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.'"

Comments

ESR should go out sometimes

[Max von H.]

"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.

Re:ESR should go out sometimes

[CaptainCarrot]

So far, OSS and Linux have been developped [sic] in a very socialist way...

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. This is most emphatically not the way OSS is developed. One of its key features is extreme decentralization and an astonishingly effective mechanism of self-regulation, with no governmental or central administration at all. This dovetails extremely will with Libertarian ideals.

You don't like ESR's characterization of socialism as evil, but whether you like it or not the most evil regimes of the 20th century referred to themselves as socialist. You'll have to excuse those who choose to believe them. To American - especially Libertarian - eyes, the main difference between those regimes and those of the more benign European states is the amount of actual freedom allowed by their respective governments. What looks dangerous to us is that the power of the government is not apparently limited in principle. Lives of individual Europeans are regulated to a degree that is absolutely abhorrent to Americans, in everything from what churches they may attend to what time they must put their children to bed.

He calls himself a libertarian, but openly promotes the idea of World Domination(TM), which is what we're fighting through OSS.

This is not the contradiction you seem to think it is. He is simply advocating the sort of behavior that he thinks will result in OS becoming the dominant software development model. It is exactly analogous to how a Libertarian might advocate the sort of activity (civic virtue, personal responsibility, self-reliance) that results in a society where Libertarianism can be sustained. This isn't coercion, but education.

By the same token, "go my way or be doomed" isn't a threat, its a prediction based on what ESR thinks will be the most successful software development model based on free-market economics. I realize that socialists feel threatened by the free market, but its a perfectly valid economic system.

Re:ESR should go out sometimes

[RachaelAnne]

Umm...okay, Europe doesn't have concentration camps but are citizens of most European countries allowed to:

* buy beef from the US?
* soon, buy genetically modified food?
* go to whatever doctor they please?
* keep a majority of what they earn?
* own a gun?
* ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
* many other things...
* take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?

Personally the US isn't so good about these things either, but in any case, the only difference between this and more extreme forms of state control is scope, not the essence. The essence is that a human being is being physically coerced to do something he may or may not want to do. (Sure, most people probably voluntarily only take gov't approved medicines, but just try to break the rule.) It doesn't matter if you will be summarily shot or given an elaborate trial before you are killed/inprisoned/fined if the thing you are being punished for should not be illegal. ESR just realizes the fundamental contradiction in believing that 'social democracy' as it is practiced in nearly every country in the world -- i.e. that a group of people who don't know any better than to not take bad medicine (because they have to be told what medicine is good for them by the gov't) acquire the ability to vote for laws that do tell them and others what they must not do. Or in short form, the idiots are too stupid to run their own lives but are smart enough to run their neighbors.

Rachael

The Elephant and the Blind Men

[JordanH]

Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that an Anarcho Libertarian sees the Open Source Movement as a free-wheeling Bazaar and an academician likens it to academic collaboration?

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.

...

[Signal 11]

... As if. Any discussion and critique is good - saying that it adds nothing to the debate is a rather foolish thing to say. If we don't question CatB, the GPL, the Debian Free Software Guidelines what point is there to even having those documents in the first place? The whole *point* is to think it over, talk about it, discuss it, improve it, and critique 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.

--

Good responses

[extrasolar]

I have to agree that the critique has almost nothing to do with "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" but I think the paper is enlightening in it's own right. By reading it, I feel that a lot of free software projects can avaoid failing.

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.

--

A counter-CatB?

[Surazal]

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. :^)

This Has Little Bearing on Real Life

[Bruce Perens]

Eric has put forth some good reasons why Open Source works. He's also put out a good deal of pseudo-anthropology that could be disproved without casting any doubt upon why Open Source works, and that's where his paper is most easily attacked. Debates like this are good recreation but they don't say much about the practical issues of Open Source.

Thanks

Bruce

Differences are good, squabbling is bad.

[Lord of the Files]

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.

Missing the point by a country mile

[rickmoen]

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.