A Contrarian View of Open Source 262
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 is now. Later is later.
the WHAT department? (Score:1, Troll)
Unbuttoned jeans? I thought that was a San Francisco thing, not a Slashdot Editor thing. Shows what I know.
Re:the WHAT department? (Score:1)
Actually, it shows that you didn't read the article/speech.
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...
A Linux Girl, but not that Linux Girl (Score:2)
-russ
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.
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
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:The problem is .... (Score:2)
I'd say that the vast, vast majority of the world will stick with "Americans". If I walked around the office, no one would no what a "USian" is. Your chances of forcing this name on Americans are, slim, slim and none.
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
(OK, I'll admit it -- it was the "cultural imperialism" that trolled me up...)
If your version of history, where there were people in dozens of countries calling themselves "Americans" before those evil Yankees commandeered the name for themselves, had any truth to it, then you'd be right.
In fact, that is complete nonsense. The immigrant communities in the Americas referred to themselves as British, French, Portuguese, Spanish, whatever. When a new country emerged, not Haiti but the big one in North America, the people referred to themselves, and were called by the rest of the world, as Americans. (Read some 18th and 19th century fiction to see that.) Residents of what is now Brazil or Manitoba did not call themselves Americans, and nobody in those regions today has such an identity.
There are perfectly good words to describe the major geographical and social regions: North America, South America, Central America, Latin America. There's no unique term for both continents, but then there's not one for Europe, Asia and Africa collectively either.
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.
Uh, yeah. Ask a Thai or a Somali what an American is and see if he thinks of Mexico or Paraguay. And if the rest of the world could invent such a term and make it stick, we'd be drinking their coffee instead of you drinking Starbucks, no? ;-)
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
And they use "American" - like most words in the English language it does just fine with more than one meaning.
don't ask a Thai or Somali who they think are "Americans" - ask a Columbian
I think most residents of Columbia, South Carolina; the District of Columbia; and British Columbians would agree with my usage. As would most Colombians (note the "o" not a "u" after the "l") for that matter. Yes I'm being pedantic but YOUR argument is based on pedantry after all so we have to be consistent.
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
When I say what citizenship I am (or whatever) I say "I'm from the states". It seems to work.
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
I'm curious does USian also refer to citizens of the United States of Mexico? Or are you commiting the worst sort of cultural imperialism by taking someone's identity?
Re:The problem is .... (Score:2)
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
I totally agree with your larger point about USian but I have to say you do a piss poor job of arguing it. The different areas know as North America, Central America et al. did not get those names after America the country but before. The America that we are the united states of refers to the entire "new world". You argument about the English is silly since it's not refering to the language the speak but the fact that they live in the country of England which is also where the language comes from and thus the language is "English" because like English people it comes from England. (I realise at this point you could get REALLY pedantic and say that "English" to the Angles so an archaic "English" language precedes the nation)
The real argument against "USian" is that it is pedantic, silly, sounds ugly and nobody in the real world uses it. And if we are being so pedantic that we reject "American" on logical gounds "USian" is just as wrong for just as valid a logical reason since it would also refer to citizens of the United States of Mexico (and there are probably other "united states of _____ " out there).
Re:OT: USian (Score:2)
how long did that speech take? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:how long did that speech take? (Score:2)
-russ
I can relate to the speaker. (Score:1, Offtopic)
I was a sysadmin for 7 years, the fact that lusers would never heed my warings, read the documentation, or flat out needed things repeated to them 20 times in a row made me decide to quit being the McDonalds coke and a smile "Hi How may I fix your computer today?"
Near my 7th year, I became frustrated, started telling people how stupid I thought they were to their face (Usually after the 8th time of explaining something) And generally degraded into the self absorbed irritating prick that I am today.
2 years later i'm still recovering. Where I used to fix my friends and families computers for free I now charge the shit outta them till they don't wanna come back. Everytime the phone rings my hair still stands up on end because i'm afraid of yet another person saying, "Hey toq just wanted to ask you a quick question!" No it's never a quick question, it's a gateway into a line of questioning not even the worse murderer would be subjected to in a police interregation.
And you dare say was I ever a sysadmin, jeesh. I'd bet money I could w00p your arse in a contest of skills any day of the week. Trust me kid, you just haven't burned out yet, but you will. And when you do, that's where open source with the lack of stupid people and politics will be waiting.
--toq
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
After reading that... (Score:1)
Translation to english (my version) (Score:2)
In the copyright area, Linux gets arround this by being free and transparent, but that makes it a threat to the other people who make a living by fscking the ignorant when it comes to software. However, most people don't have the intellectual or personal balls to say that copyrights are bullshit - so instead they all bicker over stupid things (eg Lessing)
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:2)
So is this:
My religion has taught me not to be afraid to call someone wrong when it does something, says something, stands for something, or engages in something that violates the values in which I believe. Let's review the errors in Slashdot's statements in order. First, I'm oversimplifying things a little here. Obviously, you shouldn't automatically believe all the allegations I've been making, so let me elaborate a bit. Time has only reinforced that conviction. (Actually, Slashdot's left hand doesn't know what its right hand is doing, but that's not important now.)
Because there is no time and little temptation for those who work hard on their jobs and their responsibilities to clear forests, strip the topsoil, and turn a natural paradise into a dust bowl through a self-induced drought, it therefore stands to reason that its attempts to bury our heritage, our traditions, and our culture are much worse than mere opportunism. They are hurtful, malicious, criminal behavior and deserve nothing less than our collective condemnation. Let's consider for a moment, though, that maybe the only effective and responsible course of action is to warn the public against those brutish, xenophobic cretins whose positive accomplishments are always practically nil, but whose conceit can scarcely be excelled, -- an often frustrating prescription, to be sure. Then doesn't it follow that no one today believes that Slashdot is merely trying to make this world a better place in which to live? Although chimpanzees can be convinced to wear clothing, understand commands, and even ride bicycles (if well paid for their services in bananas), it would be virtually impossible to convince Slashdot that its subordinates' thinking is fenced in by many constraints. Their minds are not free because they dare not be. On the other hand, every time Slashdot tells its cohorts that it knows 100% of everything 100% of the time, their eyes roll into the backs of their heads as they become mindless receptacles of unsubstantiated information, which they accept without question.
If you want a better opportunity to get a job, raise a family in a safe neighborhood, have a better chance at a good education, and lower the taxes on the money you earn, then I ask that you help me confront and reject all manifestations of communism. Slashdot may vilify our history, character, values, and traditions right after it reads this letter. Let it. By next weekend, I will set the record straight. Let me close by reminding you that Slashdot uses the word "literally" when it means "metaphorically".
Re:This gem (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This gem (Score:2)
Quotes like: "You keep feebly hoping that something will actually work right out of the box, and maybe even look nice. But then you get stuff like Gnome, KDE and Eazel..." hardly seem like sucking up to an audience where where developers of these systems attend.
As far as I can see, Bruce Sterling basically flames everything, wishing himself back to 80'ties.
But he did make the mistake of flaming something from Apple, thus giving the Apple zeolots a change to prove that their fire burn brighter than anyone elses, even on
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.
Re:mussolini (Score:2)
Remind me, exactly when was it that the governments of the Western world united in declaring that competing with Microsoft was illegal and punishable by confiscation of property and criminal sentencing? Remind me when taxpayer's money was used to subsidise Microsoft products, and the tax system was skewed to punish their competitors?
Oh, wait, that didn't happen. In fact, several nations are actively trying to help Microsoft competitors.
The whole speech was like that: playing to an easily-pleased home crowd by repeating the same old platitudes about how great everyone is.
Re:mussolini (Score:2)
But in any case:
Last I wrote to a member of the Danish government (an argument against an "opt-in" spam law), the answer came in form of a MS Word document. So the state requires that I posses MS software in order to participate in the democracy.
Jon is currently being prosecuted in Norway for developing software that would weaken the MS monopoly. While that is not the formal charge, that is the formal effect.
Small isolated fragments of the government of a few nations are trying to help liften the Microsoft monopoly, while the vast majority of the governments everywhere are actively or passively helping maintain it.
And no, Sterling basically flamed everyone in his rant. You are just being blinded by your own prejudices to see it.
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)
Hardly. MS has enough market saturation that, if the Feds decided to fine them 100 billion dollars (and thus bankrput them), their trademarks & code would be bought by someone (maybe Apple, or Ted Turner) within a quarter, and back on the market within a quarter after that.
The only way "WinDOS" & Office are going anywhere is if alternatives to them achieve enough market saturation to render them irrelevant--like what happened to the pre-MS Office market leaders.
If MS inc. goes bankrupt, expect "Ted Turner Windows" and "Ted Turner Office" to come out shortly.
Re:A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:2)
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:2)
when Linux scales up to become 'mainstream' fewer and fewer of the userbase will be qualified to make the necesssary changes.
Which part of "Granted if everyone used Linux the percentage of users who also code will go way down." didn't you understand?
And it is probable that the absolute number of qualified programmers will go up even as the percentage goes down.
Having to hire some dude in a ThinkGeek t-shirt is going to alleviate the feeling of helpless and of lack of control?
It is not the hiring tht gives the feeling of control, but simply knowing that you can. And there are plenty of corporate programmers who currently work on windows who could work on Linux.
Steve M
Re:A very "Dennis Miller" rant (Score:2)
True, Linux / free software will receive growing criticism as it becomes more mainstream. The difference is that problems will actually get fixed. Compare to say.. all those "Windows Annoyances" type sites where folks moan and groan about problems they can't fix or offer half-baked solutions that sorta kludge out a solution. Yes, constructive criticism of free software is a good thing and should be embraced. Creative criticism is even better. And yes, that means that a lot of today's haughty, elitist free software coders are going to have to humble themselves a bit if they want to effect further progress in developing useful community software. They're going to have to treat users of their code with respect, accept new ideas, and bow to wishes other than their own. And they're going to have to learn that free software needs to be further commercialized as a service industry of consulting and specialization. As an aside, I think a great example of Open Source development breakdown is the Gimp--everyone's favorite free image editing tool.. oh wait.. it's the ONLY free image editor. Apparently, its developers needed a tool for doing nifty web graphics but then stopped just short of creating a truly versatile, quality program. So now, several years later, the Gimp is still only about par with roughly Photoshop version 3 or 4 and the project is seemingly stagnant other than converting to Gtk2. Frankly, I've used a lot of graphics tools in the past and Gimp pretty much sucks for anything but the most basic tasks. True, you can get most of the same work done, but it's a hastle and takes twice as long. Where are the features that have been direly needed for all these years? The dynamic layers and objects? (ie. if I scale a layer, it should apply a transform to the original data, not overwrite it) How about user-defined colorspaces? (ie. for print layout) Or maybe some simple CAD-style drawing tools? Writing software to meet one's own needs / desires is not good enough unless you're helping meet others needs as well. In many cases, business enterprise is the perfect way to do both at once--just specialize in your area of greatest interest. Some free software doesn't need this extra boost, other does. It's time we geeks get our asses in gear.
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)
And let's hope that no one ever ties Steinbeck to the uplifting of the downtrodden. Oh, wait...
Sterling is one of the finest writers of the era. Let's hope that he is remembered for his writing and that his future readers tie him to the software freedom movement.
And let's hope that no one ever ties Stephen King to Windows.
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.Re:Stupidest speach ever (Score:2)
They should've billed it that way (Score:2)
Its like Microsoft offering a 'contrarian viewpoint to commercial software' and then putting Carrot Top on stage to rant for an hour or so instead of getting someone who could actually articulate the significance of open software.
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
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.
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:2)
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:2)
-russ
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:2)
Instead they get upset when he make fun of their pet peeve, be it Microsoft, OS/X, user friendliness of free software, or the geek culture.
Re:It was a really funny... and scary talk (Score:2)
*sigh*
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)
Re:Microsoft? As a cathedral? (Score:2, Insightful)
People can squirm, hem and haw, and pretend it's not true. The original context of the essay has nearly disappeared from the record, and I suspect Raymond wouldn't mind it gone at this point in time. But it's the plain truth.
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.
Re:Oooh! Such Criticism... (Score:2)
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."
point? (Score:2)
From what I can determine from moments of coherency:
He hates Microsoft
He hates Macs
He hates Linux
He hates Open Source
He's not a programmer, nor will he ever be.
From all I can tell, he finds flaws with every philosophy, so we should probably just trash it all and start over from scratch. I'd read it again just to be sure, but I need to get back to my grueling free code development, lest he inspires me to give it all up.... to
-Restil
Refugee camp? Not a requirement (a little OT) (Score:2)
That's not true. I had malaria in Zaire, was staying in a bed, had three meals a day (when I could make it), and there was even beer nearby and Dr's w/o Borders still made two house calls *and* gave me medicine for less than $3 US.
Think my metaphor's about as on target as most of this guy's? Not so fast... if there's one thing the Mac's about it's UI, and as a long-time Mac user (about 12 years) I'm pretty danged tired of all these converts that say how awesome the Mac is now that it's got FreeBSD up under the hood.
Sure OS 9 was dated technology those last few years (still not sure how "[Mozilla's] bug-track completely wrecked System 9" for the contrarian, though), but its interface was still head and shoulders above the rest. Not sure why that was bad and OS X is good, but to get the Doctors Without Borders to come to town, you don't need a nasty interface -- you just need to have geeky underpinnings.
You might have to reach to see what the guy's saying sometimes, but other than the times when he's obviously going for laughs it's worth the trouble to figure out what he means. If the metaphors don't make sense, try again.
Re:Refugee camp? Not a requirement (a little OT) (Score:2)
Cathedral vs. Bazaar (Score:2)
I thought that ESRs whole Cathedral vs. Bazaar thing was that Gnu and RMS represent the "Cathedral" (ie: carefully controlled who gets to contribute, everything falls along into RMSs grand vision, RMS as a fanatic Free-Software religion). And that Linux and "open source" represent the bazaar (ie: looser collaboration on things, some commercial interest is tolerated, it ain't pretty but it works kind of thing).
Maybe I got it all wrong though...
Yes, you got it all wrong (Score:2)
I'm not sure which Cathedral and the Bazaar you read, but the one by ESR likened commercial software development to the cathedral and open software development to the bazaar. The terms "cathedral" and "bazaar" refer only to the process by which software is developed.
The issue which CatB addresses is the belief that software that wasn't carefully designed and controlled would have lower quality than software which was. ESR's response was that for the most measures of "quality" (robustness, bug-freeness and so on) bazaar-developed code could actually be better. The price you may pay is that the scope of the software, may change from what you originally intended it to be (e.g. fetchmail). On the other hand, it may well be better than you intended.
We don't belong (Score:2)
I think that many of us are torn between the extreme right (Microsoft, Apple) and the extreme left (Linux). Sorry but we feel like we don't belong in any of them.
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:2)
Re:points of substance (Score:2)
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:2)
The Cathedral is designed in secret. The designing is the important phase.
Linux is designed in the open, and arguments for and against its various design aspects are bantered in public. Not so with the cathedral.
Re:points of substance (Score:2)
Raymond's own take on the metaphor is about centralized versus decentralized development.
I also think it is highly arguable that major open source projects are designed in the open. Anyone who monitored the decision-making process by which Mozilla first spurned and then embraced native widgets knows that such decisions are often made by an in-group that is relatively immune to outside pressure. The clannishness of the core Linux developers is even more legendary.
--
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
Re:points of substance (Score:2)
Re:points of substance (Score:2)
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
Re:points of substance (Score:2)
I also note that your interpretation of the cathedral and the bazaar is very different from that of others in the thread, which underscores the point that the metaphor is unclear.
Personally, I think Raymond's framing is an attempt to appeal to anti-religious libertarians, which one often encounters in science fiction fandom. Cathedral = religion = bad, bazaar = market = good.
--
Tim Maroney tim@maroney.org
Hysterical (Score:2)
There was actually a lot of interesting stuff in that speech, some of which was true, some of which was not, and much of which was just incoherent ranting, but who wants to hear the same viewpoint over and over?
Closed-source isn't the bazaar (Score:2)
The original point was to look at the biological, evolutionary dynamic of the bazaar model -- swarms of coders throwing patches into the ecosystem, seeing which ones live and breed and which ones die on the vine -- as compared to the cathedral -- rigorously planned, multi-year efforts guided by a Supreme Architect and his cadre.
Putting "closed-source software" in the role of the Cathedral is sheer revisionism.
Best piece of candid writing about software (Score:2)
Software is a business. It's not engineering, it's not art or karma or cool. It's product. It's accidently good in spite of itself. And to the extent that it is a good product then it is good. Beyond that it's just sophistry to beat your chests about how great YOU think it is. Because if it was then it wouldn't be anarchy to build it.
Kudos to Bruce.
Re:A bird? A plane? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:A bird? A plane? (Score:2)
Those wouldn't happen to be VA investors would they?
MS == Bazaar (Score:2)
There are days when I look at the huge steaming heaps of half-working, awkward, ugly, incomprehensible software on my Linux box, compare it to the glowing promises from the developers, and wonder if ESR hasn't done more damage to the Free Source/Open Sores movement than MS ever could.
Re:wtf is he smoking? (Score:2)
If you really think he was cutting coders, I'd have to rate your reading comprehension as rather low. I love free software myself. I don't use anything else if I can help it, which is most of the time. So I feel pretty confident in saying you gotta have your head far up your ass to think he was cutting on coders or telling untruths when he said of free(dom) software: "It's very offensive to user sensibilities and it is as ugly as a sack full of penguin guts. But, you know, that is a vital systemic advantage." Or: "You keep feebly hoping that something will actually work right out of the box, and maybe even look nice. But then you get stuff like Gnome, KDE and Eazel... They just don't like to do the boring stuff for the stupid people! That's just not in the job description! It's not even a job. That's the secret." Right! Those are "flaws" in some sense, but those flaws are the only reason the damn thing works at all, and he sees how badly we need it: "But at least open source is clearly better than the Microsoft stranglehold. Man, US Steel, General Motors and Standard Oil at their worst and cruellest were better than that." Right!"
The responses to this article are so negative that I think we're in real trouble. First, geeks used to be able to talk in "code". Get it? Abstruse metaphors were like candy. Smart was good. Literate was worldly. Now it looks like towing the party line and shutting out, yes, "contrarian" views could doom this stuff to a band of easily isolated, mischaracterized "fringe elements." Second, we're in trouble if that's the case, because this shit is getting big and ugly pretty fast. Go ahead and whine about Dmitry, chat about "the cause", whatever. Keep fiddling while they strip-search you. This stuff could get really bad really soon, and as long as the geek set is anti this and not pro that, as long as the geek political mindset is "we don't have any friends and we don't think we need any", no one is in a position to stop the juggernaut.
Seriously, read the speech again with your brain present this time.