Slashdot Mirror
ESR Responds to Nikolai Bezroukov
Cycon writes "ESR has posted his response to Nikolai Bezroukov's criticism of The Cathedral and the Bazaar posted earlier today. ESR states that he 'welcomes such criticism' but that Nikolai 'adds almost nothing useful to the debate.'"
I disagree with ESR about a few major things - namely that open source development is inherently the best way to make good software (Go try BeOS! I am hereby throwing in my BeOS advocacy!)
But I can still respect Eric on the many things he has done right, and for his great ability as a writer. He is certainly far above most technical people in that regard, and he has done great things for open source both by writing code and pushing our ideas into the workplace.
And concerning this so-called "critique" of his work, I would say his response has properly nailed the critic on all counts. Nice job. I especially like the Edgar Allen Poe quote at the end.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
our decision to stay an armed populace is a free choice which we've already made.
It certainly wasn't mine, I was just born here.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
The fact that Hitler targeted commies doesn't mean anything. So did Stalin ...
Nothing I've read has suggested that Stalin was any more socialist than the Nazis. Both were essentially oppressive toliterantian regimes which wrapped themselves in ideology to try to keep the people's loyalty.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Ouch. Someone please whack my above comment down a few points :/
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I'm sorry, but whenever anyone recieves too much power there is a much greater chance of corruption.
"While I have made a point of not gratuitously waving my politics around in my papers, it is no secret in the open-source world that I am a libertarian, a friend of the free market, and implacably hostile to all forms of Marxism and socialism (which I regard as coequal in evil with Naziism)."
Pretty contradictory to me. And I think ESR should definitely get out of his little hole and check what Marxism and socialism really are. He is deeply confused with the Stalinist application of Communism. All in all, this vision is very american, on the redneck side.
Short reminder: almost all of the European Union countries are led by socialists. Okay, it's now called "social-democracy", but we *never* experienced any Stalinist methods from our governments (the opposite, mostly).
Once again, I'm really disappointed by ESR's comments (mostly FUD nowadays), and the fact this guy is seen as THE OSS "leader". I find this guy dangerous. He mixes strong political opinions (which, you've guessed, I don't share) with some actual achievements (OSS, Linux...). So far, OSS and Linux have been developped in a very socialist way (not communist), in the most noble sense of the word. And it works. IMO, ESR is just trying to appropriate this movement to serve his own political views and interrests.
He calls himself a libertarian, but openly promotes the idea of World Domination(TM), which is what we're fighting through OSS. We all want to have the choice, and the freedom to choose. I don't think World Domination(TM) goes into that direction. ESR also had pretty stupid comments regarding BeOS, claiming it was doomed since it's not Open Source, and basically foreseeing the doom of all closed source OSes and apps.
Thank you Mr Raymond, but keep preaching your nonsense somewhere else. The "go my way or be doomed" smells like the naziism you think you're against and you give me nausea.
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
One might also point out that the value system of scientists and businessmen are different. Let's face it, after achieving a certain point in living standards, material goods become only a small facet of lifestyle. People forget that money is only an intermediate exchange between what they would like (health, travel, whatever). For the pure scientists, nothing is more exciting than being out in the field, exchanging debates with colleagues and satisfying their curiosity. If, on the other hand, a manager enjoys satisfaction in crushing competitors, controlling the system and acting as a petty tyrant, then they will act in that way (with predictable results). Fortunately the capitalistic society allows people to have some degree of choice over their life, provided they are not economic slaves to external programmed conventions. As Buddha once noted, desire leads to suffering so it all comes down to what you desire in life and what you are willing to sacrifice to achieve it. The gift culture is one aspect of hackerdom where the desire is for peer respect which has to be earned, not bought. All the other economic analysis is related to the economic landscape of the times where portions of the system react against other forces. While the details of the shift may be debated by academics over the coming years, participating in the fray is more fun :-).
LL
Scarcity is the rule in the history and pre-history of man. Services will be rationed, it's just a fact. As I said, I prefer to not grant this power to governments as then the decision as to who gets and who gets denied services will be based on politic considerations. It may be no "fairer" to allow these things to be worked out by marketplace forces, but at least it doesn't lead to political tyranny.
I may also fear the tyranny of scarcity, that there are "haves" and "have nots". This is what motivates me to be productive. I believe that I have control over this and that ultimately, it is the way of nature. Look around, those who produce and take care succeed and those who don't lose out. (Now I'll get called a "Social Darwinist" or some such crap). The tyranny of an evil, even democratic government, is much more difficult to fight.
With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
You yourself pointed out that Europeans "saw no need" for Constitutional guarantees for basic freedoms.
An all-inclusive government system is not evil in and of itself, but if it gets in the wrong hands, which democracy alone has NO mechanism to prevent, it is extremely evil. I don't advocate anarchy. I advocate limited government. I believe government has some important functions, like defense of it's own values against Hitlers and Stalins, adjudicating disputes and enforcing rights, property rights among them. These are about the limits of government power I trust. If a government tries to grab the power it needs to be totalitarian, it will have to set up the mechanisms first. If those mechanisms are already in place through ever more expansive cradle-to-grave government provided services, it's a lot easier. Only in an environment where we insist on limited government power will the people consistently oppose an evil government trying to grab the power to enforce tyranny.
As I said, there's a reason why the US form of government has outlived all the others. It doesn't need to be radically reformed or overthrown because it is inherently stable. The government can't get too much power and the people prosper.
I'm not at all offended at your slights about how this is a uniquely "American" view. There's a lot to be proud of in an American view. American's have defended the world against horrible tyrants for the last 100 years (you know, those Hitlers and Stalins that you find so distasteful). American's have, over time, had the most productive institutions, be it Education, people flock to American schools of higher learning like nowhere else, technology - Linus came to California, for example, people come to America to be productive more than they go to Europe, I wonder why if Europe is such a paradise on earth? - or business (the center of the business world is New York, I'm told).
I tire of Europeans lecturing Americans on our "backward" system while we fight their wars for them (Iraq, Kosovo, WWII, WWI), help to rebuild Europe after it was decimated by WWII (Marshall plan) and generally have the institutions that everyone ELSE tries to emulate.
People give lip service to respecting differences, except when that difference is capitalism vs. socialism. To these same people, who respect all sorts of social conventions, capitalism is just a horror that must be brought down at all costs.
That is a very clear and precise description of the main problem in ESR's writings --- well said, Jon.
ESR's role probably serves a useful function for those that believe that horses will die unless led to water, but it is a million miles away from the antiseptic dissection of a complex subject that one would and should expect in a rational scientific study. From what we've seen so far over the years, that won't change, so I suppose we'll just have to lower our expectations or look to more dispassionate commentators whose analyses are less dogmatically coloured by personal preferences in other areas.
None of this should really surprise us though. There has never been much in common between the popular press and the scientific press in other walks of life. We have our own popular press and our own self-styled popular writers, and we should acknowledge them as such and no more.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The bar against moderation AND posting in the same thread clearly *is* important otherwise the system would just spiral out of control, but alas it means that contributors end up posting little "Please moderate up" messages.
Maybe this means that there should be a second counter per article, holding a Please Up/Down count.
Be that as it may, it's good to read well-balanced items like that posted by Lord of the Files above.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
My dictionary lists seventeen definitions of "free". They range from "free verse" to "free electron." Which one precisely does the "free" in "free software" refer to?
It ain't political liberty. Add "Free Software" to the US Constitution right next to "Free Speech" and it will be as out of place as a turd in a punchbowl. And if you did manage to get "Free Software" enacted into law, would all the non OSS developers have to go to jail? Would cops show up at their door demanding copies of the source code so that it could be published in a public place?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I have not met ESR, and I'm not so sure I would like him if I did.
To elaborate on problems I have with him:
He has this battle cry he keeps using: "I just want to live in a world where software doesn't suck." Notwithstanding the very narrow focus of this life goal, it differs quite a lot from his litmus test of software quality: "What's the license?"
I am a BeOS person and I know for a fact that a good closed source operating system can be made. In fact, it is better in today's climate, because it has less legal problems encumbering it (such as getting code to run certain hardware). So I differ greatly with ESR on that.
I also have the impression that he has an ego of sufficient size to make him widely resented and get in the way of compromising on anything, or getting along with certain people. Certainly a person that took it upon himself to go into the spotlight like that ought to conduct himself better than he does.
And while he's right about not stuffing his libertarian pro-gun views into his essays, he certainly hangs them out there practically everywhere else. And his depiction of communism as Pure Evil was also uncalled for. I am not a communist, but come on - this is not the cold war. His politics should be kept in their own section on his web site, IMHO.
The big question about ESR is whether we want him or not. It would be a Good Thing if more businesses start seeing things our way. On the other hand, it is debatable whether ESR is helping this goal with his speaking skills and constant traveling and visiblity, or hurting it with his ego and poor ability to get along with others.
That said, I still respect him for his intelligence, the code he wrote and maintained, and because his intentions are good and perhaps he just can't tell when he rubs people the wrong way.
And regarding the critique posted earlier, I think the guy that wrote it is clearly a flake and absolutely rehashed stuff other people said earlier and better. And he grossly misread those essays. ESR put him in his place in this case, though unfortunately he also let his ego come through loud and clear.
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
By equating Socialism with Nazism, ESR himself deflected the argument from what it should have been (the relative merits of CatB and Bezroukov's critique) to an argument about Raymond's politics. IMHO, he must have known this would happen. What he was thinking, I'll never know.
The above comment(ESR should go out sometimes) never proported to be discussing the strength of ESR's response...In fact, no mention at all was made of Bezroukov's critique. The comment dealt purely with ESR's rather gratuitous attack of socialism.
You can't equate a group of people with Nazi's and expect the group to stand idly by. One must wonder what Raymond's motives were for including such a remark.
I guess that's not really fair. I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It was probably just a thoughtless remark...but a simple apology might go a long way towards appeasing many whom he offended.
I'm sorry, but whenever anyone recieves too much power there is a much greater chance of corruption.
And that, my friend, si the crux of the argument! (Smile), now we're getting somewhere.
To be more specific than my last post, I consider my self (to make up a term) a pragmatic socialist. At this point I don't feel that utopian socialism is feasable. I advocate socialism on a smaller scale. I also think the ISO (International Socialist Organization) are generally a bunch of extremist nuts.
The "Industry", capitalists all, see Open Source as free razors (software) to sell more of their razor-blades (hardware).
Hackers with no political or economic axes to grind see Open Source as individuals freed to produce great things.
The computer industry press see it as a hype machine that brings out endlessly fascinating stories.
It's like the Elephant and the Blind Men. Each one "sees" the Elephant as something from their "point of view" based on their background and experiences.
RMS has it right. It's not really about anything but freedom. Freedom to exchange ideas, whether they are embodied in speech or programs. Freedom is difficult to define and comprehend, but everyone pretty much sees it in a positive light. Everyone relates it to their own utopia.
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "socialist," because you must not be using the definition one usually encounters in the US. To an American, it suggests a strong central government, nationalization of many service industries, high taxes and pervasive regulation.
I think the biggest problem that many in the US have with socialism is a pronounced distrust of the government. I would argue that this is simply cynicism brought on by a rather corrupt government. Your first two points are bad only if the government isn't doing things properly. A benign and efficient goverment should not be something to be feared. The mistrust we hold for our goverment is a sad commentary on...well...our government.
As far as high taxes go...well...If the government is efficient, and providing quality services as it should, this should be a non-issue as well.
As far as pervasive regulation goes, well, I would argue that this is in no way inherent in the socialist system...at least no more than, say, a capitalist system.
Now you're just talking about bad goverment.
:/
Should have used the preview button.
However, I think that Eric misses the value in such a paper. Nikolai's paper answers the question "what are the risks in embarking in an open source development project?", and is the most focused and complete answer I've seen so far. That's very valuable from an advocacy perspective, because advocates need a single URL to point to for a thorough treatment of this frequently asked question. Otherwise, a properly skeptical skeptic won't believe that all of the homework on the subject is done.
Are there better treatments of this subject available that are as complete and focused on the question at hand? I think that this document provides a very good starting point if a better document doesn't exist. Even if a better document does exist, this points out some useful anecdotes and quotations worthy of inclusion in any answer to the risk question.
All to often it seems that we're taking underinformed writers a bit too seriously. While Nikolai was entitled to his criticism (read: analysis. Too many critics write criticisms, or 'downers' on an original work. I remember studies of criticism where an author would properly analyze a work. Nikolai wrote a rebuttal, not a criticism.) and ESR was also quite entitled to his rebuttal of the rebuttal. ;)
Anyway, back to the original point at hand- all to often we see people of the mentality of commercial+closed-source writers, or people never exposed to the OSS culture, dismiss OSS persons as being crackpots, loonies, morons, etc... etc... it's hard to write a factual document and trying o get a serious response from a person of this mindset...
...similarly, it can be a real pain to write an article with a closed source viewpoint without being flamed, en masse, by the OSS community.... while this is *not* true for the whole, the overwhelming bulk of rebuttal mail is embarassing.
So we have two options- be a closed source writer, and be dubbed closed minded, or be an open source advocate, and be ridiculed.
It's a crazy world, I think. In the mean time, I think I'm going to take a hot bath, while the world sorts itself inside my head. I'm not going to touch my computer for another.... oh, an hour will do it...
...I need some fresh air.
You'll eat it and you'll like it.
Question everything. Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. Our community leaders are not excempt from this - we should question them often and in depth, because if we don't they'll be unprepared for what the rest of the world will. To paraphrase Buddha - "do not accept anything at first.. but if after careful consideration it agrees with your view, accept it and live by it." I know I mangled the quote, but you get the idea - in so many words question everything.
--
Also, I think a lot of people need to insert the following into thier own startup script:
#undefine COMMUNISM == BAD
Okay, call it pseudo-C, but you get the idea.
The red scare is over folks. And with people like McCarthy able to get in power, I think our system is far from perfect. I am not very political but I do know that talking about things you don't understand is among the worst of evils, more evil than communism supposedly is.
My personal quirps about CatB is that it doesn't account for when OSS fails. And the the original critique explained this expertly. While ESR was using Linux development as his model, he didn't consider that Linux is atypical as such a project.
I many times go to links of abandoned web sites of abandoned OSS projects, enough for the pessimism in me creeps some. I think for the next paper in ESR's series, he should examine why OSS fails and how to avoid this. Such a work would be enlightening to us all.
--
Marxism and socialism (which I regard as coequal in evil with Naziism).
Well, gee. So making Raymond pay some extra taxes on his precious income is equivalent to murdering 10.5 million innocent people? Really. What an interesting notion.
I always thought this guy was a moron, but that's the least of it; he's a vicious lunatic as well as a moron.
Tell ya what, Raymond: Talk to some people who survived Auschwitz and then lived in Israel in the following couple of decades, when Israel was pretty solidly socialist. Explain to them how the high taxes and bureaucracy they put up with in Israel were just as bad as being used as slave labor and then gassed. Explain that, Eric. I'm sure they'll understand. I'm sure they'll be very pleased that some arrogant jackass has finally explained it all to them.
Hey, I'm not a socialist either, but there are such things as proportion and accuracy. If you're going to shoot your mouth off about something and present yourself as an authority, get it right.
This is just another tedious example of Raymond taking criticism too personally and flying off the handle.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
has alot of points I think alot of people miss out on. The whole cathedral and the bazaar idea seems a little idealistic to me anyways. Sure open software is great but for the most part users want things to run without tweaking them, things the bazaar has a hard time understanding (at least what I have seen). Cathedrals have the problem of putting too much emphasis on their talents and charge you amazingly exorbant fees to merely license the use of their software without actually owning it. I think ESR goes too far to one extreme and people like Bill Gates go too far to the other. FreeBSD is an excellent example of how the middle ground can be more versatile than either one of the extremes. The BSD license doesn't require you to reproduce the source code yet it states you need to give credit where credit is due. This kind of license doesn't force anyone to do anything except give the person who they based their software on the credit they deserve. Imagine if all the software Microsoft copied was released under the BSD license, it would add another GB to the size of Windows 2000. More to the point, FreeBSD is a successful development model because it's major development and source tree is maintained by a smaller group of individuals yet it remains completely open and free. Smaller groups are much easier to manage than thousands which leads to better organization and cohesion.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
I tried to read the criticism. I really did. It was painful.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar was one of the first papers on open source development I had ever read. Believe me it was an eye opener and I go back to read every now and then if I feel bored.
The funny thing is that I didn't even come close to the same conclusions that Nikolai Bezroukov did. Marxist?!?!? The Red Scare is starting to become popular again I guess. Unfortunately most people are a little more clued in these days than they were in the 50's. Otherwise we'd all be screwed over if someone whispered "Commie" and pointed at us while our backs were turned (happened a lot I guess in the McCarthy years).
Nikolai Bezroukov also over-generalizes. Hell I knew that not all open source projects operate Bazaar style. That's just the tendency, not a rule set down in stone.
I have one serious problem with one argument that he makes rather loudly: Authoritarian methods will kill any given Open Source project more effectively than anything else. Woah there, that's a broad blanket statement if I ever saw one. Linux itself operates under a "benevolent dictatorship" model, where one guy says "Okay this is it: Here's our release". GNOME does not (or at least it didn't when 1.0 was released... I hear they've gotten their act together though :^). Guess which software package is stable and fast? Okay, maybe that's comparing apples and bananas, but you see my point. :^)
You *need* authoritarianism for *any* software package to work, OSS or not. Someone has to be the boss. Otherwise you get the problem of "too many chefs spoil the broth" a la GNOME 1.0.
I should stop ranting now while I have the chance. I do feel better though. :^)
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Yes, and Mussalini made the trains run on time.
fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot.
As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun.
Cheers
That's funny. I don't know about you, but the sarcasm and character assasination ESR has perpetrated on this subject (GNU/Linux) have pretty much convinced me of what the previous poster said.
He disagrees with RMS politically, that's no reason to go out of his way to personally attack and ridicule him in public. "shut up and show me the code" to the man responsible for the program ESR uses to compile HIS CODE? Even if he had to disagree, there are better (read: politer, less personal) ways to do it. The way Raymond handled that was more like certain regimes which have ostracized people for their political views and which Raymond claims to be absolutely opposed to.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
All this talk about linux distribution (or any OS) destroying the movement is silly. Examples of fragmentation that has survived: *religion - jewdasim -> christanity -> all 500 sects *politics/government - communism -> socialism - democracy -> conservative/liberal/other *commerical software - Unix -> commerical sects - Windows -> win 9x/winnt API differences - File formats -> ANSI, .doc, ect * all consumer products - automobiles -> take different parts - coffee makers -> different size filters ect, ect. The idea that OSS is immune to fragmentation is absurd. However, when one "sect" can view changes by another "sect", this ensures that they have the ability (they also pointing at the users) to provide compatability and "mend" this fragmentation. - Awe
Despite the flaws in Nikolai's argument, his analysis of the flaws in ESR's OSS rhetoric and the similarities with Marxism are accurate (IMHO). Nikolai's proof may not be that well thought out, but he's on the right track. The similarities between OSS rhetoric and Maxist rhetoric are very apparent. Marxism: The basic idea that if everyone cooperated and worked together, society will progress toward a utopia. OSS: The basic idea that if everyone just cooperated and worked together, software development would progress toward a utopia. I find the notion that any individual stating they are able to predict the future actions of any complex system (society, evolution, software trends) is rediculous. My only fear with OSS, is that the primary leaders/dictators of the movement act very much like previous dictators in history. The pattern goes something like: Find followers, create enemy, convince followers to kill enemy for your cause. So I see OSS actually removing MY freedom to produce software however I damn well please and charge as much as I can without giving source out. RMS, ESR and Linus Torvalds seem to want force everyone to use the GNU model. But, the GNU model isn't freedom because it restricts my choice (I can't chose what I want to do with my source). Pretty scary if you ask me. I always wonder what would happen if these three had their way, and Microsoft was gone and the industry had to work the way they dictated. Well, I'd stop being a programmer, that's for sure. Now, take a look at all the followers on slashdot just taking the crap ESR, RMS, and Linus crank down without even questioning it. Look at the hate e-mail and the posts on this very message that show the true nature of the Linux Zealot. And ask yourself, do you want these nuts ruling the software world? Looks like another bloody revolution my comrades. See you in Antarctica.
This isn't surprising behaviour from ESR.
;)
I looked at it from a purely academic standpoint. Very strong solid arguments, that added a lot to the paper.
I looked at it from a personal standpoint, and saw the same thing.
I looked at it from ESR's standpoint and saw a challenge to my 'undeniable knowledge' about open source, and my media supremacy as ESR.
To put it bluntly, ESR is very egotistical and overly optimistic, assuming that if he says it, it will not only happen, but become law. This simply isn't true. I have analyzed much of what ESR has said throughout his 'reign' and have found most of it to be obviously written by an egotistical, overly boastful, angry zealot. Maybe ESR's just angry because RMS has held the spotlight for so long, and he wants a piece of the pie. Maybe it's because somebody wrote a critique that he views as a personal insult.
Either way, this is equivalent to a child's comeback. I say "you suck," ESR says "yeah, well you suck more!" We know for certain that at least one side is mature enough, hopefully, to simply say "whatever" and walk away before it becomes some ugly debacle.
ESR and Bruce Perens didn't get along with eachother for a reason. I'll save them both the embarassment of bringing those details back out into the light again, and leave it at that ESR is totally uncompromising unless it's going to further him personally, from what I have seen and heard.
People can flame me all they want, but the fact of the matter stands that ESR would probably slap the 'Open Source Certified' sticker on any product who's maker paid him off personally, under the table. He's the equivalent of a televangelist in my eyes; "can I get a hallelujiah!?" 'HALLELUJIAH!' "Can I get your credit card number?!" '4129...'
ESR makes strong points, but only politically. I've yet to see a 100% objective and reasonable writing from ESR. He has a habit of dodging the tough questions, of dodging things that could get him in trouble, of running away when he's scared of something small. In all the years I've known the brash, opinionated, certainly egotistical, and sometimes downright insane RMS, he has maintained a fair level of professionalism. ESR's level of professionalism varies wildly from paper to paper, word to word. At times he reminds me of a coworker at a former job who was recently fired for gross unprofessionalism. When it suited him, he'd be the penultimate professional idiot; always had an answer, and always said sir. But when it didn't, he'd curse up a storm, get personal, and get impolite and downright unpleasant.
I never chose ESR to represent me, or my views, or the Linux community. Who did? I don't recall anyone of any real import beyond business people with 'open source' software actually endorsing him, but I honestly haven't paid any attention. The fact of the matter remains; I'd rather ESR didn't attempt to mis-represent any community I consider myself a part of, but he's going to keep right on doing it, so long as people hail him as their saviour.
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather not have RMS representing me professionally either. RMS is a hardliner who actually gives a damn about his morals and won't compromise his views, except to extremes. (I'm sorry, but if I *ever* have to listen to 'Join us now and share the software' again I'm gonig to have to rip off RMS' lips.
ESR's behaviour, conduct, and words have turned the term 'open source' from a very meaningful term into a pair of words that just means you let people see the undocumented features and ESR slaps his personal seal of approval on it.
Means nothing to me. Honestly, I'm fairly indifferent about GPL vs LGPL vs 'Open Source' vs Commercial. I concern myself only with whether or not it gets the job done first, then I consider the possibilities later. As anyone in any IT field with half a clue would. Functionality should always come before whether or not it's "free" software by anyone's definition.
In closing, all I can say is that I'm wholly and totally displeased with the conduct and quality of work ESR has done. All he has done has create meaningless terms, poor relationships, and damaged the credibility of an entire community at times, in my opinion. Maybe he should take a hint, and start acting a great deal more professionally and less 'geeky.'
/* This is my opinion, these are my words. I'd say 'em again in a heartbeat. And quite frankly, I don't give a damn if it ticks you off. It's an opinion, and they're like assholes - everyone's got one. So deal. */
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
your company here.
shelby != ford
Socialism isn't Commnunism, and Communism isn't marxism. Furthermore, socialism isn't marxism. ESR's view on socialism, marxism, etc. is WAY too extreme. The terms "marxist" and "socialist" are used regularly in the academic world to describe things that have NOTHING to do with Communist governments.
.no folks want to comment on this, I'd enjoy reading their posts.
If I understand correctly, socialism is much like the Norwegian system. People view themselves as members of a community, and they make policy accordingly. And from what I understand, it seems to be reasonably effective. If any
So, is the Norwegian government as evil as the Nazi Germany? ESR seems to think so. And if he denies it, then his original statement suffers from the same pretentious and simplistic flaws that infest "The Cathedral and the Bazzar".
Libertarianism is, in my view, just as dangerous as communism is. There was a time when America was free of "big government" and stupid regulations. it was the late 19th century, when American cities were extremely corrupt and machine rule was commonplace. Businesses essentially compelled children to work to work for peanuts. Grown men worked for slightly more. And the term "peanuts" is actually far too generous here. The average American lived in squalid poverty while greedy businesses and crooked politicians exploited their misfortune.
Big Government restricts what we can do, but it also protects us from our own apathy, greed, and ignorance. Would we even have computers and the Internet without a federally funded university system? How many of you attend/attended college on federal Stafford loans?
The libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. They grew up and live in a time of unprecidented prosperity, but they can't leave well enough alone. They want the benefits and security that government provides, but they don't want taxes and restrictions.
Government should not be trusted. We should always scrutinize what the government does, and we should not delude ourselves into ignoring it's faults. But we must look before we leap, and we must balance social responsibility with the preservation of personal autonomy. ESR's libertarianism is just plain irresponsible.
Sorry for spelling poorly. And I'm sorry for writing such a long post and for inevitably irritating some people. Some things just piss you off and you've gotta tell someone about it.
Take care,
Steve
I think it's extremely unfortunate that Nikolai Bezroukov permeated his essay with political labelling laced with so much historical baggage that it was bound to cause from ESR a knee-jerk defensive reaction permeated with an equal and opposite amount of irrelevance. And it did.
It's unfortunate not because it caused aggravation in the community (we thrive on that), but because there were quite a few real points dotted around in Nikolai's article which could usefully have been presented as a well reasoned critique of CatB, but as a result of the political red herrings the opportunity to do so has been lost, at least to Nikolai. All it's done it to make ESR hopping mad and to provoke the standard response of the stereotypical indignant American accused of anything sounding vaguely non-capitalistic. Needless to say, it was not productive.
Political and sociological analogies of that sort are just *analogies*, not anything real. Even when the forms are totally congruent, the referrents are always utterly different and so the end result ranges from questionable to ridiculous. It's not meaningful, and it's certainly not helpful.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
One of the ironies of this whole open source "debate" is that the point of free software, open source, et al is that it's supposed to be "free" -- free of restrictions, encumberments, and so on. I guess I thought that also meant free of "open source" political litmus tests.
Apparently not. It seems that someone has to self-appoint themself as standard-setter for what free software really is. So long as you are creating and submiting to an authority, even one that's setup to promote freedom, I think you're invalidating the concept of freedom.
Which is why I don't get the big debate -- if the source is available, and I can reuse it in pretty much any way I want, isn't that kind of the end of the debate?
You'd think that subject is self-obvious, but it doesn't seem to be.
Currently there is a very diverse group of people leading the (I have no good way to lump these without offending somebody) open source/free software movement. That's a good thing. It means they balance out each others opinions. No one knows precisely why open source/free software succeeds. Any one leader is probably at least partially wrong.
On the other hand the constant fighting is a real problem. It doesn't come across well to the mainstream world when our leaders keep acting like children. It's particularly sad to me since I like (I suspect) many people respect them all, and hate to see them make fools of themselves.
I disagree with many of ESR's comments about RMS because I symathize with RMS's position. He's devoted himself completely to a movement that as it came to fruitation (in his eyes) abandoned him. When he tried to remind people of what he had contributed (don't try to villanize this - everyone wants credit, particularly when they've worked hard) he was rejected more and more. Now he gets to read comments like "The Free Software Foundation has been a millstone around our necks." I consider that unbelievably cruel. Do I entirely agree with RMS? No. But I think he should be respected for his contributions, and instead I often see my friends mock him.
In contrast, I also understand ESR's problems with RMS. Alienating companies is a bad idea. At least for now while the movement is still growing things like Mozilla need to be encouraged. And while KDE is not perfect it's a very nice desktop, particularly for newbies, and QT's license will not destroy the free software movement. It may not help it tremendously, but when windows users who are afraid of UNIX see KDE their eyes light up. That advances open source/free software tremendously. If GNOME turns into as good a desktop, with better licesing that's great too, and all the better for being entirely free, but the KDE developers should certainly not be condemed.
I hesitate to even mention Bruce and ESR. I will anyway because I think it's very important, but I'll ask you both not to respond if all you plan to say is "he started it" or "I'm not going to forgive him" or "he's not cooperating". Again, criticism is fine, but insults don't help anything. I think open criticism of events in the open source/free software community is very important, but it needs to be done with consideration for everyone else invovled, and the recognition that no one is intentionally trying to harm the movement. And it needs to be accepted gracefully. Which is never easy to do. But a responce that says I disagree, here's why, without also coming across as trying to discredit the author is the only thing likely to lead to intelligent discussion, rather than flame wars. The thing that really bothers me about the entire incident with the Apple licence is that it has to have left Apple with a bad taste in their mouth. A calmer responce from Bruce, then answered without anger by Eric would probably not have lead to this.
Basically this (now ridiculously long) ramble amounts to: if you're going to lead make sure you recognize that the open source/free software movement is a diverse group (heck, I can't even think of a name for it that doesn't offend somebody) with diverse leaders. Who are all trying to do what is best. And who are all human. And who all have tempers. If everyone involved would respect these facts, and each other, we'd make a lot better impression on the outside world.
P.S.: And the words "I'm sorry", while never pleasant, haven't been known to kill anyone, and usually lead to a similar responce.
God does not play dice - Einstein
Not only does God play dice, he sometimes throws them where they
We have in this thread a huge number of people either failing or refusing to address the point.
Raymond's objection was that Bezroukov's essay went out of its way to caricature and misrepresent his writings. He cited particulars where this was obviously the case. The second-level comments here, ironically, ignore the point even more than Bezroukov's did.
People: The question was whether Bezroukov's comments were relevant and reasonable. Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
One or two posters made the almost-relevant remark that Raymond relies on works other than "TCatB" to make most of his points. That might have been a valid objection, except that Bezroukov's essay concerned those other works, too. I quote (emphasis added): "Starting with his famous paper "Cathedral and Bazaar" Eric Raymond published a series of articles (see especially his comments on the so-called Halloween documents) he promoted an overoptimistic and simplistic view of open source, as a variant of socialist (or, to be more exact, vulgar Marxist) interpretation of software development."
Bezroukov addressed this remark explicitly to Raymond's entire body of essays on open source. It is explicitly stated up-top as the thesis of his paper.
Critical commentary should be evaluated for accuracy and relevance on its internal merits. That is the proper standard for everything, there: Bezroukov's piece, Raymond's reply, and you people's alleged commentary on Raymond's reply. The commentary here has been consistently off in Cloud-Cuckooland -- which explains in part how you could possibly fail to notice that Bezroukov wrote nothing better than an extended straw-man argument.
You can do better, people. At least I bloody well hope so.
Very good point.
:-/ ) ESR's tendency to insult other people in public doesn't really inspire feelings of charity either. So a reminder that public attacks are not so good is always welcome.
In a lot of people's minds, the rules change when someone makes themselves a public figure. I'm not sure this is right, but it's certainly pervasive and I'm not immune to it (check my recent postings
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
Someone please moderate this guy's posts up -- they're about twice as insightful and well-written as 90-95% of the stuff that gets posted here (and often up-moderated), yet he only has a karma of 11. I want a new button that lets me give karma points to someone else :) [ yes, it's called 'moderation', but I seem to be banned from moderating. Dunno why, I only ever had time to moderate one or two posts, hardly enough of a sample to be marked an abuser ]
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
We're still suffering from McCarthyism and Cold War lies about forms of government.
But Hollywood *was* infested by communists. McCarthy was right.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist