Slashdot Log In
Eric S. Raymond Answers
from the he-be-da-man dept.
chromatic asks:
Astute readers know why you've reluctantly taken a position as a Linux
evangelist, open source sociologist, and prime target. Taking the
opposite approach, is there anything which would convince you to step
down, that your posts were no longer necessary?
This is not meant to be inflammatory ... it's just a roundabout way of asking how far along your goals are, and what your plans will be if you ever meet them.
ESR answers:
Three things could cause me to step down:
- One: someone emerging to do the public-advocate job clearly better than I do.
- Two: Linux's market share going over 50%. (Cool down, BSD guys -- I'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix win, it just doesn't seen very likely at this point).
- Three: a collapse in Microsoft's stock price. That would mean the end of effective FUD and countermarketing against open source.
ivo asks:
A while ago, we read from you that being the Open Source advocate you
are was wearing you down and influencing your life very badly. Did you
cut down on advocating and did it help? In other words, did you get
your life back?
ESR answers:
Not really. Something more remarkable happened instead; the community
responded to my distress call by growing up a little. I got letters of
apology from some of the worst flamers. Many people in the rest of the
community started pressuring the pinheads who had been making my job harder
to shut up or get constructive.
I have also cut down somewhat on my travel schedule, but not as much as I thought earlier this year I would have to. I'm also demanding (and getting) better travel conditions -- business class instead of the cheap seats in coach. It makes a difference, more of one than I would have thought.
Stephen Williams asks*:
I'm glad to see that, after a three-year break, the Jargon File has
been updated over the past few months. Is version 5.0.0 in the works?
Are there any plans to release an update to the print version, The New
Hacker's Dictionary, any time soon?
ESR answers:
I've discussed the possibility with people at O'Reilly. That might
be my second-to-next book, after "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and
before "The Art Of Unix Programming" (which is about half-done now but
could take me another nine months to finish). Whether I go with
O'Reilly or the publisher of the previous editions (MIT Press) the
fourth edition of TNHD seems likely to come out next year sometime.
Tom Christiansen asks:
I don't know how to ask this question without it sounding like
stirring the pot, but what about the growing chasm between free
software (giftware) and GNU software (the viral kind, not the nice
LGPL kind)? This is a real issue for some people in some
situations. Think about the many BSD resellers and vendors who have
custom packaging in highly competitive fields, like video editing?
Doesn't the friction hurt everyone? Apple has turned to BSD not Linux,
and the GPL is cited as one reason why. This seems to be
devisive. There are no end of flamewars on /. and elsewhere, and the
heat diminishes the light. What kind of reconciliation is possible?
Or is "take no prisoners" just the way it has to work?
ESR answers:
I don't see a chasm there, Tom. After all, we're all still writing
and exchanging code. We're all using basically the same set of
licenses. I don't think there are properly two different movements at
all, outside the imaginations of a few rather fanatical partisans on
both sides.
Here is the reality test: if you're running a project and someone sends you a patch, will you stop to enquire whether that person is a member of the correct faction before you apply it? I don't think so...
So despite the verbal fireworks and philosophical disputes, we're all hackers together. What unites us is more important than what divides us.
Tet asks:
You say you want to live in a world where software doesn't suck. I
couldn't agree more. However, do you see closed source
software on an open source OS as a
step in the right direction, or just
likely to be a more stable platform on
which to run your potentially bug-ridden software?
ESR answers:
Step in the right direction, definitely. As more and more
infrastructure goes open, and the remaimning closed-source
applications increasingly use it for leverage, the overall
quality of the applications will go up.
planet_hoth*:
Recent interest shown by large commercial tech companies (IBM,
SGI, Sun) seems to signal a new chapter in the history of Linux. Do
you see the participation of these companies strengthening the linux
communitity? Destroying it? Or transforming it into something
completely different?
ESR answers:
Look around you. What do you see, compared to a year ago?
Do you see fewer Linux hackers writing open source, or more? Do you see fewer hackers getting *paid* to write open source, or more? I think the answer is pretty clear.
Do you see our designs, or our licenses, or our coding practices being changed in any significant way by corporate participation? Again, I think the answer is pretty clear.
The truth is, they're not transforming us. We're transforming them.
asad asks*:
I know that you are on the board of directors at VA Linux, what
does your job entail?
ESR answers:
My job at VA mostly involves sitting in a board meeting once a month
asking searching questions about what the firm is doing and why. My role
there (as Larry Augustin describes it) is to be the official corporate
conscience. This mainly involves nipping bad ideas in the bud, before
they flower into something that would piss off the hacker community. I
have not had to do this often.
shawnhargreaves asks:
You've always been involved in hacker projects outside of just coding
(eg. the Jargon File), but over the last year or so the spokesperson
role seems to have grown into a fulltime job. How long is it since you
last sat down to write a major piece of software? Do you expect to go
back to fulltime development work anytime soon, and if so, what would
you work on? How do you manage to cope with the withdrawal symptoms?
ESR answers:
An astute question ;-). I haven't sat down to write a major piece of
software from scratch in months, but I am continuing to maintain
fetchmail. I just took over the gif2png beta code with
Greg Roelofs's consent; the 1.0.0 version might be out by the time you
read this. Today I did some work on gnuplot,
bringing the PNG driver up to date.
If I get to go full-time again soon, I want to go back to work on Trove, the distributed web-based code-archiving system I designed last year. I'd also like to work with Guido van Rossum on Python 1.6; there are some long-time wishlist features like rich comparisons and a full lambda facility that I care enough about to implement myself. I also have a strategy-gaming system I wrote back in the 1980s that I'd like to put a modern (Web-based) interface on. Finally, having contributed a bit of code to GNOME (the network-monitor applet) I'd like to balance things by doing something for KDE.
meersan asks:
This has probably been asked before, but I can't recall seeing the
answer to it anywhere. What originally led you to write The Cathedral
and the Bazaar? -- what I'm interested in is if there was some event
or impetus that prompted you to write it down. Obviously you'd have no
way of predicting the firestorm that followed, but it's always
intriguing to know about the spark that started it all
ESR answers:
I wrote CatB as a way of coping with my astonishment in the face of
the Linux phenomenon. What I observed was that the community around
Linux had evolved a way to write software that (a) was tremendously
effective, (b) violated the classic Brooks's Law rules, and (c) was
completely unconscious! Nobody reflected on what they were doing; it
was practice without theory. I wrote CatB as an attempt to help my
tribe become more conscious about what it has been doing.
Q*bert asks:
We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you
see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger
political push for libertarian, minimal government?
What conferences are you planning to attend this year? Do you have plans for organizing Geeks with Guns outings during them? If so, is there a mailing list or some other source of information about how to join?
ESR answers:
No comment on that first question. But, if you could see my face,
I'm wearing a very evil grin....
See my speaking calendar for the conferences I plan to attend. As for GWG, there's no mailing list; would you like to host one? I rely on local organizers to find a range, and I don't have one for Atlanta Linux Showcase yet.
banky asks:
Linux, like all things in the computer world, will eventually become
obsolete or maybe just too much work to keep "up to date". Linus (er,
Dr. Torvalds) even said in his "Open Sources" essay that
(paraphrasing) someone else could come along and write something
better which will take Linux's place. How long do you think before
someone will have an offering that will obsolete (or at least prove a
competitor to) Linux and the BSD's?
ESR answers:
I doubt Linux will have a real technical competitor for a long time,
because I think it will probably just absorb new architectural ideas,
amoeba-like, as they evolve. Twenty years from now the core APIs may
have grown and changed tremendously, but we'll still think of it as
the `same' codebase and call it Linux :-).
scumdamn asks:
Is the friction between Gnome and KDE, BSD and GPL, Free Software and
Open Source, and the other sources of flame war a bad thing or a good
thing for the movement? Many people seem to feel that the competition
is devisive, but isn't it the opposite? We're always preaching that
competition is a good thing for the entire market, but then we
complain when any of our pet projects are pitted head to head with
another. The passion felt by the proponents of each philosophy seems
to result in better, more quality work. Isn't this proof that
competition is the Good Thing we've been saying it is all along?
ESR answers:
I think you answered your own question :-).
cemerson asks:
Which of the coders working on open source projects do you admire the
most? A particular big name like Linus, or someone less well-known?
ESR answers:
Hmmm. I don't think there's anyone I can say I admire the most.
There's a level of ability beyond which trying to make comparisons between
people just gets silly, because each of the people that good has
become a sort of perfect master of his own domain. Linus. RMS.
Larry Wall. Guido van Rossum. James Gosling. Going further back,
Ken Thompson or Dennis Ritchie. Anyway, I find these guys have gotten
their fill of being admired, so I try to be friends with them instead.
K asks:
Why isn't there an entry for "free software" in the
Jargon Dictionary? Was this a politically-motivated decision?
ESR answers:
Zounds! You know, until this moment, I didn't realize that entry was
missing.
I don't think you want me to write it, though. I would find it hard to avoid using phrases like "rhetorical millstone around our necks" and "held us back for fifteen years". Care to submit one yourself?
Paul Crowley asks:
In Understand
my job, please! you described Bruce Perens's
proposal that we have a team of Linux advocates sharing the load
as "glib". Could you say more about why you feel this way - isn't it
more likely that a job where the load is shared would be more
attractive?
ESR answers:
I think I answered that question in the same paragraph you quoted.
What makes the job rough isn't the workload, it's the second-guessers
and snipers from the sidelines -- among whom Bruce was, at the time,
nearly the worst. Connect the dots yourself.
jflynn asks:
Starting an open source project from nothing but people with a common
interest is difficult. It's been my experience that it is very easy to
founder with a bazaar approach to architecture and design. The issues
tend to get confused with religious wars about toolkits and license
choice, and just a lot of differing opinions about how to best
structure a program, no one of which may be *obviously* better.
Is it essential for individuals to first create a working model, incomplete and buggy it may be, before applying bazaar development? Or what would you suggest in terms of managing a bazaar approach to creating programs from a bare idea?
ESR answers:
I wouldn't. I think you're right; the successful projects have a
core of individual vision around which the bazaar community nucleates.
elutfall asks*:
Since, as we all know, cheese is the most powerful substance in the
universe, I was wondering what your favorite source of ultimate power is?
ESR answers:
That would have to be sex, because I'm allergic to cheese.
--
Next week: Bruce Sterling.
Another question- (Score:2)
Re:Separation of Chruch and State (Score:2)
Re:My opinion of BeOS (Score:2)
Nethack (Score:3)
Separation of Chruch and State (Score:5)
We're all very well aware of your pro-libratinarian (sp?) and pro-gun opinions; I even share some of them.
It is, however, vitally important that you separate these activities from your Open Source activities. You must keep the Church and the State separate.
Imagine if a deeply religeous President started trying to make his beliefs law, or if he started to use Presidental privlidge as a formum to preach his beliefs.
It's OK to have strong, personal beliefs. It's OK to voice these beliefs. It's not OK when you use State position (in this case, your position as the Open Source spokesmodel) to advance your personal cause.
It is my opionion that you mix the two far too often. Please do more to keep them separate.
The Famous Hero
In the Year 2020 (Score:2)
Twenty years from now the core APIs may have grown and changed tremendously, but we'll still think of it as the `same' codebase and call it Linux :-).
For some reason, this statement disturbs me greatly. Sure, it's a nice idea to have the same relative base that's matured and been expanded, but I kinda like to think we'll have something more, well, exciting by then.
Of course, I'm still miffed that flying cars aren't in everyone's aero-garages yet.
-Andrew
Who "wins"? (Score:2)
(...)
Two: Linux's market share going over 50%. (Cool down, BSD guys -- I'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix win, it just doesn't seen very likely at this point).
Three: a collapse in Microsoft's stock price. That would mean the end of effective FUD and countermarketing against open source.
I'm a bit confused by those last two reasons.. When you say you'd be equally pleased to see some other open-source Unix "win", does that mean that they are somehow in competition with each other? I've found that using the right tool for the job often works best. Linux for workstations, BSD for servers. If we were to use market share as an indicator of who "wins", I'd say Microsoft would win.
Next, I'm not sure how you interpret the destruction of Microsoft as being the end of FUD against openly-coded programs and operating systems. Microsoft serves a very important purpose for openly-coded operating systems and programs right now. Their "just good enough to push out the door" coding style is starting to piss off even their most rigid supporters, and the more people that Microsoft helps us to convert to open systems in that manner, the better. Remember, Microsoft is not a software company, it is a marketing company.
If Microsoft tanks, look for Sun to start spreading FUD against open systems. Why? Because they stand to profit from doing so.
--
Re:Who "wins"? (Score:2)
And why's that? Because most of them don't know any better.
--
Re:Community Tangent (Score:2)
You can have both selfishness and community- they do balance out and you can have both- but you can't have community by using only selfishness.
Second the motion (Score:2)
If commercial vendors don't want to give information to the community (which they can participate in with impunity, all they like, under the rules of the community), then they _should_ be writing proprietary software, instead of jumping on bandwagons they do not understand. There's sure to be many commercial vendors who _will_ give information permanently to the community (under the GPL, for instance) for reasons of their own, such as wanting to take a mindshare lead, or companies whose strength is support and services, or companies who distribute software so big that it's unappealing to try and download all of it, or companies which can legitimately claim to be releasing an 'engine' and selling an 'artwork' that runs on the engine and is copyright as if it were a novel or painting.
I don't know if ESR ever _will_ see things this way, but I greatly desire him to lay off RMS and the GPL. To some, this license and its colorful inventor are extremely important, irreplacable. Quit dissing on it.
Entry: "Free Software", please read (Score:2)
How's that?
Re:Separation of Chruch and State (Score:2)
Re:Needless Hostility (Score:2)
Free Software 'holding us back' (Score:2)
I ask, held us back against what? Seems to me that many (most?) quality pieces of Free Software were produced before the advent of "Open Source" - before it was even conceived. gcc and the whole GNU project, X, Linux, the BSD flavours, to name a few.
So, essentially, everything we needed was completed before ESR, Bruce Perens (sp?) and their cronies came along and started praching the Open Source mantra.
In my mind, Open Source has accomplished nothing of any importance to us. Netscape said that one of the major reasons for the NPL and MPL release of much Netscape software was because of "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" - and, as it later came out, because of Jamie Zawinski [jwz.org]'s evangelism within the company. In other words, ESR had something to do with it, but Open Source wasn't even around then.
No, I haven't forgotten people like Apple with the monstrosity of a license like the APSL which it peddles. In my mind that shows the negatives of Open Source - that such crap can go on and be accepted and welcomed. Companies should come to us on our terms - on the terms of Free Software - and not the other way around.
Grow up, Eric. It's your New Hacker's Dictionary and all, but I can't help but notice there's an entry for open source [tuxedo.org] in it. Why not tell people what Free Software is? Without it, there would be no Open Source.
Yes. We need open policy as well as open source. (Score:2)
If what Bruce does is "sniping from the sidelines" I'd like to know what the hell valid criticism from another participant looks like.
--
Most hackers will cooperate (Score:2)
Your point is somewhat different than Toms, about the practical (rather than cultural and political) problems of reusing software between the licenses. This is a real problem. My advice is: Ask the owner (if he can be identified) for an exception to the license, that allows you to incooperate his work in your project. You will find that most people are willing to cooperate.
Re:Needless Hostility (Score:2)
This is a real dilemma. Is it more sad that: /.?
1. I find myself wanting 'killfiles' for
2. I would ever want to killfile ESR and Bruce Perens?
It is this sort of public clashing among well-known advocates of Open Source/Free Software/Name Of The Week that enemies of such movements gleefully point fingers to prove the movement is doomed/falling apart/not business worthy.
cathedral approach? (Score:2)
Constructive criticism would have been avoiding a flamewar -- coming to OSI and Apple privately
with your concerns.
Eric, this seems an odd statement coming from you. Since when is open-source (any aspect of it) supposed to be done by in private back-room deals?
Personal attacks are (unfortunately, not needless to say) are another matter, but discussion should be public.
--
Re:Separation of Chruch and State (Score:2)
The OS/FSF/etc. movement is completely compatible with this. "Don't restrict my right to be private! (encription laws).", "I will not be forced to use a piece of software just because everyone else is (including the government)". I can re-distribute this code, with my modifications, so long as I give credit for the work that others have put into it, and I don't try to close-source the work of others.
If ESR were trying to associate the OSS movement with a party that focuses on Abortion rights, fear of THEM(tm), or other ways of reducing individual rights, then I might agree with you. Libertarians would make sure that the GNU software licence is always legal, that everyone can use encryption on anything they want, that the gov't can't sieze computer equipment and store it for years on a mere allegation.
You might as well get upset when an OSS evagelist talks about Science in the same breath as Linux.
This is GREAT! (Score:2)
Eric Raymond offensive? (Score:2)
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
I'll probably get moderated down for this comment. I'm not trying to be flamebait - rather I think Eric Raymond is flamebaiting and I think (Moderators in paticular who want to moderate me down) that it is important that people be able to relate to being disgusted by this comment as I would like to be able to look back and realize I'm not alone - others are disgusted by his comment too.
Maybe if people are allowed to reply to this comment and express their views (rather than having it moderated out of the discussion) Eric will realize the mistake that he's made.
I realize of course that I will probably recieve just as much flame as Eric for discussing this. So I have to say that I can respect Eric as an evangelist but not as a person. I would hope that he could keep his personal life out of his work.
Joseph Elwell.
Leader or Follower? (Score:3)
First off, neither the Linux movement, nor the evangelism of it, is lead by Eric Raymond. Why should he not be subject to second guessing? Isn't Linus subject to second guessing by Alan Cox and other kernel developers? Should the evangelism of Linux be similar to the Development?
Secondly snipers are bad. kill them.
Joseph Elwell.
Re:In the Year 2020 (Score:3)
Twenty years from now the kernel itself will have changed and expanded somewhat, most likely. But I feel most of the real excitement to most people will be in the layers above the kernel.
VR user interfaces, voice recognition with natural language processing, these sorts of things are a level above the kernel and will be where a lot of the excitement comes in. Most users never really 'see' the kernel when you think about it.
Kernels to some extent are supposed to be boring. Stability and reliability and predictability are traits that you'd like in a kernel, rather than the edgy excitement of never knowing when you're going to get a BSOD.
As for Linux, I see long term things like greater modularity, more network transparency, improved resource management, security and so forth. Not exactly cutting edge stuff, but the foundations on which all applications depend on.
Not that these things won't be exciting, but a lot of it will be in an understated or hidden way. The fact that you won't have memory leaks or you'll have a hundred processors on a dozen machines working together seamlessly with no fear of someone cracking your system isn't exactly glamorous, but will be important.
And the creation of physics-perfect (or deliberately twisted) virtual realities and getting your computer to understand what you speak will be the exciting processes that run on top of a rock solid kernel. Not to mention all the fun applications and games you'll have.
FUD pre- and post-dates Microsoft (Score:2)
The Jargon file is clear enough on the predating. The term was coined by Gene Amdahl in reference to IBM. Now IBM is a major Linux citizen. Ironic, huh?
And regarting point two, why not just say "the combined market share of free software OS's going over 50%"? Linux rocks, and I agree there are no signs on the near horizon for its dominance to be threatened.
However, over a longer term, I don't see why three or four free operating systems occupying distinct ecological niches. Linus has already suggested that it may be technically wise to have separate codebases (with much sharing, presumably) for tiny embedded linux and for the massive 64+ multiprocessor systems.
Re:Eric Raymond offensive? (Score:2)
Quite right, zantispam, and astute of you to notice.
There's something else going on, as well -- I find that some of my quirks and opinions are a useful form of street theater that helps me gain and hold the attention of journalists. A "safer" (read: more boring) evangelist would be less effective on our behalf.
Re:Needless Hostility (Score:3)
That's not constructive criticism. Constructive criticism would have been avoiding a flamewar -- coming to OSI and Apple privately with your concerns.
That's what I can't forgive -- and won't.
Re:Microsoft vanishes (Score:3)
Re:Needless Hostility (Score:3)
Ghods. Where do I start...? There have been so many, starting with his vicious attack on Tim O'Reilly last fall...
See http://linuxtoday.com/stories/4179.html [linuxtoday.com]. That lovely little denunciamento did our negotiations with Apple very serious damage. Going public with it instead of approaching me or OSI or Apple privately caused a whole lot of unnecessary grief and flamage within the community as well.
Simply going off on a tear might have been forgiveable, except that Bruce's analysis of the APSL was just plain wrong. He's not a lawyer, he didn't have advice from people competent to reaf legalese, and the problems he thought he'd detected were all bullshit and vapor.
The only real problem with the license a technical glitch in the export clause that Bruce never noticed. (To be fair, we at OSI missed it too until Seth Schoen pointed it out. Seth now does all our first-pass license evaluations.)
The fallout from Bruce's public grandstanding still hasn't settled out. There are still people who think (mistakenly) that APSL 1.1 is not OSD-conformant and is a broken license.
Bruce is not an idiot; he had to have known that the effect of splitting the community over APSL would be to damage OSI's negotiating leverage with other big corporations, thus making it harder for us to head off truly bad licenses like the SCSL.
Even leaving out his personal attacks against me (representing the OSI decision as though I had gone into some kind of reckless cowboy mode instead of having the unanimous approval of the OSI Board -- and that was the least of them) I can't forgive him for needlessly damaging OSI's credibility and usefulness to the community when a single exchange of email with me or anybody else on the inside of the negotiations would have prevented any problem.
Re:ESR/Perens war to continue? (Score:3)
Bruce
Re:Needless Hostility (Score:3)
I criticised Apple's license and IBM's in public. Both responded positively. I think the public debate was essential in eliciting that response.
Certainly your criticism of RMS has been as bad as anything I've ever directed your way.
You dish it out, you've got to take it too.
Thanks
Bruce
Re:ESR/Perens war to continue? (Score:3)
Bruce
Re:Bruce's apology to Eric (Score:3)
Bruce
Needless Hostility (Score:4)
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Make this item a long-term net resource please (Score:3)
And somehow we ought to ensure that all the free software / open source luminaries read the item. Instead of destructive flames, disgruntled people should just send off the URL of konstant's piece as a gentle reminder that egos are not the most important thing in this community.
Please... (Score:3)
1) Linux has never clamed someone else's works as 'innovative' and then actively tries to drive the origional company out of business.
2) Linux is about making software available to EVERYONE free of charge. Yes, RedHat, Caldera, and others are trying to make money from it, but you can still download everything free of charge.
World Domination (TM) by Linux is good, because it's not domination by a single company, but rather freedom from a single company who dictates how my computer works.
Execuse the rant...
jf
A technical competitor to Linux (Score:3)
This might be overly picky, but I would say Linux already has a technical competitor - BSD based Unices.
--
ESR/Perens war to continue? (Score:5)
Eric, when will you start acknowledging Bruce Perens' considerable ongoing contributions to the cause? Your continued sniping at him only makes you look bad.
We all need second-guessers, because none of us is perfect. Bruce's second-guessing of you resulted in a better license from Apple (you would have let them get away with too much, not because you're a bad guy but simply because you made a mistake).
As far as I'm concerned, you and Bruce have pretty much the same job: companies are contacting both of you for advice on software licensing; journalists are contacting both of you to get an understanding of the movement, both of you are advocates for open source, etc. You each have your strengths and weaknesses. This isn't Highlander; it is not true that "there can be only one".
bsd vs. gpl (freedom, good for business/community? (Score:3)
The way I see it the only good open/free software licenses are GPL and LGPL (or something in between, like TGPL
Just had to scratch my mental itch and form coherent thought.
Comments? Am I not groking fully?
Re:Another question- (Score:3)
In addition there are many software patents considered void because the patented ideas are obvious (and thus violate patent law). The XOR patent is usually quoted in this context. There is hardly a chance a small software company can know all the relevant patents let alone fight the bad ones in court, which would be the constitutional/legally correct thing to do.
It all boils down to whether society profits from software patents. With industrial manufacturing the decision of most of todays industrial nations is to support the patent system. For other things like mathematics, law, and to a large extent basic research including medicine these same industrial nations won't grant the protection of patents. Software currently falls under the patent system but the discussion is far from over.
This article [mit.edu] or the League for Programming Freedom [mit.edu] have a few arguments.
Bad Publicity HOWTO (Score:4)
One question is often asked with some frequency - Can a bunch of loosely gathered hobbyists and college students be trusted to write critical software? "Aren't they just a bunch of kids playing around?" - the saying goes.
And trust me - this kind of scuffling doesn't help (especially when it comes from the evangelist spreading the word about how mature the open source development community is).
Perception matters more than you think. As things stand, one of the big misconceptions about open source/linux is that it's run by anarchist geeks with long hair who can't be trusted. Yes, I know it's an unfair image, but it exists nonetheless.
It's the same problem that Sun often has - McNealy's statements are often so immature that people have difficulty taking him seriously. Sometimes ESR's comments also get a little high on vanity and boastfulness, and frankly, all it does is make everyone look immature. Similarly, when linux advocates bitterly bite and scratch, and then carry out an extended argument as to who started the fight, who has apologized how many times, etc. etc. it begins to enter the grey area between amusement and shooting-oneself-in-the-foot-with-remarkable-accu
If you want to propagate a good image of open source, just keep the personality battles out of the picture. Nobody really cares, and it just makes a mockery of evangelism and advocacy.
"Sniping from the sidelines" (Score:5)
Surprisingly, the most prominent evangelists of the open source community are also the most abject victims of its flame. These individuals, pedigreed by years of code, use their eloquence to plead for free software worldwide. Their work is the reproductive force of the movement, stimulating conversions and showing businessmen the money to be made embracing open source. In reward, the open source community takes the beliefs of these leaders seriously - by far the gravest honor this opinionated clan can bestow. Yet these public speakers are also subject to a continuous trickle of hate mail from the geeks they represent, one that widens into a deluge the moment they stray from open software's traditional path. While they behave predictably, open source leaders have the backing of their constituents, but if they articulate a new vision or take a risk, the community that could rally round them instead sits down and jeers.
This humiliating puzzle is bound up with the role of leadership in the open source movement. The computer industry is rife with the Napoleonic model of business, which views software as the manifest will of visionary CEOs. At Scott McNealy's Sun, Larry Ellison's Oracle, Bill Gates' Microsoft and others, resources flow back and forth in obedience to the whims of charismatic chairmen. Like competing generals, they glower at each other across the battlefield of the NASDAQ listings, struggling to see furthest and direct their armies of coders accordingly.
Open source is altogether different. By its nature, the community responds indifferently to grand visions, and the definition of success varies from participant to participant, each according to his or her own needs. The aim of open software is to serve the people who write it, and consequently its users react warily to those advocating a de-emphasis of their rights in exchange for money, publicity, or convenience. Because initiatives flow upwards in this population, its ideal leadership is not that of an emperor tending to a legacy, but that of an ambassador speaking for a people. And in the free software movement, just as in government, an overly inventive diplomat is an incompetent one.
Enter the brash politics of Eric Raymond. A decade and a half into the GNU project, and with the 8th birthday of Linux hard approaching, credit is due to Raymond, who has single-handedly sweetened the reputation of open source. Once considered a toy of seditious kids, Linux is now a titan thanks to Raymond's ability to creep inside the heads of corporate decision makers and craft arguments against their fears. Raymond established his importance to the community with his paper The Cathedral and the Bazaar, a stunning explanation of open source methods that convinced Netscape Corporation to open the source of its popular Mozilla browser in 1998. All was smiles and backslapping in the community as the campaigning Raymond brought businesses to openness. In Eric Raymond, it seemed, open source had found a missionary capable of converting the heathen without going native himself.
The giddiness didn't last long. Raymond was a volunteer, neither salaried nor elected, but made powerful by his own work with companies and the press. True altruism is rare, and especially so when attached to the magnitude of celebrity Raymond was achieving. The nasty word 'sellout' appeared in sporadic flames on the net, and Raymond stoked the fires by conspicuously avoiding talk of 'freedom' or 'free software' in his speeches, a policy he later attributed to the unease those terms stir in businessmen. Open source developers, whose professional lives often fall short of perfection due to the interference of suits, awoke to the possibility Eric Raymond was a Judas, willing to sell their rebellion in return for the gratifications of fame.
The flashpoint was the release of Apple's Public Source License in early March of this year. Apple, hoping to bring the dynamism of open source to its OS kernel, requested a meeting with Raymond to discuss its License. Raymond and Apple retreated behind closed doors. Other open source activists, such as Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens, learned of the meeting through the grapevine but were so far out of the loop that they could not even locate a phone number to call at Apple. The talks disbanded shortly afterwards without their contribution. Eric Raymond emerged flushed with victory, and Apple trumpeted APSL 1.0, fully certified as Open Source. Stallman and Perens went on the offensive, denouncing the License as deficient and enumerating reasons. Community discussion boards buzzed with speculation, with many participants agreeing Raymond had misrepresented open source. To this criticism he issued a retort, stating that objections to the License were founded in loose reading and lack of legal competence. It appeared that from Raymond's point of view, the discussion was at an end.
Eric Raymond had many defenders, but others stuttered with anger. Apple's inadvertent exclusion of the community forced a realization long in coming: the position of public representative is as much bestowed by corporations and the media as by the community itself. Raymond had succeeded as a promoter by cultivating his credibility with the forces arrayed against open source. Once allowed in their camp, he could persuade them gently, in words they understood, rather than bellowing from the perimeter. This arrangement was convenient for reporters and businesses: the affable Raymond provided translations and spared them the chore of researching open source. But Raymond was only one man, presenting a tinted perspective of the diverse opinions alive in his movement. Indeed, Apple stated afterwards that the APSL fracas was the first it had heard of other community factions. Once it was clear Raymond would not yield to the disagreement of his peers, it became academic whether the APSL was a good license. He was one man defying the movement that had made him, and not a few felt it was time he was deposed.
Disciplining a volunteer leader
Rationally, there was little the community could do to rebuke its spokesman. There was no salary to slash, no vote to cast, not even any media contacts who would prefer a few ragtag emails to the word of the established Raymond. But flame has little to do with the rational. The great furnaces were heard chugging across the land, and what profane masterpieces of filth were disgorged only Eric Raymond can say. His email address became a sump of all that is foul in the minds of hundreds of raging geeks. Before the month was out, Raymond issued a statement in which he threatened to resign his leadership. Ironically, his sarcasm was misinterpreted; leaving the impression he had already drawn the blinds and settled into a life of oblivion. The reaction to this perceived development, while poignant, lacked the tenor of fear that might be present at Microsoft, for example, should Gates unexpectedly retire. Open source was prepared to move on without Eric Raymond, and he rushed to clarify himself and remind his listeners that much work remained only he could complete. After some skeptical grumbling, he was reinstated to the community's good graces. The Apple Public Source License was revised three weeks later, correcting all the disputed terms.
Spats such as this illuminate a problem with open source gift culture. Ego gratification is a powerful stimulant for open source developers. Participants give gifts of source code partially to satisfy their craving for recognition as magnanimous geniuses. The community encourages this motive in all cases save one: leadership. Public representatives for the open source movement are expected to be meek and shun self-promotion. Those who stray are lashed with vicious emotional reprisals. All their work must be for the good of the whole, and none for themselves. In short, the community demands its foremost members adhere to ethics the average hacker finds intolerable. Small wonder most open source leaders ultimately disappoint the led.
Many arguments reduce to a handful of facts that can be viewed in more than one light, and emotion rather than intellect is the deciding element. The civilized compromise is an agreement to disagree, but when it comes to community speakers, there is no room for such courtesies. Since ideas rise upwards in the open source movement, allowing a leader to advocate one thing while the community believes another would be as damaging as allowing a diplomat to Russia to announce IMF debt forgiveness on his own initiative. Ambassadors may suggest, but they cannot decide. They must either represent the community, or be expelled.
Examples of this are abundant on the popular board Slashdot.org. Roving journalists frequently refer to Slashdot when plumbing the attitudes of the open source community; making it crucial they not receive a false impression during their stay. Slashdot real estate is therefore valuable and the power to select discussion topics is great. If a site operator abuses Slashdot to gratify an emotional itch, the response from readers is not only rational debate - though logic is always voiced - but also emotional counterattack. While calmer members discredit the logic of the offender, volatile participants demolish their motives with insults. It becomes psychologically expensive for the offender to continue.
Sengan Baring-Gould learned this during the Lewinsky scandal, when he exercised his operator power to post a denunciation of American missile strikes in Iraq. Perhaps seduced by a captive audience of thousands, he forbade community responses, effectively hijacking the open source mouthpiece for his own politics. Slashdotters responded with furious floods of mail to Baring-Gould and site owner Rob Malda, who scrambled to enable comments and posted two apologies. Criticisms swamped the board, ranging from windy dissections of Baring-Gould's logic to far rawer fare. With his argument tattered by logic and his power trip soiled by emotional assaults, Baring-Gould had little motive to fight on. The episode was not repeated.
But Baring-Gould's experience was a mere candle to the bonfire roasting of Jonathan Katz. Katz, a former editor with Wired, is surprisingly innocent of technical knowledge. Empowered with posting privileges, Katz writes opinions for a board patronized by thousands of open source developers, and consequently is a sort of de facto community representative when journalists come calling, regardless of whether his columns are actually read. His pieces endure much scrutiny from those who do not appreciate his company.
Early in his tenure, Katz was known for unabashed promotion of his own books. His columns effused over dubious notions such as 'sexbots' and at least once a month declared the dawn of a new era, as evinced by a movie he had seen. Rational criticisms did little to improve his quality. Slashdotters turned to flame. The rage came ripe and sloppy for weeks, even prompting a Katz column in which he wondered whether he was still wanted (he decided he was). Then, when it seemed inevitable he would lose his position, Katz had a moment of brilliance. In a daring piece, he defied popular media and declared the Columbine geeks had killed because they were driven to it, persecuted by merciless jocks. Instantly, the sewage of popular opinion sprouted roses. Katz had said something the community had needed to hear for a long time. Today, Katz confines himself largely to variations on the Columbine theme and book reviews. There remains little for which he can be flamed, save lack of innovation.
Open source advocates - and the hacker clan in general - fancy themselves as dispassionate creatures, able to analyze facts from a distance and judge impartially. This is a delusion. If emotion runs high anywhere, it is among geeks, and if any group is harnessing this volatility, it is the open source community. When reason's bullets are spent, only raw feeling remains to dispute actions that are wrong or damaging. Like the Salem Puritans many geeks profess to despise, the open source community manipulates emotion to enforce the curious strictures of its morality. It remains to them to decide whether this is a suitable tool for their advancement. Their success in quelling it or wielding it will reveal a great deal about their culture.
-konstant
ESR offensive? No, your misinterp. (Score:3)
First: offense is something the offendee feels. In some cases, it is unfair to blame the offender for a statement/action that feels offensive; perhaps the offendee is not allowing customary liberties to the offender. Thus the backlash against "Poltical Correctness"; if person A says something inoffensive by community standards, but person B has unusual standards, person B might be offended, but person A did not offend person B.
Second: I saw NOTHING offensive, by reasonable standards, in ESR's last response there. It was, as others have noted, a flippant response to a silly question.
It would be nice to have an evangelist who can keep his penis out of the evangelism of linux.
Er, I've read most, if not all, of ESR's Linux advocacy. And I can count on negative fingers the number of times he's mentioned sex, his penis, Mae Ling Mak naked and petrified, etc. The one mention of anything even remotely sexual I can recall is in one of his personal, non-Linux-related writings on his website. It was about his trip to Japan [tuxedo.org]. To say that he can't keep his penis out of Linux evangelism is just SO WRONG! It's slanderous, both in the sense of falsehood and in the sense of malice. I think most of this community would agree that you have grossly misinterpreted any connotation ESR implied, and that you have applied a bizarrely high standard to the ordinary chaos of
Eric's apology to Bruce (Score:5)
(please don't kill me, Eric!)
Re:A Purely Academic Question (Score:3)
The classic Adam Smith-style exchange is this: I have an apple to sell, you have a dollar. I value your dollar more than the apple, and you value the apple more than the dollar. Exchange ensues. Utility is increased on both sides, and (significantly) by our own personal measurements of utility.
But we can take one party out of the picture and apply the same reasoning. I meet a homeless man on the street. I have a five dollar bill. I feel sorry for the homeless man, so I give him the five dollars. I obtain the peace of mind that comes from being a good guy. In effect, I purchased that peace of mind for $5. The utility has still increased on both sides of the transaction. Even though the homeless guy did not explicitly give me anything, his existence was required for me to obtain my sense of well being for helping a homeless man.
Similarly, the consumers of OSS projects are parties to an "exchange" in which the software author obtains his non-monetary rewards.
Yes, I am arguing that altruism is economic and that it may be understood in the context of utility. Clearly, if I get no peace of mind from giving money to the homeless man, the transfer of $5 will not happen. Just as in a two-party transaction, I am implicitly (probably unconsciously) comparing expected utilities.
To push it to an extreme, even the decision about whether to go to the movies or take a nap on a Saturday afternoon is an economic decision. Or the decision to commit or not to commit a crime.
The truly free market respects the right of every individual to make these personal utility judgements without interference, no matter how many parties are involved in a transaction. Many people think that it is somehow "dehumanizing" to reduce all decisions to economics, but this is what normal human beings do -- we all try to make our lives better by our own definition of "better", i.e. we all try to increase our net utility.
At any rate, Eric, thanks for responding. Keep up the good work!
-knox
BOTH OF YOU (Score:4)
Quit acting like high school kids, this is pathetic. You're both right and you're both wrong. Criticism is important, but it needs to be done is a respectful manner. Remember that feelings ARE important, they're the driving force behind everything we do. So be mindful of other people's feelings when you criticize them.
That said, I respect both of you, but please, quit this pointless bickering. We will all be more productive if we can respect each other and act civil.
Re:ESR/Perens war to continue? (Score:3)
Bruce's apology to Eric (Score:5)
Okay, listen up, everyone. Here's what Bruce meant to say, but his damn ego wouldn't let him (and remember, I still like you, Bruce):
OK, but please remember that I was the one being threatened. I think in that case there was unprofessional behavior on both sides, and I'm sorry for my part in it. I'd like to bury the hatched and make up. Eric, will you accept my humble, heartfelt apology?
Re:Eric Raymond offensive? (Score:3)
I am, though, highly offended by the questioner's mention of... well, the "chee-" word. I think anyone with the gall to talk about such a subject in a public forum should be forever banned from that forum. It's intolerable and unconscionable.
-=-=-=-=-
Fsck that.. (Score:3)
That's probably because they don't see many pictures. Most of the more renowned free software hackers have relatively short hair. I do myself, actually (which is not to say that I'm renowned.. farthest from.. but I'm willing to bet that a grand majority of us do not have exceptionally long hair.. if for no other reason than it would take too long to brush and would cut into time that could be spent coding ;) Besides.. we are an anarchic community.. and always have been.. and always will be. If business is threatened by that, or the media wants to point it out, who cares? As far as not being able to trust us.. Do you really have to trust us on a personal level? If the software works, use it. We're not peddling used cars or prime beach-side real estate in Arizona here.
Honestly.. The FSM has caught on fire too well. It's not going to die out. We don't need to court big business and kiss their ass or even make the public like it in order to make it big. Quality software is produced. People like quality software. People like to know that if there is a bug, it will get fixed, and that the fix will not cost them an arm and a leg.
There are so many things that suggest that the FSM holds the upper hand. The commercial sector of the software community has to submit to our way of thinking (or at least try to peacefully coexist) or else they're going to get nailed. Microsoft is just the company with the biggest bullseye on it.
I find the idea of "moderating ourselves" in the manner that you suggest to be rather insulting. If you want to flame someone, burn straight ahead full tilt. Something may just result out of it. Good or bad, your opinion is felt. If we can't express our opinions, what good are we as individuals? And believe me, we're individuals, not a corporate machine with an image to maintain. Stop trying to think that way. Because the same rules simply do not apply.
Patents (Score:4)
I've been involved in some side discussions on this subject. Interested parties might want to check the archives of the FSB mailing list (fsb@crynwr.com) or of news:gnu.misc.discuss [gnu.misc.discuss].
Both RMS and ESR have proposed patent pooling and "mutual non-aggression pacts" to deal with the issue of patents and free software. The proposal actually pre-dates both of them -- John Walker of Autodesk, L. Peter Deutsch of Aladdin Ghostcript, and others have suggested similar ideas.
The general view is that if a patent pool is needed as an effective deterrent, then free software needs to own patents. Both RMS and ESR have suggested this. It's sort of the necessary evil paradox.
There's an interesting situation in that there are relatively few generally known cases of patents being enforced against free software. There are cases -- LZW and compress/gzip, gif, also the Gimp and color balancing algorithms. But the obvious threat (Microsoft) hasn't engaged in a direct play, nor have many other potential enemies of the people. Microsoft might be excused as its hands are tied until it settles the current DoJ case, but what's stopping everyone else.
There are two theories I've heard:
Patents apply to the use of ideas -- not just manufacture but distribution, sale, and contributory infringement. With the growth of free software based businesses -- distributors (RedHat, et al), VARs (VA Linux Systems, Penguin Computing, et al), and large-scale end users (Yahoo, many eCommerce sites), there are coming to be some deep pockets which might be litigation candidates. Patent (and trademark and copyright) intellectual property litigation is considered a major business threat, and is in large part responsible for license proliferation as greater protections are sought.
It's possible that the sleeping tiger may yet awaken.