Anyone in the free software/open source/your descriptive tag here community who is referred to by initials only. has an outsize ego.
I read "JWZ"'s post and why is he resigning. I wish him only the best. His role in creating the Mozilla project is enough of an accomplishment to make him worthy of entering the free software hall of fame.
But enough with the ego, guys. "Le project c'est moi" is the exact opposite of what the free software movement is all about. It's about community and sharing. No one individual, not even Linus Torvalds is irreplaceable. If anyone goes away, many more will come in his/her (we need more of these) place, of equal talent, to carry on.
I've worked in corporate environments, so I certainly understand Mr. Z's frustrations, and his fear of working under AOL. So as a personal decision, I'm sure he did the right thing. But then he made the egotistical mistake of confusing his own personal feelings, hurts and needs as somehow being identical with those of the project he helped create.
As a potential USER of Mozilla, sure I'm frustrated that it's not there yet. But as an owner of a development company which lives and dies with Internet standards, I am thrilled by the quite brave decision of Mozilla to go with standards instead of continuing down the dead end path it started. Moreover, that decision is in the best interest of the free software community at large, since ultimately open standards are what will preserve and protect our freedom.
So we have to wait a few more months. Big deal. In the end of the day, the new lean, mean, standards-based Mozilla will blow away IE and be the tool we are all waiting for. To call Mozilla a failure, is a very short sighted comment, related to ego issues and not to reality.
I am not a big believer in ad hominem discussions. The merit of a position stands and falls on its own validity, not on who says it. I preface my comment with this statement, because in general I work very hard in my postings to stick to the ideas not the people behind them. But since Mr. Raymond laid down the ad hominem gauntlet in this latest letter, I have no choice to respond in kind.
It is true, that people relate to people more than to abstract ideas. So any political or philosophical position needs a spokesperson to have it spread and be accepted in a broader forum.
Anyone who takes on that role, must be prepared for all the aspects that go with "spokespersonhood". A good part of that is being criticized, fairly or not, not just for what you say, but how you say it and what you do. It's part of the territory. Those who are being "represented" can justifiably hold their leaders to a higher standard. For if you are going to speak in MY name (especially if I didn't choose you to do so), then you damn well better be equal or better than me, in every way. A leader should be a source of inspiration, someone people look up to, not someone who shames us by their words or actions.
Unfortunately, many, if not all leaders, become totally identified in their own minds with their ideas. They take attacks on their positions as personal attacks. It is very hard to avoid this egotistical disease.
In fact, in the world of free software, the ONLY leader who so far has managed to avoid this, and given his nature probably always will, is Linus Torvald. Nick Peterley compared him to Tom Bombadil - a man over whom the ring of power has no influence. What an apt description. Linus is in fact a holy man, an exceptional human being whose ego is just the right size.
Eric Raymond, however, isn't. It is clear from this latest diatribe that the fact that many people strongly disagreed with calling the Apple APSL as open source, got his goat. He took the attack on Apple as a personal attack on himself. I read alot of the discussions. There were lots of strong opinions, but very little that can be characterized as ad hominem attacks on Raymond as such. His reaction in this letter can only be characterized as pitiful for a man who wants to be a leader.
In this "response", Mr. Raymond has resorted to the cheapest of demagoguery. The sad part is that so many people fell into his trap. Basically, what Raymond is saying in his letter is I am a god and anybody who criticizes me is a worthless ingrate. Instead of responding to the merit of the arguments against his positions, Mr. Raymond resorts to threats and insults to silence those who disagree with him. In a fit of pique worthy of a four year old, he says that if those worthless little ingrates (presumably on/.) dare to attack his positions, then he's going to take his toys and go home.
Quite frankly, I am willing to bet anyone on this list that Raymond isn't going home so fast. It is quite clear from his letter that he enjoys the "face time" (what an ugly expression) with such "luminaries" as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos, and all the other "perks". Well good for him. But that shouldn't stop anyone from standing up and speaking the truth when the truth needs to be said, even if that truth is uncomfortable for a man who just exposed himself to the world as being egotistical, childish and unworthy of leading an intellectual revolution as important as the free software movement.
The trend in the software industry over the past couple of years has proven the exact opposite: namely pure software companies trying to sell proprietary shrink-wrapped tools have more and more difficulty surviving. One reason is simple: develop any truly worthwhile idea and Microsoft will embrace it and destroy you. Netscape is just the latest victim. The other reason is that software is more and more becoming a commodity. Any idea you come up with will instantly be followed by others offering more, better, cheaper, faster. The competitive environment makes generating profits through software virtually impossible.
Most important however: customers don't want code - they want a solution to their problem. More and more people are beginning to realize this and understand they don't want to buy computers or software, but want to buy a system or service that gets done what they need done. Hence the market is demanding service not products.
It is for this reason that major corporations like Oracle and IBM are moving into the service model. True they did services in the past, but now both these companies are positioning themselves as 100% ecommerce service companies (IBM has a double reason to do this, since hardware is also becoming a commodity).
What does an inidividual programmer to do?
If you are not cut out to work directly with customers you have two alternatives:
If you like the corporate environment, go work for one of the many major corporations following this trend. More and more of them will be supporting and developing open source projects. Or else find partners who know how to relate to people.
If you believe you are good enough to develop your own products, and have basic social skills, then choose a niche, develop a solution for that niche and give the source away. Customers will pay you for access to that solution. You can charge using a rental model, where you deal with all the upgrades etc. so they dont have to.
In short, making the code free does not mean you can't make money off of your efforts. On the contrary, it offers you the many free software resources that allows you to compete without having billions to spend on R&D.
I think RMS rightly stresses the most important issue in evaluating these licenses - the community value or contribution. Those who support the APSL have branded its opponents as religious fanatics, or ingrates or, horror of horrors, SOCIALISTs. The fact is, if you are uncomfortable talking about values, than as a rabid, greedy little capitalist, you should support RMS's position purely out of self interest.
Besides all the semantical and legal issues, the key reason to oppose the APSL is that it exploits rather than contributes. Open source, free software, whatever you want to call it, works not because of some radical Maoist theory, but because the more one gives the more one gets. Pure and simple. The APSL and its ilk are zero sum games - Apple wins and you lose (even worse, if Apple loses, you lose even more).
The argument that working on the APSL will help those who use Apple hardware is spurious. LinuxPPC does just that and is truly free. It is also a better practical alternative, as it makes instantly available the huge and growing body of Linux compatible source code. The argument that working on APSL furthers the development of micro-kernel based OSes is even more spurious. AS RMS points out you can't incorporate Apple code freely into other products. Bettter to work on Hurd. In short, the only one who benefits by developers working on APSL is Apple.
As for criticism scaring away corporations from open source, I can only say big effing deal. Why are so many of you so insecure that you need the validation of a corporation to see the practical (if not the social) value in free software? Corporations that get it will learn to play by the rules and make a real contibution (that's why Netscape is good IMHO). A little flaming wont scare them away. Those who don't, well who needs them. Free software will continue to flourish and grow with or without these corporations. Those who buy into the model will flourish along with it. Those who want to toady up with the capitalist free-roaders should buy and use NT.
Flame Disclaimer: For the humorless amongst you who probably wont get it, all references to "capitalists" and "socialists" in the above, was written using mild irony.
When I read some of the flames here against RMS and Bruce Perens and other advocates of a purer model of Open Source, I am amazed at the vitriol, anger, even hatred that's expressed. I'm also amazed at the total cluelessness about the political and economic issues involved.
First the Politics
Critics love to brand RMS as a flaming socialist, along with Jon Katz and now Perens. Hmmm...I thought this type of political smear went out with McCarthy, but apparently there remains a certain segment of the American public still stuck in the 50s.
Of course, RMS et al represent the true spirit of American democracy as laid out by the founding fathers, not only in their words, but in their deeds. May I remind you all, that it was no less then Ben Franklin who came up with this beautiful idea that knowledge should be freely available by all, and created the first Public Library. If anyone is the spiritual father of the free software movement, it is this great scientist, philosopher.
No doubt, those who oppose RMS must also view libraries as the epitome of socialism - after all it is taxpayer dollars, for godsakes, buying books and distributing them freely! What an affront to the American way of life, I can hear these critics ranting.
The fundamental flaw in these critics thinking, is their total lack of understanding of American democracy. The American democratic ideal is not the Greek one, which is mere majority rule, even where the majority is an elite. American democracy is founded on the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...for all citizens. Minority rights and the needs of the less fortunate must also be taken into consideration to ensure they too, share in the public weal. Absolute liberty, and the tyranny of the majority are not part of the American democratic ideal. Too brand the politics behind free software as socialism, shows a total lack of political sophistication.
Economics
Free software as espoused by RMS is also attacked as economically unrealistic and a detriment to financial success. I have news for those folks who still believe they can make money creating proprietary packaged software: you're doomed to failure.
There are two reasons for this: 1. Technology is a commodity 2. The Web has changed the model
What point 1 means is that if you come up with any technology idea today, tomorrow there will be 12 implementations of the same thing cheaper, better, faster than yours. And besides, Microsoft will end up doing the same thing and giving it away for free, until you are crushed and disappear.
What point 2 means is the move away from a computer-centric model to a computing-centric model. The fact is, that except for hobbyists, nerds and geeks, most people don't want PCs. Who wants to be a computer operator, installing software packages, tweaking this and diddling with that. People want COMPUTING not computers. Before the advent of the Web, people didn't have a choice - they needed computers to get computing. But the WEB HAS CHANGED THE MODEL. Now I can get my computing off the web - all I need is a browser client device, and I have access to all the computing I need!
These two trends together mean one thing: the packaged software model is dead, capute, extinct.
So if you can't make money selling packaged software, how do you make money? By selling services! Companies and individuals will still need programmers to create these web based services for them.
IBM gets this. IBM failed miserably competing with Microsoft selling packaged software. Fortunately for them, Gerstner is a smart guy. He understood the trends. So IBM doesn't concentrate anymore on selling software. Their whole ebusiness image campaign is all about selling services. Because IBM gets it, and becaused they understand they will not be making money selling packaged software, they have more whole heartedly embraced the open source model (of course, they still have vestiges of their old corporate mentality, hence the Jikes license).
What does this mean for the individual programmer? Well if its good enough for IBM (who certainly can't be labeled socialists), it should be good enough for you. But how can you compete with all those giants? All that free software out there provides you with this huge R&D department that puts you on an equal competitive basis with these huge corporations! So, exactly contrary to the critics, free software enhances the individual programmers competitive edge, not detracts from it. It is in your economic interest, not just your moral interest, to extend the base of free software (in the RMS sense) and NOT keep your code proprietary.
What is truly amazing is that RMS envisioned this nearly 15 years ago!
Because I wouldn't have to shell out $300 for the "Nexstep-derived" GUI and live with the million and one bugs the proprietary GUI wrapper will add to the stable UNIX base. Actually, from what I understand the GUI is MAC-derived. For an open-source Nextep-derived GUI try Afterstep. And as I said in another post those "indications" about performance, are Apple marketing hype, not the real thing. Finally, if you want a really elegant user interface, try GNOME/icewm.
Whose benchmarks are these? From what I understood these come from an Apple arranged demo, not some independent tester. Are you sure the machines compared are indeed "comperable"? Are you sure Apple didn't do some special tweaking to the OS X while leaving the rest out of the box? One benchmark hyped by Apple does not mean this is the "truth." You have to be out of your mind to base any decision based on a marketing benchmark by ANY company.
And I never said you shouldn't look at the code. I just said you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
...and neither do all of you who are involved in detailed arguments of the license terms.
GNU/Linux is a raving success not because it's open source. Open source is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. Even the GPL is only a necessary not sufficient condition. GNU/Linux has succeeded because everyone who uses it and everyone who CONTRIBUTES to it benefits equally. This is the community benefit factor, and it is the necessary and sufficient condition. It is more important than the exact terms of the licence. I think this is the point RMS tries to hammer home with his use of the term free. Free benefits everyone.
Take Mozilla. Since the browser client is essential to the Internet economy, having a free version of it was critical to the future growth of GNU/Linux. So Netscape's putting it out there had 100% community benefit. The license, while it may not be perfect, is good enough. Even if AOL/Netscape kills Mozilla.org tomorrow, the code is out there forever. The GNU/Linux community will take it over and make it grow, cutting lose any proprietary strings AOL/Netscape might hold. But the key point is the community benefit. Netscape did us all a huge favor and deserves our thanks and kudos.
Darwin is YAUC - yet another unix clone. BSD-variants, Linux, MkLinux, that other Mach project someone mentioned (not to mention all the proprietary UNICES) - these aren't enough? Who needs YAUC? No one but Apple, to get their truly sucky hardware to work. (don't jump on me for this statement: PPC is a Motorola/IBM product - not an Apple product. Apple boxes suck big time). There is zero community benefit from Darwin. So even if the license is pristine GPL who cares? Apple is looking for free developers without giving anything back. Go make LinuxPPC better. Go make MkLinux better. That will at least help the community of people (like us btw) who are stuck with old Apple's and don't know what to do with 'em. But Darwin? Puhleeese!
So in the future, when you see some corporation putting something out there as open source, don't niggle about the license details. If the license is good enough to allow some future fork to be liberated and GPLed that's all you need. The key criterion whether to praise or damn should be the community benefit.
I've browsed through these comments and here is my take: It is clear that anyone who ever worked with Apple knows what a sucky company it is. Only the naive and truly innocent seem to be enthusiastic about this.
Apple is a company that changes directions every 6 months. Its headquarter's name, Infinite Loop, is quite an accurate description of how the company is run. But I don't think this is a reflection of evil. I don't think Apple screws its developers and partners on purpose. While others might see conspiracy, I see absolute incompetence. Apple has raised incompetence to an art form. I won't regale you with the details of a meeting I had once with Apple. Suffice it to say I left open-mouthed, in awe of the level of incompetence displayed from the minute I walked into one of the Infinite Loop buildings. One amusing anecdote - I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to my meeting, cause the guy had moved desks (as part of one Apple's infinite loo-reshuffles), and the phone system just couldn't deal with it. It was downhill from there....
Why argue over this? Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.
Darwin is an apt name here. The lower life forms will migrate to the loser Apple, and end up as an extinct species. The more realistic and intelligent species will work on the only free OS around - Linux, which will continue to evolve from strength to strength.
Yes. A few years ago Apple and IBM announced several joint development programs, including Kalaida (sp?) and Taligent both of which died quite ugly deaths.
I can't beleive anyone took this comment seriously. It is obviously satire. Look at all the sarcasm and humor:
"Linux needs professional programmers" like those of Apple who spent years writing an OS replacement that never got out the door? or those of Microsoft who spent years trying to get NT to be a scaleable OS, and are drowning in their own code?
"Linux needs mindshare" go to CNET and do a search on Apple. Then do a search on Linux. I got 500 for the former and 237 for the latter. Not bad for a hippy OS. A year from now you will see the ratio reversed. Anyone heavly into Macs as production machines knows Apple is a loser company, with loser products and is rapidly sliding into oblivion. So this was obviously a satiric comment.
"MACOSX takes over and transforms the Internet server world" ROTFLPIMP! This HAS to be the funniest line I've read all week. This guy is really funny.
"Apple has the corporate culture"...what an oxymoron. And applying it to Apple yet! (Anyone out there ever try to do business with them...they somehow manage to merge the worst of California laid back culture with Soviet style bureaucracy). Another hilarious line.
"Linux HAS slowed down"...obviously, with the release of 2.2. and not one, but 2 superior GUIs, and all those great GNOME apps in the pipeline and... And did you get that line about Apple having "the perfect GUI, RIGHT in every respect" - another biting satiric comment. I mean who in their RIGHT minds would ever DREAM of wanting multiple desktops that you can switch between instantly (well, you know on the MAC NOTHING is instant, so this feature wouldn't really be very useful), or choice of window managers (you mean I get to THINK for myself?) or a window pager (you mean using the tiny little icon in the corner isn't the best way to switch between apps?) or editable menus, or configurable panels (multiple) or....
I mean, this is satire right? You didn't write this seriously, did you? Nobody could be THAT stupid, not even the most religious Mac fanatic. You ARE joking?
I thought Jon's article to be excellent, although there are a few points I would quible with.
First of all, I don't think the net is the most radical technology ever to be created by human society. Think of the dislocations the following inventions caused:
control of fire the wheel the steam engine telephone control of electricity transistor
Every age likes to thing of itself as the "mostest" in human history. Fact is I don't think there are many things that were invented over the past 30 years that were truly dislocating. Email isn't a radical form of communication vis-a-vis alternatives that already existed. It amy be more convenient or faster, but it isn't a dislocating technology. The telephone was. We all think of the telpehone as something mundane, we take it for granted. But it was truly civilization changing invention.
Moreover, the fear of technology destroying its creator is not a twentieth century invention by any means. i would go back to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, but that's not going back far enough. She was certainly influenced by the myth of the Golem and many similar myths in many human cultures. Human society has always feared technology and change, no doubt going back to the days when humans first created tools.
Having said that, Jon is 100% correct in noting that the pace of technology ebbs and flows, and that in periods of rapid change fear and resentment (which often generates malicious mystical religious fervor) grow. The Open Source movement is a direct descendant of 18th century enlightment philosophy which believed that the spread of knowledge is the best way to allow human society to control its destiny. The American founding fathers were greatly influenced by this philosophy. It is no coincidence that the radical religious right tries to undermine the public school system, which should be the means of public enlightment (in the 18th century sense, not in the New Age sense).
Those of us involved in Internet technology should dedicate ourselves to use it as a tool for empowerment and education in the best sense of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
I am about to coin a new law:
Anyone in the free software/open source/your descriptive tag here community who is referred to by initials only. has an outsize ego.
I read "JWZ"'s post and why is he resigning. I wish him only the best. His role in creating the Mozilla project is enough of an accomplishment to make him worthy of entering the free software hall of fame.
But enough with the ego, guys. "Le project c'est moi" is the exact opposite of what the free software movement is all about. It's about community and sharing. No one individual, not even Linus Torvalds is irreplaceable. If anyone goes away, many more will come in his/her (we need more of these) place, of equal talent, to carry on.
I've worked in corporate environments, so I certainly understand Mr. Z's frustrations, and his fear of working under AOL. So as a personal decision, I'm sure he did the right thing. But then he made the egotistical mistake of confusing his own personal feelings, hurts and needs as somehow being identical with those of the project he helped create.
As a potential USER of Mozilla, sure I'm frustrated that it's not there yet. But as an owner of a development company which lives and dies with Internet standards, I am thrilled by the quite brave decision of Mozilla to go with standards instead of continuing down the dead end path it started. Moreover, that decision is in the best interest of the free software community at large, since ultimately open standards are what will preserve and protect our freedom.
So we have to wait a few more months. Big deal. In the end of the day, the new lean, mean, standards-based Mozilla will blow away IE and be the tool we are all waiting for. To call Mozilla a failure, is a very short sighted comment, related to ego issues and not to reality.
I am not a big believer in ad hominem discussions. The merit of a position stands and falls on its own validity, not on who says it. I preface my comment with this statement, because in general I work very hard in my postings to stick to the ideas not the people behind them. But since Mr. Raymond laid down the ad hominem gauntlet in this latest letter, I have no choice to respond in kind.
/.) dare to attack his positions, then he's going to take his toys and go home.
It is true, that people relate to people more than to abstract ideas. So any political or philosophical position needs a spokesperson to have it spread and be accepted in a broader forum.
Anyone who takes on that role, must be prepared for all the aspects that go with "spokespersonhood". A good part of that is being criticized, fairly or not, not just for what you say, but how you say it and what you do. It's part of the territory. Those who are being "represented" can justifiably hold their leaders to a higher standard. For if you are going to speak in MY name (especially if I didn't choose you to do so), then you damn well better be equal or better than me, in every way. A leader should be a source of inspiration, someone people look up to, not someone who shames us by their words or actions.
Unfortunately, many, if not all leaders, become totally identified in their own minds with their ideas. They take attacks on their positions as personal attacks. It is very hard to avoid this egotistical disease.
In fact, in the world of free software, the ONLY leader who so far has managed to avoid this, and given his nature probably always will, is Linus Torvald. Nick Peterley compared him to Tom Bombadil - a man over whom the ring of power has no influence. What an apt description. Linus is in fact a holy man, an exceptional human being whose ego is just the right size.
Eric Raymond, however, isn't. It is clear from this latest diatribe that the fact that many people strongly disagreed with calling the Apple APSL as open source, got his goat. He took the attack on Apple as a personal attack on himself. I read alot of the discussions. There were lots of strong opinions, but very little that can be characterized as ad hominem attacks on Raymond as such. His reaction in this letter can only be characterized as pitiful for a man who wants to be a leader.
In this "response", Mr. Raymond has resorted to the cheapest of demagoguery. The sad part is that so many people fell into his trap. Basically, what Raymond is saying in his letter is I am a god and anybody who criticizes me is a worthless ingrate. Instead of responding to the merit of the arguments against his positions, Mr. Raymond resorts to threats and insults to silence those who disagree with him. In a fit of pique worthy of a four year old, he says that if those worthless little ingrates (presumably on
Quite frankly, I am willing to bet anyone on this list that Raymond isn't going home so fast. It is quite clear from his letter that he enjoys the "face time" (what an ugly expression) with such "luminaries" as Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos, and all the other "perks". Well good for him. But that shouldn't stop anyone from standing up and speaking the truth when the truth needs to be said, even if that truth is uncomfortable for a man who just exposed himself to the world as being egotistical, childish and unworthy of leading an intellectual revolution as important as the free software movement.
The trend in the software industry over the past couple of years has proven the exact opposite: namely pure software companies trying to sell proprietary shrink-wrapped tools have more and more difficulty surviving. One reason is simple: develop any truly worthwhile idea and Microsoft will embrace it and destroy you. Netscape is just the latest victim. The other reason is that software is more and more becoming a commodity. Any idea you come up with will instantly be followed by others offering more, better, cheaper, faster. The competitive environment makes generating profits through software virtually impossible.
Most important however: customers don't want code - they want a solution to their problem. More and more people are beginning to realize this and understand they don't want to buy computers or software, but want to buy a system or service that gets done what they need done. Hence the market is demanding service not products.
It is for this reason that major corporations like Oracle and IBM are moving into the service model. True they did services in the past, but now both these companies are positioning themselves as 100% ecommerce service companies (IBM has a double reason to do this, since hardware is also becoming a commodity).
What does an inidividual programmer to do?
If you are not cut out to work directly with customers you have two alternatives:
If you like the corporate environment, go work for one of the many major corporations following this trend. More and more of them will be supporting and developing open source projects. Or else find partners who know how to relate to people.
If you believe you are good enough to develop your own products, and have basic social skills, then choose a niche, develop a solution for that niche and give the source away. Customers will pay you for access to that solution. You can charge using a rental model, where you deal with all the upgrades etc. so they dont have to.
In short, making the code free does not mean you can't make money off of your efforts. On the contrary, it offers you the many free software resources that allows you to compete without having billions to spend on R&D.
I think RMS rightly stresses the most important issue in evaluating these licenses - the community value or contribution. Those who support the APSL have branded its opponents as religious fanatics, or ingrates or, horror of horrors, SOCIALISTs. The fact is, if you are uncomfortable talking about values, than as a rabid, greedy little capitalist, you should support RMS's position purely out of self interest.
Besides all the semantical and legal issues, the key reason to oppose the APSL is that it exploits rather than contributes. Open source, free software, whatever you want to call it, works not because of some radical Maoist theory, but because the more one gives the more one gets. Pure and simple. The APSL and its ilk are zero sum games - Apple wins and you lose (even worse, if Apple loses, you lose even more).
The argument that working on the APSL will help those who use Apple hardware is spurious. LinuxPPC does just that and is truly free. It is also a better practical alternative, as it makes instantly available the huge and growing body of Linux compatible source code. The argument that working on APSL furthers the development of micro-kernel based OSes is even more spurious. AS RMS points out you can't incorporate Apple code freely into other products. Bettter to work on Hurd. In short, the only one who benefits by developers working on APSL is Apple.
As for criticism scaring away corporations from open source, I can only say big effing deal. Why are so many of you so insecure that you need the validation of a corporation to see the practical (if not the social) value in free software? Corporations that get it will learn to play by the rules and make a real contibution (that's why Netscape is good IMHO). A little flaming wont scare them away. Those who don't, well who needs them. Free software will continue to flourish and grow with or without these corporations. Those who buy into the model will flourish along with it. Those who want to toady up with the capitalist free-roaders should buy and use NT.
Flame Disclaimer:
For the humorless amongst you who probably wont get it, all references to "capitalists" and "socialists" in the above, was written using mild irony.
When I read some of the flames here against RMS and Bruce Perens and other advocates of a purer model of Open Source, I am amazed at the vitriol, anger, even hatred that's expressed. I'm also amazed at the total cluelessness about the political and economic issues involved.
First the Politics
Critics love to brand RMS as a flaming socialist, along with Jon Katz and now Perens. Hmmm...I thought this type of political smear went out with McCarthy, but apparently there remains a certain segment of the American public still stuck in the 50s.
Of course, RMS et al represent the true spirit of American democracy as laid out by the founding fathers, not only in their words, but in their deeds. May I remind you all, that it was no less then Ben Franklin who came up with this beautiful idea that knowledge should be freely available by all, and created the first Public Library. If anyone is the spiritual father of the free software movement, it is this great scientist, philosopher.
No doubt, those who oppose RMS must also view libraries as the epitome of socialism - after all it is taxpayer dollars, for godsakes, buying books and distributing them freely! What an affront to the American way of life, I can hear these critics ranting.
The fundamental flaw in these critics thinking, is their total lack of understanding of American democracy. The American democratic ideal is not the Greek one, which is mere majority rule, even where the majority is an elite. American democracy is founded on the idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...for all citizens. Minority rights and the needs of the less fortunate must also be taken into consideration to ensure they too, share in the public weal. Absolute liberty, and the tyranny of the majority are not part of the American democratic ideal. Too brand the politics behind free software as socialism, shows a total lack of political sophistication.
Economics
Free software as espoused by RMS is also attacked as economically unrealistic and a detriment to financial success. I have news for those folks who still believe they can make money creating proprietary packaged software: you're doomed to failure.
There are two reasons for this:
1. Technology is a commodity
2. The Web has changed the model
What point 1 means is that if you come up with any technology idea today, tomorrow there will be 12 implementations of the same thing cheaper, better, faster than yours. And besides, Microsoft will end up doing the same thing and giving it away for free, until you are crushed and disappear.
What point 2 means is the move away from a computer-centric model to a computing-centric model. The fact is, that except for hobbyists, nerds and geeks, most people don't want PCs. Who wants to be a computer operator, installing software packages, tweaking this and diddling with that. People want COMPUTING not computers. Before the advent of the Web, people didn't have a choice - they needed computers to get computing. But the WEB HAS CHANGED THE MODEL. Now I can get my computing off the web - all I need is a browser client device, and I have access to all the computing I need!
These two trends together mean one thing: the packaged software model is dead, capute, extinct.
So if you can't make money selling packaged software, how do you make money? By selling services! Companies and individuals will still need programmers to create these web based services for them.
IBM gets this. IBM failed miserably competing with Microsoft selling packaged software. Fortunately for them, Gerstner is a smart guy. He understood the trends. So IBM doesn't concentrate anymore on selling software. Their whole ebusiness image campaign is all about selling services. Because IBM gets it, and becaused they understand they will not be making money selling packaged software, they have more whole heartedly embraced the open source model (of course, they still have vestiges of their old corporate mentality, hence the Jikes license).
What does this mean for the individual programmer? Well if its good enough for IBM (who certainly can't be labeled socialists), it should be good enough for you. But how can you compete with all those giants? All that free software out there provides you with this huge R&D department that puts you on an equal competitive basis with these huge corporations! So, exactly contrary to the critics, free software enhances the individual programmers competitive edge, not detracts from it. It is in your economic interest, not just your moral interest, to extend the base of free software (in the RMS sense) and NOT keep your code proprietary.
What is truly amazing is that RMS envisioned this nearly 15 years ago!
Because I wouldn't have to shell out $300 for the "Nexstep-derived" GUI and live with the million and one bugs the proprietary GUI wrapper will add to the stable UNIX base. Actually, from what I understand the GUI is MAC-derived. For an open-source Nextep-derived GUI try Afterstep. And as I said in another post those "indications" about performance, are Apple marketing hype, not the real thing. Finally, if you want a really elegant user interface, try GNOME/icewm.
Whose benchmarks are these? From what I understood these come from an Apple arranged demo, not some independent tester. Are you sure the machines compared are indeed "comperable"? Are you sure Apple didn't do some special tweaking to the OS X while leaving the rest out of the box? One benchmark hyped by Apple does not mean this is the "truth." You have to be out of your mind to base any decision based on a marketing benchmark by ANY company.
And I never said you shouldn't look at the code. I just said you shouldn't waste your time developing it.
...and neither do all of you who are involved in detailed arguments of the license terms.
GNU/Linux is a raving success not because it's open source. Open source is a neccessary but not sufficient condition. Even the GPL is only a necessary not sufficient condition. GNU/Linux has succeeded because everyone who uses it and everyone who CONTRIBUTES to it benefits equally. This is the community benefit factor, and it is the necessary and sufficient condition. It is more important than the exact terms of the licence. I think this is the point RMS tries to hammer home with his use of the term free. Free benefits everyone.
Take Mozilla. Since the browser client is essential to the Internet economy, having a free version of it was critical to the future growth of GNU/Linux. So Netscape's putting it out there had 100% community benefit. The license, while it may not be perfect, is good enough. Even if AOL/Netscape kills Mozilla.org tomorrow, the code is out there forever. The GNU/Linux community will take it over and make it grow, cutting lose any proprietary strings AOL/Netscape might hold. But the key point is the community benefit. Netscape did us all a huge favor and deserves our thanks and kudos.
Darwin is YAUC - yet another unix clone. BSD-variants, Linux, MkLinux, that other Mach project someone mentioned (not to mention all the proprietary UNICES) - these aren't enough? Who needs YAUC? No one but Apple, to get their truly sucky hardware to work. (don't jump on me for this statement: PPC is a Motorola/IBM product - not an Apple product. Apple boxes suck big time). There is zero community benefit from Darwin. So even if the license is pristine GPL who cares? Apple is looking for free developers without giving anything back. Go make LinuxPPC better. Go make MkLinux better. That will at least help the community of people (like us btw) who are stuck with old Apple's and don't know what to do with 'em. But Darwin? Puhleeese!
So in the future, when you see some corporation putting something out there as open source, don't niggle about the license details. If the license is good enough to allow some future fork to be liberated and GPLed that's all you need. The key criterion whether to praise or damn should be the community benefit.
I've browsed through these comments and here is my take: It is clear that anyone who ever worked with Apple knows what a sucky company it is. Only the naive and truly innocent seem to be enthusiastic about this.
Apple is a company that changes directions every 6 months. Its headquarter's name, Infinite Loop, is quite an accurate description of how the company is run. But I don't think this is a reflection of evil. I don't think Apple screws its developers and partners on purpose. While others might see conspiracy, I see absolute incompetence. Apple has raised incompetence to an art form. I won't regale you with the details of a meeting I had once with Apple. Suffice it to say I left open-mouthed, in awe of the level of incompetence displayed from the minute I walked into one of the Infinite Loop buildings. One amusing anecdote - I had to wait 45 minutes just to get to my meeting, cause the guy had moved desks (as part of one Apple's infinite loo-reshuffles), and the phone system just couldn't deal with it. It was downhill from there....
Why argue over this? Anybody who wants to waste his/her time coding yet another Unix clone just to help Apple slow down its inevitable slide into oblivion - the force be with you. You'll end up in the mire along with Apple. Moreover, all that code will go down the tube, when some corporation buys up Apple's assets and closes off any free aspect of it.
Darwin is an apt name here. The lower life forms will migrate to the loser Apple, and end up as an extinct species. The more realistic and intelligent species will work on the only free OS around - Linux, which will continue to evolve from strength to strength.
Yes. A few years ago Apple and IBM announced several joint development programs, including Kalaida (sp?) and Taligent both of which died quite ugly deaths.
I can't beleive anyone took this comment seriously. It is obviously satire. Look at all the sarcasm and humor:
"Linux needs professional programmers" like those of Apple who spent years writing an OS replacement that never got out the door? or those of Microsoft who spent years trying to get NT to be a scaleable OS, and are drowning in their own code?
"Linux needs mindshare" go to CNET and do a search on Apple. Then do a search on Linux. I got 500 for the former and 237 for the latter. Not bad for a hippy OS. A year from now you will see the ratio reversed. Anyone heavly into Macs as production machines knows Apple is a loser company, with loser products and is rapidly sliding into oblivion. So this was obviously a satiric comment.
"MACOSX takes over and transforms the Internet server world" ROTFLPIMP! This HAS to be the funniest line I've read all week. This guy is really funny.
"Apple has the corporate culture"...what an oxymoron. And applying it to Apple yet! (Anyone out there ever try to do business with them...they somehow manage to merge the worst of California laid back culture with Soviet style bureaucracy). Another hilarious line.
"Linux HAS slowed down"...obviously, with the release of 2.2. and not one, but 2 superior GUIs, and all those great GNOME apps in the pipeline and... And did you get that line about Apple having "the perfect GUI, RIGHT in every respect" - another biting satiric comment. I mean who in their RIGHT minds would ever DREAM of wanting multiple desktops that you can switch between instantly (well, you know on the MAC NOTHING is instant, so this feature wouldn't really be very useful), or choice of window managers (you mean I get to THINK for myself?) or a window pager (you mean using the tiny little icon in the corner isn't the best way to switch between apps?) or editable menus, or configurable panels (multiple) or....
I mean, this is satire right? You didn't write this seriously, did you? Nobody could be THAT stupid, not even the most religious Mac fanatic. You ARE joking?
I thought Jon's article to be excellent, although there are a few points I would quible with.
First of all, I don't think the net is the most radical technology ever to be created by human society. Think of the dislocations the following inventions caused:
control of fire
the wheel
the steam engine
telephone
control of electricity
transistor
Every age likes to thing of itself as the "mostest" in human history. Fact is I don't think there are many things that were invented over the past 30 years that were truly dislocating. Email isn't a radical form of communication vis-a-vis alternatives that already existed. It amy be more convenient or faster, but it isn't a dislocating technology. The telephone was. We all think of the telpehone as something mundane, we take it for granted. But it was truly civilization changing invention.
Moreover, the fear of technology destroying its creator is not a twentieth century invention by any means. i would go back to Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, but that's not going back far enough. She was certainly influenced by the myth of the Golem and many similar myths in many human cultures. Human society has always feared technology and change, no doubt going back to the days when humans first created tools.
Having said that, Jon is 100% correct in noting that the pace of technology ebbs and flows, and that in periods of rapid change fear and resentment (which often generates malicious mystical religious fervor) grow. The Open Source movement is a direct descendant of 18th century enlightment philosophy which believed that the spread of knowledge is the best way to allow human society to control its destiny. The American founding fathers were greatly influenced by this philosophy. It is no coincidence that the radical religious right tries to undermine the public school system, which should be the means of public enlightment (in the 18th century sense, not in the New Age sense).
Those of us involved in Internet technology should dedicate ourselves to use it as a tool for empowerment and education in the best sense of the word.