Slashdot Log In
A Contrarian View of Open Source
Posted by
michael
on Tue Aug 06, 2002 01:52 PM
from the open-arms-and-a-threadbare-tank-top-and-unbuttoned-jeans dept.
from the open-arms-and-a-threadbare-tank-top-and-unbuttoned-jeans dept.
Bruce Sterling's OSCON speech is now online - fun, light reading. And a reminder: the Global Civil Society design contest (which we mentioned before) is ending soon.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
how long did that speech take? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:how long did that speech take? (Score:2)
-russ
This gem (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, there's not even a pretense of sense there. It's purely words strung together for effect.
Re:This gem (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
mussolini (Score:5, Funny)
Carefully using a comparison to Mussolini to avoid Godwins Law [godwinslaw.com] I see
Re:mussolini (Score:2)
Re:mussolini (Score:3, Interesting)
Or perhaps he was simply more knowledgable about history than the average usenet poster/slashdot reader: Fascism wasn't limited to just Germany then, and though it is largely absent from Germany today, it is most definitely not absent from the world now.
A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:3, Interesting)
I wouldn't have called it "contrarian", as I personally agree with most of what he was saying, and I know a lot of people who work with me would as well.
What I found interesting was his comparisons of both Microsoft and of the Linux community as a whole. Granted, they were both skewed to the extremes, but I did notice something that I think applied to most people.
I consider myself a relative above-average user. I understand how to set things up, and general low-level techie questions about certain things are no problem, but anything more technical than that confuses me, and what's scary is that the average user is worse.
However, the average computer user really doesn't have a choice between the two. Microsoft runs most all the software (both apps and games) that anyone is familiar with. Sure, there is FreeCiv, the now-defunct Loki, StarOffice, and so forth, but in the end, it comes down to brand names, and people don't know Red Hat, or StarOffice, or anything. They know Windows and Office.
The other side of the story is that most Linux users I know are extreme power-users. They tend to get so wrapped up in their exploits of compiling the latest distros that they tend to talk over everyone's (including myself) head. Even though computers are complicated by nature, that's not what sells, nor will it ever sell. Look how complicated the RIAA/MPAA is trying to make digital downloads. They're getting no where fast that way.The only other thing that this article brought to mind was a question about what the Linux community wants to do with Linux. Say it upseats Windows. Say it takes over on both the server and the desktop. Say that 95% of all computers now run some distro of Linux...
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
Just a thought. I'm sure it's been mentioned on here.....but just in case.....and I knew I was going somewhere with this......oh well.
Re:A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:2)
> same corner that Microsoft is in
Nope. The corner that MS finds itself in is the diminishing returns associated with a saturated market. Linux as a "dominant" platform would not suffer from this as it does not require that a particular patron survive. If MS goes belly up, WinDOS will likely go with it. If Redhat goes belly up, all the other distribution vendors would just carry on.
Eventually, the common consumer will realize that they don't need to pay for this week's version of Office or Windows. Once this occurs, Microsoft will be in a very "interesting" situation.
"Software is a tool" is as relevant to business models as it is to the end user interface design.
Re:A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:2)
Haven't we then just painted ourselves into the same corner that Microsoft is in, and wouldn't Linux receive the same amount of critisism for a variety of other things?
Don't forget, Microsoft appears to do things for the benefit of Microsoft, not for its customers. This generates a lot of ill will.
The open source model has the users making the changes. Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down. But the ability to make the changes that you want, even if you have to hire someone to do it, will alleviate the feelings helplessness and of lack of control. And this will help keep complaints to a minimum.
Steve M
Re:A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:3)
Besides, Dennis Miller is like that annoying guy you knew from college, who dropped out because he couldn't handle "The Man" telling him what to think, and who comes over, drinks your coffee while telling you how evil you are for being a consumer, makes lame (and obvious and/or misguided) cracks about current affairs and celebrities, flirts with your girlfriend (or boyfriend) and then tries to sell you some weed. Bruce Sterling, briefly, is like a friend you like to go visit, because sometimes he'll show you some new toys, and he usually has cool stories to tell.
Stupidest speach ever (Score:3, Insightful)
It was the weirdest mish-mash of mixed up metaphors I've ever seen. Did it even have a point? Was this man high as a kite at the time he gave this speech?
If this is the best contrarian viewpoint on open source that the convention organizers could rustle up, then they're either myopic to the point of blindness or intentionally self deluded.
Why couldn't they get someone who was serious to provide the oh so important counterpoint? Someone who would actually, you know, talk about real stuff like open source economics and how I'm going to make a living if the world ever does move to 100% open source software?
What a waste of (my) 15 minutes.
Re:Stupidest speach ever (Score:2)
Re:Stupidest speach ever (Score:2, Insightful)
As I read and re-read the speech text, I noticed a parallelism in his metaphors. He compared Open Source with nearly everything:
Open Source And Religion
Open Source And Microsoft
Open Source And Politics
Open Source And Sex
Open Source and Noam Chomsky
The last comparison is particularly revealing, since Noam Chomsky is a linguist and political dissident. And he's an MIT professor. Perhaps the speech was more of a rhetorical homage to Chomsky rather than a relevant discourse on the state of Open Source. The title of the speech does mention contrarianism.
It was s speech, not a damn lecture (Score:2)
It was an entertaining, thought-provoking rant. Did he offer an executive summary, or action items? Nope. He made some colorful comparisons.
What was his point? Other than to entertain -- which BTW seems to have been the first, second and fourth priorities -- it looks like he wanted people to question the assumptions that have taken root in the OSS community. Some people apparently don't want to question those assumptions.
Re:It was s speech, not a damn lecture (Score:2)
Ahh well.. its hard to not have typos every now and then.. I did spell it correctly in the body of my post, you will note... But thanks for pointing that out, it really added weight to your argument.
Re:Stupidest speach ever (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire speech is about the economics and politics that arise from open source! First he said that traditionally, we've been working with bad metaphors. Cathedrals and bazaars make some kind of sense, but a real writer would never choose those metaphors because so many of the resonances of the symbols are just plain wrong. So he talks about closed-source software and users like it's a really bad girlfriend/boyfriend relationship - you know, where each person has something that the other one wants (hint: one of those things is wealth). Then he talks about the VALUE PROPOSITIONS that keep these bad relationships together. Go back and read those value propositions again if you seriously want to know the answer to your question. Remember that everyone has flaws, so which flaws are you willing to live with?
See if you can use your little noodle and work it out from there what he was talking about. Yes, the metaphors are free-form. That shouldn't be surprising, given that this is roughly the outline of the speech:
Man, there's not much hope left if y'all don't want to think.Parent
Re:Stupidest speach ever (Score:3, Interesting)
The entire speech is about the economics and politics that arise from open source! First he said that traditionally, we've been working with bad metaphors. Cathedrals and bazaars make some kind of sense, but a real writer would never choose those metaphors because so many of the resonances of the symbols are just plain wrong. So he talks about closed-source software and users like it's a really bad girlfriend/boyfriend relationship - you know, where each person has something that the other one wants (hint: one of those things is wealth). Then he talks about the VALUE PROPOSITIONS that keep these bad relationships together.
Actually, I think the speech was more of a Rorschach test. He basically repeated all the arguments and open source cliches that you hear bandied about on Slashdot all the time, like "information wants to be free" and "Microsoft is a monopoly" and "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", all the time subtlely poking fun at each of them. Since he talked about everything, and you only remember one thing, the speech works like a Rorschach test for what you were focusing on. You didn't even notice that he wasn't even arguing for or against anything in particular. I, for one, thought the first half of the speech was very entertaining, although the second half was boring and I scanned over most of it.
-a
OT: Jesus vs. the moneylenders (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know Mr. Sterlings' theological leanings but this part of his speech struck me as interesting.
I read a some writings by a Biblical scholar Hyam Maccoby (who incidentally is Jewish) which argue quite convincingly--to me anyway, though as I'm a Hindu that may not mean much--that Jesus far from being a rebel against the establishment was a mainstream Jewish Pharisee. The view we have of him today and for that matter the entire religion of Christianity, was largely the invention of St. Paul
Judaism has never been a particularly otherworldly religion and even ascetic sects like the Essenes were not against commercial activity. The whole reason there were moneylenders in the temple in the first place is that Jews were required to make donation on certain occasions such as the birth of a firstborn son (pidyon haben) and pay taxes for the upkeep of the temple. The moneylenders changed secular coinage into special temple shekels. So it seems pretty unlikely that Jesus the Pharisee would be aghast at such activity.
Another theory is that the High Priest and his followers were Saducees (a rival sect) and collaborators with the Romans. The crime of the moneylenders was supporting foreign occupation and as "King of the Jews" Jesus would want to have none of that.
By this reading, Jesus's political views were more Peoples Front of Judea (or Judean Peoples Front) than Bolshevik.
Re:OT: Jesus vs. the moneylenders (Score:2)
-jon
Re:OT: Jesus vs. the moneylenders (Score:3, Informative)
I think that Jesus was rather disgusted at the layers of elitism that the moneychangers were putting between the common folk and God. First, the moneychangers and other merchants there were also "inspectors" that looked over the animals that the Jews would bring to sacrifice, to inspect that they met ceremonial laws. They would then deny the animal a passing status, and would offer to buy the animal, and sell an acceptable sacrifice for an extra fee. Then, they would turn around and sell the animal that they had just denied was an acceptable sacrifice as an acceptable sacrifice. Secondly, they were set up in the court of the Gentiles, taking it over, which basically denied the non-Jewish God-fearers a place to worship.
Bruce Sterling's cool and all.. (Score:2)
Comparing coding to the life-shortening, near-slave labor of diamond mining? I'm thinking the guys down in Windhoek don't GET a choice fat-free lattes, or bitch because they have to walk all 50 steps to the Pepsi machine.
And then it must be comedic genious for him to then castigate people for then coming up with "farfetched, elegant, literary metaphors to describe this process." Like, I don't know, comparing it to diamond mining maybe?
I actually LIKE what he has to say in the majority of the speech, but to me he starts on such a bitter and weak note that it distracts from his message.
Quick summary (Score:2)
As a paraphrase: The whole computer scene just stinks.
Glad to see... (Score:3, Funny)
Nothing like being a Troll at a conference, though - I'm sure he was bought a beer or two by some Linux geeks that didn't realize he was cracking on them harder than he was on Gates.
It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually really loved this speech, as I think did the packed room, including larry Wall and half of his family [perl.org].
Of course it was over the top, of course it was sometimes cruel and mean to Open Source, of course it made fun of OSX, of course it compared Linux to a trailor park hippie, but it was also twice as mean to Microsoft, it raised some good points, and why couldn't we just appreciate a good rant? It was funny and hit home quite a few times.
And frankly the end of the speech, which predicts that geeks will be the next dissidents, sounds like a distinct, and scary, possibility.
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:4, Insightful)
-russ
Parent
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:3, Informative)
Doc [weblogs.com] made a front row MD recording. I'll be putting it up eventually along w/ the rest my OSCON recordings [randomfoo.net]. It will probably come across better than the transcript.
Microsoft? As a cathedral? (Score:2)
That sounds about right. I'm sure that penance and poverty come into it, somehow. Not necessarily in that order...
Sorry Bruce, I think you called this one wrong.
The Church of MS (Score:2)
No, actually, this is probably spot-on. Bill Gates is the Pope, Ballmer et al are the Cardinals, and every customer is a poverty-vowing, pennance-performing member.
Re:The Church of MS (Score:2)
Contrarian? To what? (Score:2, Interesting)
If Slashdot really does want to post a contrarian view to open source, it seems to me that a suitable article ought to be found.
The benefit of this forum is that it allows a diverse group of opinions to be expressed. That all goes for naught, however, if the subject matter is not worthy of the discussion.
A solidly written article that runs counter to the open source viewpoint could stimulate not only a great discussion, it could also help to hone the arguments that folks would use in their support of open source.
Oooh! Such Criticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really get tired of a bunch of whiney geeks bitching because people want to sully their precious, insulated geekspace with cultural issues (outside games and anime and Libetarianism, which, for some unfathomable reason, seem to be perfectly OK). Is that the key item to being a geek? A uncontrolled but always frustrated little ego that says "Bow down before me in my magnificent geektitude and don't ever mention the outside world because I can't handle that!"? Sheesh...
Grow up.
Not a great Sterling rap... here's a better one: (Score:5, Interesting)
By all means, read it for fun... e.g. note Sterling's attempt at categorizing proprietary software company strategies as relationship headgames, where Linux comes in as this weird hippie chick that likes doing geeky guys... just don't expect too much of it.
Sometimes I think Slashdot may have painted itself into a corner... they ended up running a link to *this* Sterling rap, because it's about the sterotypic concerns of slashdot, not because it's a particularly interesting one. Try this one: Without Vision, The People Perish [well.com]. There's at least a chance that he's on to something there.
typo in above comment (Score:3, Funny)
You mean "There's at least a chance that he's on something there."
Don't kill the messenger (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the people here, esp. the coders, didn't like the message because it involved so many threads that they can usually ignore. The idea that the inequity of software relationships can be seen from a much larger perspective, and somehow tie in with all of this messy political stuff, like diamond miners in South Africa... well, it's just frightening. Coders aren't diamond miners, after all! We're powerful important people. We aren't used by the man! The man loves us.. he gives us better TV to watch and dental plans.
Just this weekend on
Bruce Sterling hit the nail right on the head. The geeks, he is telling us, along with everyone else are going to have to become dissidents, and then activists.
Because this is a real time of reckoning about freedom and how we may want to change the way we govern ourselves; we all should be prepared. Bruce Sterling's speech is a humorously contrarian introduction, aimed at geeks. But don't stop there.
Go and eat at an urban McDonalds, get a copy of US News & World Report, watch some MTV skin-flick or FOX News, or try not using your ss# for a while, or try tracking your vote to any actual political action (or comparing your vote to a company dollar), and top it all off with a visit to the local garbage dump, 'cause it's gonna smell better there.
Then go and read the commons article. Then read opensecrets.org, or cryptome.org, or the books "Understanding Power" (Chomsky) or "Empire" (Hardt & Negri) or the Declaration of Independence. Not that you have to sign-up with any political party, but these things will change your mind about how the world works, and your role in it.
At the end of doing all of this myself, I didn't needed to be preached to anymore. It's not just the software debate. It's not just the music debate. It's not just the accounting debate. It's the way of the world that is systematically confused. "The American Dream": this Ad sponsored by Pepsi and Brittney Spears' bouncing boobs. Is this really what it's supposed to be like?
I'm reading all I can and planning for a better way of life.
Re:Don't kill the messenger (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, I don't mind the rest of it, but don't be criticizing the bouncing boobs.
points of substance (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source and free software are largely about their own subculture and the social aspects of that subculture rather than about software per se.
Software written by and for programmers is unlikely to have mass appeal, but it has powerful appeal to programmers.
Free software and open source will only become relevant to the average user when they start to take users' tastes and concerns into account.
The cryptic and balky nature of current open source and free software is a draw to programmers not only because it reflects their values, but because it's in such a sorry state that there is a trenchant humanitarian appeal to help out. (By implication, better software might reduce the amount of help available, and the movement might become a victim of its own success eventually.)
Another factor drawing programmers to this development model is the lack of responsibility, since they can quit at any time.
Raymond's cathedral/bazaar metaphor does not seem to apply very well, and on examination, it's unclear what he even meant by it. Microsoft is a bazaar company, not a cathedral company. So are most software makers.
People feel increasingly oppressed by commercial software, particularly Microsoft's. They are waking up to the way the software manipulates them against their own interests.
Viruses have in particular been a wake-up call.
Free software and open source are largely imitative rather than innovative, or "piratical" rather than "creative".
Free software and open source have hidden costs, including the cost of needing to become part of a particular subculture to use them effectively.
Information is not free. Information has intrinsic costs deriving from the social context of the information. Information merchants use particular strategies to make it difficult to change established relationships. Among these are restrictive contracts, brand-specific training, search costs, proprietary formats, durable purchases, and loyalty programs.
The open source and free software community is facing a social transition from a small geek subculture to a significant dissident standing. This is going to present serious challenges.
That's scarcely a complete list of the points of substance in this talk. It may not be Sterling's finest hour -- his forte is fiction, after all -- but it is by no means a bunch of insubstantial blather. In fact he touches on many neglected but important issues.
--
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
Re:points of substance (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the characterization of the Linux project as decentralized and self-assembling, that's been known to be false for years. Linux is tightly held by a strong central control group, in contrast with the development model expressed in Raymond's essay.
--
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
Re:points of substance (Score:3, Interesting)
"Eventually, Raymond would convert the speech into a paper, also titled 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar.' The paper drew its name from Raymond's central analogy. GNU programs were 'cathedrals,' impressive, centrally planned monuments to the hacker ethic, built to stand the test of time. Linux, on the other hand, was more like 'a great babbling bazaar,' a software program developed through the loose decentralizing dynamics of the Internet."
Since we all know now that any successful software project on the medium or large scale requires centralized control, and that Linux and Mozilla are examples of that, it doesn't seem much is left of Raymond's metaphor. You can no more build a serious program without making a plan and enforcing it than you could build a house that way.
--
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
A Linux Girl, but not that Linux Girl (Score:2)
-russ
Re:the WHAT department? (Score:2)
Re:the WHAT department? (Score:2)
Actually, if you read carefully, he prefers Free Software. He sees Open Source as a lesser evil when compared to the unholy of unholies.
Better slut than a whore (Score:5, Funny)
Well, there are others you have to pay for...
Parent
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
The USian reference is a deunificating process by which the majority befog political borders.
Be sure to visit Bruce at his site [texas.net]. He is a Texican.
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
And, on a side note, I believe that the portion of the continent upon which the U.S. sits was originally dubbed "America" (after some cartographer, I believe), and the term was later extended into Canada and the southern continent. So I guess maybe technically (and out of simplicity) we could call ourselves Americans.
The problem is .... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, since the people from the USA wont come up with their own name for just themselves, the rest of the world has to do it for them, be it "USAians" or "Yanks" or "Starbucks" (I actually heard that one a while back) or "'merkins". The problem is that if you don't come up with the name yourselves there's a good chance you'll get saddled with one you don't like
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
Re:A bird? A plane? (Score:2)
Those wouldn't happen to be VA investors would they?
preach it, brother (Score:3, Funny)
god, i don't miss college.
Re:I can relate to the speaker. (Score:3, Interesting)
A simple question would be one thing, a simple question repeated over and over again by the same person could be seen as a sign of insanity. I.e.
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
*taken from websters*
The folly being, the user just relies on the support personal to do the thinking for them on the most basic of computer functions.
Take for example, someone that asks too many questions about M$ office suites.
There are many small schools out there inside of places like staples that can provide the *proper* enviroment for training in these softwares. Yet most people tend to rely on their internal support staff for things like changing the color and size of fonts.
Since learning is important to a support person, and not a user, then wouldn't the support persons time be better spent learning how to lessen their own load? Simple things like having time set aside to lay out templates, use the answer wizard for office installs to create better automated installs (with said included templates) Create documentation (which is useless because lazy people would rather ask questions)
Thing you don't realize is if you quit wasting all the admins time on your patheticly stupid simple questions, he, she, they would have more time to make your life easier and simpler.
I've yet to walk into a company who's management want's to take this type of proactive support because most upper management relies very heavily on this "just in time" support model. It sucks, I've been through it enough. I think the whole MS product line is a complete waste of time for IT departments because ultimately it is the users and upper management that fuck it up... Not the admins.
So next time you ask your sysadmin a stupid word question, better hope it's not me, cause i'm a 190lb lean mean gorrilla now that I go out and exercise daily. We'll see who tosses who out the window OK?
--toq