Charles Babcock's article seems to miss something that is rather obvious: free software, especially for RMS, is about more than just marketing. Babcock expected the free software crowd to act like a corporation would if there was disagreement among its members: hide it, cover it up, don't talk about it, leave to behind-the-scenes power struggle.
RMS is emphasizing the goals of the free software "movement"... the technical merits stand up on their own for anyone with a computer.
Before criticizing what he saw the first time he was in a room full of free software programmers and advocates, Babcock should understand that free software is not just about toppling Microsoft and making us all a quick buck for the next 5 years. It is about changing -- or revolutionizing -- the process by which software, and ultimately anything, gets done.
Corporate trend bandwagon at whose expense?
on
RMS on APSL
·
· Score: 2
There seem to be at least two very general categories people are falling into regarding the recent corporate trend to show that they "support" open source: first are those who wish to look at the licenses and objectively evaluate whether the license is "free" or not -- and the second just blindly accept any corporation that throws the words "open source" around. Just because Apple or whoever says the words "open source" in front of a bunch of reporters does not mean that it is a step forward for gnu/linux, or free software, or anything. It just means that here is another corporation hoping to do the most minimum they can to get the support of a huge grassroots movement. I'm waiting for the day when we realize the power of free software is in the technical merits of what we produce, not in the acceptance of a bunch of corporate sharks who are intent only on making a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks.
Basically this article puts us a step closer to corporate culture eating away at the hacker culture that has brought open source to where it is.
O'Reilly truly is a good example. They do the easiest part and make the most money. Whatever open source celebrity said it -- O'Reilly is a leech. Can I take open documentation, put it into a book, and sell it at 300% the cost?
The open source developers I know make their money providing services supporting the software they develop -- i.e., someone spends their time coding free software because they make $110/hr as a contract Unix sysadmin, most of which they do remotely.
Basically, what everyone has been saying on this topic is that: "Programmers have to eat, too, after all, we live in a capitalist society where you must do something to make yourself money." Certainly free software developers are doing something productive, but that doesn't mean shit when it is time to pay the rent or go get groceries. Just like a woman who stays home to take care of her kids, she isn't really doing work because she doesn't get paid for it.
It seems like the problem, then, is capitalism -- perhaps those who prefer the "open source" label have forgotten that free software is "subversive" (ESR) -- contrary to the software industry, as well as industry as a whole, and ultimately, capitalism.
But there are too many yuppies involved for that obvious conclusion to guide any decisions of those involved in this movement.
The internet counterculture used to predominate and have something relevant to say. As it became profitable to be a geek, money changed everything. Life isn't so bad when you make $60k/yr.
But as far as I'm concerned, hacking is a methodology, not limited to computers. If you can't "hack society" or see what the fuck is wrong with it, and you just sit there in your corporate cubicle sneaking peeks at Wired, then you don't know what the hell its all been about.
I grew up in the 80's telecom scene, which was highly subversive, and I stick to that today, with even more experience and knowledge.
The internet used to be about changing the world, and for a lot of people it still is. Just because a bunch of hackers have turned into Dilbert just confirms what everyone knows: throw money at a counterculture and you completely dilute its effect.
In other words, changing the OS at a corporation is not revolutionary. If it isn't subversive, it is irrelevant.
Granted, the new arrangement will just be 4-5 more huge corporations that don't care, but I am still very glad to see it taken out of their hands. They are truly a monolithic piece of shit.
The history of civilization up to this point has been those in power making those without power do their work. To that extent, work has *always* sucked, whether it be sweat shops, or kids working in mines, or union-busting hired guns, or the braindrain monotony of an office job -- no matter what, the worker will spend most of their life working to make money for someone else while barely being able to pay their own bills.
The new generation of IT/network kids like us can't complain about the money issue. I personally sell what I know from my hobby (no school) and so I've just lucked out.
Personally, I think the whining Dilberts of the world should quit crying and realize that their complacent, obedient cubicle-dwelling selves provide the main stability for a corporate structure that is just annoying and boring and mind-numbing to them: meanwhile, the janitor, or person working in the shop, or the person shovelling the sidewalks can't afford to pay their bills, or get medical insurance, or anything. In other words, what is annoying to Dilbert is near life-threatening for everyone "under" him.
Want to end this shit? Me too. I want an open source world where voluntary associations replace the boss-worker scheme, where whoever chips in gets an equal share back.
Ah, but the hell with that. 1999 is the year for open source start-ups, I hear.
Slashdot Mirror
Charles Babcock's article seems to miss something that is rather obvious: free software, especially for RMS, is about more than just marketing. Babcock expected the free software crowd to act like a corporation would if there was disagreement among its members: hide it, cover it up, don't talk about it, leave to behind-the-scenes power struggle.
... the technical merits stand up on their own for anyone with a computer.
RMS is emphasizing the goals of the free software "movement"
Before criticizing what he saw the first time he was in a room full of free software programmers and advocates, Babcock should understand that free software is not just about toppling Microsoft and making us all a quick buck for the next 5 years. It is about changing -- or revolutionizing -- the process by which software, and ultimately anything, gets done.
There seem to be at least two very general categories people are falling into regarding the recent corporate trend to show that they "support" open source: first are those who wish to look at the licenses and objectively evaluate whether the license is "free" or not -- and the second just blindly accept any corporation that throws the words "open source" around.
Just because Apple or whoever says the words "open source" in front of a bunch of reporters does not mean that it is a step forward for gnu/linux, or free software, or anything. It just means that here is another corporation hoping to do the most minimum they can to get the support of a huge grassroots movement.
I'm waiting for the day when we realize the power of free software is in the technical merits of what we produce, not in the acceptance of a bunch of corporate sharks who are intent only on making a quick buck off the naivete of a bunch of geeks.
Basically this article puts us a step closer to corporate culture eating away at the hacker culture that has brought open source to where it is.
O'Reilly truly is a good example. They do the easiest part and make the most money. Whatever open source celebrity said it -- O'Reilly is a leech. Can I take open documentation, put it into a book, and sell it at 300% the cost?
The open source developers I know make their money providing services supporting the software they develop -- i.e., someone spends their time coding free software because they make $110/hr as a contract Unix sysadmin, most of which they do remotely.
Basically, what everyone has been saying on this topic is that: "Programmers have to eat, too, after all, we live in a capitalist society where you must do something to make yourself money." Certainly free software developers are doing something productive, but that doesn't mean shit when it is time to pay the rent or go get groceries. Just like a woman who stays home to take care of her kids, she isn't really doing work because she doesn't get paid for it.
It seems like the problem, then, is capitalism -- perhaps those who prefer the "open source" label have forgotten that free software is "subversive" (ESR) -- contrary to the software industry, as well as industry as a whole, and ultimately, capitalism.
But there are too many yuppies involved for that obvious conclusion to guide any decisions of those involved in this movement.
Here it is:
The internet counterculture used to predominate and have something relevant to say. As it became profitable to be a geek, money changed everything. Life isn't so bad when you make $60k/yr.
But as far as I'm concerned, hacking is a methodology, not limited to computers. If you can't "hack society" or see what the fuck is wrong with it, and you just sit there in your corporate cubicle sneaking peeks at Wired, then you don't know what the hell its all been about.
I grew up in the 80's telecom scene, which was highly subversive, and I stick to that today, with even more experience and knowledge.
The internet used to be about changing the world, and for a lot of people it still is. Just because a bunch of hackers have turned into Dilbert just confirms what everyone knows: throw money at a counterculture and you completely dilute its effect.
In other words, changing the OS at a corporation is not revolutionary. If it isn't subversive, it is irrelevant.
Granted, the new arrangement will just be 4-5 more huge corporations that don't care, but I am still very glad to see it taken out of their hands. They are truly a monolithic piece of shit.
The history of civilization up to this point has been those in power making those without power do their work. To that extent, work has *always* sucked, whether it be sweat shops, or kids working in mines, or union-busting hired guns, or the braindrain monotony of an office job -- no matter what, the worker will spend most of their life working to make money for someone else while barely being able to pay their own bills.
The new generation of IT/network kids like us can't complain about the money issue. I personally sell what I know from my hobby (no school) and so I've just lucked out.
Personally, I think the whining Dilberts of the world should quit crying and realize that their complacent, obedient cubicle-dwelling selves provide the main stability for a corporate structure that is just annoying and boring and mind-numbing to them: meanwhile, the janitor, or person working in the shop, or the person shovelling the sidewalks can't afford to pay their bills, or get medical insurance, or anything. In other words, what is annoying to Dilbert is near life-threatening for everyone "under" him.
Want to end this shit? Me too. I want an open source world where voluntary associations replace the boss-worker scheme, where whoever chips in gets an equal share back.
Ah, but the hell with that. 1999 is the year for open source start-ups, I hear.