Good call, Sun Tzu! This sort of obsessive reference to racism is racism in itself. It can only be genuine and legitimate when one has not yet danced with that demon; only bigots and recovering bigots should find dwelling on the "race issue" gratifying. I believe that the correct approach to curing social diseases like racism and fanaticisms is not overt confrontation: we must simply turn our back on the old ways and concentrate on doing things differently this time. Bigots and zealots can only have power over us if they can command our attention. And I wish one could simply link one's comments to other posts and thus not have to paraphrase oneself.:-)
Panaflex is right; this is only a problem "in Jon's area." His concern can only be genuine and legitimate if he has not danced with that demon yet; only bigots and recovering bigots find dwelling on the "race issue" gratifying. The correct approach to curing social diseases like racism and fanaticisms is not overt confrontation; we must simply turn our back on the "old ways," just as Merlin suggested in the recent made-for-TV movie. Bigots and zealots are only powerful because they command our attention.
Let me first issue the disclaimer that I am not a Real Programmer, whatever that means, and that I know very little about the feature lists of competing component object models and whatnots. I don't even know what precisely the OMG is trying to accomplish, really. In my world, I encounter limiter need to make things work together at the object level; when I write a program that renders a service to other programs, I use sockets. I know that this requires, unfortunately, that a protocol be designed per interface, and that knowledge about the interface is not describable in some "standard" way, so I can sort-of-kind-of see how CORBA and associated technologies are a Good Thing (or perhaps I am missing the point entirely). Unfortunately, the learning curve for CORBA is staggering (I just looked at the page count on standard texts -- owie!) and there isn't yet a Free implementation of the full complement of technologies. I have observed that things for which a sample implementation is not available as Free software or which are unfathomably complex tend to die off; for example, things like C and Sun RPC and RMI are popular because they are small and Free/free and simple, respectively, whereas C++ and DCE RPC and CORBA are -- well, you can see where I am going. If it were not for projects like GNOME, you might as well pronounce CORBA dead right now; actually, a friend of mine who is also a Java programmer (Andy Kinley) said the other day that C++ (and related stuff like full-fledged CORBA) are indeed dead, but that the investment by corporations in this technology is so vast that the corpse will twitch for many years to come. Perhaps it is time to revisit a solution that, while being completely different, is mature, elegant, open, and soon to be available as Free software: OpenStep. From the OpenStep FAQ:
PDO is a shortcut for Portable Distributed Objects. In the near future PDO will become CORBA 2.0 compliant. It is the industry's first product to provide a heterogeneous client/server framework on objects. With PDO it is possible to deploy objects on non-NEXTSTEP server Machines and therefore deployed anywhere in a network, wherever they are most appropriate for a task.
Could someone (Robert Slover? Anyone?) please post a snippet about OpenStep et al.? I would love to see a lucid exposition of the virtues of that set of technologies.
Before you dismiss this message because of its length or because of the headings, or even because of the bluntness of the first paragraph, I would like you to know that this message is composed, not just written in a fit of rage
ERIC'S FAUX PAS
I concur with other readers who have inferred that Eric's harangue is an attempt to impugn and silence his critics by augmenting, through clever prose, the stature of his achievements and the relevance of his qualifications. Evidently, he has no immediate plans for abandoning the role to which he appointed himself; of that there is no doubt in my mind. So far, we had been quite willing to let him play "leader of the (moderate) hackers"; whether we thought that he did a good job or that he was merely a tolerable annoyance, most of us (I think) believed that he was not and could not be harmful. It is interesting that his papers warn of the cruel fate that will befall members of the community who bestow honors upon themselves (whether humbly or flagrantly, deservingly or otherwise) because his actions are not consistent with the wisdom he professes. I think most of us could forgive his mistakes if he were to admit to having made them, graciously and without reservation; this is what other highly visible members of the community do, and that is why they are able to remain highly visible and relevant. I am sure Eric must have written this somewhere, too; perhaps he has forgotten.
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE (AN OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON)
After the fashion instituted by Eric and other evangelists, I would like to take advantage of this latest episode in the ESR saga to propose that we consider the following questions:
Do we need a spokesperson?
Do we need an "official" spokesperson?
What would be the responsibilities of a spokesperson?
What mechanism would allow this person attain his title?
What mechanism would allow us to keep tabs on this person?
The first question is almost irrelevant: whether or not we need spokespersons, we already have several; we should instead ask ourselves whether we want even one of them to be able to claim that he or she speaks on behalf of a majority of us. Indeed, an "official" spokesperson should be able to issue statements that represent the views of the community; in order for this authority to be derived from the community, he or she would have to have its confidence, unambiguously and certifiably, which would in turn require that we devise formal election (and disavowal) processes. This all seems undesirable at best and terrifying at worst; the will to a system, someone said, is a symptom of a lack of integrity. I believe that the present system, if we can call it that, in which leaders are not elected and in which every pronouncement by even the most visible individuals is subject to ruthlessly democratic scrutiny, is flexible and (thanks to the Internet) scalable; what I mean is that the present way of doing things, which looks a lot like a lack of a system, exhibits the virtues of being adaptable in real time and of providing for nearly optimum accountability by design. Or, should I say, "lack of design"?
CENSORSHIP OF THE "LEADERSHIP"
Of course, this position begs the consideration of ancillary issues like these:
Should the community censure self-appointed "leaders"?
If so, how can the community effectively censor them?
Eric is correct in pointing out that a lot of people do not understand our (his?) culture, and so one could make the case that it is important to correct the misperceptions that individuals whose views do not represent those of the community might contribute to the mainstream; this includes Eric, of course. Obviously, in the model I advocate, it is impossible and undesirable for the community to arrive at, let alone issue publicly, a single position censuring an individual; one viable alternative, already in practice, is this: let every individual member be responsible and contribute, according to his belief, to the defense or downfall of the individual in question. While I cannot conceive of a likely scenario in which an individual would incur the unanimous wrath of the community, I have seen several instances of censure so brutal that the individual had to withdraw from public life, effectively censoring himself/ herself. In any case, I pity he who were the object of such a dispute; I hope Eric will recover from this round of beatings (and from the soft living to which he alludes) and return to hacking as soon as possible - if that is really his wish.
NO OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSONS
I believe that we do not need an official spokesperson, and that we already enjoy the leadership (sometimes quiet and sometimes not so quiet) of several individuals, each of whom unquestionably represents a non-negligible fraction of the community, namely:
Richard Stallman (Emacs, gcc)
Larry Wall (Perl)
Linus Torvalds (Linux)
I know that I've left out many people, even important people, out of this list; these are just the people whom I perceive as having the authority to represent a "non-negligible fraction" of the community. Allow me now to digress for a moment. Amongst these people, Larry Wall is probably the least controversial figure, and therefore most likely (in my eyes) to speak "on our behalf" without triggering flame wars and without undermining our credibility. Do I think Larry should take Eric's place? No, and I suspect you don't either. Nobody should take Larry's word as gospel (and I mean Larry's, rather than that of the Author of his story), nor is it his wish that anybody should. I also can't see Larry embarking on a tour of corporate offices preaching the excellence of our software products.
THE RETURN OF ERIC, THE HACKER
So, where was I? Ah, yes. As I was saying, there already are individuals who, without devoting their lives to the task, issue occasional pronouncements that can be construed as the voice of a significant fraction (sometimes a majority) of the community. I think this is already good enough. I would even say that this is the best we can ask for. If politicians had fulfilling lives outside the scope of politics, we might be better off. Eric is a politician, and this is one of several reasons why he is not fit to speak on my behalf; whether he speaks on behalf of somebody else is not my business, of course, but I suspect that others have reached similar conclusions. A politician thinks in fairly simple terms; he understands that his career hinges on people's willingness to take sides, perhaps more than it does on the particular beliefs of the people whose support he seeks. I reject this premise; I reject Eric's worldview. I would even suggest that we do not need to present a single "face" to the rest of the world in order to thrive; in fact, I think we stand a better chance of persuading others that our way is also valid if we present ourselves as a diverse community in which dissent is tolerated and even encouraged. Eric has a low tolerance for dissent, and this renders much of what he says suspect in the eyes of many, myself included; more importantly, it renders him, by his own definitions, a stranger to the community of which he claims to be a member. Eric has a right to expect gratitude from us; he does not, however, have the right to demand it. Perhaps Eric, the anthropologist, should tell Eric, the politician, to turn over his folders to the FSF, or SPI, or even Larry, and get reacquainted with Eric, the hacker; it is a much less glamorous life but, according to Eric, the philosopher, a much more rewarding existence. I think Eric has thrown down the gauntlet before himself, not before us; at his most lucid, he would have seen that. I want Eric, the hacker, to come back. Take it away, Eric, the Open Source leader!
Microsoft knows that Windows 9x's days as a revenue-maker will soon be over. Client side software will soon be free of cost - not just for free Unix users but for everyone. Releasing source is hip today, and Microsoft might do this anyway to make some shareholders happy by looking like they are keeping up with the times (at least for their workstation class OS products.) The DoJ would only be doing them a favor: Microsoft would look like a martyr and get a better OS out of the bargain. I just don't see how this amounts to punishment; unfortunately, I do not know what one can possibly do instead.
Slashdot Mirror
Good call, Sun Tzu! This sort of obsessive reference to racism is racism in itself. It can only be genuine and legitimate when one has not yet danced with that demon; only bigots and recovering bigots should find dwelling on the "race issue" gratifying. I believe that the correct approach to curing social diseases like racism and fanaticisms is not overt confrontation: we must simply turn our back on the old ways and concentrate on doing things differently this time. Bigots and zealots can only have power over us if they can command our attention. And I wish one could simply link one's comments to other posts and thus not have to paraphrase oneself. :-)
Panaflex is right; this is only a problem "in Jon's area." His concern can only be genuine and legitimate if he has not danced with that demon yet; only bigots and recovering bigots find dwelling on the "race issue" gratifying. The correct approach to curing social diseases like racism and fanaticisms is not overt confrontation; we must simply turn our back on the "old ways," just as Merlin suggested in the recent made-for-TV movie. Bigots and zealots are only powerful because they command our attention.
Before you dismiss this message because of its length or because of the headings, or even because of the bluntness of the first paragraph, I would like you to know that this message is composed, not just written in a fit of rage
ERIC'S FAUX PAS
I concur with other readers who have inferred that Eric's harangue is an attempt to impugn and silence his critics by augmenting, through clever prose, the stature of his achievements and the relevance of his qualifications. Evidently, he has no immediate plans for abandoning the role to which he appointed himself; of that there is no doubt in my mind. So far, we had been quite willing to let him play "leader of the (moderate) hackers"; whether we thought that he did a good job or that he was merely a tolerable annoyance, most of us (I think) believed that he was not and could not be harmful. It is interesting that his papers warn of the cruel fate that will befall members of the community who bestow honors upon themselves (whether humbly or flagrantly, deservingly or otherwise) because his actions are not consistent with the wisdom he professes. I think most of us could forgive his mistakes if he were to admit to having made them, graciously and without reservation; this is what other highly visible members of the community do, and that is why they are able to remain highly visible and relevant. I am sure Eric must have written this somewhere, too; perhaps he has forgotten.
TO HAVE OR NOT TO HAVE (AN OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSON)
After the fashion instituted by Eric and other evangelists, I would like to take advantage of this latest episode in the ESR saga to propose that we consider the following questions:
The first question is almost irrelevant: whether or not we need spokespersons, we already have several; we should instead ask ourselves whether we want even one of them to be able to claim that he or she speaks on behalf of a majority of us. Indeed, an "official" spokesperson should be able to issue statements that represent the views of the community; in order for this authority to be derived from the community, he or she would have to have its confidence, unambiguously and certifiably, which would in turn require that we devise formal election (and disavowal) processes. This all seems undesirable at best and terrifying at worst; the will to a system, someone said, is a symptom of a lack of integrity. I believe that the present system, if we can call it that, in which leaders are not elected and in which every pronouncement by even the most visible individuals is subject to ruthlessly democratic scrutiny, is flexible and (thanks to the Internet) scalable; what I mean is that the present way of doing things, which looks a lot like a lack of a system, exhibits the virtues of being adaptable in real time and of providing for nearly optimum accountability by design. Or, should I say, "lack of design"?
CENSORSHIP OF THE "LEADERSHIP"
Of course, this position begs the consideration of ancillary issues like these:
Eric is correct in pointing out that a lot of people do not understand our (his?) culture, and so one could make the case that it is important to correct the misperceptions that individuals whose views do not represent those of the community might contribute to the mainstream; this includes Eric, of course. Obviously, in the model I advocate, it is impossible and undesirable for the community to arrive at, let alone issue publicly, a single position censuring an individual; one viable alternative, already in practice, is this: let every individual member be responsible and contribute, according to his belief, to the defense or downfall of the individual in question. While I cannot conceive of a likely scenario in which an individual would incur the unanimous wrath of the community, I have seen several instances of censure so brutal that the individual had to withdraw from public life, effectively censoring himself/ herself. In any case, I pity he who were the object of such a dispute; I hope Eric will recover from this round of beatings (and from the soft living to which he alludes) and return to hacking as soon as possible - if that is really his wish.
NO OFFICIAL SPOKESPERSONS
I believe that we do not need an official spokesperson, and that we already enjoy the leadership (sometimes quiet and sometimes not so quiet) of several individuals, each of whom unquestionably represents a non-negligible fraction of the community, namely:
I know that I've left out many people, even important people, out of this list; these are just the people whom I perceive as having the authority to represent a "non-negligible fraction" of the community. Allow me now to digress for a moment. Amongst these people, Larry Wall is probably the least controversial figure, and therefore most likely (in my eyes) to speak "on our behalf" without triggering flame wars and without undermining our credibility. Do I think Larry should take Eric's place? No, and I suspect you don't either. Nobody should take Larry's word as gospel (and I mean Larry's, rather than that of the Author of his story), nor is it his wish that anybody should. I also can't see Larry embarking on a tour of corporate offices preaching the excellence of our software products.
THE RETURN OF ERIC, THE HACKER
So, where was I? Ah, yes. As I was saying, there already are individuals who, without devoting their lives to the task, issue occasional pronouncements that can be construed as the voice of a significant fraction (sometimes a majority) of the community. I think this is already good enough. I would even say that this is the best we can ask for. If politicians had fulfilling lives outside the scope of politics, we might be better off. Eric is a politician, and this is one of several reasons why he is not fit to speak on my behalf; whether he speaks on behalf of somebody else is not my business, of course, but I suspect that others have reached similar conclusions. A politician thinks in fairly simple terms; he understands that his career hinges on people's willingness to take sides, perhaps more than it does on the particular beliefs of the people whose support he seeks. I reject this premise; I reject Eric's worldview. I would even suggest that we do not need to present a single "face" to the rest of the world in order to thrive; in fact, I think we stand a better chance of persuading others that our way is also valid if we present ourselves as a diverse community in which dissent is tolerated and even encouraged. Eric has a low tolerance for dissent, and this renders much of what he says suspect in the eyes of many, myself included; more importantly, it renders him, by his own definitions, a stranger to the community of which he claims to be a member. Eric has a right to expect gratitude from us; he does not, however, have the right to demand it. Perhaps Eric, the anthropologist, should tell Eric, the politician, to turn over his folders to the FSF, or SPI, or even Larry, and get reacquainted with Eric, the hacker; it is a much less glamorous life but, according to Eric, the philosopher, a much more rewarding existence. I think Eric has thrown down the gauntlet before himself, not before us; at his most lucid, he would have seen that. I want Eric, the hacker, to come back. Take it away, Eric, the Open Source leader!
Microsoft knows that Windows 9x's days as
a revenue-maker will soon be over. Client
side software will soon be free of cost -
not just for free Unix users but for
everyone. Releasing source is hip today,
and Microsoft might do this anyway to
make some shareholders happy by looking
like they are keeping up with the times
(at least for their workstation class OS
products.) The DoJ would only be doing
them a favor: Microsoft would look like a
martyr and get a better OS out of
the bargain. I just don't see how this
amounts to punishment; unfortunately, I do
not know what one can possibly do instead.