as in so many other ways) an exceptional case. It is more or less politically impossible to strike down the Second Amendment, and it is practically impossible to recall all the guns owned by individuals. In that light, for responsible and intelligent people who keep their guns in safes, know how to use them, etc., having a gun may well increase personal safety, because there are a lot of crazy people out there who already have guns, and there's nothing we can do about it. This is what sociologists call a "rational choice": Getting a gun (assuming you are smart and responsible) is good for you, but everyone getting guns is bad for everyone, because many people are violently immoral, insane, or not competent to handle firearms (and because many people having guns increases the risk that confrontations will accelerate into gunfire). So what do you do? In this case, the answer for the "good" people who respect firearms and respect human life is, get a gun! Otherwise the only people who are armed will be the criminals, the police (usually good, but sometimes very bad), and scary people generally disposed towards violence. You want to be able to defend yourself against those people.
What can I say? To borrow a phrase from Thomas Jefferson, it's like holding a wolf by its ears. It would be great if the U.S. had had strict gun control from the start, but we didn't, for many good historical reasons, and now I believe we never can. In that light, it's better to arm yourself than to be the only one without a gun.
*I am an "ethical" vegetarian.
Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product
Is anyone else offended by his last comment about power? I've been reading slashdot for a couple of years now and can't remember the last time I was so offended. I can see why people snipe and second-guess the man. Apparently he can't keep his personal opinions and views outside of the Linux Community and it is interfering with the evangelism.
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
I'll probably get moderated down for this comment. I'm not trying to be flamebait - rather I think Eric Raymond is flamebaiting and I think (Moderators in paticular who want to moderate me down) that it is important that people be able to relate to being disgusted by this comment as I would like to be able to look back and realize I'm not alone - others are disgusted by his comment too.
Maybe if people are allowed to reply to this comment and express their views (rather than having it moderated out of the discussion) Eric will realize the mistake that he's made.
I realize of course that I will probably recieve just as much flame as Eric for discussing this. So I have to say that I can respect Eric as an evangelist but not as a person. I would hope that he could keep his personal life out of his work.
Joseph Elwell.
"What makes the job rough isn't the workload, it's the second-guessers and snipers from the sidelines --among whom Bruce was, at the time, nearly the worst. Connect the dots yourself."
First off, neither the Linux movement, nor the evangelism of it, is lead by Eric Raymond. Why should he not be subject to second guessing? Isn't Linus subject to second guessing by Alan Cox and other kernel developers? Should the evangelism of Linux be similar to the Development?
Secondly snipers are bad. kill them.
Joseph Elwell.
Damn! I haven't read anything this well written on slashdot ever.
This might have to be placed up there with CatB as how the REST of the system works!
Can we get this person as a regular essayist (sp?) on slashdot? That would be too cool!
You just wish your ID was as low as mine! I used to be proud to have such a low id, but not so much now. Slashdot most
Please, state one example where Linux has actually driven an author out of business, or even steal their ``commercial counterparts". If people want to spend their time creating an alternative solution that is free and workable, they are also investing their own time into the work -- how many implementations of a daemon do you want to see? They're called standards, and usually there are things called RFCs that spell out how they work. Red Hat hires people ($$$ KA-CHING!) to work on free code. There is room for innovation, but no need to reinvent the proverbial wheel.
erp
"In short: just say NO TO DRUGS, and maybe you won't end up like the Hurd people." --Linus Torvalds
I disagree about your target. I'd like to think that enemy against which we are united is Bad Software.
If Microsoft were to crumble and another corporation took its place, you'd have to retrain your sights. Why not look farther ahead than that one enemy?
Is there a web archive of the fsb mailing list?
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
I agree. While Microsoft currently has the most to lose from Linux world domination, they neither invented it nor will it go to the grave with them.
The Jargon file is clear enough on the predating. The term was coined by Gene Amdahl in reference to IBM. Now IBM is a major Linux citizen. Ironic, huh?
And regarting point two, why not just say "the combined market share of free software OS's going over 50%"? Linux rocks, and I agree there are no signs on the near horizon for its dominance to be threatened.
However, over a longer term, I don't see why three or four free operating systems occupying distinct ecological niches. Linus has already suggested that it may be technically wise to have separate codebases (with much sharing, presumably) for tiny embedded linux and for the massive 64+ multiprocessor systems.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
Bruce! Bruce! Bruce! Bruce!
fish and pipes
Who cares? It's fun!
Believe it, baby! It's like WWF... tag team partners turned bitter enemies... locked in the cage of death! Though personally I think we should coat them in jam and have them wack at each other with foam rubber bananas.
fish and pipes
What do you think _should_ be here? You've just ruled out some important stuff in geekspace.
Doug Loss
Not really as much as these people make out. The hackers really shouldn't care as long as their code is licensed the way they want it to be, these arguments over free software versus Open Source just waste time that could be spent on more productive things and just make the community look bad.
The best term I've actually heard (but never use because not many people use it) is a combination of the two terms 'free source' which states the freedoms of the product and states that the freedom applies to the source code, but whatever name people use I just wish that either a name is settled upon or people just accept the names that people choose to call it. RMS isn't wrong when he talks about free software and ESR isn't wrong when he talks about Open Source, arguments over a name are really pointless and calling free software a millstone (or something similar) is totally unfair to the work being done by the FSF for many years.
I strongly believe if the most prominent advocate in the open source world preferred the term free software I don't believe it would hold us back as long as people were educated to realise that free software meant free as in freedom. It's not exactly difficult to do. The one term that I really hate is 'freeware' which brings to mind closed source Windows/DOS software written by a 13 year old with a net connection, get the press to stop using the term freeware and it will make things clearer.
I personally found Lindsay Marshall's views on Open Source(TM) interesting particularly his comments on the Cathedral and the Bazaar. Here's my representation of his views (I may have misquoted). Basically he was saying that a successful open source project was more cathedral like than bazaar like because if there's no hierarchical organisation (e.g. Linus gets the final word what goes into the kernel) more time will get spent on trivial discussions rather than on actual coding. I can see his point although I'm sure many people will disagree. Is the fact that some people see the Linux kernel development as a cathedral and others see it a bazaar mean that this is a bad analogy.
--
When I trade with someone, whether the transaction is monetized or not we have reciprocity. We can set up conditions (such as third-party escrow) which guarantee that the trade won't complete unless both of us get fair value.
In a gift culture, I don't have an expectation of reciprocity from any given beneficiary (or collection of beneficiaries). I just have to cast my effort on the water and hope it multiplies.
>>esr>>
I don't know. But I'm pretty sure it's not recoverable if it doesn't.
>>esr>>
Not only will I not answer this question, I will tell you that I refuse to answer.
People are entitled to make mistakes in private, as long as they're corrected, without taking flak. Even corporate people.
>>esr>>
FYI, my favorite class of shooting irons is the .45ACP.
classic 1911-pattern
>>esr>>
I respect the elegance and ingenuity of BeOS's design. But I think we're past the point at which developing a new OS in closed source is a viable option.
There are many reasons I believe this, but I'll focus on one: the free Unixes have soaked up so much hacking talent that I don't think BeOS will ever be able to grow an independently viable developer base.
Sorry, BEfolks. If it's any comfort, I thought it was a really nice try...
>>esr>>
They were correct.
>>esr>>
That's not constructive criticism. Constructive criticism would have been avoiding a flamewar -- coming to OSI and Apple privately with your concerns.
That's what I can't forgive -- and won't.
>>esr>>
>>esr>>
Ghods. Where do I start...? There have been so many, starting with his vicious attack on Tim O'Reilly last fall...
See http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4179.html. That lovely little denunciamento did our negotiations with Apple very serious damage. Going public with it instead of approaching me or OSI or Apple privately caused a whole lot of unnecessary grief and flamage within the community as well.
Simply going off on a tear might have been forgiveable, except that Bruce's analysis of the APSL was just plain wrong. He's not a lawyer, he didn't have advice from people competent to reaf legalese, and the problems he thought he'd detected were all bullshit and vapor.
The only real problem with the license a technical glitch in the export clause that Bruce never noticed. (To be fair, we at OSI missed it too until Seth Schoen pointed it out. Seth now does all our first-pass license evaluations.)
The fallout from Bruce's public grandstanding still hasn't settled out. There are still people who think (mistakenly) that APSL 1.1 is not OSD-conformant and is a broken license.
Bruce is not an idiot; he had to have known that the effect of splitting the community over APSL would be to damage OSI's negotiating leverage with other big corporations, thus making it harder for us to head off truly bad licenses like the SCSL.
Even leaving out his personal attacks against me (representing the OSI decision as though I had gone into some kind of reckless cowboy mode instead of having the unanimous approval of the OSI Board -- and that was the least of them) I can't forgive him for needlessly damaging OSI's credibility and usefulness to the community when a single exchange of email with me or anybody else on the inside of the negotiations would have prevented any problem.
>>esr>>
Here's the view of one Katz basher. (Actually, I recently decided to unfilter him to see hat I was missing. I read three posts and fled back to my Preferences page):
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
* Niven-style duel: Champagne corks ejected from the bottles at 10 feet, eye-protection required.
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Leaving that board meant I was free to criticize rather than to be silenced. It's been a positive change.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I criticised Apple's license and IBM's in public. Both responded positively. I think the public debate was essential in eliciting that response.
Certainly your criticism of RMS has been as bad as anything I've ever directed your way.
You dish it out, you've got to take it too.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
Is someone with ESR's phone number going to act on this?
PLEASE, just talk to him professionally and arrange a meeting. If he insists on the word *never* then I'll lose all respect for him entirely.
A person can't *really* love the community if one part of him or her is willing to ruin it for everyone by placing their own pride above all else.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
It's not *essential* to criticise the other faction when promoting one's own. It merely makes you feel better, for some odd human reason.
...
Try to be professionals, and make your public statements well considered.
It may sound like this makes your arguments less hard-hitting, but this is decidedly not so when viewed by everyone else: restraint makes a line of reasoning far more convincing than any statement containing negative criticism of any sort.
Whatever has gone on before, Bruce seems to be currently in restraint mode, but Eric not yet. I live forever hopeful
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
This essay deserves far more exposure than merely featuring on Slashdot would give it. [PS. But *why* did Rob not accept it? Surely that was a no-brainer.]
And somehow we ought to ensure that all the free software / open source luminaries read the item. Instead of destructive flames, disgruntled people should just send off the URL of konstant's piece as a gentle reminder that egos are not the most important thing in this community.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Well, '-chan' is a term of endearment, and although it's generally meant femininely, it just means 'little' taken literally. You were called 'Little Kitsune' is all. :)
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I think that in this case, both ESR and Bruce Perens are completely in the WRONG.
From BP's posts, it seems to be something that goes beyond regular hacker talk and disagreement, and into something personal.
As such, it's a personal matter, and I don't think it's appropriate for either one of them to talk about it in public. Let them get together and work it out themselves.
There's nothing to see here, move along, move along....
David Allen
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Ouch!
I'm sure konstant is happy to hear opinions and criticisims of his essay, but you're bordering on insult.
When someone spends the time and thought to post something even-headed and intelligent (albeit somewhat biased) to a public forum, it can only improve the quality of discussion.
Comments with that level of severity are well suited to "FIRST POST!" comments, but lets not weigh down conversation with complaints about grammar.
Maybe I'm wrong, but you're post was *far* from grammatically correct, with a shining example:
"...the reply's to your essay..."
oooh, misplaced apostrophes are my #1 grammatical pet peeve.
--Andrew
Actually I like to think we're "united" to making computing - and thus ourselves - better.
Yes, Microsoft is a target for the Linux community, just as IBM was a target to the Macintosh community 15 years ago. Targets are secondary, improvement is primary.
Linux and the GNU toolset make my life better. At work I can use these to crunch lots and lots of numbers quickly, and I do. For instance, it's a beautiful thing to use a simple awk program to preprocess a bunch of data that will then be thoroughly masticated with c when it's the right thing to do. At home it's just nice to spend time using the computer rather than maintaining it [maintenance effort 20 hrs/mo. for Windows vs. 3 hrs/mo. for Linux].
Yes, I'll fight against an enemy when necessary, but I've got better things to do with my life than to spend it fighting {fill in enemy of the moment}.
Graham
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
Frankly what offends me is puritans who think fun is bad, especially the hegemonistic types who try to make everyone else as dull and dried-up as they are.
Hmmm, I disagree with this `right', and although many probably have very different opinions than me (this is a very sensitive topic for some people), I'll try to discuss some of your viewpoints. 1. The right to defend yourself against `evil governments'. How has ESR really done anything against any government? By promoting Open Source? Don't think so. And, if the government really is evil, why don't you go out and elect another one? Most people don't use their right do to just that, and then goes on to complain about the government _afterwards_. 2. The right to defend yourself against `individuals'. Yes, I believe you have a right to defend yourself, but perhaps not with a gun. The way this has turned out to be in the US is just twisted! Imagine: How would the world be without any guns? You can say that, yes, the criminals has guns, so I'll need one too. Then who is going to stop this circle? If it's easier for you to have a gun, it's easier for the criminals to have a gun as well. Yes, you have the right to defend yourself, but do you really have the right to take somebody else's life just because you suspect he's trying to steal anything from you? (That's what you are doing if you are shooting against a burglar.) Is anything really as much worth as a human life (even a criminal's life)? How can you really say that you are so much worth, as to put yourself (or anything else) over another human's life? Just look and see what has happened to the American society today, and perhaps you'll see why guns isn't the highest good on earth. I'm not saying they're the greatest evil either. But perhaps not everybody should be walking around with a gun all the time. A gun boosts your `penis factor' (excuse my wording) and makes it much easier to kill somebody `on impulse'. BTW, I have to agree with a poster further up, who said that perhaps ESR shouldn't mix his roles as a pro-OSS and a pro-gun person.
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
s) before gpm hit `Submit' for me ;-)
Even forgot to add my signature... Well, OK...
/* Steinar */
(This comment is of course GPLed.)
Two REALLY big differences...
1) Linux has never clamed someone else's works as 'innovative' and then actively tries to drive the origional company out of business.
2) Linux is about making software available to EVERYONE free of charge. Yes, RedHat, Caldera, and others are trying to make money from it, but you can still download everything free of charge.
World Domination (TM) by Linux is good, because it's not domination by a single company, but rather freedom from a single company who dictates how my computer works.
Execuse the rant...
jf
This might be overly picky, but I would say Linux already has a technical competitor - BSD based Unices.
--
Everything I know in life I learnt from
If one of these starts up, count this Glockster in.
I'd host it myself, but I have a month or so before my ADSL line gets installed.
This is probably not my place, but:
Bruce, don't act like a child. You have a grievence with ESR. This is not the time or the place to describe your own righteousness. If you feel you have been wronged, then telling ESR that he's not ready to forgive won't make it happen any sooner.
locust
In ESR's case the gun-thing is not helping. I understand its part of his personaly politics and his advocacy of OSS and guns come from the same core ideas. But he must realize that alot of people even inside the US do not share those ideas, so emphasising the linkage between the guns and OSS is going to hurt more than it helps.
Really? I think linking guns to OSS will really help the geek community (and later the rest of society) to rid itself of its irrational fear of private firearms ownership. And I can't see any reason why it would hurt the acceptance of firearms, except maybe the association of guns=communist. But as long as being pro-gun is considered right-wing, I think that result is unlikely. Although anti-gun Republicans might play it up to try to change the stance of their party.
(Yes, I deliberately misunderstood you.)
Eric, when will you start acknowledging Bruce Perens' considerable ongoing contributions to the cause? Your continued sniping at him only makes you look bad.
We all need second-guessers, because none of us is perfect. Bruce's second-guessing of you resulted in a better license from Apple (you would have let them get away with too much, not because you're a bad guy but simply because you made a mistake).
As far as I'm concerned, you and Bruce have pretty much the same job: companies are contacting both of you for advice on software licensing; journalists are contacting both of you to get an understanding of the movement, both of you are advocates for open source, etc. You each have your strengths and weaknesses. This isn't Highlander; it is not true that "there can be only one".
That would be Omega Central.
Fuck Slashdot
that's certainly a good quote for a sig !
but this is all really stupid , i think . the windoze guys belittle the mac guys , who wonder about the linux guys , who pity the BSD and BeOS 'could-have-beens' .
i mean -really- this is all stupid . i've worked with most of them for some time , and the only reason i don't have LinuxPPC on my g3 anymore is because i could't figure out how to get PPP to work and i needed the drive space , so i'm posting this from my Be box .
but still , i'm a mac type of guy who really really really admires and respects what the linux community is doing - so why can't the linux community respect what Be is doing ? for chrissakes - i'm the mac guy here , i'm the one who is supposed to be stupid as far as these things go . (as for the windoze guys , well , it's like that NIN song - happiness in slavery) . but i'd really like to think that users of alternate OSs would be above that sort of conduct ! we should be in a good position to appreciate anything that is made with love , no ? and BeOS , like Linux , is a labour of love , and it shows .
that's certainly a good quote for a sig !
but this is all really stupid , i think . the windoze guys belittle the mac guys , who wonder about the linux guys
, who pity the BSD and BeOS 'could-have-beens' .
i mean -really- this is all stupid . i've worked with most of them for some time , and the only reason i don't have
LinuxPPC on my g3 anymore is because i could't figure out how to get PPP to work and i needed the drive space , so
i'm posting this from my Be box .
but still , i'm a mac type of guy who really really really admires and respects what the linux community is doing -
so why can't the linux community respect what Be is doing ? for chrissakes - i'm the mac guy here , i'm the one who
is supposed to be stupid as far as these things go . (as for the windoze guys , well , it's like that NIN song -
happiness in slavery) . but i'd really like to think that users of alternate OSs would be above that sort of
conduct ! we should be in a good position to appreciate anything that is made with love , no ? and BeOS , like
Linux , is a labour of love , and it shows
so, when will o'reilly be publishing the rest of your history of free software (or software, for that matter?) :)
whether you'd thought of it or not, you've definately the aptitude to do it...and i, for one, would read it.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
but it wasn't off topic, either. again, it points back directly to esr's answers.
since when did having disdain for something disqualify it from conversation, anyway?
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
K: Why isn't there an entry for "free software" in the Jargon Dictionary?
ESR: Zounds! You know, until this moment, I didn't realize that entry was missing.
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?
How about letting RMS write it?
It's a good thing he's not writing the entry for "Open Source", he might find it hard to avoid using phrases like "commercial pandering", "misleading" and "fear of freedom"...
http://www.gnu.org/phi losophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
OK, I'm not ESR, but I thought I'd comment on this. Twice...
1) I have heard it said (perhaps by Guy Kawasaki of Apple fame?) that good software gives users what they ask for, and great software gives users what they haven't yet realized they can't live without. I think that programmers scratching itches often creates software of the latter type.
2) As people coming in to the Open Source community are increasingly coming over from Windows/MacOS/etc. instead of other kinds of UNIX, I think that their itches will increasingly be to make software easier to use and more graphical. And as programmers' itches start to be for free UNICES to take over the world, or even just to be able to let their parents, spouses, or children enjoy the same stability and flexibility they do with their computers, you will see this same effect.
You're starting to see it now, with KDE and GNOME; but rather than just shoving stuff out the door and calling it done, open source programs tend to take a while to consider things, and put out something that's well designed. In the next several months, I think you'll start to see a convergence with this, and a lot of half-finished projects will start to become very high quality software.
My Web Page
I think many Linux/Unix users (including myself) wish BeOS well - in fact, I own and use a copy of BeOS at home.
I don't think Red Hat Chairman Robert Young is sitting at his desk trying to combat BeOS. Microsoft, on the other hand, has listed BeOS as a competitor in its antitrust case filing.
Jean-Louis Gassee insists, in his gallic sort of way, that BeOS is more a compliment to Windows than its enemy. BeOS, after all, coexists quite nicely with Windows. At the same time, I would guess that 90% or more of machines running BeOS have a Windows license. That doesn't make BeOS look like a Windows competitor, does it?
I would have to conclude that, in reality, BeOS has no natural enemies other than a lack of consumer desire to try alternative operating systems.
Unfortunately, indifference is a horrifyingly powerful beast - more powerful even than Microsoft.
D
----
This might be slightly off topic but I feel like posting so here goes... ;). The others hurt either the open source community or a business. Case in point: I'm a big corporation (IBM for example), I contribute to bsd/x-licensed project, not taking it into closed source, then some other company comes along, takes my work and everybody elses, add some 'killer' feature steals my service deals, and my investment in the project (company + project both screwed). Or a company just comes into to a bsd/x project takes it closed source, adds killer feature(s), my project doesn't have as many interested developers or businesses. The BSD fanatics are always going "Our license is more business friendly", but I don't see it. With GPL or LGPL, business and community are protected, with BSD, most of the money goes to proprietary solutions. With (L)GPL the money goes to companies actually supporting the project and developers. Granted most BSD projects are doing relatively well, but I don't really see big service contracts and open source co-existing.
;)
The way I see it the only good open/free software licenses are GPL and LGPL (or something in between, like TGPL
Just had to scratch my mental itch and form coherent thought.
Comments? Am I not groking fully?
-- d'arcy poirot
The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (foldoc) has a "free software" entry:
According to {Richard Stallman} and the {Free Software
Foundation}, free software is software that everyone is free
to copy, redistribute and modify. That implies it must be
available as source code. It does not imply that it is free
of charge, so anyone can sell free software so long as they
don't impose any new restrictions on its redistribution or
use.
{This dictionary} is free in this sense, though it is not
really {software}.
There are many other kinds of "free software" in the more
obvious sense of "free of charge". See "{-ware}".
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Truth to tell, most of the geeks I know (myself included) are strong constitutional rights supporters and gun owners. This includes both the first and second amendment. Too often activists choose one right to fight for and ignore the rest. You have the far right praising the second and ignoring the first, and the far left supporting the first and attacking the second. Finkployd
I have plenty of respect for both of you, quite making me question that.
Finkployd
Lazarus replies:
I'm sorry, but that scenario actually happened to me.
I submitted a patch to an upstream author, who wouldn't accept it because I had GPL'd my patch. Ultimately, the solution was that I chose to dual-license the patch, "like Perl," and it was accepted and included in the next release.
Good reply. I'd have to say, now that I understand both licenses a little better, that I could respect them both.
:) Maybe not the best analogies, but hey... (I guess commercial licensing would be like a Dictatorship under this idea).
So... GPL is like Democracy (or Communism, as some would put it), and BSD is like Anarchy.
I suppose either license, in the right hands, is a great thing. In the wrong hands, an awful thing. At least folks can pick what suits them.
I have a question about this:
/. and elsewhere, and the heat diminishes the light. What kind of reconciliation is possible? Or is "take no prisoners" just the way it has to work?
Tom Christiansen asks:
I don't know how to ask this question without it sounding like stirring the pot, but what about the growing chasm between free software (giftware) and GNU software (the viral kind, not the nice LGPL kind)? This is a real issue for some people in some situations. Think about the many BSD resellers and vendors who have custom packaging in highly competitive fields, like video editing? Doesn't the friction hurt everyone? Apple has turned to BSD not Linux, and the GPL is cited as one reason why. This seems to be devisive. There are no end of flamewars on
ESR answers:
I don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements t all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on both sides.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
Supposing I use some GPL code in a program, and then sell the binaries only. I'm breaking the GPL, right?
Now supposing I use some LGPL or BSDish code in a program, and then sell the binaries. I'm fine... or am I?
Is this where the friction happens? It seems to me that some folks would like the, er, "option" of making a profit from software they create with the help of Open Source libs or something, without redistributing their code.
Maybe I'm just confused about the whole thing.
Of course yours was rejected. If you submit a patch to a non-GPL'd project it can't truely be accepted without causing the whole of the original project to effectively be under the GPL. (that's the virus nature that people whine about)
He was saying it wasn't a -personal- issue such as saying, "oh, I know they like the GPL so I won't accept their work."
If you want a patch accepted, wake up just donate it to the project without trying to license your patch. Work for the common good!
Noone is allowed to post after me!
"Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it."
I've always liked trolls...
:)
M$=closed, proprietary, corporate owned products.
Yes, this makes them the evil Borg.
And as for absorbing ideas - EVERYONE should do that.
You see the surface, but not the depth of water; You are wrong. There indeed has been lots of innovation in Linux. There has been lots of innovation in M$. The difference is that you have complete access to all the innovations in Linux. You don't have complete access to well - little from M$, and they purchase innovation to use(which is somehow 'cheating') or to kill off opposing technology.
I'd go into it at length, but I don't like to feed the Troll *too* much. Consider yerself marked down.
Wow, sounds like a great thing, sign me up! Of course, when it's Microsoft absorbing ideas from elsewhere, they're the evil Borg.
I always did find it amusing to hear Slashdot readers complaining about Microsoft taking ideas from other places when there hasn't been a whit of innovation in the entire history of Linux.
I'm done. Those who have a hard time with truth and honesty, feel free to mark me down now.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
[Just thought it'd be easier than posting five separate ones with a lot of overlap.]
DanaL writes:"No one, that I see, ever claims that Linux is innovative and bleeding edge. [...] If there is innovation, it is in the software development model.
People claim that by implication all the time here, by criticizing Microsoft when it comes to innovation. Hell, the Microsoft logo is the freakin' Bill Gates Borg thing. As for your second assertion, the Unix community had been doing this long before Linux came along. Later in your article you show the exact hypocrisy that I'm talking about: "Microsoft steals ideas and claims them as it's own. Linux cheerfully borrows good ideas!"
zantispam writes: "I defy you to prove [that there hasn't been any innovation in the history of Linux]. Yours is the burden of evidence."
No, it's not my burden of evidence, because there is no evidence that there's ever been innovation there. How could I go about proving that something doesn't exist? You could easily refute me, however, if you were to give a few (Hell, even one would be nice) examples of Linux innovation.
John Fulmer writes: "1. Linux has never clamed someone else's works as 'innovative' and then actively tries to drive the origional company out of business. 2. Linux is about making software available to EVERYONE free of charge."
Again, your latter example has nothing to do with Linux innovation, because GNU predated Linux for quite a while. As for your first point, you seem to imply that Microsoft did this. Please cite some examples of when they've done that unprovoked.
Kitsune Sushi writes: "GNU was meant to be a Unix clone. Therefore, a lot of software had to be rewritten from scratch, so that it would be free. If you think that points to a lack of innovation, I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without copying anyone else's ideas for any reason. [...] You think Berlin isn't innovative?"
LOL. This is just too rich. So even though Linux has been around for 8 years now, the only innovative thing you can come up with when pressed is a project just celebrating its 0.1.0 release? Kitsune, could you please find something that's at least at 1.0. (Naturally, no offense intended to the Berlin team.)
As for your first point: No, it's not innovation. Innovation is coming up with new ideas, not a bunch of codemonkeys getting together and banging away until they finally get a functional copy of a previously existing app.
scumdamn writes: "If Microsoft wants to clone something first done in the Linux community, they're free to do so. If they want to embrace and extend, copy source code and make it proprietary, or spread FUD about Linux, they're not. [...] fvwm95 blatantly copied the Windows 'look & feel' and that didn't piss anyone off."
Organizations can't spread FUD about each other or embrace and extend? Come on. As far as copying source code, I don't see why Slashdotters would care about it -- I sure don't see too many complaining about violating other forms of Intellectual Property, namely when it comes to recorded music.
Regarding your second point, Apple's always had NIH syndrome, something that thankfully has never affected Microsoft. Whoever I'm getting my operating system from, I want then to take all the best ideas out there -- I couldn't care less where they originated. And I think that most Linux users feel the same way (just don't ever tell them when they're using one of Microsoft's innovations or be prepared to get your head bitten off! ;-). I have no complaints about Linux being filled with ideas taken from elsewhere -- I use Linux and, frankly, I'd be majorly pissed if they succumbed to Not Invented Here bollocks. The raison d'etre for my original post wasn't to slam Linux itself, not at all, just to point out a flaw in the thinking of a large number of its users.
Well, I tried to answer everyone, yet still keep this from being a book, but that meant that I ended up cutting a lot. Soooo, if you think I glossed over a good point that you made, just reply and I'll try to answer it.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
to asad's question,
I know that you are on the board of directors at VA Linux, what does your job entail?
a snippet of your answer was,
This mainly involves nipping bad ideas in the bud, before they flower into something that would piss off the hacker community. I have not had to do this often.
which begs the question: What bad ideas have you had to nip?
Of all people to make a great, intelligent post advocating BeOS to dispell some of the same FUD that Linux people complain about so much, WHY did it have to be William Wallace? :-)
I guess it's an ill wind that blows no good, or something. Good post.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
"I respect the elegance and ingenuity of BeOS's design." --Eric S. Raymond
Know what makes that quote especially juicy with irony? It reminded me of his favorite tagline:
"I just want to live in a world where software doesn't suck." --Also Eric S. Raymond
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
You killed Linus! You bastard!
---
In college, I added about 20% code by volume ;)
(as I recall) to Omega 0.71. If anyone could
point me at a maintainer who might like to see
all the changes I made, I'd be much obliged.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
You got Sterling? You just made my day! I guess I better come up with a good question.
--
You're just jealous because the voices only talk to me.
I thought both M$ and Mac copied from xerox.
Apple paid Xerox money for what they used, the basic idea of a GUI. Which had actually been floating around since the 60's, Xerox was just the first to make a proof of concept model.
Then Microsoft "borrowed" a lot of the features and some of the code.
*So despite the verbal fireworks and
*philosophical disputes, we're all hackers
*together. What unites us is more important than
*what divides us.
I think we all could learn a little from this. we are infact united against the same enemy (microsoft).
Ok Bruce I respect you and ESR more than you would ever realize, but in your posts you keep talking about trying to open up dialog between you and ESR to resolve this. I don't see "Certainly your criticism of RMS as bad as anything I've ever directed your way" as helping. RMS is not in this argument, he's not the one ESR's not speaking to. If you *want* to resolve this then talk like logical adults. Not he-said-she-said bickering that only serves to prolong the chism. I understand the concerns you raised with Apple's initial license, but quite frankly Lambasting ESR did little to help. If you want to solve this, then do so, if you want to argue then quit pertending to not argue. You can't have it both ways.
Tadghe Djin
'remove mordikyn from the mailto
Bugs Bunny was right.
This has got to be the best content I've read on the net since the CaTB! Awesome! Please tell me you've got a website with this on it! If not I'd like to put it up.
Tadghe Djin
Bugs Bunny was right.
Hypothetically, if BeOS were to open their source code to the public with a license that conformed to the OSI specs, would that change your opinion of its viability?
Rephrased, is BeOS unrecoverable even if it opens its source code?
82.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
this reminds me of the the scene in The Life of Brian members of the People's Front of Judea and the Campaign for a Free Galilee are fighting each other in the sewers beneath Pilate's palace
Brian:we should be united against our common enemy !
Everyone else:the Judean People's Front!
Needless to say in our case the Romans = MICROS~1
and the various little factions squabbling in the sewer are the various alternate OSes who are too often fighting each other.
The problem as i see it with linux advocacy is that too often there is religious or poilitical baggage. The religous types are those who say "if its not OSS its crap" and when asked why they reply "because if its not OSS it must be crap". As with all religous zealots there is no arguing with such people.
The political types (such as ESR) beleive that OSS is an inherently better model for software development and also that the existence of OSS alternatives is a matter of personal freedom (speech and freedom from corporate dominance)Personaly I don't agree with that position but at least its a rational argument (and at least in theory leaves room for the idea that some non-open source software doesn't suck)and its an idea that i can respect.
In ESR's case the gun-thing is not helping. I understand its part of his personaly politics and his advocacy of OSS and guns come from the same core ideas. But he must realize that alot of people even inside the US do not share those ideas, so emphasising the linkage between the guns and OSS is going to hurt more than it helps.
For me, and i think for alot of other people in the anti-MICROS~1 camp, it simply a question of wanting software that doesn't suck. Software is a tool, and in MICROS~1's case its a tool they use to make you buy more of their product. Their domination of much of the software market is so complete that they have no incentive to make even half-way decent products.
The problem with especialy the religous linux zealots but also the political ones is that this additional baggage tends to fragment people. We get the fights over the GPL vs BSD licenses, GNOME vs KDE linux vs *BSD etc etc.
A lot of people use linux because it works not becuase of politics. If people were simply interested in making good software that just gets the job done, and is not either a marketing tool or a political statement, we would make alot more progress to a better software world!
About BeOS I use it because its really good, and is actually innovative and technicaly advanced and is fun to use. Be is not in a position to abuse its users even if it wanted to. BeOS does owe quite alot to OSS though, the bash shell is very nice to have (i'd have never used it if it weren't for that) the x86 version uses gcc, and alot of GNU tools are available on BEOS.
none of the geeks i kinow (coders and network admins) own guns
Name calling? Acting like 4th graders/high school students? I must have missed that. In my opinion-this is the BEST place for them to be discussing this. I think that both of them are finally getting some mixed-up feelings out in the open-and we know it's true. We don't have to second-guess, or make our own conclusions. All of you that are like "advocate this, evangelized that, blah,blah,blah" apparently have NO idea who ESR and Bruce are-they are old school, jolt drikin', pizza eatin', Open Source foundin' hackers (and I would really not like to get into a discussion of who has done more of what and when).
What they do benefits US...I can't really understand whey everone is suddenly wanting all this politically correctness-when in a hearbeat you would flame Mindcraft or troll Microsoft if something was said that you didn't agree with. So here we go all over again-they give you what you want, and all of a sudden it is "in" to spank them like you are their mommys.
I have an idea that these two know a LOT more about Linux advocacy than most of us reading here, and I'll be damned if I squash what they are doing.
Despite the fact that ESR is a noted gun advocate, I reckon /. is *not* the place to discuss this. Remember that many OSS / Linux advocates are non-US and have genuine disdain for gun-culture etc.
Politics and other shit is best left to the experts, who I can (hopefully) ignore and forget because I read sites like this.
The "redundant" moderation of your comment should have read "off topic".
First of all it was a joke. Second, it was probably true! In the context of the question, "power" was defined as "energy". If you're the type that finds sex lowers your energy, I humbly suggest that you're doing it wrong. Having a mutually beneficial and loving relationship *IS* empowering to both parties (God, I'm starting to sound like Dr. Laura!).
If you erroneously mistook his comment to mean he uses sex to get control over people, I humbly suggest you loosen up a bit and stop reading stuff that isn't there.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I've read /. for about a year now, and I've never seen such an intelligent and well-articulated opinion.
Thank you for sharing.
It's easy to inadvertently be an asshole; myopia is not your friend. Remember when WRS died, and those posts showed up saying "Stevens didn't like Linux; I jizz on his corpse"? That poster(s?) was so short-sighted, so focused on advocacy that s/he stooped to the level of...well, the level s/he stooped to.
The philosophy "you dish it out, you've got to take it" has not done much good for the world. You're too clueful a person to follow it.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
Or at least I am very much hoping so...
I have always had a fair amount of respect for the two (although I have to admit that I am more familiar with ESR's work than Bruce's), but this! These two obvious have some *personal* issues, but do they need to trash each other like that on slashdot? How is any of this constructive?
You two should be arguing this alone in person (or by email if that's less intimidating). Not on slashdot or any public forum...
Of course part of me still hope it's a joke. and both ESR and Bruce are having a little fun by pulling our legs... I am just having a hard time believing that the two of them could be so immature.
IMO, you are right, and you are wrong.
While this exchange seems childish, it makes the leaders real.
They are posting slashdot comments in the same forum as me. Using the same input box. Comments that are read by the same people that can read mine.
I feel so empowered and lucky to be living in a time when my opinions can be read by the people who make a difference. A huge part of that is my ability to read their uncensored, heat of the moment comments.
-CR0
We will not stop until we have achieved TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION(TM)! Soon surface of the world shall be teaming with ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE.
First, the last few pockets of French shall be eliminated; former African colonies will be easy. And as there former empire falls, so to will the pockets of resistance. First France itself, then Quebec. We will flood their airwaves with our programming, their stores with our crap, and there vending machines with our sodas. They cannot withstand our cultural invasion forever!!
German will change overtime to its more pure brother, the one true 'lingua franca' of the world, ENGLISH,
Though the Spaniards spread their seed and there words around the world, there language will fall. As ENGLISH takes control. Mexico, Porto Rico, Cuba all will change to ENGLISH. Spain is a joke, soon they too will speak only English
Then, we will turn to the last language left, Chinese... While it seem as though there are to many, Chinese is far to fragment to succeed. Cantonese, Mandarin, all will fall, and be replaced by English. We won't stop until every Wong, Fu, Chang, and Li "shuo ying-ge-lish hau"
HAHAHAHAHHA
ENGLISH FOREVER, TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION(TM)!!
ENGLISH R0X D00D
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Perhaps I am merely exposing my prejudices here, but I don't think so.
Example: Asian publishers spend more $$$ on high quality scanners to scan in printed pictures and re-use them then they would to simply pay the royalty and obtain the source file.
Even a drum scan of a 200 lpi print will not recapture the quality of the original. But Asian publishers do this routinely, and then spend more time and effort to remove the moire patterns, in order to circumvent the royalty payments.
I have come across many other examples over the years, in several industries.
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
It seems as though in asian cultures respect for intellectual property on the part of governments, corporations and individuals is much lower than in the west (This is an overbroad generalization, but one supported by a lot of anectodal evidence that has come my way over the years).
Currently, this expresses itself as endemic piracy of closed source software, music CDs, movies, etc., but I suspect that when Open Source wins over closed source software, rampant violations of the GPL will ensue from asian corporations and developers.
What will we be able to do to protect the GPL in the arena of international law and a global marketplace?
--
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
One approach to deciding what should be done within a group might be to have a small number of leaders confer in private, so as to present a unified front to the rest of the world. In such a model, which we could call a "cathedral" approach, public criticism of the leader's policies would be considered divisive and counterproductive.
Another approach to decision-making might be for it to be done in the open, with all voices being heard, and all concerns being discussed. This more chaotic model I have decided to term the "bazaar" approach. In such a system, eloquent and thoughtful criticism of a leader might be not just tolerated but encouraged as a sign of vigorous and independent critical thought.
Now all we need to do is figure out which of these approaches would be more appropriate for the Open Source movement...
Eric: 5 points
Bruce: 98 points
I would be interested in knowing what
percentage of "geeks" own firearms.
Not knowing very many, I get the impression
most "geeks" are liberals and are against guns
of any kind.
But, like I say. I don't know many "geeks".
Maybe the mods didn't read the Q&A's
At last in the year 2038, there'll be a lot of Linux hype again, with all those grandpas being dragged from their porches to get the Y2038 bugs in that *#!@ operating system fixed that the enterprises are running their networking and database software on...
But hey, who would've thought the OS would still be used by then?!
Maybe there'll also be some mainstream media, explaining what Linux is and the most important terminology - "source code, that is how you tell computers what to do...".
And the audience will wonder: "But can't you just... talk to them? Like usually?".
;-)
"Being a leader is about getting the respect of a community with a lot of views *opposite* to your own."
/. is stronger because of these different views - and because of the sniping." Without the different views, and the sniping, /. would not exist or at least would not be particularly relevant. Whatever the /. community is, (a new life form?) it is substantially more fundamental than just Linux or OSS advocacy and MS bashing.
Very well said. And a vital point.
As illustration, an anchor is a good thing for a ship in a stormy sea. Imagine if that anchor instead of holding its position wants to go along with the ship, or worse, help it along.
Ecologists get extremely concerned when the gene pool for a threatened species gets too small. "A community like
The saving grace of the open source community is that there are no deep pockets to sue. You either sue to damage a competitor or to line your pockets. The open source community is too amorphous to be seriously damaged by a lawsuit - who do you slap the restraining order on? - and too nonmonetary to line someone's pockets. Even if you sued Red Hat, you couldn't touch their major revenues (support and VC) except as punitive damages... and the chances of getting a sane judge would just be too great to risk going so far into uncharted legal ground.
Preferential Voting: easy as 1-2-3
From the Main article: .snip.
/.'er (probably another generation) but the effects of this could be, should be, will be, system wide and profound. Instant feedback is good for organisms of all shapes and sizes, communication helps spread and distill ideas. Anyway, just something I was thinking about as I moved through this thread..
Q*bert asks:We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger political push for libertarian, minimal government?
ESR answers: No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face, I'm wearing a very evil grin....
From the abover (long and very good) comment:
By its nature, the community responds indifferently to grand visions, and the definition of success varies from participant to participant, each according to his or her own needs. The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it, and consequently its users react warily to those advocating a de-emphasis of their rights in exchange for money, publicity, or convenience. Because initiatives flow upwards in this population, its ideal leadership is not that of an emperor tending to a legacy, but that of an ambassador speaking for a people. And in the free software movement, just as in government, an overly inventive diplomat is an incompetent one.
This might be a bit much for some of you, but looking at how the OSS community works is a good example of how things *might* be done in other areas (such as government) in the Digital Age. Replace a few of the words in the above paragraph and you gain some insight in how groups think, and how communities can figure out what is best for them, starting on the "what's best for me" level and moving upward. It will take some time before the population as a whole becomes as connected and tech. literate as your average
+&x
OSS apps. get written because of programmers wanting to "scratch an itch". The great OSS developers have written software that they want to use --to paraphrase something you've written.
But a programmer's desires are not necessarily the same as that of the mythical "average user", and if you buy that premise one could worry about OSS leading in the so-called useability area (KDE and GNOME look very nice, but they are IMHO derivative of the "desktop" concept).
In fact, this argument -valid or not- can be the basis for more FUD against Linux, for example.
Should OSS advocates worry more about this?
Wrong, Bruce, ESR has a board checking him. Remember?? You used to be on it, but you gave up/in.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Hi :)
:)
Sure, squabbles are messy, but I'd much rather be aware of whats going on in the community than be getting vague rumours about 'what went down in the boardroom this morning'. You can buy memoirs of prominent valley geeks recounting how closed sniping and political wars trashed large computer companies in the late 80's/early 90s.
Discussing this sort of thing in public means the community can help get rid of any ego-inertia that might be preventing the resolution of a conflict. We shouldn't view this as a 'battle of the boardroom titans'. And at the end of the day, the media will paraphrase to get the predefined - good or bad - quote they want.
I guess we're like brothers - sure, we can fight like cat and dog but at the end of the day we all still sort of 'love' each other (man)... You know what I mean
-ad
That was a very lucid peice. Too bad Rob didn't publish it. I think it would have made a great subject of conversation. Congrats. I copied it and placed it in my archive of "Cool Articles I've Read" -- fully cited, of course! I don't plagarize either. (You *should* put it up on a web page, btw).
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) is why I like the BSD community better. You've said once that the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' companies as evil, ones that must be destroyed at all cost. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the initial sale of Windws 98 or more recently during touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to try to hunt down / write articles or supply material for educating users/companies of the benefits of their OS. They also sometimes discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. Another quicky, just to show there are many, is that BSDs add support for emulating platforms so a user can use the best product (ie, FreeBSD tells companies to relase products on Linux for financial reasons, and then either emulate or port to FreeBSD). The GNU-sprouting community is, IMHO, not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough, but I'm slowly learning.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
the open-source movement is fundamentally about being against Microsoft -- it's about being for better programs.
That's my feeling exactly.. but this (and I truly hate to bring a 'religious war' topic up) why I like the BSD community better. You've said the BSD community had chosen the wrong philosophy / attitude, but I'd much rather have to deal with some deserved and then bloated ego over a community that largely views any other operating system or 'closed source' company as an evil, one that must at all cost be destroyed. The biggest of both realms is Microsoft.
Linux User Groups love to rally together when Microsoft is about to have one of its proud moments, such as the sale of Windws 98 or more recently when touring shows of Windows 2000. LUGs love to advocate by forcing attention on themselves, but BSD advocacy groups seem to hunt / write articles, discuss what they must do better (morally in attitude) to project Open Source better (meaning to lessen personal ego, zealotry, and anti-Linux attitudes).
And if Open Source, and here I mean Linux, was for better programs (and this is one of many examples), than why did Linux refuse to do work on 4gb memory support on x86 (yes, he said to use a better architecture) while FreeBSD had it since the 2-branch? Linux only got support through corperate donation. The GNU-sprouting community is not beant on better programs, or else like BSD the license would try to better the community on the whole (by providing for open source and closed source innovations), but on publicity and shifting the community from closed source to open source licenses.
I agree, though, that on a whole the open source movement has its roots in creating better programs. Shaing innovations and code is entirely for betterring the community. I'd like to think of us all in one community, rather than an open source and closed source community, or rather than a GPL, BSD, closed source, and potential splinter community. But for the GNU community, Microsoft is a key factor in why it has such momentium. When people are upset at Big Brother (currently Microsoft), GNU comes with exactly what these people wish to hear, a means to salvation. {I'll stop here, because I'm afraid that if I go on, I may say/imply something that could be taken offensively. I may be to late.}
BTW, I am on a LUG, two actually. I've been trying to spread my roots as I learn unix and explore Open Source. I'm on SVLUG (which I know, you know of), and CLUG (since I recently moved). I don't use Linux / BSD enough..
PS. Just so I don't sound like a total lune, a zealot, or bent on insulting people, I only brought my argument up because Linux, to many, is the open-source movement. Thus, either we must educate the masses, or at times pretend they are equivelent. As Linux is the leader in Open Source, I am basing my argument that while fundalmentally (when not open source is not equivelent to Linux) it is about better programs, this is untrue when one considers the two equal.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
arg.. failed connecting, went back to add PS. (because without that, it really sounds to negative. Its merely meant to be a strong argument). I guess moderators are to gone picking at other posts to zero this one...
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
That was a very informative, well written comment, one of only a few I've
saved locally.
I'm sure there are many ./ readers that
could write essays from unique perspectives,
I hope to see more in the future.
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
Didn't /dev/random originally spawn from Linux?
True, both Linux and Microsoft borrow ideas from other operating systems. But I advocate Linux and I despise Microsoft. Why? (ignoring the open vs. closed source aspects)
Microsoft makes $$$ for it. If we're shoveling out money to them, we ought to be getting some innovation, not just a rehash of what we've already paid someone else to innovate. Anyone notice Microsoft's R&D budget? I won't even go into their FUD and lies.
Linux is free. I don't mean to say that it isn't worth any money, but when a lot of the development that goes into Linux is done on unpaid spare time, I don't expect revolutionary differences from other products. I expect a merging of the best ideas from the big guys with the huge R&D budgets.
On the flip side, I'm rather happy with Apple. Yes, I have to pay them, and yes, they do borrow ideas from others, but they have actually brought some good innovation to the market as well. I like the voice-login feature of OS 9, for example.
-JuPo
ESR is one of the most promonent Linux advocates. When he is promoting Open Source he actually means Linux. You have to use a filter when you listen to ESR; or ignore him. I have to say it was rather disappoing to find out that he had a rather hostile attitude towards other Open Source projects.
So remember when ESR say Open Source he means Linux.
My advice? Ignore him.
"He should keep his personal opinions out of his advocacy" is a ludicrous statement. It's not like he's the PR director for a corporation. He's not being paid for what he does. He does it because he wants to spread his personal beliefs. If you don't agree with all of his beliefs, then go out and express your beliefs better than he's expressing his.
That's what life is all about...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
You mean I actually managed to post a reply within 3 posts of where it was supposed to be? I even got it on the right thread? Wow! Cool!
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
You say, "The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it..."
Actually.. this statement articulates what is most WRONG with the opensource community. All too often the attitude is "I wanted it, so I wrote it. If you don't like it, either write your own or fuck off."
Denigrate commercial software all you like for being (mostly) closed source, but commercial software tends to be a lot more receptive to user criticism, and vastly more responsive to general user needs.
Opensource needs to learn to do both if it ever wants to be more than a niche market by, of, and for programmers. Contrary to the implication of the bad attitude I rail against above, MOST users are not coders, not even among certifiable geeks, so telling 'em "If you don't like it, do it yourself" accomplishes nothing but to drive them AWAY from opensource.
Far better if we could say, "The aim of open software is to serve the people who USE it."
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
What you say is true, but the problem I've seen over and over is to the effect of "You got it for free, so you have NO right to bitch" even when the software in question has serious deficiencies. IOW that some free-software authors interpret ALL user complaints (no matter how constructive) as 'whining', and react accordingly.
In one case an author ported a linux app to DOS, then got pissed when several DOS-users gently complained that the program lacked any shell-to-DOS function (which lack largely crippled the program's usefulness in DOS). His response was "Any REAL operating system can start another session. If you don't like doing without shell-to-DOS, get a *REAL* OS." (This is nearly an exact quote. I was on the spot to hear it.)
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Did you write all this just now? If so you must be some kind of genius. Either way, really nice essay. I learned a lot from it. :)
I know, it is sorta off-topic, but it is nice to see a diverse set of interviewees. Now everyone go read Distraction.
-- $SIGNATURE
For example, in the "ask the questions" phase of this cycle, I asked what ESR's favorite firearm models were. This was down-moderated as "redundant" even though noone had asked before.
Lame.
-- $SIGNATURE
I will never use the GPL, because IMHolyO, the GPL takes freedom away from the people.
Suppose the case that I wrote some piece of software. I didn't write it for money or I already got paid for writing that software. I am proud of what this piece of software does and I want other people to enjoy and use this piece of software. I don't care if they make money (or even more money than I did) from it. So why should I put it under the GPL, when there are the Artistic License and/or BSD license, that do exactly allow that - everybody can use this code for whatever it is usable for, in the small exchange of giving credit where credit is due.
Just another point of view,
-max
Premier argument to install Linux at the workplace - I get paid while waiting for fsck to scan the partitions.
I understand the projects maintainers objections to a patch that is differently/stronger licensed than the whole project. If a project is under a non-restrictive license (== BSD, Artistic/Perl), it is impossible to accept any patches into it that do not have the same (or weaker) licenses on it without weakening the original goals the author had when choosing the license for the program.
It wonders me that people are not willing to respect the authors choice of license and make the project coordination harder by supplying patches that are licensed incompatibly(sp?) to the program itself - but this seems to stem more from lack of understanding the different licenses(== blind faith in one of the licenses).
-max
Premier argument to install Linux at the workplace - I get paid while waiting for fsck to scan the partitions.
It?s quite hard to read posts when some stupid so-called ??browser?? can?t stick to the standards.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Not everything can be found on the internet, you know.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
It seems to me that a lot of people thing capitalism is the be-all and end-all of things, and anything else is communist.
Note: "Scarce" is a term in economics meaning limited. Whether there is an abundance of a certain resource is irrevalent of whether or not it is scarce.
The purpose of economics is to figure out how to satisfy unlimited wants with scarce resources. Without one or the other, there is no need for economics (this is what is taught in Economics classes). The difference with information is that it is not really a scarce resource. It can be reproduced at no cost an unlimited number of times. Our society, not being ready to handle something that is valuable, yet not scarce, artificially creates scarcity, by the use of "intellectual property", a true oxymoron.
Communism works in theory, but in practice, it relies on an uncorrupt leader. Capitalism works in theory, but it relies on the belief that companies will want to compete instead of eliminating the competition, the current practice of this day.
So believing in fundamental communism is no worse that believing in fundamental capitalism (I advocate neither). They both have major flaws, and they both have major strengths.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Wow. First, let me say, awesome, AWESOME essay. Can't think of a better way to say it right now, so you'll have to take that for what it's worth. ;)
Secondly. Though I think furthering the use of question marks in replacement of single quotes for lines like "The nasty word ?sellout? appeared in sporadic flames on the net, and Raymond stoked the fires by conspicuously avoiding talk of ?freedom? or ?free software? in his speeches,...", I would love to see the ' in its full glory sometimes. Rob, is there any way you can fit a version of the demoroniser into Slash somehow? Please? Great essays like this are far to often pitted with little marks like these and, though it's a shame MS thinks it has to add its own extensions to everything, it would be nice for those of us who actually use ?other? browsers on ?other? operating systems (lovin' those ?'s...;) to be able to read comments without worrying about parsing out the crap.
Why hasn't they Linuxdotters moderated this post up? He has a very valid point about the jihad mindset of many people.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, to some extent the GPL *is* protection for the end user, not the developer. It has been criticized for not providing means of recompense for developers, while protecting end users. It's end users who benefit from free(beer) stable software. Any developer can choose to write free software freely distributed. Putting the GPL on it insures that a community of developers all mutually sharing code and debugging eyes will develop, to the benefit of the end user.
What you are speaking of I think is the sometimes intolerant attitude towards people who want easy solutions, or help with problems.
The intolerance is on both sides though. Plain ordinary users of free software have to realize that they don't have the same rights to whine and complain -- because they have no contractual arrangement with the software producer, unlike commercial software. This is *why* companies like RedHat will be successful. They provide that contractual arrangement. It is perfectly valid to whine to them after buying their distribution, and if they want to stay in business they will listen.
The media constantly monitors /. as a reflection of the state of open source. And when two of the most well known personalities indulge in a high quality scuffle of name calling of the kind I haven't seen since 4th grade, it creates a BAD image of the community as a whole.
r acy.
One question is often asked with some frequency - Can a bunch of loosely gathered hobbyists and college students be trusted to write critical software? "Aren't they just a bunch of kids playing around?" - the saying goes.
And trust me - this kind of scuffling doesn't help (especially when it comes from the evangelist spreading the word about how mature the open source development community is).
Perception matters more than you think. As things stand, one of the big misconceptions about open source/linux is that it's run by anarchist geeks with long hair who can't be trusted. Yes, I know it's an unfair image, but it exists nonetheless.
It's the same problem that Sun often has - McNealy's statements are often so immature that people have difficulty taking him seriously. Sometimes ESR's comments also get a little high on vanity and boastfulness, and frankly, all it does is make everyone look immature. Similarly, when linux advocates bitterly bite and scratch, and then carry out an extended argument as to who started the fight, who has apologized how many times, etc. etc. it begins to enter the grey area between amusement and shooting-oneself-in-the-foot-with-remarkable-accu
If you want to propagate a good image of open source, just keep the personality battles out of the picture. Nobody really cares, and it just makes a mockery of evangelism and advocacy.
...where *is* this URL?
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
I did not plagiarize this. I wrote it in my spare time and submitted it to CmdrTaco about a week and a half ago. I don't think he's going to post it, so I just added it as a comment.
I don't plagiarize.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Pardon the length....
Surprisingly, the most prominent evangelists of the open source community are also the most abject victims of its flame. These individuals, pedigreed by years of code, use their eloquence to plead for free software worldwide. Their work is the reproductive force of the movement, stimulating conversions and showing businessmen the money to be made embracing open source. In reward, the open source community takes the beliefs of these leaders seriously - by far the gravest honor this opinionated clan can bestow. Yet these public speakers are also subject to a continuous trickle of hate mail from the geeks they represent, one that widens into a deluge the moment they stray from open software's traditional path. While they behave predictably, open source leaders have the backing of their constituents, but if they articulate a new vision or take a risk, the community that could rally round them instead sits down and jeers.
This humiliating puzzle is bound up with the role of leadership in the open source movement. The computer industry is rife with the Napoleonic model of business, which views software as the manifest will of visionary CEOs. At Scott McNealy's Sun, Larry Ellison's Oracle, Bill Gates' Microsoft and others, resources flow back and forth in obedience to the whims of charismatic chairmen. Like competing generals, they glower at each other across the battlefield of the NASDAQ listings, struggling to see furthest and direct their armies of coders accordingly.
Open source is altogether different. By its nature, the community responds indifferently to grand visions, and the definition of success varies from participant to participant, each according to his or her own needs. The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it, and consequently its users react warily to those advocating a de-emphasis of their rights in exchange for money, publicity, or convenience. Because initiatives flow upwards in this population, its ideal leadership is not that of an emperor tending to a legacy, but that of an ambassador speaking for a people. And in the free software movement, just as in government, an overly inventive diplomat is an incompetent one.
Enter the brash politics of Eric Raymond. A decade and a half into the GNU project, and with the 8th birthday of Linux hard approaching, credit is due to Raymond, who has single-handedly sweetened the reputation of open source. Once considered a toy of seditious kids, Linux is now a titan thanks to Raymond's ability to creep inside the heads of corporate decision makers and craft arguments against their fears. Raymond established his importance to the community with his paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a stunning explanation of open source methods that convinced Netscape Corporation to open the source of its popular Mozilla browser in 1998. All was smiles and backslapping in the community as the campaigning Raymond brought businesses to openness. In Eric Raymond, it seemed, open source had found a missionary capable of converting the heathen without going native himself.
The giddiness didn't last long. Raymond was a volunteer, neither salaried nor elected, but made powerful by his own work with companies and the press. True altruism is rare, and especially so when attached to the magnitude of celebrity Raymond was achieving. The nasty word 'sellout' appeared in sporadic flames on the net, and Raymond stoked the fires by conspicuously avoiding talk of 'freedom' or 'free software' in his speeches, a policy he later attributed to the unease those terms stir in businessmen. Open source developers, whose professional lives often fall short of perfection due to the interference of suits, awoke to the possibility Eric Raymond was a Judas, willing to sell their rebellion in return for the gratifications of fame.
The flashpoint was the release of Apple's Public Source License in early March of this year. Apple, hoping to bring the dynamism of open source to its OS kernel, requested a meeting with Raymond to discuss its License. Raymond and Apple retreated behind closed doors. Other open source activists, such as Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens, learned of the meeting through the grapevine but were so far out of the loop that they could not even locate a phone number to call at Apple. The talks disbanded shortly afterwards without their contribution. Eric Raymond emerged flushed with victory, and Apple trumpeted APSL 1.0, fully certified as Open Source. Stallman and Perens went on the offensive, denouncing the License as deficient and enumerating reasons. Community discussion boards buzzed with speculation, with many participants agreeing Raymond had misrepresented open source. To this criticism he issued a retort, stating that objections to the License were founded in loose reading and lack of legal competence. It appeared that from Raymond's point of view, the discussion was at an end.
Eric Raymond had many defenders, but others stuttered with anger. Apple's inadvertent exclusion of the community forced a realization long in coming: the position of public representative is as much bestowed by corporations and the media as by the community itself. Raymond had succeeded as a promoter by cultivating his credibility with the forces arrayed against open source. Once allowed in their camp, he could persuade them gently, in words they understood, rather than bellowing from the perimeter. This arrangement was convenient for reporters and businesses: the affable Raymond provided translations and spared them the chore of researching open source. But Raymond was only one man, presenting a tinted perspective of the diverse opinions alive in his movement. Indeed, Apple stated afterwards that the APSL fracas was the first it had heard of other community factions. Once it was clear Raymond would not yield to the disagreement of his peers, it became academic whether the APSL was a good license. He was one man defying the movement that had made him, and not a few felt it was time he was deposed.
Disciplining a volunteer leader
Rationally, there was little the community could do to rebuke its spokesman. There was no salary to slash, no vote to cast, not even any media contacts who would prefer a few ragtag emails to the word of the established Raymond. But flame has little to do with the rational. The great furnaces were heard chugging across the land, and what profane masterpieces of filth were disgorged only Eric Raymond can say. His email address became a sump of all that is foul in the minds of hundreds of raging geeks. Before the month was out, Raymond issued a statement in which he threatened to resign his leadership. Ironically, his sarcasm was misinterpreted; leaving the impression he had already drawn the blinds and settled into a life of oblivion. The reaction to this perceived development, while poignant, lacked the tenor of fear that might be present at Microsoft, for example, should Gates unexpectedly retire. Open source was prepared to move on without Eric Raymond, and he rushed to clarify himself and remind his listeners that much work remained only he could complete. After some skeptical grumbling, he was reinstated to the community's good graces. The Apple Public Source License was revised three weeks later, correcting all the disputed terms.
Spats such as this illuminate a problem with open source gift culture. Ego gratification is a powerful stimulant for open source developers. Participants give gifts of source code partially to satisfy their craving for recognition as magnanimous geniuses. The community encourages this motive in all cases save one: leadership. Public representatives for the open source movement are expected to be meek and shun self-promotion. Those who stray are lashed with vicious emotional reprisals. All their work must be for the good of the whole, and none for themselves. In short, the community demands its foremost members adhere to ethics the average hacker finds intolerable. Small wonder most open source leaders ultimately disappoint the led.
Many arguments reduce to a handful of facts that can be viewed in more than one light, and emotion rather than intellect is the deciding element. The civilized compromise is an agreement to disagree, but when it comes to community speakers, there is no room for such courtesies. Since ideas rise upwards in the open source movement, allowing a leader to advocate one thing while the community believes another would be as damaging as allowing a diplomat to Russia to announce IMF debt forgiveness on his own initiative. Ambassadors may suggest, but they cannot decide. They must either represent the community, or be expelled.
Examples of this are abundant on the popular board Slashdot.org. Roving journalists frequently refer to Slashdot when plumbing the attitudes of the open source community; making it crucial they not receive a false impression during their stay. Slashdot real estate is therefore valuable and the power to select discussion topics is great. If a site operator abuses Slashdot to gratify an emotional itch, the response from readers is not only rational debate - though logic is always voiced - but also emotional counterattack. While calmer members discredit the logic of the offender, volatile participants demolish their motives with insults. It becomes psychologically expensive for the offender to continue.
Sengan Baring-Gould learned this during the Lewinsky scandal, when he exercised his operator power to post a denunciation of American missile strikes in Iraq. Perhaps seduced by a captive audience of thousands, he forbade community responses, effectively hijacking the open source mouthpiece for his own politics. Slashdotters responded with furious floods of mail to Baring-Gould and site owner Rob Malda, who scrambled to enable comments and posted two apologies. Criticisms swamped the board, ranging from windy dissections of Baring-Gould's logic to far rawer fare. With his argument tattered by logic and his power trip soiled by emotional assaults, Baring-Gould had little motive to fight on. The episode was not repeated.
But Baring-Gould's experience was a mere candle to the bonfire roasting of Jonathan Katz. Katz, a former editor with Wired, is surprisingly innocent of technical knowledge. Empowered with posting privileges, Katz writes opinions for a board patronized by thousands of open source developers, and consequently is a sort of de facto community representative when journalists come calling, regardless of whether his columns are actually read. His pieces endure much scrutiny from those who do not appreciate his company.
Early in his tenure, Katz was known for unabashed promotion of his own books. His columns effused over dubious notions such as 'sexbots' and at least once a month declared the dawn of a new era, as evinced by a movie he had seen. Rational criticisms did little to improve his quality. Slashdotters turned to flame. The rage came ripe and sloppy for weeks, even prompting a Katz column in which he wondered whether he was still wanted (he decided he was). Then, when it seemed inevitable he would lose his position, Katz had a moment of brilliance. In a daring piece, he defied popular media and declared the Columbine geeks had killed because they were driven to it, persecuted by merciless jocks. Instantly, the sewage of popular opinion sprouted roses. Katz had said something the community had needed to hear for a long time. Today, Katz confines himself largely to variations on the Columbine theme and book reviews. There remains little for which he can be flamed, save lack of innovation.
Open source advocates - and the hacker clan in general - fancy themselves as dispassionate creatures, able to analyze facts from a distance and judge impartially. This is a delusion. If emotion runs high anywhere, it is among geeks, and if any group is harnessing this volatility, it is the open source community. When reason's bullets are spent, only raw feeling remains to dispute actions that are wrong or damaging. Like the Salem Puritans many geeks profess to despise, the open source community manipulates emotion to enforce the curious strictures of its morality. It remains to them to decide whether this is a suitable tool for their advancement. Their success in quelling it or wielding it will reveal a great deal about their culture.
-konstant
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
Ok, how is this post offtopic? It deals DIRECTLY with one of the questions he was asked and his answer. The question was:
What conferences are you planning to attend this year? Do you have plans for organizing Geeks with Guns outings during them? If so, is there a mailing list or some other source of information about how to join?
And his answer was that he hadn't found a (Firing)range yet. I pointed out a possible location for one in case someone who was attending was interested. I don't think that qualifies as off topic in any way.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
There is a gun store called 'Franklins' in Atlanta, I'm not sure how far from the Atlanta Linux conference center it is but it has a HUGE shooting range that will accomodate around 100 people at one time, they shouldn't be too hard to get in touch with and last time I was there the range was free if you brought your own gun and you could rent/check out various different firearms for a few bucks.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Yes, indeed. However, I was talking about the macro-economy, not the micro-economy. The more widespread OSS gets, the more impact we will see. My problem is deciding if I should side with the programmer community, or the economy that benifits from this. OSS, if widely accepted will cut costs in every IT department, in every country, hopefully around the world. It may also bring with it software that doesn't suck. However, it may also greatly diminish profits in certain industries and their respected programmers (and I'm not just talking about Microsoft).
My question is, if OSS achieves "Total world Domination" as Linus playfully said (yeah I know, PR stunt); will programmers be able to command the same high paying salaries as before? I just don't believe the model where I get "adequate monetary return" for my work. As far as I see it, It's "I do this work for this company that needs this tool, and then everyone else has it, so I can't gain anything else from it in the future, except in maintenance (which others can also do)". As well, the VA Linux route, to bundle OSS software with hardware, will only work to their advantage for so long. Before they know it, there will be many other support companies popping up to take market share. The only advantage they will have is the top-notch programmers that they have in-house. However, the problem with that model is realized when any another company can benifit from their every gain. If its not proprietary, all they have is their reputation to run on -- and competition will be stiff. Again, competition in the macroeconomy is a very good thing. I'm just worried about the a possible shift in the marketplace in the next 5-10 years as a matter of consequence. It has the potential to affect every industry with IT, as well as all open and closed source software.
Note that I was commenting on this as a model. If I were to hypothesize would would occur in the next 5-10 years, I would say critics would keep this industry decidedly mixed. When I see companies such as IBM and SGI entering the market, I only see businessmen that are grabbing free market share in the wake of popularity generated by linux, coming from social minded advocates such as ESR. I cannot, however, make a straight decision as to what inevitable effect it will have, as anyone following economics knows the market can change in a month -- as well as the potential problems both ways.
Again, This is analysis at the macroeconomic level (the economy as a whole).
1. OSS cuts costs, as well as increasing productivity in all IT industries as per cut costs and programming model.
2. OSS, if widely accepted, as some hope, can and will make a shift in the economy. Like it or not. Less dollars made == less people in the industry => shift in economy to other service sectors (so in effect, the big investors in OSS are funneling the IT economy in their direction[solutions]).
My argument in the first place was, what will happen, when these industry changes happen, and there is less demand as a whole on the macroeconomic level for programmers and their software solutions (whether closed or open). I think it still stands. There has to be a trade off on either extreme. I may be assuming extreme circumstances, but I thought I'd just point out the strengths and weaknesses of the idealogy. Companies like VA Linux and IBM only have money to gain from this. It's a tradeoff.
I do not advocate anything except possibilities. If this movement can mount a successful crusade against the likes of Microsoft with better software, I say go ahead. I just want people to be ready for change.
----------
Nope, not assuming only commercial off-the-shelf software -- but also not assuming every sector of the software industry would be as affected as those in straight commercial sales. Obviously competitors aren't at a standstill.
I was merely stating that the OSS movement in the macro-economy had potential to create changes that are unwelcome to some. Rather, as the scene has proliferated thus far, we have seen mostly scientific and system administration utilities. If, however, you look into the not-so-distant future, as seen by some companies, they want to expand OSS into the desktop market, End-User applications markets, E-commerce, and even specialize in certain industries. The big investors are trying to get sold on their services, not their products.
Also, you fail to move yourself in time. Yes, there are always new avenues for software, and tools that are not yet available unless developed by self; however, the proliferation as such, has the potential to cause a lot of change. Do you assume the OSS community to be the same 5-10 years from now? Again, I was assuming an extreme, based on a model presented by many people as the optimum. I never stated anything was good or bad -- just the potential changes that could be brought on.
And as there are more OSS programmers, there will be more mundane applications such as admin tools. However, since its the market forcing commercial application programmers over to OSS software, they arent going to be moving over free of will. Lower cost products (0 cost + some maintenance) doesn't equal higher profits in an industry. Unless you can show me some magical way to make more on support than those charging for support and software.
Then you ask, but why does it affect me? Well lets see, more people entering industry with decided lower costs == lower salaries + shift to other service sectors + inevitable increased competition in services industry tied to OSS == again, lower prices and lower salaries. You may well also not be affected at all -- it will affect someone though... but maybe its for the best? I was only presenting market possibilities.
If you'd study economics before, you would also know that a number of unknowns are not accounted for -- even in econometrics. It's essentially possible to forecast a long-term truth when the human factor is so strong. Just go read the Harvard Business Review 1997 and 1998. You might laugh at the speculation, but it does indeed help. Perhaps I should have presented my intentions with more clarity, as well as the adoption of the model -- not the current likelyhood. I was only attempting to delve into the model, not put it down, or make black and white decisions. If you had read more closely (or my writing was more concise) you would have also noticed that my conclusion was that I thought a balance was good enough for the next 5 or 10 years, because that gain in productivity is useful, as well as taking money away from companies such as ms and distributing them more fairly to companies who help create a real alternative. It's better than blind advocacy on either side.
----------
Don't you think that this is a case of sharp diminishing utility? There's software for end-users, then there's all these various utilities (as seen on freshmeat) to facilitate system administration and applications for other industries). Now, this "gift culture" can only go so far as to facilitate lower costs in other industries such as telecommunications, government, new media, retail et al. You have to make a buck some way. I can't consume my code, I can't drive my code around, my code doesn't give me a sense of security. Yes, I do see that you obviously feel more inclined to social rewards for you work. Let's just see how your feelings hold up during the next inevitable downturn of the business cycle.
o cket economic idealogies. You could say it's inevitable. I hope not.
> Skip quite a few years. We've basically eliminated middle software from big industry. This means a shift in the economy to either, other service type jobs, or other industries completely. I hope some people here don't seriously believe that keeping everything open will create a better situation for themselves in this industry.
But then something else dawned on me; OSS Software will never be the best solution for many types of software. If you're working for free, you're just going to be providing for the companies actually making money off this shift in the conomy such as IBM, Red Hat, VA Linux, etc etc more to come. Why? Because by eliminating the profit in actually producing the software, you eliminate your job, period. What will happen, is we'll have a number of large companies buying up OSS programmers so they can make all their money on support. Oh wait, profits were higher before when we actually sold and supported our software. Oh well.
Of course, this doesn't eliminate the market, but it certainly diminishes its profitability and in turn those participating in it. We just haven't seen the consequences yet, because this movement is still in its infancy. Just wait until every company is forced to do the same -- and then realizes that since there is no product differentiation, all we can offer is service differentiation (which anyone who can view the source code can do) -- we're essentially splitting the market profits to a ton of different companies now. Then those like IBM, realize: shit, we can't afford all these people to stay competitive anymore. Guess we'll have to venture into another industry or scale down completely.
This is why, OSS can exist; But if it does, it must co-exist with closed source software. This is actually funny, because this sort of mirrors the shift that occurred in the manufacturing industry -> the services industry a number of years ago -- Except we're doing it to ourselves now, not those damn slave labor working economies. It feels kind of artificial, unlike, say, an advancement in technology that throws millions out of jobs, but increases productivity many times over. OSS may, but it's not good for you people, the workers in this economy.
This of course, is mere speculation of a worse case scenario -- wherein all the fantasies of these OSS advocates are realized. Hopefully the economy will realize this fact. OSS has its place. But it isn't a replacement for other --GDP-inflating-but-still-putting-money-in-your-p
----------
Y'know, FSM used to stand for Free Speech Movement (yes, I go to UC Berkeley). Now there are those who use it for free software? Sure, there are some -- okay, many -- similarities in the two campaigns, but using "FSM" might confuse people.
And that's just it. Anyone who says anything is trying to communicate something. Using "FSM" might confuse people if you're talking to them for the first time about free/open-source software. They might think you're going back to 1963, Mario Savio, Sproul Plaza, Telegraph, Black Panthers, etc.....while you're just trying to talk about Linux.
Taking care that you speak precisely is much like taking care that there are no random bits floating around on your Net connection. There are some types of speech that interfere with the exchange of information. One is flaming. Another is slander. Another is falsehood -- malicious, reckless, or unintentional.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
I agree that we are all individuals, and that there is and should be no corporate-style stifling of free speech, especially here. What I attempt to point out is simply this: self-restraint in speech of any sort is wholly pragmatic. This is the type of restraint that makes you cool down before blowing up at your child/boss/driver in front of you who cuts you off. (I hope we haven't lost it already, through general decline in civility or through the lowering threshold of speech on the Net.) This self-restraint makes you search for the correct word to explain your meaning most precisely. Ah, but you might say, that isn't self-restraint, it's a passion for precision. My point exactly; the passion for precision in language makes us say what we mean, which is, inevitably, our version of the truth, undistorted by the irrelevancies.
And, in a civilized society, full of free, autonomous individuals, it is that self-restraint, that passion for the Good Thing, that makes all others unnecessary.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
They are posting slashdot comments in the same forum as me. Using the same input box. Comments that are read by the same people that can read mine.
I feel the same way. To some extent, it's like that weird dream I had the other night where RMS came to my computer lab at UCB. It was a celeb. factor -- hey, lookie, he used that exact same keyboard as I'm gonna use! But it also does what you talk about below:
I feel so empowered and lucky to be living in a time when my opinions can be read by the people who make a difference. A huge part of that is my ability to read their uncensored, heat of the moment comments.
This type of intercourse -- free, honest -- is a happy, natural side effect of the culture that drew me to the open-source movement in the first place. I love it.
And it's not just a time, it's a place. Slashdot.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Er, I don't think you're gonna get flamed for insulting ESR. If anything, I think you're gonna get flamed for seeming clueless. At the moment, thousands of /. readers, like myself, are rereading ESR's last comment for any hint of offense.
/. discussion.
First: offense is something the offendee feels. In some cases, it is unfair to blame the offender for a statement/action that feels offensive; perhaps the offendee is not allowing customary liberties to the offender. Thus the backlash against "Poltical Correctness"; if person A says something inoffensive by community standards, but person B has unusual standards, person B might be offended, but person A did not offend person B.
Second: I saw NOTHING offensive, by reasonable standards, in ESR's last response there. It was, as others have noted, a flippant response to a silly question.
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
Er, I've read most, if not all, of ESR's Linux advocacy. And I can count on negative fingers the number of times he's mentioned sex, his penis, Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified, etc. The one mention of anything even remotely sexual I can recall is in one of his personal, non-Linux-related writings on his website. It was about his trip to Japan. To say that he can't keep his penis out of Linux evangelism is just SO WRONG! It's slanderous, both in the sense of falsehood and in the sense of malice. I think most of this community would agree that you have grossly misinterpreted any connotation ESR implied, and that you have applied a bizarrely high standard to the ordinary chaos of
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
Okay, Eric and Bruce are mad at each other right now. Hey, they're human, ne? Entitled to hurt feelings and a little public scuffling, I'd say.
It's not like it's stopping you from coding, is it? It shouldn't. It isn't stopping me.
Oh, sure, it'll be nice once they kiss (or smack each other) and make up, but until then, I don't see that they're throwing the overall progress of software into jeopardy.
You should emulate the qualities they have which you find agreeable, and eschew those that do not suit. I find both men to have done things I admire, and I try to focus on those things. Try it. I think you'll like it. Nuff said.
Kitsune-chan,
Thanks alot for your word of wisdom. I tend to
agree with most of your arguments.
After all, we are parts of something very new,
usually called 'community'- a gathering of
inidviduals, disciplined anarchists, selfish and
generous, whose main concern is _their_ very own
vision of freedom.
So let the world be spread around. We can change 'em.
And I believe guys will chill out soon- there's damn too many things to do....
KuroiNeko
Aaaahhh, sitsurei shimashita~ Sorry, the reason :) This often :)
of such a mistake is that sometimes I use Wa-Ro,
and sometimes Wa-Ei Jiten.
Japanese words are transcribed slightly different
in Russian and English, you see
messes things up in my head. Hope this makes and
excuse for such an ignoramus as I am
KuroiNeko
I will accept your apology, but only if you will accept mine. We have both been wrong, we have both been right. Let's do bury the hatchet and get on with our lives.
(please don't kill me, Eric!)
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
:)
:) You can email me at knoxcarey@mindspring.com.
In fact, I came quite late to Heinlein. I don't really like science fiction that much. I am fairly well-read in philosophy. I have studied the literature from the classics by Locke, John Stuart Mill, Humboldt, Adam Smith, Bastiat, etc through the more modern works of Popper, Hazlitt, Hayek, Friedman, Nozick, and Mises. If those authors are all included in the matchbook cover course on political economy, it's a pretty damned good matchbook cover course!
I have made a concerted effort to read authors who write from a different point of view, but they have been uniformly unconvincing to me. Perhaps you could suggest some books that I should read? I would be more than happy to discuss/debate these issues with you, but this is not the proper forum. And personal sniping should be a strictly two-party transaction.
-knox
I'd like to ask Eric to clarify the concept of the gift culture as distinct from a free market culture.
It seems to me that the so-called "gift culture" is also a free market culture, and those who see a distinction between them are merely confused about the concept of "money". I suppose most people view money as a stand-in for good and services. Since we can't carry around all of our goods and services to barter, we introduced the concept of money to facilitate trade. But economics goes beyond money -- it's about the exchange of utility. And money is just one (rather poor) way to quantify utility.
Consider: given one hour to spend writing code, I can choose to write free software under the GPL or some similar license, or I can choose to write code for money. The amount of money I could earn during that hour of writing commerical code is the opportunity cost of writing the free code -- it is the amount of income I would sacrifice to write the free code.
But writing the free code may provide me with some non-monetary benefit such as ego gratification, fame, repsect, the promise of robust software etc. If I personally value these rewards over the money, then by definition, those rewards have a higher utility for me. By writing the free code I am still "paid", but I simply choose to be paid in a different medium, a medium that holds a higher utility for me personally.
If we expand our view of economics beyond money and into the realm of utility exchange, then there is absolutely no distinction between a "gift economy" and a "free market economy". To me, a "free market" means that people are able to exchange utility in any medium whatsoever without interference. The so-called "gift culture" falls into this category.
I would even suggest that it is precisely the concept of "money" that has caused the most divisive internal battles in the open source community. By moving beyond money and realizing that there are other, equally valid measures of utility, the open source community can unify its communitarian instincts (RMS) and its libertarian instincts (ESR). There is no contradiction here -- just economic confusion.
-knox
need to quit whining!
Quit acting like high school kids, this is pathetic. You're both right and you're both wrong. Criticism is important, but it needs to be done is a respectful manner. Remember that feelings ARE important, they're the driving force behind everything we do. So be mindful of other people's feelings when you criticize them.
That said, I respect both of you, but please, quit this pointless bickering. We will all be more productive if we can respect each other and act civil.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I always finish an ESR interview excited. Thanks for answering everyone's question, Eric. Even though you kinda putzed around with mine. No matter, though. I'm happy to have you as the foremost advocate for "that rhetorical millstone around our necks". ; >
Damn, Bruce! Do we have to say it for you?
Okay, listen up, everyone. Here's what Bruce meant to say, but his damn ego wouldn't let him (and remember, I still like you, Bruce):
OK, but please remember that I was the one being threatened. I think in that case there was unprofessional behavior on both sides, and I'm sorry for my part in it. I'd like to bury the hatched and make up. Eric, will you accept my humble, heartfelt apology?
I guess it's probably a good thing that I don't have an immense background on the personality of Bruce and Eric, I've read the essays, but I don't have much opinion either way on the people. Maybe that makes me more objective? I don't know, but this all seems too simple for a couple of guys who are undeniably smarter than this.
Read Bruce's comments in this thread. It's bloody obvious that he's playing the "Not my fault" game. He wants the world to know how reasonable he is, and how hurt we all are by ESR's immature attitude. Look at Perens comments and it'll become real clear that they're all screaming that same message. Now c'mon Bruce, that's not the behaviour of someone genuinely interested in resolving things, that's the behaviour of someone trying to be RIGHT. Now that's fine, I like being right too. But if that's what you want Bruce, then don't pretend to be interested in reconciliation, you're just insulting Eric's (not to mention our) intelligence.
Eric, I dunno, I mean, you got flamed. I think Bruce probably knew he was going to offend you by doing it, but digging in your heels isn't gonna help your position much. I don't know how much other people's opinions matter to you. You're a libertarian, so you're within your rights and belief system to tell us all to piss off, and often, that'd be my approach of choice. But look at people's comments -- it tears your supporters up to see you keep fighting this fight. I agree that Bruce needs to do a little growing up in terms of his approach, I would be pissed off in your case too. But I am not one of the key spokespeople of the open source movement. If you don't want that job, then by all means, drop out, it will hurt us, but OSS will survive. If you DO want that job though, you've gotta acknowledge that your actions start to get noticed on a larger scale. You know how annoyed we get at the linux-blowtorch that gets unleashed whenever someone insults our pet. We all talk about how we don't want linux users to look like hair-trigger attackers. If you want to represent the OSS movement, if you've accepted that that is currently one of your roles, then you've got to live up to the office.
Of course, you're both grown men, and I can offer no reason why my opinion should matter one bit to either of you. So I'll let the comments stand on their own. If you think there's any validity to what I'm saying, great, if not, thanks for your time and best of luck.
Regards,
Johnathan
What can he be up to? Well it's reported that Billy Boy now only owns about 15% of Microsoft, perhaps Balmer's planning a coup. Pick up a couple million more shares of stock, punt Gates out. It could happen. Not that Balmer would be much better at the helm of the MS Borg Cube...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Philosophical clashes (and other like-minded disagreements on key issues) has been rather common for some time now. There are various factions with different philosophical bents. The easiest division is between those who prefer the term free software, and the ones who prefer the term open source. However, our community has not fallen apart. Nor will it. It is certainly not doomed. Personally, I could care less if it was "business worthy", as by virtue of using something like the GPL, you never intended to make money in the first place.
Furthermore, another reason why this development model succeeds is because it is /not/ a business. There is practically nothing and no one worth buying out, putting pressure on, etc. It just doesn't work. It's easy to apply pressure to a smaller business, it's impossible to crush an idea. This movement is not going to end just because a few of us can't keep our cool. Or if we disagree. I find it personally distasteful that many slam RMS. Without him, where would we be, hmm? Regardless, those who like him and those who don't work together, as ESR pointed out (though not in those words.. he meant it more generally.. as do I, really).
Debate and the occasional (..?) grating of different opinions are good. It shows we still have individual perspectives. That the best ideas will probably shine through. That every idea and thought or whatever that is contributed will be scrutinized and tested, to make sure it is a worthy addition. Public debate is something we can not afford to be without, no matter what the cost.
In short, I'm not entirely sure how this can be interpreted as a Bad Thing. I'm certainly as opionated as any, and I see no reason why those who are the most respected in our community be any different. Because we all still individuals. That's a Good Thing. Let's keep it that way.
~ Kish
That quote doesn't seem to be one of mine. Care to take it to whoever actually said it (ostensibly one post higher on the thread than mine)? =P
~ Kish
Berlin sucks. Let's stick to X.
I'm going to assume that you mean GNU/Linux and the entire free software movement rather than just the Linux kernel, or else you're making even less sense. Yes, the first paragraph of mine is dripping with acidic sarcasm.
There's nothing wrong with slurping up ideas. Ideas aren't even protected by copyright law. The free software movement is cool because we try to make software better. We let other people contribute. We don't try to screw people other with software that has significant lossage just to make a buck. Microsoft is just out to market their junkware, crush all innovative competition (it could be a threat), and bleed the consumer dry.
If you can't see the difference, you're the one who needs a dose of the truth. Speaking of which, I don't think you'll be marked down for "preaching it how it is brother", but rather because you seem to be trolling. GNU was meant to be a Unix clone. Therefore, a lot of software had to be rewritten from scratch, so that it would be free. If you think that points to a lack of innovation, I'd like to see you make an OS from scratch without copying anyone else's ideas for any reason. Sounds stupid, right? That's because it is.
Now that we have all the basic stuff, this is where the strong innovation hits. You think Berlin isn't innovative? Come ooonn.. You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel on this one, pal.
~ Kish
Sounds perfectly reasonable, right? Well, how about.. this.. in regards to not having an entry in the Jargon File for free software..
Yeah. I much prefer the term "open source", which has allowed businesses all over the world to corrupt the term into a ludicrious piece of.. urgh.. Besides which, I believe this is an excellent example of the idea that ESR is one of those fanatics .. Just look at, say, the Linux entry in the Jargon File for an "objective" opinion (I just love those parathesized sections..)
Personally, I find it very hard to even bother listening to someone who can't seem to take criticism from someone like, say, Bruce Perens (not that I always agree with Bruce either ;). Point is, ESR has always shoved his opinions down into everything he's done, as far as I can tell. Maybe I'm wrong. I find it rather unappealing, however. I'm just as opionated, but at least I can be objective when it counts.
~ Kish
First off, excuse my brief escapes into the humorous (though, by past examples, I'd say your average ./ moderator doesn't think I'm funny in the least =P), but they're "kind of" the point.. Second off, this could make a little less sense than it could thanks to Slashdot being "uncooperative" with allowing me to connect throughout the preview process.. I think I lost some of my little essay here along the way. ;)
Ok, to begin with, the free software movement is completely anarchic. Despite popular belief, there are no "leaders". All of us have wildly different opinions. For instance, my political stance resides somewhere between Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds. There are, however, a great number of highly respected individuals who have made great contributions. However, they are all part of the community. Some people command more respect and recognition from others, but there are no true "leaders".
Secondly, since everyone has so many wildly different opinions, various debates spark up all the time, and despite Tom's assertion that the heat diminishes the light (quite contrary, it makes it shine so much brighter.. makes it sooo much easier to see that which makes sense and separate it from so much drivel..) - of course, I think Tom is a tool (sorry Tom, love your work =P) - all of this debate, eloquent and persuasive, or vitrolic and flaming with anger, is all quite necessary.
Whenever, for instance, I myself say something that clashes with someone else's opinions too harshly (or is a blatant factual error), I expect a retort. Maybe it will be gentle, maybe not. However, if you can't handle the criticism, constructive or not, quit stirring up the flame and just shut up. If you don't want to get burned, don't play with fire. Get it?
That said, none of us can keep our opinions out of what we say. Some of us are better than others, however.. Allow me to illuminate this particular example, a response from ESR about the lack of a free software entry in the Jargon File..
Hardly what I'd call "constructive criticism", Eric. And this is public. And I take that personally. And I do regard it as vicious, not to mention quite unfounded. But so what? We're all entitled to our opinions. So long as we don't represent our opinions as the view of the community at large, we're in good shape.
At any rate, where would we be without the term free software and the man who coined it? We certainly wouldn't have the term "open source" right now if not for that history being there, paving the way for all sorts of opinions and methods for achieving like-minded goals..
In short, whether or not it causes a low signal to noise ratio, it is imperative that public discussion continue regarding those issues which could potentially affect us as a community or us as individuals. Everyone's opinions should be heard, though not everyone's opinions will be widely accepted. However, isn't that how one arrives at a concensus anyhow? Our fate shouldn't be decided by a few select people, but rather the combined whole. Therefore, it is natural for anyone and everyone's motives, philosophies, or whatever to come into constant question, especially if they are higher up on the recognition scale. We're all here to represent our own interests, not blindly follow the interests of others.
As an aside, it might be a wise decision to put your personal feelings aside, so as to not get them bruised. Sure, it's hard not to take things personally, especially if they are personal, but it is worthwhile to look into what someone is saying, whether they're eloquent or not.. decide for yourself if there is any truth to it, even if it's a flame.. It's always important to consider the opinions and thoughts of others, because no one is right all the time. Or even most of the time, usually. People get flamed all the time. I have experienced the joy many times. Sometimes it's because I screwed up and deserved, and I accept this, and sometimes it was uncalled for and I either opt to ignore them or debunk what they said, piece by piece. Never do I outright refuse to listen, however.
At any rate, whether I'm making sense or not (considering how brokenly I put this together and my refusal to fix it.. I may not be, but I have places to be..), perhaps it might be worthwhile to ponder these things. Perhaps not. As with all things, the choice is ultimately up to you, the individual. Which is what this is all about..
~ Kish
No, I don't usually partake of this kind of behavior, which is why I warn beforehand.. Flame.. on..! ;)
Are you a tool, or what? She clearly meant that Microsoft incorporates the ideas of others and gives them no due credit, in fact claiming they are some great innovator (i.e., claim that the idea belonged to Microsoft to begin with), whereas with ideas incorporated into GNU/Linux (or software, whatever), there is no claim that, "Hey, we thought of this first!" That statement wasn't meant to make Linux seem more innovative.. she clearly said that she was making no such assertion. All she meant is that the FSM isn't a bunch of dirty lying bastards like Microsoft. Does this not make sense to you?
Actually, yes it is, troll boy. Why? Because you made an assertion. Therefore, it is up to you to back it up .. Otherwise.. guess what? You sound like a total fscking idiot. Imagine that. We'll get to why this is really funny later, though..
Ok, before I respond to this..
Are you sure you even know what the difference between GNU and Linux are? I mean, are you talking about the fscking kernel, the GNU system (with the Linux kernel), or um, the FSM in general? You're apparently rather.. clueless.
Now, back to my response to your response to my response.. ;) First off, I'm not "pressed". I'm not going to sit here and yawn while you dissect whether or not any given project is "innovative" or not. Then again, I just gave you "(Hell, even one would be nice) [example] of Linux innovation.". So until you can back yourself up and stop with all the double-talk, shut the fsck up, especially since you never specified whether or not the "innovation" in question should be finished or not. Not only that, but no project is ever truly finished.
What do you consider to be innovative, anyway? Pretty much any kind of application imaginable has been done long before.. well, just about anything you use today, thank you ever so much. Nowadays you can only make more powerful, more feature rich, more whatever versions. Care to name a few editors more robust than Emacs? If you say vi I'll seriously have to smack you. The GPL isn't innovative? I'll be damned if it's not. Why don't you make a more clear point of what's so unoriginal about all of this? And if Unix is so badass and we had all of this stuff before, tell me again why we aren't all using Unix on our desktops? Tell me why most people are using Windows (I dare you to find innovation there, and not with regards to marketing), and how come GNU/Linux is more popular than *BSD, even though *BSD has been functional for far longer?
Oh.. wait.. really? Then, what in the bloody fucking hell are you talking about!? Why should it matter, then, whether or not Berlin is finished? It's an interesting "idea", is it not? There's your one example. Shut your noise hole until you can make some sense, damnit. ;)
And you're not a prime example of flawed thinking? From your first response to DanaL, you haven't been able to track the conversation effectively, nor make any strong points.. about anything. I defy you to actually make sense.
~ Kish
That's Kitsune- san !! I'm not a girl. Hee hee.. ;)
I like that though. A more concise telling. I'm rather.. verbose.. myself. :)
~ Kish
I couldn't agree more. Some of the people voicing rather strong opinions against public debate of personal differences are beginning to sound a little too much like budding "Big Brother" types for my tastes. We're all part of a community, and not errant little children for other members of the community to "parent". Each of us voices our opinion if we feel the need to do so. /. being one of the mediums in which we can all make ourselves heard. Personally, I'd rather continue to voice my opinions, and have others voice theirs (whether I agree with them or not), than be led by the nose by anyone or anything. Argh. ;)
~ Kish
Pardon, but do you happen to know how many different definitions of SPARC there are? Scalable Processor Architecture isn't the only one. Fire up a Google search if you don't believe me. I counted three different meanings, and I didn't look very hard. However, if someone on here says SPARC, I'm going to think we are going to all know what is being discussed (unless it is pointed out otherwise by the speaker).
Use of the term "Linux" can be rather ambiguous. And nothing is more ambiguous than "open source" these days. Even free software is ambiguous. However, we must consider the medium here. And the context in which things are said. Were I speaking to a member of the media, I would be far more concise (not to mention which, I wouldn't parade my opinions as the opinions of the entire community at large =P). And AFAIK, I speak more precisely than far over half the people who bother to post something on this site (sorry, all, no offense intended :). Unfortunately, you can't always be ultra precise without sounding like a lawyer. And even then, who the hell would understand you?
Even the most eloquent of us slip into the more vulgar modes of speech at times. While it is normally admirable to remain civil, precise, and to the point, it's not always going to happen. People are creatures of high emotion (myself more than many), and I believe strongly in the idea that everyone should voice what they feel necessary for them to say.
Those who have but to say, "Fuck you, you fucking loser." are likely to be ignored. Well, good. As they should. A lot of more insightful arguments are made through similar modes of speech. Such is life. I usually try to remain as eloquent as possible, but sometimes a person just needs a good flaming. In the case of someone in a high position in our community causing something to proceed in a way which could affect the community adversely, flaming the fuck out of him/her (quite openly :) is a very good way to let everyone know that that is not something the community is so excited about after all, despite what our "leader" has to say.
All modes of speech have their place. If an opinion is worth being made known, it will hopefully serve its purpose. Not everything is going to be sweet roses. Arguments are necessary. So is civilized conversation. As I said, they all have their place. When introduced into the conversation when it is not their place, they're usually ignored or flamed anyway. So, what's the big deal?
No, I'm not saying we should all just have great big flame wars. I'm saying we should just get over it. It's not that big a deal.
~ Kish
I can't believe no one pointed out my misleading comment. Argh.. You're breaking the GPL if you distribute GPL'ed code without source (i.e., just binaries). Whether or not you charge for the service is not of any consequence under any condition. =P
Sorry for the uh oh. :)
~ Kish
That's probably because they don't see many pictures. Most of the more renowned free software hackers have relatively short hair. I do myself, actually (which is not to say that I'm renowned.. farthest from.. but I'm willing to bet that a grand majority of us do not have exceptionally long hair.. if for no other reason than it would take too long to brush and would cut into time that could be spent coding ;) Besides.. we are an anarchic community.. and always have been.. and always will be. If business is threatened by that, or the media wants to point it out, who cares? As far as not being able to trust us.. Do you really have to trust us on a personal level? If the software works, use it. We're not peddling used cars or prime beach-side real estate in Arizona here.
Honestly.. The FSM has caught on fire too well. It's not going to die out. We don't need to court big business and kiss their ass or even make the public like it in order to make it big. Quality software is produced. People like quality software. People like to know that if there is a bug, it will get fixed, and that the fix will not cost them an arm and a leg.
There are so many things that suggest that the FSM holds the upper hand. The commercial sector of the software community has to submit to our way of thinking (or at least try to peacefully coexist) or else they're going to get nailed. Microsoft is just the company with the biggest bullseye on it.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
~ Kish
Or, if you prefer a link: ftp://ftp.crynwr.com/pub/fsb.
Older stuff is under "archives", newer stuff is under "archive". It's just a raw message dump, navigation primitive.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand
So you're talking about an embedded device or otherwise sealed system. While it's technically possible to do what you've done I don't see it getting legal sanction:
There's a good analysis of the DMCA here (pdf).
Though it may surprise you, copyright protections and limitations (eg: Fair Use allowing reverse engineering) are quite powerful and well established under the law.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand
I've been involved in some side discussions on this subject. Interested parties might want to check the archives of the FSB mailing list (fsb@crynwr.com) or of news:gnu.misc.discuss.
Both RMS and ESR have proposed patent pooling and "mutual non-aggression pacts" to deal with the issue of patents and free software. The proposal actually pre-dates both of them -- John Walker of Autodesk, L. Peter Deutsch of Aladdin Ghostcript, and others have suggested similar ideas.
The general view is that if a patent pool is needed as an effective deterrent, then free software needs to own patents. Both RMS and ESR have suggested this. It's sort of the necessary evil paradox.
There's an interesting situation in that there are relatively few generally known cases of patents being enforced against free software. There are cases -- LZW and compress/gzip, gif, also the Gimp and color balancing algorithms. But the obvious threat (Microsoft) hasn't engaged in a direct play, nor have many other potential enemies of the people. Microsoft might be excused as its hands are tied until it settles the current DoJ case, but what's stopping everyone else.
There are two theories I've heard:
Patents apply to the use of ideas -- not just manufacture but distribution, sale, and contributory infringement. With the growth of free software based businesses -- distributors (RedHat, et al), VARs (VA Linux Systems, Penguin Computing, et al), and large-scale end users (Yahoo, many eCommerce sites), there are coming to be some deep pockets which might be litigation candidates. Patent (and trademark and copyright) intellectual property litigation is considered a major business threat, and is in large part responsible for license proliferation as greater protections are sought.
It's possible that the sleeping tiger may yet awaken.
What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand
I do not believe that one could say in truth that the moderators should disqualify statements simply because it is controversial, or of a content not dealing with computers.
I don't think you could claim that it is offensive, though you could easily say "I dont like guns". Nor is it off topic as it refers directly to the article. Besides, who says guns are not for geeks?
I would how ever suggest that this thread (yes I know I am party to it) is progressively slipping off topic.
This is just about power. Power is not something that exists in evil corporations. Power is the ability to make stuff happen. Try to make stuff happen, and you're assuming power. You're putting your stamp on the world.
Eric is someone who has made stuff happen. He seems like a relatively ambitious person: he can put his interests into a global context, and is looking for maximum impact from stuff he cares about, like Open Source. This is a Good Thing. Someone has to make stuff happen. Getting OSS inside the corporate IT mindset is as important a function in overall OSS development as Linux kernel development.
But assuming power redistributes it. By doing something you create an unequal power relation. This is why Eric is a Powerful Person.
However, as we know, power needs to be questioned and interrogated at every opportunity. If we care, we're also working to redistribute power to things which need it. We're assessing the power that people have and seeing that we can find a better use for it. That's politics! That's doing stuff.
So I don't have much time for bitching about "sniping". Sure, it's unhelpful a lot of the time. But it's an important part of being accountable to a community. Anyone assuming power needs to be ready for it, and confident in their ability to handle that criticism. If you're not, then you have to ask yourself how genuinely you can be representing this community (and don't give me the individualist "just my views" bullshit - if you talk about OSS you're adding to the collection of the community's viewpoints about OSS).
Being a leader is no place for sensitive egos and personal bullshit. Being a leader isn't about getting everyone to support your view. Being a leader is about getting the respect of a community with a lot of views *opposite* to your own. A community like /. is stronger because of these different views - and because of the sniping.
Get used to it!
Danny
Thank you for taking time to answer the questions. I enjoyed reading this.
**One day I will come up with a really clever sig, until then this will have to do.**
As I see it the enemy is not microsoft they are going to fall. The enemy as I see it is all proprietry code, codex, file formats and protocols. and although microsoft is the major purveyor of these atm there are others just waiting in the wings to take over. As has been stated before don't be suprised when microsoft falls that Sun turns around and shafts the community
Eric S. Raymond, you mentioned in a answer above that you would step down i Microsoft shares would lose a lot of it's value. Do you think Linux would have such a strong following if the anti-microsoft alibi would vanish? Would the media still be interested if the David and Goliat story didn't exist anymore?
"The best way to impress people is to be very efficient and organised. That shocks people everytime." - h4rm0ny
Everyone assumes that BeOS is doomed because it is not Open source. I say they have been eating too many brownies and smoking too much rope. For those who are too young to understand these references, ask your parents. Also, the problem wihth Linux is that it is inherently complicated to use. My father was looking to replace Windows on his PC because of all the problems he has had with Windows 95 for so long. He is currently using Windows 98, but is still not happy with that OS. He is tired of reinstalling every two or three months. Personally, I think he is lucky. I have reinstalled once a month with WIndows. BeOS just doesn't have this reinstall problem. I would like to add, though, that the UNIX flavors have not 'sucked up all the hacker talent.' I test out different OSes before letting my father use them. I know his temper, and if he can't get something to work right, he will more likely smash it than call tech support. That's why I bought BeOS. Please note, I BOUGHT BeOS. The main reason people are frustrated with BeOS is that they feel it should be free until their hardware is supported. That makes no sense to me. Be is a company, and they have employees and bills to pay. IF they gave away their work for free, then the progress would be made more slowly than Microsoft advancements. Look at Linux. When it first was developed in 1991, only programmers knew about it. Now, everyone who knows how to turn on a computer has heard of Linux. Unix, an even older OS which is now referred to by most distributors as BSD, is still a mystery to many people, as the equipment required to run it originally was only available to large companies and universities. Now, though, with the computer asserting itself into everyone's life more and more, and people tiring of spending tons of money on upgrades for Operating systems that came with their PC's, they are looking for something cheapoer to maintain. I have always felt that Microsoft had a problem with their pricing schemes anyhow. Why charge for an update? Why should the OS need an update? Well, the latter is an easier question to answer. The update is necessary to keep up with technology changes on processors, and other devices. The fact that the Unix variants run on OLDER equipment is not surprising. BeOS requires a more recent machine, and, no, it is not for everyone... yet. BeOS, however, has a much easier User Interface than Linux does, and the applications are based on the more familiar ones that people already use. These ideas will help people to move more comfortably to BeOS than to Linux. Also, the various support groups for Linux-- namely the #linux chat channel on the EFNet IRC network-- have a tendency to argue over distributions more than provide support. Don't get me wrong, I have tried Slackware, and Caldera, and like Slackware better because of some system restrictions that Caldera forces one to adopt. I have my opinions of the best Linux Distribution, and will share it with anyone like I just did. I am also guilty of hassling Red Hat users from time to time, mainly as a joke. I don't doubt I'll be spammed for this, or at least flamed. My point, though is, that BeOS has a place with computer users. IT lies between Linux and Windows as far as ease of use. Anyone with an IQ of 60 can run Windows, but it takes someone with an IQ near 100 to run BeOS, and somewhere above 100 to run Linux-- though Red Hat and some other distibutions can be installed by lucky idiots. All in all, I think more people will move to BeOS as soon as it has proven it will not go away like most Linux companies and fans wish it would. The fear is that the Be File System is more robust than any that Linux offers, and that the multi-threaded OS that Be has produced will appeal to more game producers than Linux's single-threeaded apps. Imagine a game that can be run on a network, kill the sound, and not stop the game play to do so. You can also write a game that has a voice-over-IP communication system built in, for an intercom-like system that can be enabled and disabled on the fly. Also, the ability to change workspaces in the middle of a game-- while not attractive to many hardcore gamers-- would be possible, and the game would continue in the background on its own thread. Also, ZDTV has announced that BeOS handles SMP systems more effiiently than Linux (this was on The Screen Savers when Leo LaPorte booted his "Ultimate Over-The-Top PC"). If BeOS has so many more advantages than Linux, why would it just go away? Microsoft even purchased several copies of BeOS for some reason... presumably to steal things from the BeOS and claim that they are new Microsoft inventions, not that they have EVER done that before. Companies that have checked into the BeOS recently include Real Networks, and I've even spoken to a CISCO Systems engineer who was working with BeOS at home. Now, if these people think BeOS is worth trying, shouldn't everyone?
Warning: Long and a bit off-topic. But perhaps interesting, who knows? Sowwy.
;).
;)
;)
:-) Well, perhaps I am. Or you think I'm against BeOS. Well I'm not, I wish I could test it out and know more about the OS itself. But sadly that is not the case. Or perhaps you think I've been making fun of you - an OS advocate. Well, I must admit I have. I hope you don't take it too seriously though. Perhaps you see that there really should be choices in the world, and advocacy is not always helping (but sometimes it is!).
;*)
:) more cumbersome, use more space and give more frustration compiling than just making an ISO of the installation-CDs. So there is perhaps a good point here somewhere ;)
:)
I've yet to try BeOS, I don't think it's worth $70 bucks just to test it out on my notebook and ISDN-LAN at home. If something don't work, its useless. I've never bought Windows as a stand-alone package, but I now wish I had knew enough to buy a machine WITHOUT Windows on it. I will do that the next time. It's not about the money, it's about the Principle.
But even so, there still are those people who likes to Sponsor and paying for Developing for propertitary software (or Blackbox software). You pay for the Service the software brings you, not any access to the source. Hopefully there is enough documentation included, or you'll have to buy a Book or Bible (hint, hint). And when anything fails, you have to Wait for the next version, a patch, or Buy new hardware. Sometimes your hardware that works perfectly are rendered "Obsolete". Then you're at the mercy of a Company. Usually a lost situation.
People also like to believe the Manufacturer is Responsible for any mishaps you may have if the bought OS fails miserably. But if you think about it, in countries where you can get sued by the millions for spilling coffee, that would ruin any software company. The usual EULA makes you give up that right (unknowingly but freely).
What's even more funny is how Dedicated some people become in OSes. You have Fanatics in every OS department. They think they Own the OS together, and is a Part of something. If there's someone that deserves to be names Zealots, it's them. Many Linux users deserves the Title, but so does MacOS followers, BeOS acolytes, Amiga worshippers, Windows developers(?) [who don't even know what regexp is!] and OS/2 freaks (a compliment really
Oh, how miserable they get when they discover that they are at the Whim of the worshipped Company. When the Company makes decisions without asking them first! Usually they leave that particular OS, after years of public cursing, and starts Preaching even louder for another OS. (Trying to get everyone else WITH them this time)
Why do we (sain?) people put them down like that? Mostly because they ARE THE LOUD ONES. With every fibre in their body they shout out their gospel about OO (which have as many definitions as there are programmers), clean GUI (which usually means noone has access to the underlying code), beats all other OSes in a given task (displays their ignorance to the open public), open-source (which they mistakenly DEMAND must remain free of charge), stability (until something goes Wrong), superior server capabilities (in obscure tests unrelated to real-world situations), full hardware support (with thousands of faulty non-generic drivers), user-friendliness (usually ribs you of all choices, or you have to search for hours for a way to do an Oscure Thing [ie. what hackers do]), etc.. etc. If you've read this far I've caught your interest
Ok, you probably disagree with alot of what I've said. That May be good. It Could mean you're thinking for yourself! Now what was the author here trying to say? After reading all this, I'm sure you'll get the conclusion pretty fast: FUD.
No need to comment on that further.
He has discovered an OS that he actually likes, and doesn't crash too often (unless you start up Netscape making Linux go into a frentic memory hogging mode starting to swap in your entire swap partition). But he's afraid that not everyone else is going to go with him. Mom and Pop has been suggested. Actually I think my "Pop" could handle Linux pretty well. My "Mom" would probably too if she had the interest, or someone could help her out with the installation or get it preinstalled. After all, once an OS is installed with the programs a lowtech user needs, there's no need for them to know everything. Plus, if you get directed to good documents and HOWTOs for a distribution, you'll get the information you need. No need to underestimate people. You'll only get surprised some day. And all FUD you send out will eventually get back at yourself.
So you see, there are always more sides of something. And I must say I deeply respect the people who are NOT speaking all the time. Those who don't get all excited and joining the War.
"The War? What is that?" You ask. Well, as all wars it's mostly driven by our inner fears, doubts and inner rage. And as all wars it's both both constructive and destructive. It's constructive in a way that things get done when people compete. Especially within Science and Technology. But it's also about heavy losses, both material and emotional. And it's very hush, hush. (ssh! Don't tell anyone!
The weapon of the War is among others FUD. The goal is domination (as in most wars). The drive is fear. Underlying that an attempt to repair disrespect for Self. The only way to raise your opinion without losing your neutrality is bringing a balanced view on the matter. Inform, or bring ideas, maybe crazy ideas? It doesn't matter. Just don't take yourself so seriously or put yourself on a pedestal (is that correct word for it?). Respect others' views.
Why don't you want to lose Neutrality you ask? Well, because the more emotions you put into the War, you'll receive tenfolds back! Perhaps not directly in answered notes, but just think of how many people gets annoyed and offended by your one-sided view note! They tend to blind people, making them shoot out in the dark, perhaps at others. Thus you may have a chain-reaction, in effect creating the War.
And if you think this doesn't go beyond sporadic flamewars, you're not looking deep enough. In fact we're lucky to have Internet nowadays. It is a great and safe forum to letting out steam. I'm not saying the War is necessarily a Bad Thing(tm). I'm just saying we will be better off when we manage to be without it.
"When does the War end?" you may ask. Well, in this respect it's a bit different than RL wars. It's a Personal war. It ends For You, when you admit it's just a war, the real problem is in our selves and you have to do something about it (geez, sounds like AAA). In fact, other people have nothing to do with it! Phsycologically, when we lash out at other people, we are in reality lashing out at our selves.
Now you think I'm a crazy madman
I have reservations about proprietary software though (like the author) and listed them in the beginning. Many takes offense to that, so in this respect I join the War, although reluctantly. In the end however, every person has a right to choose to believe what's right for them.
I think it is allowed though, to calmly discuss the case, without letting your ego get in your way. I think I've failed miserably in this note, but maybe I'll do better in the future
So long, and don't label yourself and others as XXX and YYY-users so much. You're not that different from eachother.
- Steeltoe
PS: I believe the authors underlying motive here was a miserable attempt to FUD BeOS Inc., to open up the source. Remember: Open source isn't a bad thing, and it doesn't have to be free of charge. As always people could copy the product, but it would surely Be
Again sorry for a lengthy, (a bit?) off-topic note. If the admins see it fit better somewhere else, please do move it
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/