Slashdot Mirror
ESR Interview in Fast Company Magazine
srl writes "Fast Company, a magazine that talks a lot about the "new world of work" and how the Net is changing business, has a long interview with ESR in this month's issue. The interview talks about how open-source is changing people's ideas about *why* we should work.
" If you've been looking for a magazine to further educate your PHB [?] , grab this issue. They can read on dead trees about open-source and believe you, because it's in Fast Company, and everyone know dead trees don't lie. *sarcastic grin*
If you cared to look back into pre-Web publications, you'd find that this was enshrined quite some time before as the Peter Principle: "A person tends to be promoted up to their level of incompetence."
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
In fact, this is just another example of the GPL doing its job.
RMS has said many times that the right to modify software in private is one of the essential freedoms of free software.
Excessively closed development of free software is a self-correcting problem. When the GCC developers were not releasing frequently enough, people started a new line of development. The open branch (egcs) won much more developer support. When FSF GCC releases were made, they were merged into the open branch.
The scenario you describe could be a nice model for commercial development of free software. The closed developer could capitalize on its temporary advantage in understanding of its changes, until the open development community became familiar with them. If this means we get more free software, I'm all for it.
If Microsoft is bent on creating a schism in Linux, secret development may be part of their plan. But marketing and bullying will be bigger factors.
Even if Microsoft manages to make their fork of Linux so overwhelmingly popular that the current mainline linux loses all momentum, it's still free software.
AndrewHere is a basic question that perhaps someone a bit more fundamentalist about OSS can answer for me.
What are the bounds of practicality of open source software?
The companies that have been cited as the prime examples of OSS did not and do not make any money from software. They are hardware companies, service companies, or companies that hemmorage VC money.
Is it only these types of enterprises which the OSS model espoused by ESR applies?
After re-reading ESR's CatB and TMC, I have to wonder about the practicality of it to anyone but these very specific types of organizations. ESR doesn't want to answer this; an honest answer would serverely limit his speaking audience, so I put it to you.
On a personal level OSS makes a ton of sense. Alas, the practicalities of aquiring food and shelter require the exchange of money for a large part of my work.
Perhaps most of the commenters here are college students and sysadmins. If that's the case then this question isn't for you.
I cut payroll checks every two weeks for 600 people out of money that the company that I founded and run takes in as revenue on closed source. Don't fucking pretend that in twenty-five words or less that you can teach me anything about the relationship of the dynamics of motivation, money and passion. You can't even handle the fact that people should understand the heritage of the words they use. Go have another beer; it's the most significant thing you can do with the depth of your intellect.
I'm not sure, but I think he just going to talk at this meeting. Of course we won't know for sure until late tomorrow...
Actually, I have heard that he is a "kept man," meaning his spouse works and supports him.
I never said, or suggested, that such a 'hijacking' would stop free software development entirely. I am saying that there's a danger that such a hijacking, combined with determined pursuit of all possible patents, could have two major effects:
- "Linux" would mean 'MS' linux or whoever gains the upper hand as a corporation
- Free software development could be forced not only into obscurity but entirely underground, because on the one hand improper patents can be bought that would prevent public/official work on entire areas of computing, and on the other hand a 'fake Linux' could be produced by hijacking, to confuse the public and _stop_ any inroads that Linux might be making.
If I was Microsoft, and I could be reasonably certain that the GPL applied not to individuals but only to the corporate entity, I would immediately take the opportunity to produce a Linux that was bundled with a great deal of proprietary software- which offered interfaces to Windows APIs. I'd get IE working on it, I'd bundle Office with it, I'd do everything possible to make it THE distribution to have around. The most important factor of this embrace and extend would not be the making an IE for linux- it would be making APIs available at all costs, and dumping the product on the market at a total loss to make damn sure that anybody who wants to make software for 'Linux' would be able to simply write software for Windows and then tell people to use a _particular_ Linux- MS linux! because that was the only 'compatible' version.It worked great for OS/2, and it will work great again. If you don't see the problem here... I don't know. I admit I don't share ESR's enthusiasm to co-assimilate with corporations and big business. As such, I am naturally more concerned at the prospect of a 'protected' way to completely debase the principle of free (libre) software and enable well-heeled corporations to exert added control on the market and the industry.
It seems to me that a risk like this needs to be properly evaluated and taken seriously, and I'm one of the people formerly most fond of saying 'there's nothing to worry about, we have the GPL don't we?'. So many assumptions- that productivity is the only consideration, that 'cathedral' will automatically produce crap that is less robust, that Microsoft's testing process is worse than the distributed Linux bazaar (there are some serious omissions in Linux debugging, such as usability testing), that a heavily funded branded commercial Linux would _not_ damage the Linux market and cause intentional confusion in the mind of the customer... I appreciate the goodvibes but am not convinced. We'll see. And if Microsoft reads this and does what I outlined, they can test out whether the Microsoft Corporation really can move faster than the Open Source Movement. But faster or not- given that sort of opportunity, do you think they cannot take advantage of it, or produce massive success even if they have to half bribe people to do it and half make it all up?
It's idiot netspeak. What could be sadder than trying to use the phrase 'dead trees' to try and sound hip?
... and the US shows pretty mediocre productivity growth (1.1% pa over the past five years, compared to an average of about 2.0% in Europe).
There was an article in the economist a couple of months ago that made an even more distressing analysis: almost all of the productivity growth was due to massive productivity gains in computer hardware (costs of production have been decreasing dramatically). Once these figures are factored out, the only industrial sector showing positive productivity growth was agriculture.
So I think the sketch you draw is legally plausible. Pragmatically, I think it isn't believable: it supposes that MS can permanently stay two steps ahead of the field with every release (implying a massive development effort at perpetual risk of being wrongstepped by the open source community), whose revenue model is profoundly breached by free redistribution.
Great so the main philosopher for OSS/free software is also a castrated dweeb nothing-male. Who has to rely on a woman to support him. Great fucking role model for all geeks.
and add pussy-whipped to that list too
The creation of phbs is a natural social process, it's called The Peter Principle
It basically says that people get promoted until they can't perform the job anymore. then they stay there.
There's also the way people are hired. Most people hire you because they like you (or can tolerate you), and you can basically do the job. Being likeable is a different skill than being capable, but it gets rewarded very often in life.
On this story, as with any story about ESR, all the posts which do not flatter ESR are moderated down. That's Censorship, plain and simple. If anyone really wants to read the comments that don't flatter ESR, they'll have to read all the comments. ESR sure has lots of friends who don't hesitate to moderate down those who don't say nice things about their patron saint.
I'm assuming this magazine is printed on boards. (2x4's, plywood?) Why would PHB's be particularly impressed by this?
Because PHB stands for Plywood Hugging Boss, of course...
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
"the value of a company in the future will be tied to how much value it can offer people on the outside, rather than how much value it can extract from people on the outside. In other words, can companies make it fun, interesting, challenging, and rewarding for people who are not their employees to contribute their time and ideas?"
Huh? Sounds like companies will still need to "extract value" from people on the "outside". Sounds kinda tricky. If a company wants me to contribute time and ideas, it better share some "ownership". How?
example: VISA. ($1.2 trillion in sales last year.) It's an info-age corporation with 30 years experience, growing 20% every year past booms bubbles busts bear bulls. No IPO's, take-overs, buy-outs, trade-outs, shake-outs, raids. Why? It's owned by its members. Shared in "non-transferable rights of participation". Dee Hock, who founded VISA, wanted to extend ownership to merchants and cardholders, but it wasn't possible at the time. Had it been, he believes it would be four times more powerful today.
Key to Visa's success is chaos/organized *open* structure that attracts the by far most valuable (and least used) resource on earth: human ingenuity. call it "chaorganization". read about it here here here
Yes, I would assume this term is popular among tree-huggers and related crowd.
I think this post should be moderated way up.
It deserves that.
prove that you can't motivate the best people with money. If you can't demonstrate that's true, then you are wrong. You're wrong. demonstrate that this is true while you're at it. If you can't demonstrate it, then you're wrong again. What the chuff is this content-free reasoning all about? I don't understand; it reads like some sort of bizarre machine-generated argument. Go ahead and "demonstate" that there isn't "a new kind of passion", then. If you can. If you can't demonstrate in a concrete way that there is no new kind of passion, then the opposite must be true, by this argument, yes? FWIW, I definitely feel some new kind of, er, well, passion I suppose. I feel much more motivated to write software now than, say, a few years ago, when I'd more or less given up the idea of publishing any software ever again. In particular, I've started a project now that I simply could not write on my own. Because I know other can help with the bits I'm not capable of doing. Even my seven-year-old son would be able to see past the juvenile bullshit... ect ect. Yeah. Could you try to outline a counterargument which amount to more than simply "You are wrong because you are not right and therefore you are wrong, fule"? Cheers.
Have any studies been done relating the percentage of PHB's in upper-management of a company with the success of that company? Unless PHB's really do benefit a company in some way (upper management communication?), I would hope that they would eventually be naturally selected out.
:P
Since everyone seems to hate the PHB, I wonder how they get hired/promoted in the first place. I would have to say that a company with a large amount of PHB's amounts to a house of cards..there'd be no way that I would want to work for that kind of company, because eventually, something would be thrown at it that it could not handle.
In the meantime, I've found a way to deal with PHB's, keep a technical manager between you and them at all times.
If anyone's interested and in the Midwest. ESR will be speaking at the Mizzou LUG this weekend in Columbia, Missouri. You can get the details at http://expo.missouri.edu
It's interesting how the world's work ethic is changing now. It used to be that we put in a forty hour week and drew a check, and after that, we went home. Now, the individual worker has the attitude of an artist, that the work he does should be a value to others. We take that pride in what we do, and although we might become workaholics because of it, the entire society benefits? Why? Because of the inevitable increase in quality.
I read a statistic last week that said on average, Americans work more than any other group of people in the world. This was shocking, because the Japanese have held this title for years now. It would be neat if someone could link the results of this statistic to the booming success of Open Source.
But seriously, I think that what has happened to the world to make us proud of our work is for the best. We are a group of people who are producing quality products at quicker rates and we are doing it for free. The Open Source Community is setting the stage for a change over the entire world!
Brad Johnson
Advisory Editor
Brad Johnson
Raymond is a visible and vocal advocate of open-source software -- a radically
different approach to software development that has produced,
most famously, the Linux operating system, the Apache Web server,
and the Perl scripting language.
So you people who were annoyed that Apache, as an Open-Source success, never got a mention seem to have been heard somewhere.
He says:
"If you know that thousands of people will be scrutinizing your work and that the errors you make will almost certainly be spotted, and if you care about your reputation, then you will take great pains to create error-free work."
This is the same dynamic encountered by reputable and successful journalists. To me that suggests that the press and open source development have much more in common than initially meets the eye.
Automatic Sites, LLC
Think again - Fast Company is a lifestyle magazine for people who admire the image of business...i.e., MBA students.
Unless you actually beleive "people are brands!!", its hard to read this magazine without laughing out loud.
One of the things he points out, which I think that many PHBs don't get, is that programming is a creative process. We often allow ourselves to think that technical thinking and creative thinking are on opposite ends of a spectrum, but that just isn't so. Hacking -- programming in particular -- is very much a creative process, where we manage to encapsulate leaps of logic into a logical framework. This is why we tend to be so passionate about our work, because art and passion are inevitably linked, and we are artists in our own right
This interview allows ESR to reiterate so many of the things he said in Homesteading the Noosphere: Open Source is a forum where we geeks can indulge in a little self-agrandizment. We can say "Look at what I did!" to a community that understands why it is that what we did is cool.
I really like his notion that the company of the future will concetrate more on how much value it can offer to people on the outside, rather than how much value it can extract from people on the inside. This is the kind of image some companies today are already trying to display, but few actually live up to.
I've been really excited by the headway that Open Source is making into more "traditional" business circles these days. I don't think it will be much longer before we begin to see its promise realized a higher and higher levels. Really, we're already beginning to see it, as the examples of Cisco and IBM that ESR mentions show.
--
Ernest MacDougal Campbell III / NIC Handle: EMC3
Ernest MacDougal Campbell III
geek ramblings
if Mr. Malda doesnt, perhaps we should, or perhaps anyway, because while I understand slashdot has to be a little more mainstream now that it is 'big' and owned by someone else, the nerdcore still needs a quality site fo its own. I hate apostrophes.
Company : Brand
The Coca Cola Company : Coke, Surge,etc...
3Com : Palm
Intel : Pentium
Oreilly & Assoc. : Larry Wall, Perl
Transmeta : Linus
Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is a PHB?
>Can't you spell 'paper'?
Paper? What's that... oh, wait! I know! It's that white flat stuff that's ejected from those ink-machines. Sometimes I have to use an ink-machine to present something to my professors. Oh, well...
The Dilbert principle states: If you are *bad* at your current job, you will be promted to a PHB job so you can't do any harm.
The Peter principle states: If you are *good* at your job you will be promoted to do a different job. Repeat until you reach a job that you're not good at. Stop. This is more or less the oposite of the Dilbert principle.
The Dilbert principle is intended to be funny (but as was noted, there is nothing funny about how popular Dilbert is). The Peter principal is based on observation.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
I assume/hope/prey that everybody here is a "Homo sapiens var. sapiens...
Z
It's hip netspeak.
Like snail mail.
The first rule of PHB is, you don't talk about PHB. The second rule of PHB is, you don't talk about PHB.
Starting around the "September that would not end", there was a "company" called Cyberpromo, which would send out mass email to any email address they could find on usenet, and anywhere else they could find.
This email promoted their services in several ways, including "Email uses no trees." Other dubious claims about low cost to send, and high response rates were also included. None of those were accurate, but they all seemed to imply the better "economy" of sending junk email versus junk postal mail. Almost everyone on the net at the time got at least one copy of that message. Perhaps the "dead trees" saying came about as a response to the "save trees" meme having been spread all around the net by a truly annoying company that wouldn't take "Stop sending email" for an answer.
Then again, dead trees have been around longer than paper. Originally, it was more like "dead papyrus plants."
--
All is not yet^W^W lost.
"There are no patents, no trade secrets, no intellectual-property protections whatsoever. That's because no one person or company "owns" the software. A global, volunteer army of programmers create the software."
We would all like to believe that, but there might be a problem, and we need to have some lawyers' opinions on it. There would appear to be a loophole- maybe.
I've been having an argument with 'Fastolfe' in another Slashdot article, over application of the GPL, and he has raised a point that seems to have never occurred to anyone- and that could be fatal to the GPL and software using it. It has to do with a certain non-commonsense but possibly binding interpretation of what is a legal entity.
My argument was that regardless of context, a person conveying binary to another person was 'distribution', and the person distributing was subject to all the rules of the GPL. This includes being forbidden to work on the code if other restrictions prevented the person from living up to the GPL's rules. All this is in the GPL, and I read it literally as legal wording is meant to be read. It appeared to me that if a corporation was placing NDAs on internal developers, that this would forbid the developers from working on GPLed code unless they were allowed to follow the GPL's restrictions and got permission to distribute as individuals.
Under that interpretation, the GPL is bulletproof, and will 'route' information around attempts to block it. In any situation it would take only a single person to get information past a block, and all people cooperating on a private dev project would have to be keeping it private _voluntarily_ and could not be coerced without becoming unable to develop under the GPL at all. This is very obviously the _intent_ of the license. Unfortunately, there's a problem.
Fastolfe's position was this: a corporation is considered a legal entity. If a corporation has GPLed code, it can work on it in private as much as it likes, and only has to give source and let other people into its process when it feels like it. Furthermore, it is allowed to restrict its employees and forbid them to share information with the outside world, because for the purposes of the license agreement the code is being worked on by the corporation (a legal entity), and not the individuals. As such, the individuals can work on the code without personal liability as they are not working on it 'as themselves' but as parts of the corporation- and of course the whole point of a corporation is to do exactly this.
This is fatal to open source/free software, and in particular it is death to the GPL.
It's a question of practical distributed development. The reason the GPL works in the open source community is that people let each other into their process- even so, there is concern that a larger company like Red Hat will 'take over' by beginning to define what Linux must be. It is thought that this is impossible because of the GPL and the tendency of hackers to cooperate.
If corporations are able to work on GPLed source as themselves, it's as simple as this: Microsoft takes Linux. Microsoft develops an internal version of Linux, under tight wraps, as is their 'right' as a corporate entity, forbidding developers from communicating with others under harsh penalties, as is their right to make NDAs and restrict their employees. Microsoft then takes to releasing versions of Linux, as well-crafted as they can, using their own resources for distribution and promotion, and including whatever they need to (IE, Office) to make it the only distribution to own. The code that was originally GPL remains GPL, and source is duly released for only the _frozen_ and completed releases of the binaries- anyone attempting to interact with the GPLed code is told, quite legally, "That doesn't work with the current developer version, which is NDAed. If you're good we can hire you, you can sign the NDA, become _part_ of the corporate entity, and _then_ you can see it!".
As such, the corporation would be completely within the law and the GPL in hijacking development of GPLed source and 'leading' by ability to promote and distribute a particular version, flood the market with it. Anybody would be able to take final versions and do variations on them, but it would be trivially easy to make the MS version incompatible with any other version, because the active development would be under tight control.
The ONE point that would make all this possible is simply this: Is a corporate employee working on GPLed source the individual to whom the license applies, or is the corporation the one to whom the license applies and the individual 'insulated' from its effects?
That one question could change the world, and right now, I couldn't begin to guess what the legal answer truly is. The GPL is clearly aimed at applying to individuals, but the very concept of the corporation is aimed at 'shielding' individuals from exactly such obligations as the GPL attempts to impose. And if the corporation ends up able to legally and contractually maintain totally insulated GPLed development, Linux and any significant GPLed software is inevitably going to fork into mainstream corporate versions and the niche free versions we now know.
HELP! Is there a lawyer in the house, or anyone who can get it legally established that corporations cannot 'seize' GPLed source and fork it into 'corporate entity' owned development? This is a problem waiting to happen, and it does NOT seem that the answer is obviously favorable to open source. It could be fatal to open source as we know it.
All of these people have developed key technologies, and thats part of who they are, but they are people, not brands.
I would hope that if you spend 8 hours a day, you'd at least enjoy what you're doing. Let's face it, that's at least 1/3rd of your life. Already there is increasing blurring between work and home with the arrival of mobile phones and laptops. The problem is that there are still many jobs that a dull but necessary. Somebody has to go around cleaning stuff, somebody has to go around flogging pizzas, some poor soul will be stuck in a sweatshope factory trying to earn a living for their family. If there was a surplus of IT workers (and corresponding salary drop) would there be as much enthusiasm? How easy is it to get passionate about the next database? One hope is that OpenSource is the ultimate free market, you choose your job and (hopefully) if you're good at it, you get picked up by a commercial mob. In this sense, you effectively make your own employment if you can figure out an area of the noosphere which is important but nobody has realised it yet.
... the ultimate CV. Imagine employors saying "Show me the source".
I can imagine the future now, Linux
LL
Umm, sounds like you're saying that
(A -> B) -> (A -> !B)
which is incorrect.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Why do people use this expression? It sounds stupid and makes them sound stupid. Can't you spell 'paper'?
No, I'm not. You are generalizing, incorrectly I'll say, but I'm not doing such a thing. Read it again.
I'm assuming this magazine is printed on boards. (2x4's, plywood?) Why would PHB's be particularly impressed by this?
you are all homos for saying such things.
Apparently he mixed up these two basic thoughts: a> "Peer review also prevents mistakes from being made...", and b> "Peer review [results in] fewer mistakes being made...". Not faulty logic, just uncareful word selection I'd say. You've done it too, as have we all.
Damn straight! And well spoken, too!
I hate apostrophes too. Andspaces. FucktheMan!!!
Oh yeah? Well you were indeed drawn into the circle-jerk, and you need to replace that 5 with a 3, buster.
I wonder if ESR has a family. After looking at his homepage and all the stuff he is involved in it really makes me doubt it. IF HE DOES NOT I can eaisly see how all his personal philosophies about OSS and stuff are such a distortion of reality based on his own personal views and biases.
Lets take a small guess: Hi I am fourty something with no dependants. I can basically do anything I want with my time and energy with no consequences to anyone except myself. I can take risks that no person with dependants could never imagine. I can spout out papers and such because I never have to care about being blackballed from the industry because it will only effect me. I set up and run a non-profit business so I have much less to worry about then other business owners, not to mentoin it makes a great tax shelter for my own personal gain.
Its not hard to take risks and live your life 100% free if you do not have anyone depending on you for food and shelter. I am not about to risk my 83k + medical + 401k + stock options job for some ideal, especially not with a family to support.
Realise this, if there was no money in software developemtn, there would be no incentive for the bean counters to fund money for software. Or the flip side, if money only came from support, you would be encouraged to produce buggy software to produce support revenues. Yeah thats good, Sun and IBM OSS all their projects and only provide support. I like writing software and getting paid for it. I don't like providing support. Who the hell is gonna write the software if nobodies gonna get paid for it.
Go talk to a bean counter or an MBA if you don't beleive me. In fact spend 3 years working side by side with them to actually see the naievety of ERS's view. We can talk about this all we want, but it still the MBA's who do the hiring and firing at the top level. Get used to it, it aint gonna change, ever, period. They are 100% determined to keep control and it will stay that way.
ESR and all the rest can dream on.
BTW if he does have a family and pulls this stuff, I'd say he has BIG BALLS OF STEEL.
interesting that raymond is so quick to make that particular analogy (open-source--media) and so quick to dismiss the analogy (indeed, the whole article) between open-source and the scientific community written by nikolai bezroukov (anyone remembers that?)
well, maybe he had a bad day that day. at any rate, this interview sounds more like the professional eric. again, not like the eric that threw a tantrum when publicly challenged by bruce perens on that whole apple licence thing.
gee, it just struck me--maybe if people would simply stop doubting eric's cleverness, we could actually benefit from his discerning (There's nothing funny about the popularity of "Dilbert." Companies should take that more seriously than they seem to. ) social commentary.
&
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
When someone, ESR included, asserts something, then he owes us either logic or examples to back it up. When anyone, me included, evaluates that assertion, they are entitled to view the logic that is the foundation of the assertion and/or examples that support it. These are supplied by (surprise!) the person making the assertion. That's the way it works in a sane (as in rational, logical, ordered, predictable) world. In an upsidedown world, the one ESR thrives in, and the one you seem to prefer, there is no such requirement of logic or example as the foundation for any assertion. There is, instead, a responsibility thrust by every person making whatever assertion they choose upon every person who is exposed to that assertion to get to work disproving it. In this world, it is up to everyone who is not an open source fanatic to prove that open source does not work, and that everything ESR says is bologna. Well, I choose to live in the first world, one of logic and one where "if you say it, you better back it up". You cannot taunt me into choosing to live in a world where it is up to me to expose the bogus nature of all the unfounded assertions that ESR makes. ESR often says that all software that is not open source "sucks". I'll be goddamned if I'll spend one minute of my life proving he's wrong. He has the burden of proving that he's right. And of course he's full of shit. Do you think you understand this any better now? and, its "etc.", not "ect". "etc" is an abbreviation for "et cetera", which is Latin for "and the rest".
To the A.C. who released this stream of vitriol:
Your argument relies on the premise that the best people can all (demonstrably and primarily) be motivated by money.
Without geting into the semantics of what constitutes motivation, we could probbaly agree that money is only one of many possible incentives to do just about anything. Some people want to feel powerful, some people want to do nothing but examine the world around them with curiosity, some people want to be known far and wide, some people want to pass on their genes as often as possible, et cetera. (Please, do enlighten us with your knowledge of Latin.)
I'm all for programmers getting money for the work they do, if that is the way they choose to define their worth. Just like I'm all for artists selling their work, if that's what they want to do. But any programmer who also (or only) creates work that is free for the use and perusal of others I think deserves commendation as well, if that is how to choose to release it.
ESR doesn't seem to be holding any whips (or handguns, a la Atlas Shrugged*) denying programmers compensation. He's just pointing out that Open Source can be a smart way for things to get done, because the open source method invites critique, review and improvement.
Your 7-year-old would probably understand; when you grow up you might too.
Cordially,
timothy
*(Though he does as a private citizen.)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Chris, you've missed something, I believe. As ESR points out in the interview, no matter how many smart people you can afford to employ, the great majority of them will remain beyond your reach. This means the cathedral GPL hijackers in your/Fastolfe's example will eventually fall behind the main line of development. Their software will be less robust, due to their weaker testing process - fewer eyeballs and fewer developers mean they'd at best enjoy limited success, in my opinion. Your concerns are predicated on this theoretical 'cathedralising fork' enjoying massive success, and I just don't see it. It could be a problem, *if* it happened, but no more so, and perhaps less than any other fork would be. This fork would possess the same qualities as NT does now - and Linux is making inroads on NT. You might as well argue that Microsoft could do the same thing simply by open-sourcing their base OS. Not.
*Since everyone seems to hate the PHB, I wonder how they get hired/promoted in the first place* Actually, the dilbert principal, as laid out by Scott Adams, states that the natural evolution of organizations is to promote the least competent people out of technical positions where they might do harm and into PHB roles where they concern themselves with meaningless managerial tasks of minimal importance to the organization. On it's surface this appears to be a humorous jab at PHB types, unfortunately there is a great deal of evidence to support the truth of Adam's theory.
You don't follow perl that closely do you?
No, I don't.
Perl5 is actively maintained by someone other than Larry. Perl6 is being written by someone other than Larry.
That's the beauty of open source, isn't it? Larry Wall is not perl. He couldn't stop perl if he wanted to.
People are not just brands, but they can be used for branding purposes. Perl has benefitted because Larry Wall is an excellent spokesperson. Oreilly has benefitted because Larry Wall is an excellent brand.
In the very first line he says "You can't motivate the best people with money." Well, Eric, prove that you can't motivate the best people with money. If you can't demonstrate that's true, then you are wrong. If I can demonstrate that the best people can be motivated by money, then you are wrong. You're wrong. Then he talks about passion, and how there's a new kind of passion on the face of the earth lately. Well, demonstrate that this is true while you're at it. If you can't demonstrate it, then you're wrong again. And you are wrong, again. It's easy to fool a lot of the people, Eric, but you simply can't fool those of us who know that you didn't invent the idea that the world's best and the world's rest-of-us have been passionate since time immemorial about what we do with our lives, about what we create and about earning as much money as we can for doing it, including writing great software during the last 50 years. Even my seven-year-old son would be able to see past the juvenile bullshit that ESR spreads all over the place, if he were exposed to it. Gang, the real world works a lot better than ESR imagines it does, and is filled with people who are a lot more motivated, passionate and proud of their work than he portrays that they are. Open Source did not build this world. It was build by many generations of people who could teach ESR a very great deal about passion, quality, dedication and WORK. Open Source is only what it is, and it is no more something new in history than the Age of Aquarius turned out to be - just a quaint little idea that the simple-minded grabbed on to for a little while. Y'all can do better than to keep trying to cream your shorts with the shallow rhetoric of this leprechaun.