RMS/ESR/INSERT-THREE-INITIALS-HERE clones ready to spout scripture and summon righteous fire to scourge the earth of the unbelievers who don't actually give a shit for the politics.
Ah, so ESR and RMS agree about where free software (wait, no, open source software, wait...) should go?
I don't think so -- there's a schism, and I don't know that RMS or ESR actually represent 'old-school' hackers.
I've seen a few people say 'screw ideologies, let's get market share.' Well, screw that. I've seen a few people say, 'screw ideologies, show me the code.' Well, that's what I'm trying to push:)
My perspective is that Linux is all about ideology, and a very pragmatic, immediate ideology. The same ideology that a lot of free software authors have, although not the same one that RMS seems to support. This ideology is more about getting things done -- and getting them done well -- than anything else. Unfortunately, in a proprietary environment, you generally can't. So proprietary software has a place -- of getting things done well -- but not a place that is completely trusted.
Then there's ESR, who I have some issues with. He seems to have picked a tertiary 'measure of success' and turned it into a goal, a goal that supercedes accomplishing what it's supposed to measure (obviously, commercial support of open source). IMO, this is like re-writing a test so you know the answers; if free software works, then it will work whether we have people trying to make it work, or just people doing it.
Then there's RMS, who seems to have another plan -- the freedom of all software. While this is nice, I think it is again only part of the general Linux community -- free software is a byproduct of hacking, and necessary for hacking, but not hacking itself.
I think that these are both necessary focuses, but people will naturally fall into one camp or another (polarization happens), when really, we need to keep the reason for wanting free software -- hacking other people's code -- as well as the community from which we want free software -- fellow hackers.
I consider Linus' bent on making Linux an easily usable desktop OS as a great 'proof of concept' approach, but let's not turn proving the viability of free software into proving the lameability of free software.
Slashdot Mirror
Was my post selected at random for your trolling, or did you carefully read each and every one to decide what was worthy of your spite?
RMS/ESR/INSERT-THREE-INITIALS-HERE clones ready to spout scripture and summon righteous fire to scourge the earth of the unbelievers who don't actually give a shit for the politics.
Ah, so ESR and RMS agree about where free software (wait, no, open source software, wait...) should go?
I don't think so -- there's a schism, and I don't know that RMS or ESR actually represent 'old-school' hackers.
I've seen a few people say 'screw ideologies, let's get market share.' Well, screw that. I've seen a few people say, 'screw ideologies, show me the code.' Well, that's what I'm trying to push :)
My perspective is that Linux is all about ideology, and a very pragmatic, immediate ideology. The same ideology that a lot of free software authors have, although not the same one that RMS seems to support. This ideology is more about getting things done -- and getting them done well -- than anything else. Unfortunately, in a proprietary environment, you generally can't. So proprietary software has a place -- of getting things done well -- but not a place that is completely trusted.
Then there's ESR, who I have some issues with. He seems to have picked a tertiary 'measure of success' and turned it into a goal, a goal that supercedes accomplishing what it's supposed to measure (obviously, commercial support of open source). IMO, this is like re-writing a test so you know the answers; if free software works, then it will work whether we have people trying to make it work, or just people doing it.
Then there's RMS, who seems to have another plan -- the freedom of all software. While this is nice, I think it is again only part of the general Linux community -- free software is a byproduct of hacking, and necessary for hacking, but not hacking itself.
I think that these are both necessary focuses, but people will naturally fall into one camp or another (polarization happens), when really, we need to keep the reason for wanting free software -- hacking other people's code -- as well as the community from which we want free software -- fellow hackers.
I consider Linus' bent on making Linux an easily usable desktop OS as a great 'proof of concept' approach, but let's not turn proving the viability of free software into proving the lameability of free software.