Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

ESR Responds: 'Shut Up And Show Them The Code' 191

Posted by CmdrTaco from the response-to-the-response dept.
Gryphon writes "Eric S. Raymond has posted an interesting response to the RMS response to the Metcalf story. " It's called 'Shut Up and Show Them the Code' and it addresses RMSs comments about differences between the Open Source and the Free Software movement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESR Responds: 'Shut Up And Show Them The Code' More

ESR Responds: 'Shut Up And Show Them The Code'

Comments Filter:
  • It's worth noting that doscussions of far greater vehemence and viciousness go on behind closed doors all over the world each day, every day. The only difference here is that it's all out in the open, so we get all viewpoints, not just a polished, lowst-common denominator marketing spiel.

    Personally, I like it.

    --
    Paul
  • I know, ESR has to make his voice heard.
    Like it always is and has been....

    One says one thing
    then the other has to respond.
    ---------------------------------------------
    I agree with both men, and some of the comments above that say we need both viewpoints. I am and an old GNU fan from way back and have always liked the GNU mindset. I also like what ESR's voice has done for the community, he has help it grow and gain acceptence more than RMS ever would have.

    I just think it is funny the way the diatribes keep popping up. As for Metcalfe I hope he just sees the light.....
  • "Rock solid" here is much a matter of architecture. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD might all run very well on an Intel machine, but even the latest release of the king of portability (NetBSD 1.4) won't boot right on my Sun 4/110. I'm using a 1.3.3 kernel and I can cause it to panic through pkg_add.

    The BSD kernels aren't the operating system, and the fact that there exists now a three-way split between unencumbered BSD releases hints that there is still "a great deal of work to be done," at least in the minds of the project leaders and contributors.
  • "Companies have and do turn out excellent quality material, and have even given away source code, but under NON-GPL terms. Doing this does not make them part of the Free-Source movement. A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification."

    I sure hope that this isn't the "real" free software community speaking! What about BSD? What about Artistic? Are you saying that they're not "free software"?

    Free software is not political liberty! No one's rights are being infringed because some code happens to be BSD, Artistic, QPL or even proprietary.

    This post is precisely what ESR is fighting against, the fanatic zealotry of the Stallmanistas. Get a clue folks! RMS is not God! He's not Christ! He's not George Washington or Che Guevarra!

    Do you really think that Mrs. Jones down the street will choose Linux over Windows because you're wearing a Red Beret and spouting revolutionary slogans from a little book? Or do you plan to send her to a "re-education" center after you've marched on Redmond?
  • I think the point was missed. The type of license is just completely irrelevant to whether or not most people use a software product.

    Perl is popular and successful because it is a great piece of software (and Apache too), not because of the license or the hype of OSI or anyone else.
  • But isn't the point made by RMS that with programs such as WordPerfect, there's no code to show! ESR says he embraces FSF but doesn't answer the question raised by RMS. Why are closed source programes such as Word Prefect embraced by the Open Source Initiative?


    IMHO, ESR is full of rhetoric, RMS speeks the truth in plain english.
  • I don't exactly know what you think RMS' "real job" was over the last twenty years; the FSF isn't exactly a cash cow.

    Furthermore, RMS has always been within the ideological margins. You misunderstand what ESR said (of course, it's entirely possible that ESR misunderstands this as well), that none of us would be here without RMS. It's true that none of us would be here without RMS in terms of the sheer volume of code he has produced and made possible through the FSF.

    More than that, however, is his role as an ideologue; by being at the fringe, the mainstream has stretched to the point where giving away source is no longer a revoutionary idea. Without RMS it never would have bee. If the wishy-washy ESR "Open Source" paradigm, rather than the hardline FSF paradigm, was the most radical available, then the mainstream would have been even closer to the proprietary model. That is what we owe, most of all, to RMS.
  • Everyone is sick of your constant bullshit, you are just a leech, as with the rest of OSI riding on the popularity that of free software. It was going to happen whether you proclaimed yourself leader of the "opensource movement" or not, the only think you are helping in is making people think half-assed licenses that dont benefit the community are good.

    Go away, we'ld be much better without your unfounded egotistical rants.
  • Another case of this happened during an OOPSLA
    keynote address by Christopher Alexander, an
    architecture researcher who is often quoted
    in the patterns community. His speech
    touched on the moral reasons for patterns and
    outlined emerging risks as the software
    community continues to ignore ethical issues.


    The people in the audience were expecting
    a "practical" discourse and shrugged their
    shoulders as they were called "hired guns"
    lacking respect for history. I don't think
    he will be invited back.




  • RMS is neither hostile nor disagreeable. I have had a few short discussions with the man and I found him calm, extremely rational, and prone to rant (only about as often as I do). He has some interesting and somewhat revolutionary ideas about the nature of intellectual property and copyrights, and some very down to earth ideas about practicality and doing the right thing.

    He's not in it for popularity or obscurity, or to make more people use free software. His goals are clear and obvious after hearing him and speaking with him: to promote personal freedom and mutually beneficial sharing among people who develop and use software (please note that sharing!=communism, no matter how you look at it). He tends to mostly ignore (sometimes alienate) people who don't seem to believe in sharing and freedom, presumably because he's found that it does little good to argue with them about such basic concepts.

    If "his movement suddenly became successful and everybody adopted his principles," we would operate in an intellectual near-utopia of cooperative advancement. It might take a long time or might (due to the greedy selfish nature of so many humans who need to maximize their profits by putting their whole community at a disadvantage) never happen, but the more people who do understand RMS's beliefs and the base goals of the FSF, the closer we are.
  • This is incorrect. The original motivation for gtk+ had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Qt. I'm not even sure gtk+ doesn't predate Qt. Gtk+ was written because Motif wasn't flexible enough to satisfy the developers of The Gimp so they took a while off developing it and tried to think of what would make the ultimate toolkit. After Gimp was finished a bunch of people looked at Gtk+ and said "Hey, This is a really awesome toolkit; why don't we make a consistent interface out of it?" and so then Gnome started. I don't remember hearing anything about Qt until a while after. There were a bunch of KDE vs. Gnome arguments centered around the fact that Qt wasn't free at the time, but I that had nothing to do with why Gtk+ was written.
  • Eric seems to have misconstrued Richard's post as a personal attack on his ethics. If he would only cool his jets a little, he would see that wasn't the point at all. Perhaps ironically, this post actually helps to substantiate Richard's point that the FSF and OSI have different emphases. Eric, however, seems to insist on raving about why his approach is better, while Richard seems content to acknowledge that the two see things differently, to clarify to others that he does not consider himself a member of the open source camp, and to leave it at that.

    cat esr >/dev/null
  • Why does free software need to be marketed? I see a few reasons at the moment. (I'm sure others will fill in the rest.)

    First, unless corporations can be convinced that "Free Software" or "Open Source" software is a viable alternative, there's a much slimmer chance that programmers can get paid for writing said software, which means a programmer also has to spend time at a paid job. More time on a paid job means less time devoted to writing free software.

    Second, the general public should be made aware that alternatives to commercial software exist. Not only does this give free software substance--numbers for people to look at--but it also draws new talent in. More programmers makes for more options for users of free software. Consider that just because one is a hacker doesn't necessarily mean one knows about Linux. (I know from experience!)

    Finally, there's the issue of getting commercial applications to talk to free software--something that won't happen without numbers behind us. Ideally, all software would be open source and free, but that's prob'ly not going to happen soon. So in the interim, we might as well have commercial apps which work in our open OS of choice. Or plugins that work with our free software. It's much less of a headache that way. Remember, kids: buggy Linux kernels never crash, they just panic.

    That's all I can think of right now. Any other takers?



    -W-
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ESR says RMS (wow, let the TLA's fly, and they're only regarding people...) is not a good "evangelist for the mainstream" (or some such approximation). That's because he's not trying to be! ESR is the one who's trying to use pretty words and silly-titled papers to change the image of the software in question (I think it's silly that now Open Source and Free Software are associated with rival .. camps). RMS isn't trying to be an evangelist to the mainstream! He's not trying to "adapt" Linux and other free software to the masses -- he's preaching the beliefs he's always had. Beliefs that don't appeal to the mainstream -- that's one of his strong points (in my opinion). He doesn't change his beliefs just to suit mainstream ideals. He's not trying to make himself "accepted" by the mainstream, he's just trying to make sure everyone knows about his beliefs.

    And that is where they differ. ESR likes to lay claim to making "Open Source" popular, mainstream, written about in magazines, etc.

    RMS does what he's always done, which is evangelize his beliefs that software should be free. And I respect him more for it.

    (Plus, if RMS is an egomaniac it's because he so strongly believes in his views and finds it important to tell everyone about them. If ESR appears that way, it's cause he just wants attention, and needs to remind everyone how he made "Open Source" popular).
  • Did you expect that ESR and RMS would not have egos?

    They are both human, they both believe what they are doing is right. Hell, most, if not all, the wars on this planet were fought because both sides believe that they were right. This is not surprising that we have a battle going on here.

    I think the matter at the center of this argument is the evangelizing of Linux. ESR believes that Linux should become a dominant force in the world and could/should dethrone Microsoft. He is into marketing Linux as the best possible solution for all problems. ESR is a businessman.

    RMS believes in a way of life. He believes that we need to stop wasting effort re-inventing the same code, and we should build upon what we already have. RMS is into using the best possible solution for a problem. RMS is a scientist and an idealist.

    Which is right? It depends on where you stand. If you think money is the goal of life, then most likely, you think it's ESR. If you think that knowledge and uncompromising ideals are the goal of the life, then you probably believe RMS is right.

    But don't fall into the trap of believing that either of them is absolutely right. Because that just starts wars.
  • The differences between GNU and OSI is defined by inclusive freedom verses exclusive freedom.

    Inclusive freedom states that as long as we the communite have full and free access to the source code to do with (modify, redistribute) as we will, we don't realy care what anyone else does with it.

    Exclusive freedom states that the source code can ONLY be used as fully free and open code, and cannot be used for other purposes (such as a revenue stream).

    Both ESR and RMS promote freedom, but it's what else happens besides freedom that is the sticking point.
  • ESR's comments reminds me of the "changes" that went through the radical-cum-liberal movement at the end of the 60s and the early 70s. A certain group of people just felt that the extreme rhetoric of the radical movement just wasn't effective because it failed to attract supporters and failed to advance the agenda.

    So some of them "sold out" and went a little more mainstream; they got law degrees, went into politics...like Bill Clinton. Of course in the early 70s they were considered sell-outs, tools of the man, and so on.

    However, I think that the lesson of this experience for the Open Source movement is that while embracing a position other than FSF's "free software" may require a certain sacrifice of values it does so at the expense of getting somewhere.

    I think recycling is a prime example. Most places nowadays have recycling -- do you think that the environmental radicals of the 1970s could have achieved that by refusing to go along and work with the 'system'? No, it took "sell outs" that went to work in governemnt to push their values into the mainstream.

    In order for Open Source/Free Software/whatever you want to call it to be successful, it's going to require a sacrifice of some of the principals in order to work with the system to implement its goals.

  • Yes, they're both definitely necessary to the whole cause of world domination. Consider RMS the idea man and ESR the one who'll sell it.

    However, I think that an article of this sort is necessary (though I prob'ly wouldn't have put it in the words ESR did). The fact is, they do have differing methods, and I think they shouldn't be considered interchangeable, as the popular media would have it..



    -W-
  • Look. You can have any kind of politics you want! Vaguely collectivist like RMS or highly individualist like ESR, it doesn't matter, as long as the software keep improving.
    If you improve the software, it works, and you're a part of this thing. Free software isn't going to prevail because of politics, it'll win on its merits, or it won't win at all.
    Hell, you can be a nazi for all I care, as long as you send patches.

    /August.
  • If you think I'll use a shitty product because everyone is aware that it exists and talks it up... Then why aren't you using Microsoft Windows NT?

    I didn't mean to imply that marketing should be allowed to brainwash people into using bad products. The point I was trying to make is that software, lik every other industry, needs to be noticed before it is used. I use Win98 and RH5.2, and I have no desire to use WinNT. I know about it, sure. But I wouldn't be using Linux if I didn't hear from many many people that "hey, this is pretty cool." That's what convinced me to get it. It's the superiority of that over Windows is why it _continues_ to occupy it's place on my hard drive.

    I don't advocate "prostituting for the masses". I think that the software is good, and that is what needs to be told. Marketing doesn't neccessarily involve smoke and mirrors, and it isn't always illicit or unethical. We have the better product, and it would be a damned shame to watch it fall by the wayside with those other products I mentioned.



    Micah McCurdy

  • When I buy something, I own it. I can take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, I can sell it to other people, I can give it to my grandchildren, whatever.
    Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is.

    A comparison: You buy a videotape. You're free to tear the tape out of it, yes. You can eat it if you want to, for all they care. But you can't copy that movie for other people; you can't splice scenes from it into another movie; there are restrictions on what you do with it.

    Similarly, there are restrictions to what you can do with the software you buy. Consider the disks to be like the videotape, and the software to be like the movie. You can take apart the disks, you can eat them, you can make little dolls out of them. However, you can't take apart the software, you can't copy it, you can't reuse parts of it somewhere else.

    Software isn't the only place this happens.

    I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").

    I think you're misreading that. The license is for that software to be used on a single computer. However, what single computer that is can change. If you completely remove it from your computer, you can put it on another. If you get a new computer, you can transfer it, for example. If you tire of it, you can delete it from your machine, and sell it to someone else, or give it to your granddaughter, or mail it to a stranger in Albuquerque.

    -Snibor Eoj

  • WordPerfect is not open source. Never has been. Probably never will be. And no one in the OSI claims that it is. The Open Source definition is also the Free Software definition. If it can't be free software, then it can't be open source software.

  • Re:This is Odd (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I believe you have a confused concept of the freedom of speech, as it relates to "free software". The freedom of speech is what gives us the right to speak our beliefs without fear of reprisal. Programmers who release their code are practicing a form of free speech. Aside form export or patent issues, this is not limited. "Free Software" is code that has been freely released to the public for the betterment of the community. [sic]

    You seem to be confusing the freedom to "release" with the freedom to "take" and your comments seem to imply that you believe "you" have a right to "my" code. If you compare this with the analogy that "you" have a right to "my" printed works, books, or articles, other roughly equivalent forms of creative expression, you'll realize that this concept isn't supported or believed anywhere, with any degree of backing. When was the last time you heard a reasonable individual state that he felt Joe Public was entitled to a free copy of Stephen King's latest novel, or the Encyclopedia Britannica? It takes money and effort to produce these, and it should be the choice of the individual to determine whether they want to freely release their product or to expect remuneration.

    This isn't a moral issue, and I don't believe many people will give you much credit if you say that you have a moral right to someone else's creative products. Our intellect and creativity is what separates us from many of the animals, and I think it's safe to say that many of us would have issues with having the results of these abilities raped from us. You do not have an inherent moral right to my mind.
  • Between ESR and RMS, who talks more and who has the most code to show?
  • What a great encapsulation of everything that I feel about the RMS versus OSI debate. RMS is a great person, and we wouldn't be here without him, but man I wish he'd stop acting like a crackpot. St. Ignusious? That freaking song? Give me a break!
  • It is obvious to me that the current interest in linux has nothing to do with some buzzword like 'Open Source'. It has everything to do with the work that has been done by linux's developers over the past years, and a boost from Microsoft's overbearing attitude towards the industry.

    Honestly, I think free enterprise can write better software. It's easy to underestimate the power of the dark si..uhh profit motive. To me, it remains to be seen whether corporations can really develop 'free software' for a profit.

    Evangelism and marketing have nothing to do with the current success of linux.

    PS:
    In fact, I would say the most important turning point in the mainstream attention focussing on linux was last year when Linus spoke at the Silicon Valley Linux Users Group... When a surprise showing of 500+ people turned out... people (mainstream media) took notice. Kudo's to Sam Ockman for that effort, for better or worse.
    After that, the windows 98 protest (kudos Chris Dibona I think)... things just steam rolled from there...
    Wow, feel like I was at woodstock or something. :-)

  • ESR should read more, talk less (Score:4)

    by itp ( 6424 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @03:24AM (#1827926)
    Disclaimer: Yes, I have an email address at gnu.org. This doesn't mean that I follow RMS in lock-step; this means that I have contributed to free software and needed an email alias and shell account.

    Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for ESR, for his code contributions, the Jargon File, and his work as an Open Source advocate.

    I really don't understand how ESR could have written this response, if he really read what RMS wrote (and followed this link [gnu.org], where RMS lays out some of the differences between Free Software and Open Source). I would suggest that everyone here read this link, if you haven't yet.

    ESR can claim all he wants that our community has only taken off in the last year or so with the advent of the term Open Source. This all depends on what you mean by taken off! If you mean, as a platform we've managed to attract the interest of developers who want to make money and push non-free software, than yes, I guess we have. But I think we were doing fine when we were writing software that we love, that works well, and that is *free*.

    RMS may be a zealot, if that's a term you like. But I think RMS is lucky. He's lucky to be one of those people that really believes something, and can live by his beliefs. I would urge everyone to remember, while you're celebrating the newfound popularity of Linux and the GNU system, to remember what got us here. We wouldn't have such a solid, fully featured operating system without free software. The interests of big companies and investors with tons of money didn't get us here; we got ourselves here, by insisting on free software.

    --
    Ian Peters
  • Although you do choose what you consume, the way software licenses are handled are not good at all. After I buy the software, it's mine. You can't present the contract after the purchase. I have no moral obligation to follow or obey any contract presented after the sale, especially if it doesn't involve interaction with other people. I personally don't have a moral issue with lying to my computer. I'm a programmer, therefore lying to the computer is my job. As long as the information is not knowingly transmitted to the other parties, I always click on the "Yes I Agree" button, even if I don't, because lying to a computer is not bad. It's a different story if the information is transmitted to their computers, because then I'm lying to them. But as long as it's my software (because I bought it), I can do with it whatever I want.
  • Obi-Wan Kenobi? :-)

    --
    Ian Peters
  • ESR and OUI takes Credit for Success of Universe

    Big Bang Burger Bar, Prime Material (Reuters) -
    Today Eric S. Raymond officially dubbed the current incarnation of "The Universe"(tm) as a 'success'. Though lesser known powers, such as God, were occasionally referred to as having been influential in the evolution of the universe, ERS pointed out that without the trendy governing body OUI (Open Universe Initiative), the Universe's presence would have largely been ignored.
    "Sure, our little community is very familiar with the Universe, but other people in the industry need a marketing-style interface to the Universe. Frankly all this talk about Big Bangs and background radiation makes our whole community of Universe lovers looks like communists in their eyes.", said an Obi-Wan Kenobi dressed ESR while speaking and whirling a hula hoop at the UniverseWorld Expo '99 keynote address.
    "OUI brings the Universe to those who don't care about the principles of their existence. It gives it to them in a fashion they can deal with such that they don't have to agree with or for that matter understand the principles upon which the Universe was founded. Though the Universe would have continued to hum along as it was without us.. the OUI is solely responsible for people's awareness of it's existence."
    "This is not about being the lap dog of corporations interested in leveraging the Universe against competitors, but rather making corporations aware."
    The Universe is a lesser known reality put together and developed by a wide flung group of deities which communicate over the 'Internet'. Industry experts consider the Universe a significant challenger to the current reality market dominating 'Hell' developed by Satansoft..
    Universe users are known to send vicious email messages to those who would threaten it's existence. "It really doesn't help when people misrepresent our community like that." said ESR.
  • I don't see any problem with having both ESR and RMS evangelizing their own approaches. Implicit in ESR's comments about free software's attractiveness as a concept is the fact that the "base" GNU/Linux community must continue to be aware of and motivated by that concept.

    We may need to "buzzword" a bit to get people to switch from Win98 to RedHat 6.0, but this should not be at the expense of dedication to the free software idea.

    Open Source is, as ESR said, a marketing of free software, not a denial of it...

  • Even though software is not the only place this happens, I think that the freedom is still an issue in these other mediums. For example, if I have a trash can, I can build one just like it. I can then sell it to whoever I want. I can even build a trash can duplicating machine, and make and sell as many trash cans as I want. The same goes with hammers, desks, etc.

    Let's take plants, for example. If I buy a plant, I can use the seeds to create more plants. I have not violated the intellectual property rights of the creator, even if he spent years genetically engineering the plant. Once its mine, I can do whatever I want with it.

  • I think that part of RMS's problem with Open Source [as opposed to Free Software] is that with the widespread adoption of the Open Source title, RMS finds himself being marginallized.

    He understands that there's almost no difference, but he sees a competing marketing organisation getting all the good press, and he fears that he may soon have to get a real job.

  • So.... Free software is just for other developers then? Seems like a big waste of time then to just write software that non-developers are not intended to use?
  • An Open Source devotee will run Linux, and load KDE, WordPerfect, and Navigator on it, and consider that a win. A Free Software follower will run Linux, but call it GNU/Linux (regardless of the damage to their tongue it can cause...), GNOME, and use emacs for everything but web browsing (and maybe even that).

    Ironically, GNOME, because it depends on the LGPLd Gtk libraries, could be described as less free than KDE, which depends on the QPLd Qt libraries. The QPL forbids binary-only distribution, and in many ways acts suspiciously like the GPL.

    Now, I'm not going to say that people using GNOME are anti-Free Software. But, then again, it's just as silly to claim that KDE users are less committed to Free Software, as you did.

    --

  • ...how difficult we make it for someone to take a principled position. Could ESR be trying to convince himself that he hasn't sold out?
  • It seems to me that ESR decided to take the easy road instead of the hard road. What I mean is, not that ESR's job is easy, but that he is sacrificing the future of free software for success today. If you look around at the big businesses, few of them are creating software that is truly free. Instead they are just "opening up the source" which doesn't make the software any more free. Also, more and more people are using freedom-deducted software as an integral part of free software products like Linux. The problem is getting worse, not better. ESR is succeeding in publicity, but not publicity about the principals. Therefore, if people don't learn the principals, they won't know why its bad to put a lot of restrictions on how people use the software. Thus, everyone will show the source code, but take all of our freedoms away.

    I am not saying I disagree with ESR's message of having the source available creates better products - neither does RMS. The problem is that if that's the only message the businessmen hear, all they will do is open up the source, and continue to restrict freedom. ESR's "tactics" show that he is about "us being better than them" and not about the freedom of the user. If the Open Source movement was meant to create more freedom, then it can't do so without being more public about it.

    So, stick with GPL and X-Free type licenses, and don't let all the talk about "Open Source" forget what we really want, and that is freedom.


    Also, just as a rant, I'd like to say that RMS is NOT a communist, and the free software community is not communistic. In fact, it's the other way around. In the free software community, you get full control over your personal posssessions. Big brother has no control over how you use the software. In the commercial software community, your personal property rights are violated because your rights to YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY are being violated. VIOLATING PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IS NOT CAPITALISTIC, IT'S COMMUNISTIC. I always get frustrated when people compare intellectual property rights to personal property rights. They are not the same, in fact PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT. You can have one, but not the other. Personally, I'd rather have the rights to my own stuff than some software corporation.
  • I think it'd be better if this response
    never saw the light of day. As it stands
    it is beginning to look like Metcalfe was
    making a rather valid point.
  • When was the last time these two had a face-to-face / heart-to-heart talk about what they're doing and where they're going?

    Someone should get these two guys together over a beer/soda/coffee and let them figure out where they can agree to disagree.

  • ESR and RMS are friends. ESR and RMS are friendly rivals. ESR and RMS are bitter rivals. It depends on the day, the cause, and the mood. They both have talent, and they both have egos. Unfortunately, because of that, they will never both pull quite in the same direction, and that's too bad for the community - because as much as they've both accomplished, if they could meet in the middle they'd probably accomplish even more.
    As soon as everyone agrees on the same principles and ideals, then the topic becomes boring and people loose interest. These little wars that rage on in the OSS & FS community is what keeps everyone fighting for what they believe in, and defines us as a community.

    Fighting (disagreeing) is a necesary part of a healthy relationship...

    As long as this doesn't result in a flame war, and I believe that RMS and ESR both have enough dignity and common sense not to let it go to that, I think that everything will turn out just peachy keen.
  • Umm... I'd think it'd be more along the lines of:

    rm -rf `grep -i 'esr' $(find /) | awk {print $1}`;

    ...of course, keep in mind that that would end up getting rid of a lot of your howto's, not to mention more than a few manpages...

    :-)
    --
    - Sean
  • watches over me
    my guardian angel turns away.

    Sisters of Mercy, Temple of Love. Damn good song (available on both Some girls wander by mistake and A slight case of overbombing, both good `hits' albums).

  • no, like mp3 encoders, wiseass :-P
  • While I don't think it has anything to do with the "Open Source" term, I would have to agree with ESR that the GNU/Free-Software/OpenSource community has taken off in the last year or two.

    I looked at Linux before, and concluded that, while it was a stable system that could do most things I wanted, there were a couple important pieces that were missing that would cause me to be jumping back and forth between Windows and Linux. I did not (and still don't) want to be jumping back and forth between OS's, at least not on a single computer.

    However, in the past year, the "gaps" in linux have been filled, some of them by commercial software, others by Free/OpenSource software. Thus it came to be that, in January, after Christmas break, I bought a new hard drive (the simplest solution to the partitioning problem) and a copy of RedHat and installed Linux.

    I have not had Windows running for any appreciable amount of time since then except to do two things:

    1) Play Starcraft (grin)
    2) Rip CD's to MP3's

    The only reason I do the latter in Windows is because I have a sensitive ear (when you play violin for 12+ years, you either get a sensitive ear, or you play violin badly), and the Fraunhoffer codec for windows off of #warez_is_31337_script_kiddie_d00d is much better and a good bit faster than bladenc. Since I tend to leave my computer alone while I'm ripping cd's, it doesn't really matter what OS I'm running, as long as it doesn't crash in the middle. The exception to this is when I was serving files off my computer. When that was important, I would rip the cd's in linux to wav files (which works just fine) and then encode them in VMWare. Sure, it would take longer, but I didn't have to bring my system down.

    Now, look back two years. Look at the software I mentioned using. Granted, it wasn't the real reason I didn't switch over to Linux sooner, but how much of the software I mentioned was very mature two years ago. Now look at the two categories of software that determined my switch: wordprocessors, and IDE's. Sure, there have been commercial IDE's around for a while, but I wasn't about to pay for one of them. Now I can play around with a couple different IDE's that are functional at least. They're not as spiffed up as I'd like (You have to admit, M$ Visual Studio is a pretty good tool), but they work. And Corel came out with a $free$ version of WordPerfect for Linux, so that arena is solved. Of course, when KOffice becomes reasonably stable, I will probably switch over to using it. But for the time being, I don't write enough papers for the defficiencies in WP8 to bother me.

    Of course, my experience with Linux has been better than many. I avoided the whole disk partitioning issue by buying a second hard drive explicitly for Linux. I read (past and present tense) man pages, HOWTO's, README's, INSTALL docs, and all manner of other documentation before I give up or ask for help. I meddle around, carefully, but thoroughly, assuming that whatever I want to do can probably be done if I can only find the program/command-line-option to do it. Thus, after a month or two of using Linux, I found my self giving help to people who had used it for much longer than I.

  • in the reply by ESR he states "we'd have gotten where we are now five or ten years sooner and OSI would have been completely unnecessary (and I could be writing code, which I'd much rather be doing than this...)."

    I can't help but think that he's not sincere. I've heard that whine many times in the past year while watching the various three-lettered ones bicker over terms. Sure, it is necessary for someone to "evangelize the mission", but ESR took that lock, stock, and barrel.

    If he wanted to code, he would. Yes, I read "Take my job" and a good amount of the other articles appearing in the Jargon. But then again ESR forgot something.

    I'm fairly certain that he's nowhere near being the only person involved with OSI to go to companies to start their OSS strategy. Otherwise we'd be moving at snails' pace because only one man would be doing the work with all these companies.

    Thus, there are other people already doing the important work! My point of this argument is that if he just wanted to code he should "Shut Up and Sit Down To Code."


  • There seems to be several communities out there that represent the /. community. We have the "Open Source" community, the "Free Software" community, the "Linux" community, the "BSD Community", the greater "*nux" community (which holds some of the previous communities I've mentioned). And then we have the total encapsulating "Computer" community. This last community includes the Microsoft crowd as well.

    Which ever community you belong to, it's good to have ESR and RMS as well as any outspoken individual. Good natured conflicts help advance society. But flames always impede the growth of society. That's why I now spell out Microsoft instead of using M$ or other.

    It's good to have opinions, but it is even more important to have respect for others opinions. If you disagree, that's great, but try to back up your disagreements with facts or at least intelligent arguments. ESR and RMS attack each other in this way. They are friends but also compete well against each other.

    There is a lot I agree with ESR and RMS. But there is a lot I disagree with. I believe that Open Source is good, but code should be owned(but not controlled) by the one who buys it. I like to know what a program is doing in the background when I am working with it. I've talked with both Eric and Richard at the Linux World Expo back in March. RMS seems to be for having full control of what you buy. He did not say, "you programmed code so you must give it to me". but more or less said, "I bought code from you, I should be able to do what I please".

    It's funny because in my business (Military Defense) we almost always give away the source. Of course the Government pays for the development. But we give the source away and the Government owns it. Not us. I don't believe that everyone can afford to pay for someone to develop code for there needs (customize). But have a middle ground where we can help share in development and still get paid. Start out with giving the source, but you need to pay for any enhancements. Of course it comes down to everyone getting the benefits from one persons/company's purchase. But this can easily work. A lot came from Bell Labs and they were still at the top. If you donate a large amount of source code to GNU and it is top quality, you will be the one that most companies will ask for for support.

    This also keeps you (the programmer) from getting to lazy. You have to keep improving code to stay working. You can't just write some code and say everyone must use this whether it completely works or not. This is the position that Microsoft is in. They can get away with writing code and not having to make it better. It wasn't until the threat of the Open Source/GNU that Microsoft started working harder for better quality. Yes they are now actually working harder (maybe not that much harder but they do feel the threat). If Microsoft comes out with better products then it is a partial win for the Open Source/GNU community. Not what RMS wanted but at least we don't get software that "sucks" (ESR quote, not a flame by me :) But don't be afraid, Linux and GNU will always be around because it doesn't work in the realm of the business world. It doesn't need money to survive. It only needs a few devoted hackers and a way to distribute (like the Internet).

  • Ok. So far we've determined that everyone wants to prove that they have a bigger penis than the other guy. . .

    How 'bout we all just shut up and show the code?

    This whole bickering thing bothers me. Those who care about who they want to listen to will research everyone and come up with their own ideas. Those who don't care will look at the good code and use it! Either way, we all win!

    Lets face it, EVERY SINGLE ONE of us is a zealot.

    ** Martin
  • 1 - ESR has in fact achived the opposite. Netscape's decision to release Mozilla as open source was in order to have more programmers working on it without being paid. This is what ESRs bazaar is all about.

    2 - Why do the public need to know? Free Software should be for the free software community, not for those who want to take without giving back (yeah I know someone will point out I've only written a dozen lines of free code myself, but it's something).

    3 - The aim of GNU is to make a COMPLETELY free system, one where proprietary apps are obsolete.
  • I want a whole multi-round flamefest between ESR and RMS. Maybe we can get them fitted into spandex costumes and get the WWF guy to interview them!

    I think I feel a Segfault story coming on.....

  • I wish they'd stay off the soap box and spend more time coding

    This is entirely the point of the essay. The idea is that we should spend less time on rhetoric and more time on code. Granted, ESR does indulge himself slightly when describing the successes of linux et al. as being the successes of OSI. Also granted, he defeats himself slightly spewing doctrine to the effect of "don't spew doctrine."

    However, this is a very clear cut case of "do as I say, not as I do", because it is clear (to me) that the community needs such a direct method, be it hypocritical (sp?) or not.

    ESR is a definitely feeling the need to take credit

    Then how do you explain that he is stepping down? A ploy to gain more media spotlight? Go talk to some of th people in alt.ESR.consipiracy instead. It simply seems unlikely that he really needs to take credit.

    I think [...] that most of us [...] would agree that Linux, Perl, [and] Apache, [...] are driven not by the candy wrapper of marketing and press coverage, but by content

    Moving from paranoia to naivate. It is childish to believe that these successes are the simple result of good content and such. The most crucial part in a technology taking hold is awareness, followed closely by good marketing. Think BetaMax, think Amiga, OS/2, commodore, etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. Do not be sucked into believing that we got here based on the merits of the product. That takes over after you have awareness. Marketing gets customers, and good products keep them.


    Micah McCurdy

  • After reading much of RMS's stuff, I can't shake the feeling that what really attracts him to the FSF is its obscurity. If his movement suddently became successful and everybody adopted his principles, he would probably run screaming for the hills and completely distance himself from the FSF.

    Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, Cobain and Nirvana. When people actually started liking the band, the guy couldn't handle it anymore and offed himself. Luckily RMS doesn't have that problem.

    Besides, after reading several interviews with RMS, he strikes me as a highly hostile and disagreeable person, out to alienate the interviewer regardless of his/her intentions. How do you expect a guy like that to advance any cause whatsoever?
  • I find it really sad when smart people get out of their area of expertize and start talking out of their asses. Yes, yes it was a rant, and I suppose I should let it go, but what on earth has FSF/OSI have to do with 19th century sosio-economic theories? Metcalf called RMS a communist, so? That just shows that inventing something techical doesn't require very deep understanding of other fields.
    Communisism and capitalism, while being rather opposite to eachother, are not the whole extent of the possible variety and their differences are not very relevant in today's world in general or to the "Software with Full Rights Attached" movements. For example, neither deals with sub-societies nor gift cultures.
    FSF and OSI are about better software, software with source code, not having to invent the wheel again and intellectual property rights. Communisism and capitalism are about something else.

    --Flam


  • Disclaimer: I am associated with OSI's 'rival' SPI via the Debian project.
    ESR seems to see himself as something greater than the whole of us. Sure, he has been around during this whole "Open Source" fiasco, but face it. That would have happened anyway. Linux has become so widespread that it was a matter of time before someone noticed. ESR has made many contributions to our community, but he also has the maturity of a 2 year old. I've seen the bullshit he's pulled with BP (not to say that BP is a saint) and it seems to me that he is more interested in publicity and corporate acceptance of himself then contributing to our community.
  • Why am I NOT surprised that this is an AC post? Hmmm....
  • I always find it funny when nerds try to be politic, and try to get the world of marketing and spin to work to their advantage. I mean, aren't we nerds because we don't know how to sell ourselves to begin with, and think there's better things to do than go around kissing babies all day? ESR is wasting his breath trying to play the marketing game and make free software palatable to the popular kids in the business world. In the end, nerds and their vision are going to lose if they play that way.
  • Doh! I guess that means I don't have a right to request that Guinuess release the recipe and instructions for making Harp. Come to think of it, why don't we have a "Free Beer" movement (note: that's "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". (notice the subtle capitalization differences))!

    Anyhow, I'm glad someone else finally understood why "Free Software" has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Oh, and speaking of ironies, has anyone else here noticed that RMS's beliefs as applied to "Free Techical Manuals" are actually far more restrictive than his views towards Free Software? Go figure!

    ...

    Seriously, the only real complement I've ever heard for RMS has been that he displays a lot of integrity in that he both has strong beliefs and practices them. Yes, his fanatical idealism is something to be emulated by all of us -- ESPECIALLY at the expense of reason.

    ...
    (more seriously)

    The reason why Open Source works and Free Software doesn't is that Open Source is based on cooperation (and, to a point, utilitarianism), while Free Software is based on moralism. An Open Source advocate (take ESR, for instance) claims that cooperation in software development, aided by peer review and motivated by "itchiness" works well to create good software. On the flipside, a Free Software advocate (take RMS, for instance) would preach that it is morally wrong for you not to share your knowledge with me.

    Damn -- I fucking hate dogmatism.


    -noOM
  • I find it fascinating that in more than a screenful of text, Eric never touches on one of Stallman's main points: the fact that some open source projects are only partially open source.
    This business of only allowing access to PART of the code on an open source project is disturbing. If a project is going to be open source let it be open source. Don't do it half way. As an example, imagine an open source unix where everything was open source except for the init package. Or the window manager. Not too cool.

  • Celebrity Deathmatch on MTV! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you'd ever see ESR v. RMS on that show, you'd know linux is finally popular, otherwise don't hold your breath. =)
  • I wasn't making a claim - I was making a generalization (without picking apart the QPL and LGPL - a lot of GNOME users use GNOME because of an early perception that KDE was "unfree" because of the old Qt license). Part of the original motivation behind Gtk was that the original Qt license was very restrictive - although Troll Tech has rectified the situation with the QPL the religious schism between the GNOME and KDE camps had already happened. That doesn't make KDE users anti-Free, it just means that strict Free Software people are more likely to have settled on GNOME early, and hey - why change horses in midstream? I like KDE myself, because it seems to be better polished for now. Personally, I'm a fan of licenses like LGPL - they give the developer the best kind of freedom of all: the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not Open Source is right for them.

    My own view:
    Software should be Free whenever possible. When it's not completely free, it should be Open Source. And only if it can't be (for reasons of internal business security, perhaps), should it be closed. Then again, I run NT on my desktops at the office, the software I need to use to get the job done at my shop mainly does not exist in Open Source or Free form, unfortunately. I use Linux to serve my intranet, though (and I use it for everything at home)...
  • But ROB I just saw a banner ad for OFFICE 2000??!!?? WTF?

    I thought your ads were served up by adfu, and that we wouldn't see MS products advertised.

    I'm worried.
  • I have a tremendous amount of respect for RMS. He's an amazing coder, and he's committed and passionate about his beliefs in an industry where loyalty is all too often sold to the highest bidder. I've read his work; I've heard him speak; I've even been cornered by him face-to-face at a reception.

    RMS represents the (legal) extreme on the spectrum of freedom in software. As I examine my own values, coloured with mainstream coverage (i.e. not /.), I'm left with the same conclusion as ESR: the world isn't ready for RMS, regardless of whether he's morally right.

    This is a huge industry, and it's growing faster every day; there's room for more than one leader with slightly different goals (especially if neither of them is Steve Ballmer). If I understand the terms correctly, it's tough for open source software to exist without some measure of freedom (not as much as RMS' ultimate goal, but better than nothing), and it's at least as difficult for free software to fail to qualify as open source.

    Has it occurred to anyone that maybe they have exactly the same goal, but that ESR is simply trying to make it more palatable by feeding it to the world in small doses?

    I don't think the computer industry's momentum can or should be redirected as quickly as RMS does, so I support the idea of steering carefully and meaningfully away from the freedomless culture it could become. Pick the path that you like, and encourage the people around you to evaluate their beliefs and make a similarly informed decision.
  • This is ridiculous, ESR keeps trying to lay claim on all of the success of Linux, GNU et al. As if OSI magically made this all happen, and we should thank him dearly for giving us our operating systems.

    Can he really *believe* that? ESR is an outspoken advocate, but that is about all as for as I am concered. RMS created this movement to begin with, and wrote a big chunk of the software himself. I don't take GNU lightly.

    ESR thinks that RMS is too extreme to be an effective advocate. He is right, but I don't think that advocacy is first on RMS's mind. He wants to write the software, and share it with other hackers. He also wants to get his message across, but his message is "freedom is important, don't give it up", rather than "please, please use this software".

    Who's talking and who's coding? RMS's responce was short and to the point. I expect after hitting "send" he went straight back to hacking. What did ESR do?

    --Lenny
  • Why do so many people seem to have a problem with "free software" as a term? The ambiguity in English that leads to the "free speech, not free beer" distinction serves "us." The vast majority of end-users -- the ones who will kill Windows for us, right? -- don't have the tools to make use of the freedom of study, or the freedom of improvement. (#1 and #3 from the FSF definition.)

    The target of the the free software rhetoric can not be the general public, because the general public does not code. They don't care about freedom to study and freedom to change -- what the process is by which "free software" (e.g. "Linux," by which they mean the linux kernel, the GNU utilities, and somebody wrap them up prettily in a distribution) has become better in a concrete technical sense, which leads to a better end-user "experience" -- than conventional software. The vast majority of people will buy a boxed distro at their computer store and be happy to pay $50 for it to get thirty days of hand-holding.

    To the vast majority, free software means that it's cheap, (Freedom #2 (redistribution), the the "free beer" freedom) and that's fine by me -- anything that gets someone using Linux (er, a GNU/Linux distro); I have enough confidence in its superiority to the alternatives that I think people will stay with it. And, like most people who don't care about how their car works, as long as it does, it won't be important to them why free software (#1 and #3, here) is better -- just that it is. The more curious we can greet with open arms and explanations.

    "Open source" is, without doubt, a business term -- the explanation that the vast majority is content to ignore. The problem lies when it's used as marketing, and not as a tool to achieve the results (better software) that the marketroids talk about; the term extracts freedoms #1 and #3 and calls them a new name. That open source emphasises the not-free-beer aspect is a good thing when you're dealing with questions about why GNU utils and linux are better; the problem is that it -- and the businesses -- have missed an important part of the "magic formula" -- no cost. Charging for your open source product is a bad idea, because it cripples the strength of open source development -- the enourmous pool of developers willing to improve something they work with; by charging for the product, you limit that pool tremendously.

    That's not to say that open source but costed products won't get better faster than they would otherwise; the end-users always outnumber the developers for any commercial enterprise, and any appreciable fraction of those end-users being developers substantially increases the number of people working on the product. What it does mean is that free software -- in both senses of the term -- will get better faster. Getting back to my original question: is having two levels of meaning for a phrase such a terrible thing? Most people aren't equipped to understand, and won't even ask about, the second (open source) meaning, and will be content with the first.

    There's no need to aggressively proselytize free software; the advantages of a free software approach to development lead to technically superior products, and it sufficient to let the fruit speak for the tree. Technical superiority, I'll admit, will only win by itself on server platforms; but it is much easier to add the necessary to chrome to a healthy car than replace the engine of a sick one.

    The objective is always to do useful work. For the longest time in software, that meant adding more to the software -- but that time is past. Nobody uses -- or even tries to -- all the "features" of every program they own (er, liscense). The most common line I hear is, "I just need it for some word-processing." (And maybe a few games on the side.) "The computer" (its O/S and the word-processing app) just need to work, all the time, any time. The attempt to make things just work that had the media's attention for a while was the "information appliance," an attempt to simplify the software to the point where a single company could write and fully debug the software, both O/S and application.

    This is obviously the Wrong Way. The Right Way -- which the press has caught on to -- is to use an O/S that already works (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) and free software that already works (Apache, X, etc). The question you keep seeing in the media is a very good one, and it boils down to this: "Can free software write a better Word?" What GUI that better Word runs under is completely immaterial -- though KDE or GNOME have the looks and facilities to make writing such an application simpler than doing it with, say, twm.

    I happen to believe that "we" (free software developers) can write that "better Word." We can crow about our achievements in writing a better O/S -- we, without a doubt, have, and it continues to get better -- but the information appliance idea contains an important truth: people don't care about the O/S, only what they can do with "their computer." (I.e. the "desktop market" that Office -- not Windows! -- owns so thoroughly.) If we want "the people" to accept free software in all its meanings, we have to do to the desktop what we did to the server -- which was not proselytize.

    -_Quinn
  • >In the commercial software community, your >personal property rights are violated because >your rights to YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY are >being violated.

    Which rights are those, exactly? I'm in the "commercial software community" and I don't feel that my employer is violating any of my personal rights. We have a contract which we have both entered into because we consider it beneficial to do so. Sure, I'd like to have a little more say in how my work is used or abused, but I willingly gave up that "right" in return for quite a bit of money.

    If you'd read your economics and philosophy a little more carefully, you'd see that the idea of being able to make such contracts, to attach a value to what one produces and then sell it, is at the very core of capitalism. We're having enough problems with "painting the enemy red" without turning notions of capitalism and communism on their heads.
  • It's really only been a couple years where there has been a solid free kernel ...
    Either you're just too young to know better, my aging memory is experiencing parity check errors, or both, but I really could have sworn that BSD has been rock solid, gratis, and unencumbered for well over two years now. I agree that the only other Unix that comes close to qualifying is Linux, but there's still a great deal of lot of work to be done.
  • ESR has contributed, though not as substantially as RMS. This is partly because RMS is probably a much better programmer. However, ESR has contributed some valuable pieces of code and documentation. For example, see ncurses, fetchmail, and the video timings howto.

  • Are we both talking about Bill "I just levelled a country to get them to agree to the same peace terms that they would have before we bombed them" Clinton? I thought so.

    Getting somewhere without compromising your ideals is a lot harder work than getting that law degree and entering politics, but the final result is a lot more desirable.

    Clinton is certainly not the guy I'd use to support your argument. The fact that he "didn't inhale" (and if you believe that... but anyway) suggests that at one time, he wasn't too anti-drug. This attitude sure doesn't show up in the current War on Drugs, where a hit of acid will land you a mandatory 5-20 years (correct me if I'm wrong). There are countless other examples.

    BTW, If you'd like to read some well-informed critiques of American foreign policy in Kosovo and elsewhere, check out the Z Magazine Network [zmag.org].

    Josh

  • A main axis around which this debate revolves seems to be the idealism of RMS, vs. the "hard realities of a free market".

    ERS wants to cozy up to the "market forces" and states that he "just wants just code that does not suck". In the long run running the risk of disillusioning a lot of the altruism which ultimately makes this thing work...

    As I perceive it there is a certain hope that we are working on an open frontier here, we can contribute something positive to the future in the face of all the shit happening in the rest of the world. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think a lot of good coders would not work half as hard on their OSS projects if they knew that "the man" would be the one to prosper the most for it.

    RMS would probably be one of those people. He seems to think that free software is on a roll, and with it we will be able to shoehorn some decency and ideals back into society, and that "open source" is basically playing out this card way to cheap.

    Problem about this is that it's a dog eat dog world out there currently, and morals is basically a dirty word, if not in what is preached, so definitely in practice.

    Their is one thing that jumps in my face about this whole debate however as a proponent of alternative currencies, and that is all the agonizing over the various merits of all sorts of licenses and "software philosophy" , but not one word uttered about our money system, which is just as much a pice of software as anything written in C.

    It is a social information system, nothing more. An agreement among people to use some particular token as a medium of exchange.

    Why on earth is everybody taking today's system of managing this medium as a given natural fact? And then people either despise it and get branded as starry eyed utopians, or they maintain that "resistance is futile" and idealism is just waste...

    This is just like saying that all OSes are bad/god depending on the first one that you happen to come into contact with....

    Oh.. how I wish some of all this clever analysis would be spent on exploring fixes to the current money system.

    In my opinion there is literally at least two bugs in it.. Bugs that would cause memory leaks and overflow in any normal software. In stead they cause money overflow for some, and total deprivation for others. This is NOT the natural sate of affairs.

    ESR writes of open source as a "gift economy" and the regular one as a "scarcity economy" is it only me that wonders why there has to be scarcity of something that is essentially information?

    Digital cash is just around the corner, and with it private currencies a real possibility, a technical fix may not be that far out of reach.

    If I have sparked anyone's curiosity with this post please check out http://www.transaction.net/money/book/index.html [transaction.net]

    Quote "There is probably nothing that humans make more efforts for, and understand less about, than money."

    Gaute
    -- We plunge for the slipstream the realness to find

    • What did ESR do?
    Sell to suits. Something RMS is incapable of doing.
  • There is a danger, and it is one only touched upon in the essays I've read by Stallman.

    Raymond and the "open source" advocates point to the inherent superiority of "open source" software products compared to proprietary products. The problem is that if the only reason to use open source is that it is expected to perform better and more stable, then as soon as a proprietary software product is shown to perform better and more stable the whole argument falls apart.

    We all have seen the Mindcraft tests which show NT performing better in certain (however unlikely) situations. NT has a higher performance, multithreaded IP stack which scales to mulitprocessor systems better than the unithreaded version in Linux, for example. BeOS, by many indications, can handle high-bandwidth media better than most any other consumer OS on the market. And, of course, there are many proprietary Unices such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Digital UNIX which tout better reliability and higher performance on high-end machines.

    In many ways, despite the outcries of free software advocates and zealots, free software suffers more from the "good enough" syndrome than commercial software. Commercial software (often) must remain competitive, so "good enough" means "good enough to match or exceed our competitor's product"; in other words, good enough to get people to buy your product. With free software, "good enough" typically means "good enough to do what I (the developer) originally wanted a program for"; that is, good enough to "scratch the itch" of the developers working on the product. Meeting other, non-developers', needs are almost exclusively a second priority and done when there is time. How many times on /. have you heard someone say how Linux is missing this or that feature, only to have someone else say something to the effect of "well you've got the source, go write it yourself"?

    So, there is evidence that there is nothing inherently superior about the performance, stability, or functionality of "open source" or "free" software. Thus, making these issues the cornerstone of free software is dangerous to the movement as a whole, because once it is shown these facts are not *necessarily* true, free software no longer has any appeal to those who bought those arguments in the first place.

    No one would be sweating the Mindcraft "failures" if free software were valued because it is free, rather than out-performing non-free software.

    Advocating free software in the way Eric Raymond has done is like advocating democracy for its levels of production it can achieve. None of us hold democracy so dear (assuming that most of us do hold democracy dear) because of its commercial value. We hold democracy dear because it elevates us all to equal status (in theory) in society, and adorns its citizens with rights protected by a government in which all citizens have an equal say (again, in theory).

    We admire free software for the same reason we admire freedom itself, not for any benchmarks of production. Any such mundane benefits of free software (performance, stability, ingenuity) should be considered side effects of free software, and the benificial outcome of the application of its principles.

    Raymond could be a successful disciple of free software if he confined himself to analyzing the processes in the way the "Three Amigos" have done and helping to formulate a repeatable and more or less standard method of development. This seems to be his forte, I think unfortunately his ego has been thrust into the advocacy spotlight by the apparent success of the "Cathedral and the Bazaar".

    I see Stallman as a sort of software libertarian, whereas Raymond is a free software economist, and the two could certainly co-exist. The problem is that the two characters have been pushed into advocacy either by perception or reality, and in the light of advocacy neither is a good man for the job.

    --
    Aaron Gaudio
    "The fool finds ignorance all around him.
  • I wouldn't be so sure about that. According to ESR's Geeks with Guns page [tuxedo.org], RMS is a pretty good shot himself...
    --
  • >I think the difference here is that the previous person thinks that this right has infinite value, and thus he/she should never have to give it up for something of finite value, whereas you do not.

    But, again, which right are we talking about here? I have ceded only very specific rights to my employer, involving work produced under a very particular set of conditions. Work I produce under other conditions (on my time, my equipment, not incorporating my employer's trade secrets) remains mine...unless I decide to sell those rights separately, of course.

    If we were talking about giving up one's general intellectual property rights, such that the employer or other grantee retained rights to all of one's "intellectual output" regardless of the conditions under which it was created and in perpetuity, that would be a whole different thing. Many employers' confidentiality agreements attempt to do just that, and that's why I amend such agreements before signing them (and nobody has ever squawked very hard about such amendments, BTW).

    Am I making this clear enough? I think it's crucial to distinguish between selling individual works (the core of capitalism) and selling what is in a sense part of oneself (one's ability to produce further works).
  • I cannot consider RMS a zealot, just because he is assertive of his achievements and his brainchild(ren). What has ESR done for free software besides write essays? I recall cathedral/bazaar harped on about the virtues of the GPL model in preference to BSD/closed house and proprietary models.

    How dare he then turn around and bag GPL ideals?
    I couldn't care less that Joe Average doesn't "get it", so what? I couldn't care less if commercial companies don't get it either. RMS knows his mind, and the greatest social changes take time.

    The only reason commercial offerings like Corel are jumping on the bandwagon is to be the proprietary standard. It's only a matter of time before a free alternative becomes available and all of these companies know it.

    Case, who would buy photoshop or such when there's Gimp? I'd like to see analagous products to compete in all facets.

    The OpenSource semantic isn't what's putting free software in the the enterprise, it's the grassroots actions of sysadmins such as myself who have run GNU tools for years on whatever *ix machines they're working with.

    Screw you ESR, and screw commercial moneygrabbers. If you want to spend money and sacrifice freedom, you may as well stick with the competition.

    FTR, what sort of moron could possibly label RMS as a communist? Can't you see the self-regulating anarchy he's espousing?
  • They are also both Free Software packages.

    Perl just has a weaker license. This is fine, but not suitable in all cases.

    gcc is probably the best example of how a good product only got better, and STAYED FREE as a direct result of its license, rather than being proprietised. If it had been under a weaker license like the Artistic or BSD license, then it would not be the product it is today.


    __// `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains

  • It seems that you misunderstand principles of
    communism, Probably you know it only from
    publications in western press. I should know
    better becouse I lived in Soviet Union 22 years
    (and then it falled).

    Principle of communism is quite clear "get from
    anybody up to their abilities, and give anybody
    up to their needs". It is exactly what RMS proposes. All bad things you've cited are not
    inherent properties of communism, they are just
    design flaws of attempt to implement communism
    in scarce goods economy world.

    In the "virtual" world where if something is
    once created it is available for anybody, communists just are less harmful than in real world.

    Although, even in software world they can violate
    people's righs by putting restrictions on software, once they feel they have enough power
    to do so. Late RMS's idea about developing libraries under GPL, and not LGPL is perfect example, becouse it causes problems for people
    who just want to earn their living by writing
    good commercial software. It requires them not
    to use good free(?) libraries, so their customers
    suffer. Troll Tech behaves much better in this
    aspect, saying "If you want to develop non-free
    sofware, share profit with us". Stallman doesn't
    leave such option. If this isn't hardcore communism, I never passed "Scientific communism"
    course in University.
  • >Both types are important to the advancement of Linux.

    bingo. its not about linux. its about freedom.
  • I respect both of them, RMS more than ESR, but that's irrelevent. I've always thought of RMS as an asset to the movement, even when people don't understand him or when he is abrasive. ESR has puzzled me a few times, there are definitely times when he is less motivated by the movement and far more motivated by his own ego and fame. At any given time he might not be an asset to the movement.

    What I don't like is the presumption that OSS/Free software/etc. has taken off just recently and not sooner because of RMS. It's really only been a couple years where there has been a solid free kernel and some high quality nice looking apps. It's only been recently that the internet has enabled collaboration on the worldwide level, cheaply enough that everyone can afford it. It's also only been recently that internet servers have been in such demand that there is a real market need for a cheap, open, reliable UNIX like OS on a grand scale. Lot's of things went right all at the same time and because of it there are millions of GNU/Linux users. I don't think it has anything to do with RMS's behavior or with RMS's advocacy, or the ESR.

    ESR indirectly takes credit for a phenomena that he didn't cause. If he wants to attack RMS on the issues, then go for it, he can't win. If he wants to bollster his ego (which he has already demonstrated a knack for) then do that but these correlation arguments are pointless.

  • Isn't that sorta what ESR stated on his page??
    Quite frankly I certainly would like more of it. Not because ESR is a bad coder but because RMS does most for the open/free software hidden in front of his computers magnifying his guru status. Every time RMS opens his mouth he is flaming OSI more than M$. That is definitely detrimental to our collective cause.
    ESR has very effectively taken a whole lot of the zealot geek status away. He is by far our greatest spokesman.
    I has looked upon RMS with great respect and admiration for 14 years. ESR made that publicly viable...
  • philosophical father?
    I guess Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and anybody else who ever wrote anything about freedoms and rights never existed, eh?

    we here at slashdot?
    Which we is that?

    A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification.
    Belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one and only qualification for Christianity... (well, not really, but... :) Anyone whose arguments for/against something sound like little more than religious evangelism needs to find a better way to argue.

    That said, I do have to agree with your statement of companies turning out decent, usable products. However, the argument that the GPL is the be all and end all of software licensing is... weak. I agree with Linus, that "whoever writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to complain."

    have given away source code
    Given away? Such a statement implies that you do not understand the terms of the GPL. It is a license agreement, of the same sort of agreement one might make for use of a commercial software package. It permits redistribution if you distribue source with it. Others have different terms. That's all it is. Holding the GPL as holy writ is short-sighted and closed-minded.
    --
  • Posted by _DogShu_:

    RMS does, and I think that's ESR's point.
  • hmmm...
    ownership is different from credit, which as i remember, is what RMS is after. at least thats what i remember him talking about last, on the issues of GNU/Linux.
  • RMS is lucky that he doesn't have a family; lucky that he doesn't have a mortgage; and lucky that he has an endowment. He's lucky that he has no temptation for compromise his principles at the end of every month. The rest of us are not so pure.

    Basically, you completely missed ESR's point. His point is that RMS speaks to us about issues important to us. He is very bad at speaking to non-hackers. Quote: "RMS is a lunatic."
    -russ
  • What we have here is an ecology of ideas. There are niches for a variety of creatures in this system. The FSF ideals and language are very important IMHO, because while OSI marketing may increase the installed base, and thereby attract more developers, it does so strictly by profit motive. While there's nothing wrong with profit motive in its most general sense of the individual or organization seeking the greatest net utility for itself, it's important to have a community and a language which reminds people that the greatest utility is not always that which it at first appears to be. Corporate interests are quite happy to seek out whatever has value according to their standards of judgement. OSI shows how Free Software fits their current standards. FSF advocates a change in standards.

    In corporate meetings, I often hear people say "We'll use Open Source if we can, because we know it's a good idea, but if a proprietary product provides the same value, we'll use that instead." So it then becomes important to remind them that feature lists and functionality aren't the only kind of "value" a product can have. The OSI doesn't deny this, but its role is not primarily to educate people on this point. At least as far as the corporate world is concerned, the OSI's message is that Open Source will produce featureful, robust programs and often pays off whether they're using it or developing it. True enough, but not necessarily the end of the story.

    The FSF's role - and this is a niche which is becoming more important and valuable as the OSI's work continues to be successful - is to then push the perspective which says that freedom is itself one of the values that should be considered in our attempt to maximize our utility. I'm sure this doesn't quite accord with how the FSF perceives things, but it probably describes what their importance will be in the immediate future. Once enough people have enough exposure to Free Software and see some of its advantages (and grokking them in fullness may take a year or two), then there's an opportunity to show how this (for many) surprising phenomenon is really illustrating what's wrong with their present conceptualization of what's valuable in intellectual assets like software, and to induce them to rethink the value of freedom as an intrinsic asset.
  • ESR is listening to his own rhetoric a bit too much.

    Open Source has received some media attention recently because of the _products_. Apache and Perl are too good examples of programs that have a proven track record of working; working without any hype from ESR or the OSI.

    Linux is beginning to get media and corporate attention due to the markeying efforts of companies like RedHat and Caldera. Really, Intel made an investment in a company with a _product_, not a movement.

    Yes, the efforts of ESR and other OSI advocates have helped to increase the mind share of open source software; but what really did the trick is a few high quality products (which just happen to have been in production long before OSI existed).

  • All hail Discordia!

    Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn!

    IO PAN! IO IO PAN!!!


    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • Obviously ESR has a point, businesses feel more comfortable with Open Source terminology, and some practise it, to whatever extent. Obviously RMS has a point, we are where we are. But I didn't think it necessary for ESR to end a to-the-point letter with a taunt, such as "Shut up, and show them the code", because that is something RMS has already done. It never hurts to be civil, more so when respect is due.
  • 1 - Netscape's decision to release Mozilla was because they realized they were losing the browser war. Plain and simple. Sure, theorectically, more programmers could work on it now that it's open source'd but anyone who's paying attention to the project knows that only around 30 non-Netscape developers (compared to the hundreds inside Netscape) have worked on the project since it was released.

    2 - Because not everyone has the ability (or desire) to code. Should you not be using a computer because you can't build one from scratch like the Woz? Or not drive cars because you can't make a frame from pigiron? Thanks for taking us back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days.

    As one who constantly uses free/open/convenient software, having the "public" know occassionally makes my life easier. Now, when I suggest using Linux on a project, I don't have to spend 1/2 day explaining what Linux, GNU & BSD are and then days trying to convince them that it's considered a "real" OS and that other people use it too. As far as I'm concerned, ESR is doing me a favor by marketing free software for me so I don't have to repeat the same rationalizations over and over again.

    Regardless of the situation, someone will always "take without giving back". And for code that's being offered as "free", it seems to be a fairly silly to complain that people don't give back becaue they're just "using" (running) the code.

    Sure, when you write code, it's your sandbox and you make the rules. But don't start complaining when
    a) someone decides to start building their own sandbox (non-GPL'd licenses, commercial code, or even proprietary code)
    b) starts using the sand that you let *everyone* use (abiding the license, of course)
    and
    c) other people who don't build sandboxes say the other one looks better and decides to play in it.

    3 -He didn't say anything about proprietary applications. He said commercial. Not all commercial apps have to be proprietary. This shouldn't need repeating but someone always seems to want to blur the two.

  • This is Odd (Score:4)

    by Aaron M. Renn ( 539 ) <arenn@urbanophile.com> on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @06:47AM (#1828020) Homepage
    Raymond starts a movement - open source - and Stallman says he doesn't want to be a part of that movement because it doesn't match with his ideals. Raymond says "Shut up!" and wants Stallman to quietly allow the Open Source people to trumpet the accomplishments of the GNU project as part of the Open Source movement. This is certainly odd. Why should anyone be forced to allow themselves to be classified with a movement that they don't agree with? I certainly wouldn't. I am not a proponent of the open source movement and do not wish to be lumped in with it either. I'm a free software guy. I personally don't consider the two equivalent.

    Interestingly, Raymond claims to believe in freedom for software, but it appears that he believes in it for utilitarian reasons only. I suspect he has a quite different reason for supporting other freedoms. For example, does he think free speech is good only because free speech leads to better government or does he believe it is an inherent moral right of all men? I put free software in the same classifications of rights as free speech and others we hold dear. (Though of course free software is probably not as important).
  • Marketshare, yes. Mindshare, no. People were converted without ever being tought the mindshare, and because of this you get licenses like the Sun Community License, which have all the benefits of Open Source, and none of the benefits of Free Software.


    Your mindshare. Not mine, and not that of a large part of the community. If making effective use of Linux and other stuff that goes with it were to require buying into RMS' utopia, as you seem to want, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all: Linux would be a laboratory curiosity.


    OSI was completely unnecessary; maybe even harmful. The only thing OSI's tactics did was draw in a few commercial companies, a few clueless users, and a bit of attention from Microsoft before we're ready for it. We don't really need commercial companies.


    Speak for yourself. Without OSI and the idea that open source software could be liberated from RMS' utopia, Linux wouldn't even be close to the point it is now...where major corporations are using it more and more for real, mission-critical work, and where those who speak it are in more and more demand to provide their professional expertise. ...Oh, right, you're from the People's Republic of MIT, where real-world success is something to be spat upon, not sought.


    I can't think of any polite way to say this: Fuck you ESR. You're the last person I expected to make this statement, and RMS was the last person I expected this statement to be made about. RMS has written more code than any other person in the community. He spends an insane amount of time coding. He wrote Emacs, the original gcc, and a dozen other free software projects. No offense, but you've written jack squat in terms of useful code.


    Ignoring for now that fetchmail is a complete rewrite of popclient, and one of the most stable programs on my system, I would say that ESR's saying just what you are: RMS' contributions in the area of the code itself far, far outshine anyone's, and those contributions alone make a better and more eloquent case than his code plus his political writings (which include the GPV) make. In other words, his political writings detract from his massive contributions, not add to them. Thus, were RMS to indeed "shut up and show us the code", we'd all be farther ahead.
    --

  • When I buy something, I own it. I can take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, I can sell it to other people, I can give it to my grandchildren, whatever.

    Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is. Never mind that I walk into CompUSA and buy a piece of software the same way that I'd buy a rutabaga or cabbage at the grocery store. I'm not free to take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, and according to the 'shrink wrap license' that was put into my face when I tried to run the software (and remember, CompUSA will NOT take the software back, even if I say "Hey, I bought software, not a license"), I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").

    I think this is what the original poster was talking about, not the whole notion of contracts. As far as contracts go, I'll note that the concept of "good faith" is important there. A contract signed at the point of a gun is not valid in a court of law because both parties were not operating in good faith. A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't buy me, and you can't get your money back' is not good faith.

    -E
  • The endless "But I wanna get paid" whines are very annoying to people like me who actually (shock!) read the FSF position on this. If you want to be paid to write software, find someone who'll pay you to write Free software. Don't try to confuse Commercial with Proprietary.
    What are you being paid for anyway? To write MS Windows? Like most programmers you're probably getting to paid to write something because your company NEEDS that software. Even if it was Free instead of Proprietary, they'd still need it, and they'd still need to employ someone to write it. You.
    The GNU web pages make it perfectly clear that they neither expect nor desire a future where no-one is paid to write code. In fact when your skills are easily transferable, and customisation is the number one employer, there will likely be *more* well paid jobs, because more companies can use your talents.
    The spin on Free Software created by ESR's Open Source name doesn't affect the ability for you to get a job, it just changes the media perception (which is less relevant than ESR would like you to think). Business isn't looking at charities like the FSF anyway -- it's looking at Red Hat. So the business model for Free Software isn't the FSF's model, but the Red Hat model.

    Nick.

  • Observations on names and needs... (Score:3)

    by Wayfarer ( 10793 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @03:43AM (#1828038) Homepage

    Although several of my non-hacker friends tend to get really scared of RMS' phrasing (see the essay entitled Why Software Should Not Have Owners [gnu.org] for an example of something that made at least three people uneasy), I find it somewhat ironic that they respond better to the idea of a "free software" movement rather than an "open source" movement. Next on the agenda: dig up some of ESR's stuff to show them.

    Naturally, the immediate utility of open source is to hackers who want to tinker with the functionality of a program. (Which would indirectly benefit ordinary consumers who would get products with fewer "features" and more features.) As for the ordinary person? The price matters more than a few tens of thousands of lines of C++.

    At least the corporations respond better to the idea of "open source."




    -W-

  • ... and I mean this in the best possible way. Hasn't anyone else read ESR's interview [linux.com] at linux.com [linux.com] where he talks about calibrating for media interest? The media are pathetically poor at reporting subtle (or even not-so-subtle) philosophical nuances. The media are great at reporting conflict and personality clashes -- it's their bread and butter. So, if RMS and ESR let their subtle (though not necessarily unimportant) clash over strategy and tactics into the media, they sustain interest in both "free" and "open source" software, and more folks end up actually reading the GNU Manifesto [gnu.org] and the Open Source Definition [opensource.org].

    I would also like to note that part of the "clash" between RMS and ESR probably relates to the fact that RMS is an ethicist and a philosopher, and ESR is an aikidoka. RMS is concerned that the ethical imperitive and philosophical underpinnings of free software are not lost in the new emphasis on "open source" as a marketing strategy. ESR is a student of Aikido [aikiweb.com]. In Aikido, you don't confront your opponent with force-vs-force, but you redirect your opponent's engergy in a less destructive way. Also, it is believed that simply doing Aikido is the primary way to absorb and begin to practice the philosophy of peaceableness, rather than beginning by studying the writings of O-Sensei.

    So, RMS is trying intellectual and moral persuasion in order to promote free software. ESR is trying to get more corporations to do free software, and trusting that the philosophy will follow. Both approaches are complementary, not contradictory. I'm glad we have both RMS and ESR.

  • Free vs Better (Score:3)

    by T-Ranger ( 10520 ) <jeffw@NoSPAm.chebucto.ns.ca> on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @07:50AM (#1828053) Homepage
    It been pussy footed around but no one has hit it on the head: The important difference beteween FSF and OSI is that the goal of FSF is to create free (speech and beer) software, and the goal of OSI is to create better software.

    The only people who can care about (or understand) free (beer/speech) software is programers. Everyone else couldnt care less. If your not a mechanic you dont care if you can open up you engine and fiddle around.

    Everyone can understand the promis of better products. Everyone wants better products.

    RMS is hard enough to agree with (on a personal level), and when he is speeking of freedoms that you cant understand (or do, but dont care about) then is east to ignore. ESRs message can be grasped by everyone - and it has been.

  • ESR runs for office! (Score:3)

    by ggoebel ( 1760 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @03:44AM (#1828059)

    Honestly, does Eric S. Raymond think he can take credit for the popularity of Open Source Software (OSS) just because of recent press coverage? -Not to say that his self-publicizing hasn't been useful But it ain't the cat's meow. He, Bruce, and RMS certainly make for a lot of embarrassing in-fighting. I wish they'd stay off the soap box and spend more time coding. Politicians will take credit for which ever way the wind blows, and ESR is a definitely feeling the need to take credit.

    I'm also entertained by the use of "We" whenever he wishes to contrast his views versus those of another person. ESR is skilled at the rhetoric he accuses RMS of misusing.

    Further I think that it is funny that most of us (note the royal use of "us") would agree that Linux, Perl, Apache, and the countless un-named "OSS" success stories are driven not by the candy wrapper of marketing and press coverage, but by content. -When the press grows tired of covering freely transmitted source code, it will go on. Why does Eric feel that it must be prostituted to the masses for them to accept it?

    As for ESR's comments about not sticking to his beliefs when it doesn't fit strategically and rhetorically with the goal of the day... I'll misquote Benjamin Franklin when I say "Those who would relinquish a bit of their liberty for security deserve neither"

  • What? Again? (Score:4)

    by jht ( 5006 ) on Tuesday June 29, 1999 @03:45AM (#1828060) Homepage Journal
    I think this is pretty simple to define (this from the man who gave the world the word "SCOGNUX", so use a grain of salt):

    Free Software is in the best interests of many, if not most users. Ideally, Free means "free beer" AND "free speech", because the best tools should be given away for the good of the community. At the very minimum, the free speech form is a necessity to the Free Software community.

    Then there's the Open Source group. They agree strongly with Free Software, but they'll settle for free speech (though they do enjoy their free beer), so long as the speech isn't too convoluted or restricted. If a company decides to treat their Open Source system as a market for unfree software, they can live with it, but they'd really like to see as much software Open Sourced as possible.

    Open Sourcers will compromise on their ideals for the benefit of the larger goal: more Open Source (and Free) software. Free Software people won't.

    An Open Source devotee will run Linux, and load KDE, WordPerfect, and Navigator on it, and consider that a win. A Free Software follower will run Linux, but call it GNU/Linux (regardless of the damage to their tongue it can cause...), GNOME, and use emacs for everything but web browsing (and maybe even that).

    ESR (and probably a majority of the community) are Open Sourcers. ESR speaks for them frequently, but not exclusively. He's the visible one, though.

    RMS (and a vocal, talented minority) are Free Software advocates. To most, RMS is Free Software, and he's done more than anyone else. But his preaching tends to turn off the masses (as do most prophets and idealists).

    ESR and RMS are friends. ESR and RMS are friendly rivals. ESR and RMS are bitter rivals. It depends on the day, the cause, and the mood. They both have talent, and they both have egos. Unfortunately, because of that, they will never both pull quite in the same direction, and that's too bad for the community - because as much as they've both accomplished, if they could meet in the middle they'd probably accomplish even more.

    It could be worse, though - in many societies they's have gone into the hills with weapons (of which ESR has many) and their followers (of which RMS' are truly devoted to the Cause) and waged a Guerrila war between the Nerds. Scary thought, huh?
  • I am often amazed at how infuriating RMS's writings are to many people. His concise response to Bob Metcalfe's article has done it again.

    ESR's thesis seems to be that the "propaganda" of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation has only hurt the cause of free software. ESR claims that their contribution to the community is the software itself, rather than the rhetoric. However, he then goes on to congratulate himself and the rest of the "Open Source advocates" for their particular brand of propaganda: "OSI's tactics work."

    Setting aside the presumptuousness of claiming that ESR et al. are wholly responsible for the degree of acceptance that free software has today ("consider the 180-degree turnaround in press and mainstream perception that has taken place in the last fourteen months, since many
    people in our tribe started pushing the same licenses and the same code we used to call "free software" under the "open source" banner"), I think it makes sense to ask what "success" means to ESR. Apparently, it involves "market share" and "mind share" amongst "opinion leaders" and "executives." What will the free software movement have to compromise, or what has been compromised already, in the rush towards corporate acceptance? (I hope that "Open Source advocates," with their chumminess with "opinion leaders," haven't gotten too comfortable with jet-setting speaking engagements, despite their protestations to the contrary.)

    Ultimately, the FSF philosophy that is so roundly criticized is not about the end product -- if such a thing even exists in the software industry. Rather, it concerns itself with the process of its creation. Whether the software is ignored or widely used is ultimately unimportant. What matters in Richard Stallman's moral calculus is the way that the software is written and the way those pieces are distributed: for a programmer, this is the way you live your life.

    Perhaps this is why people dislike RMS so much: he is proposing a set of ethics for hackers, a modern text on how to better the community as a whole through the act of programming. And perhaps the lesson of the last twenty years of the 20th century is that many people just don't want to be bothered with contributing to their community when they could spend that time making more money.

    -- Paul Walmsley, shag@nicar.org
  • Oddly ESR has the gaul to publicly tell RMS to "shut up and show them the code" while RMS has written far more Free Software than ESR. Furthermore, ESR writes long-winded psuedo-science which real scientist find embarassingly simplistic and reveal ESR's lack of education. While in contrast, RMS writes concise and clearly worded statements that convey exactly what he is trying to communicate. ESR is the one who needs to "shut up and show them the code!" What ESR is doing is counter-productive to the goals of Freedom for all users of software.
  • Raymond starts a movement - open source
    Now, now -- that's just a tad overreaching.

    Erik no more begat the "open [sic] source movement" than did Richard beget the "free [sic] software movement". Both existed before them, and would continue to exist without them. We've always had software that was gratis, or software that was unencumbered, or software with politically and/or economically motivated restrictive licences, or software that always had the source code available. Sometimes more than one of these applies to the same software suite. (Except of course for encumbered and unencumbered, which are mutually exclusive if you deem them boolean properties.)

    Let's not confuse the spokeman with the thing. The thing has been with us always.

Slashdot Top Deals

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Close