ESR Responds to Nikolai Bezroukov 358
Cycon writes "ESR has posted his response to Nikolai Bezroukov's criticism of The Cathedral and the Bazaar posted earlier today. ESR states that he 'welcomes such criticism' but that Nikolai 'adds almost nothing useful to the debate.'"
Libertarianism (Re:ESR should go out sometimes) (Score:1)
In a nutshell, it is a philosophy that believes in the freedom of the individual before all else.
If you understood this, then you would understand that ESR isn't just attacking Stalinist Marxism - he's attacking pure, ideal Marxism as well. The marxist (socialist) approach is to have government control everything to make sure that everyone gets their fair share.
This is in direct conflict with a Libertarian's ideals and goals, and would therefore be viewed as evil.
99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Every country has trade barriers. See recent nafta disputes as well as trade embargoes against cuba. It's a fact of life when trying to balance domestic and foreign economies as well as keep support in particular industries.
* keep a majority of what they earn?
I'm an american iving in Canada and having to pay almost 50% of what I earn is often complained about. However, Canadians view these social systems (such as health care) as a big part of their national identity. Yes, it's socialist, but I'm willing to give part of my income to benifit the majority (even if half of it is lost bureaucratically). If quality of life is maintained then I won't be mad.
* own a gun?
In half the western european countries I've visited, many people have guns. I, however, won't argue about the american mentality as per self protection though -- Human nature just presents itself differently under the strain of history and teachings.
etc etc,
As for the other comments, I don't know how to respond. I will however state that it is impossible for a country to please the majority, the individual, as well as the minority. Every decision the government makes is opposed by someone.
I completely agree with you on the point that ESR (if he really is an extreme libertarian) doesn't undertand government regulation. In a system where self interest is the main clause to adhere by, there must be well thought out moderation. Economic systems don't just work. They have the be babied with fiscal and monetary policies as well as with sometimes needed authority to keep a smooth business cycle.
There are just some industries where the leader fortifies the barriers to entry then abuses their power in having the consumer captive by jacking prices up and fighting off the occasional competitor who thinks they will muscle their way into the business. Is this behavior abberant? No. It's perfectly logical under our system. We just need some moderation to ensure subjective fairness takes place.
The story is the same with Oil company oligopolies. Even if they weren't colluding (and they are), an oligopoly by nature will try and keep prices high. If one of its members lowers prices, the rest will most likely follow -- however if one raises prices, the rest will most likely not. So they usually just keep prices static in hopes of keeping market share.
Now when they illegal collude (OPEC). The government must do all it can to combat them. It was incredibly smart of the government to keep a strategic reserve to prevent OPEC from holding the economy captive by arbitrarily raising prices. I don't see how some people think that government regulation doesn't have its place.
As for socialism, the subject is a little touchy. If you ask most people about this problem, they will say that they want to benifit without giving anything in return. Well you just can't do that. So when we accept that we have to give some to ensure some security, we then realize that the government is partially corrupt or is mismanaging that money to boost an immenent election campaign etc.. we say that socialist ideas are stupid. Unfortunately you can't really have it both ways. Human self interest just won't let it happen (no I'm not stating that it's bad -- just that it's a reality). I support countries with whichever mix of the two they pick. As long as the people are moderately happy.
----------
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Just one caveat:
Well, this is not so. The Communists and Nazis collaborated on several occasions -- the Berlin rent strike, for instance. The KPD's attitude to the Nazis fluctuated in accordance with the 3rd International line, as handed down from Moscow. Let's not make too many martyrs here, either. Some leaders certainly ended up in the camps; other, ironically enough, ended up in Stalin's camps; and others toed the party line to emerge as the leaders of the DDR.
It was the SPD, and only the SPD, who consistently opposed Hitler.
OK, make that two caveats! I don't think the Geramn economy was really turned around. Hitler's economic miracle was a short-term affair. It was based on unsustainable, non-productive expenditure (armaments), and could only be maintainted by plunder and conquest.
Re:Another nail in ESR's coffin... (Score:1)
?????
Mitnick didn't deserve to spend five years in jail without trial. He deserved a trial, and from what I've seen, he should've been given time. I don't think how it worked out is how it did work out, but I've seen no reasoning to show that thinking Mitnick committed actions deserving jail time is fascist, or even wrong.
Wow. I'd say ESR nailed him there. (Score:2)
But I can still respect Eric on the many things he has done right, and for his great ability as a writer. He is certainly far above most technical people in that regard, and he has done great things for open source both by writing code and pushing our ideas into the workplace.
And concerning this so-called "critique" of his work, I would say his response has properly nailed the critic on all counts. Nice job. I especially like the Edgar Allen Poe quote at the end.
--
grappler
Here's That Needle In the Haystack (Score:1)
Tonight, buried under yet another spasm of narcissism from ESR, and the rush to weigh in for or against him, rcade here has posed a penetrating question:
"How essential to the open exchange of knowledge is the notion that none of the participants are getting rich off the exchange?"
This deserves thinking about. Contributing to free software projects under the GPL is altruistic, yet it simultaneously serves one's pragmatic self-interest (not reinventing the wheel, etc.). So we find self-respecting Libertarians opposing it because they smell the altruism, and other self-respecting Libertarians praising it because they are free to just take whatever they need.
Resentment arises when we ignore contrary aspects of the situation, and instead try to defend an oversimplified, one-dimensional conception.
Thus the ironies. Free-marketeer Raymond writes "C & B" to explain our all-for-one, one-for-all operating system project to the capitalists (who don't get it), then gets testy when the socialistic aspect is pointed out. I think his essays have been valuable contributions, but I doubt that he would admit that they are classic propaganda and are intended to function as such.
This is why Bezroukov's use of the terms "vulgar Raymondism" and "vulgar Marxism" were guaranteed to get ESR's goat. Raymond and his groupies reacted predictably to the "Marxism" part, because their point-and-click political simplemindedness fails to understand that the term "vulgar Marxism" refers not to Marxism itself, but to ignorant charicatures of it. It is just such ignorant charicatures of free software that Raymond has worked to correct.
ESR's counterblast, and most of the comments, seek to divert us from the core of Bezroukov's essay, which is the analogy between free software development and academic scientific research.
Notice the different strategies: "C & B" sets up oversimplified, polarized extremes and advocates one against the other.
Bezroukov takes several aspects of the two phenomena and condsiders how they are alike and how they differ.
Propaganda vs. inquiry.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
1) Buy beef rom the US.
* I might be very wrong on this, but AFAIK US beef in Ol' Europe because of different regulations: US law allows *filling* your cattle with hormones to have them grow more heavy (mainly by retaining more water in their muscles and being fatter). Honestly, I wouldn't want to buy -much less eat- such a meat.
2) Genertically modified food
* In Italy there is some genetically modified food. It must be marked very prominently, thus allowing people not to buy it. I don't think I'd want to buy that kind of food either: the main reason why multinationals develop transgenic food is to tie some kind of producition to their products (be it fertilizers or bug killers or whatever). Multinationals don't bother controlling very long for possible side-effects of their modifications. On many papers I read the assumption that the current dramatic rise in allergies can also be traced to transgenic food. I don't have any title to prove or disprove this, but I tend to believe them.
3) Go to whatever doctor I please
* Of course I can. At any level. The worst that can happen is that I have to pay for the visit myself instead of having it paid by the Social Security system.
4) Keep a majority of what we earn
* You have a point here. In Europe taxes are claimed to me higher than in the US on average. But you must also consider that some expenses you US-citizens have to do have the form of taxes here. I'm thinking about Social Security here: I think that Health insurance takes quite a chunk of a person's earnings...
5) Own a gun
* I don't *WANT* to own a gun. And I don't want to go walking on the streets fearing that someone will go berserk on me (or on anyone else for that matter). Also notice that it's not forbidden to own guns here. It's just that there are quite a lot of checks done before you're allowed to carry one: this is a *very* weak point in the US law IMO - a leftover of the Wild Wild West times...
6) Transportations
* See the UK and their privatization of the railroad system - and some of the problems it lead to. It's a road most railroad agencies in Europe are following. And as far as local transportation is concerned, in Italy the main bus companies are owned by the Town Council ( I really don't know how to better express the concept, sorry), certainly not by the government.
7) Taking 'non-recognized' medicines
* I thought that there was a very tight control by the FDA (or whatever it is) over what kind of medicines are allowed in the US.
There are pros and cons to total deregulation here: if you have a really capable medic, then he might have an idea over what he's prescribing you. On the other side, if you aren't so lucky (or rich), you're practically selling your body to the pharmaceutical industry. Are you sure you wish to go down that way? Having an authority control what medicines are allowable dampens both these effects.
We're going offtopic here though.
The point I'm trying to make here is that extreme control (like the so-called "Real-world socialism" used to have and still has in some countries) is as bad as "no control at all".
I actually think that some european countries should be better studied by US regulators and students, as they sometimes can reach good compromises between these two extremes.
LBT?? (Score:1)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Still
Freaker / TuC
Re:Don't be so gentle on him. (Score:1)
Inherent how can a right be inherent are you some kind of religious freak or somthing? Rights are a construct of man, a consept. and they are not inherent to anything. rights were created by those who did not have them, to defend themselves, and others from tyrany. Giving, 10%, 20%, or even 70% of you're welth is not tyrany. it may not be the best thing, but is not tyrany.
Actually, Socialism has killed vastly more than 10.5 million. The entire ideology of socialism leads to both a loss of basic moral tenets and the loss of the sanctity of life. Millions ceased to exist because of the insane logic of idealistic revolutionaries.
Socialism never killed anyone. Stalin killed millions of people, pol-pot killed millions of people. but socialism was for them a tool, like Nazism (one 'I', btw) was a tool for hitler. a tool to gain power. Those men were evil, but the ideas were not. (The nazis were one of the most anti-commie people out there)
While Ideas can be evil, these are not. they may be bad ideas, or difficult to attain, but to say that they are evil is ludicrist.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
>Umm...okay, Europe doesn't have concentration camps but are citizens of most European countries allowed to:
>* buy beef from the US?
No, because cows from the US are treated with hormones that are outlawed here, since they have been proven to be harmful to people's health. I don't think thats a bad thing.
>* soon, buy genetically modified food?
You can allready buy genetically modified food here. However, there have been demands to have gentically modified food to be mandatorily labelled as such, so people who have moral objections to it can have the choice in using it.
>* go to whatever doctor they please?
Yes, i can do that. Any doctor, any hospital, alternative medicine etc.
>* keep a majority of what they earn?
Yes, tax rates are divided by wealth. If you're not extremely rich you keep the majority of what you earn. The maximum tax rate is something between 50 and 60% at the moment and will be brought down with the new tax plans to be issued in 2001 or so.
>* own a gun?
Nope. I don't need to since there is virtually nobody else with a gun. Professional criminals
have them ofcourse, but it's not them i'm afraid about. It's the agressive drunk next-door neighbour from across the street that would worry me, and luckily he's not able to get a gun in this country.
>* ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
Yes, i can do that. Trains and busses have been privatized long ago. There is some regulation to make sure the companies don't abuse their strong positions they inherited from being a former state monopoly, but thats pretty much it.
>* many other things...
I can do those also i guess.
>* take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?
Now hold on here. I wouldn't want to take a medicine that hasn't been approved by the government's health agency. Much too dangerous. So i don't see that as a bad thing. Medicines here are deviced in two cathegories, home-treatment and "real" medicines. The latter cathegory can only be aquired using a prescription from the doctor. This is done to counter medicine abuse and addiction.
I live in the Netherlands btw. The government here is a coalition between a socialist party and two liberal parties. Sure we have to pay more taxes, but in return we get a health system that offers the same level high-quality medical care for every citizen, regardless of wealth, a decent educational system with very good universities. To be admitted to a university you need brains, not money. Everybody has equal opportunity in getting a university degree here. To me that's more freedom, not less. That said, you can't really compare these two societies. The Netherlands has 16 million inhabitants and a tradition that goes back 1500 years. The Netherlands has been a republic since +/- 1590, ruled mostly by a council of provincial regents, being strongly in favour of a highly liberal capitalistic market. Eastern Germany and France for example have been much more rural in their economy, so they are bound to be more socialist in the traditional sense of the word. The history of these countries is VERY different, and their social and economical structure as a result is still very different, so it is dangerous to speak about "the European countries". There's a huge difference between eg. The Netherlands on one side and France, or even Belgium, on the other.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
It certainly wasn't mine, I was just born here.
Daniel
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Nothing I've read has suggested that Stalin was any more socialist than the Nazis. Both were essentially oppressive toliterantian regimes which wrapped themselves in ideology to try to keep the people's loyalty.
Daniel
just beacuse ESR says somthing, dosn't mean its tr (Score:1)
damnit, there's only one 'I' in Nazism !!!!!!!!!
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Daniel
Oh, shit . . . (Score:1)
damnit, there's only one 'I' in Nazism !!!!!!!!!
Urgh. You're right. I goofed. Damn, that's shameful.
But there's two 'm's in "dammit", dammit! Hahahahaha!
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
ESR is right, but... (Score:1)
All this should, however, not distract from the fact that the objective part of his rebuttal of Bezroukov's article is very much to the point. Like him, I am suprised that Bezroukov's article made it through the reviewing of First Monday (but maybe their reviewing is generally weak, I don't know). Having reviewed many scientific papers myself, I don't understand how an article that is loaded with obvious flamebait, is misinterpreting some of its references, and is lacking a convincing internal development can be accepted for publication.
Chilli
PS: While it may be a pity that ESR wrote an emotionally loaded response, I think, everybody should keep in mind that in the end this is his personal responce to the article. Like everybody else he has a right to defend himself verbally in public. That doesn't make him less important or less insightful...it only shows that he is a human being with emotions.
Re:Socialism as defined by a socialist (Score:2)
ESR should go out sometimes (Score:5)
Pretty contradictory to me. And I think ESR should definitely get out of his little hole and check what Marxism and socialism really are. He is deeply confused with the Stalinist application of Communism. All in all, this vision is very american, on the redneck side.
Short reminder: almost all of the European Union countries are led by socialists. Okay, it's now called "social-democracy", but we *never* experienced any Stalinist methods from our governments (the opposite, mostly).
Once again, I'm really disappointed by ESR's comments (mostly FUD nowadays), and the fact this guy is seen as THE OSS "leader". I find this guy dangerous. He mixes strong political opinions (which, you've guessed, I don't share) with some actual achievements (OSS, Linux...). So far, OSS and Linux have been developped in a very socialist way (not communist), in the most noble sense of the word. And it works. IMO, ESR is just trying to appropriate this movement to serve his own political views and interrests.
He calls himself a libertarian, but openly promotes the idea of World Domination(TM), which is what we're fighting through OSS. We all want to have the choice, and the freedom to choose. I don't think World Domination(TM) goes into that direction. ESR also had pretty stupid comments regarding BeOS, claiming it was doomed since it's not Open Source, and basically foreseeing the doom of all closed source OSes and apps.
Thank you Mr Raymond, but keep preaching your nonsense somewhere else. The "go my way or be doomed" smells like the naziism you think you're against and you give me nausea.
Re:ESR, Rebuttle, Hypocricy? (Score:1)
The amateur debate about the definition socialism and all the rest is easy enough to ignore, and I do. What few contributors to this thread seem to be interested in (though there are some) is the software that results.
Often, the "discussion" here reminds me of the worst of usenet. I should just stick to the articles.
e-s-r, r-m-s, m-o-u-s-e
Different Value Systems (Score:2)
LL
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Or maybe thats just me.
Wasn't the criticism of CatB? (Score:1)
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
I couldn't figure out what he was talking about ether, but then I rememberd somthing about the Church of sciantology being blocked in germany. As for the 'what time they put there kids to bed' I still don't understand what he's talking about.
I have been to the US of A several times, and found out the level of liberty out there is really lower than what I'm living here in evil Europe. Here, we can (and do) say things aloud without the fear of a money-driven lawsuit and basically do whatever we want as long as we don't harm anybody.
Maybe you should compare british and american libel laws. In america, you have to prove as fact that the person *knew* that what they were saying was false. Its very difficult to *prove* what was in a person's head, so libel laws in the US are very hard to win.
I don't know about other europian contrys, but the I know that the UK's laws regarding this type of thing are a lot stricter
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Answer to the formatted version (Score:2)
Scarcity is the rule in the history and pre-history of man. Services will be rationed, it's just a fact. As I said, I prefer to not grant this power to governments as then the decision as to who gets and who gets denied services will be based on politic considerations. It may be no "fairer" to allow these things to be worked out by marketplace forces, but at least it doesn't lead to political tyranny.
I may also fear the tyranny of scarcity, that there are "haves" and "have nots". This is what motivates me to be productive. I believe that I have control over this and that ultimately, it is the way of nature. Look around, those who produce and take care succeed and those who don't lose out. (Now I'll get called a "Social Darwinist" or some such crap). The tyranny of an evil, even democratic government, is much more difficult to fight.
With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
You yourself pointed out that Europeans "saw no need" for Constitutional guarantees for basic freedoms.
An all-inclusive government system is not evil in and of itself, but if it gets in the wrong hands, which democracy alone has NO mechanism to prevent, it is extremely evil. I don't advocate anarchy. I advocate limited government. I believe government has some important functions, like defense of it's own values against Hitlers and Stalins, adjudicating disputes and enforcing rights, property rights among them. These are about the limits of government power I trust. If a government tries to grab the power it needs to be totalitarian, it will have to set up the mechanisms first. If those mechanisms are already in place through ever more expansive cradle-to-grave government provided services, it's a lot easier. Only in an environment where we insist on limited government power will the people consistently oppose an evil government trying to grab the power to enforce tyranny.
As I said, there's a reason why the US form of government has outlived all the others. It doesn't need to be radically reformed or overthrown because it is inherently stable. The government can't get too much power and the people prosper.
I'm not at all offended at your slights about how this is a uniquely "American" view. There's a lot to be proud of in an American view. American's have defended the world against horrible tyrants for the last 100 years (you know, those Hitlers and Stalins that you find so distasteful). American's have, over time, had the most productive institutions, be it Education, people flock to American schools of higher learning like nowhere else, technology - Linus came to California, for example, people come to America to be productive more than they go to Europe, I wonder why if Europe is such a paradise on earth? - or business (the center of the business world is New York, I'm told).
I tire of Europeans lecturing Americans on our "backward" system while we fight their wars for them (Iraq, Kosovo, WWII, WWI), help to rebuild Europe after it was decimated by WWII (Marshall plan) and generally have the institutions that everyone ELSE tries to emulate.
People give lip service to respecting differences, except when that difference is capitalism vs. socialism. To these same people, who respect all sorts of social conventions, capitalism is just a horror that must be brought down at all costs.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Unfortunately there is a small problem called Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) which means that a lot of europeans don't want to eat much beef. Naturally, this widespread problem which has been identified in wild populations of moose,deer,foxes etc. in N.America doesn't occur in Mom's beefburgers!
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Regards,
Crush
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Try getting about in California without a Dept. of Motor Vehicles I.D. card. They scan your thumbprint, digitized signature and photograph. If you want to write a check, buy alcohol, prove who you are it is the only ID that many places accept. You are not _required_ to have one, you just won't be able to do anything without it: freedom curls its claws quietly about us!
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
Regards,
Crush
Re:"Pushing" open source (Score:1)
I believe programmers _should_ get paid for their work, but those who freely contribute to the development of a product are generous - period. They can bit*h and whine about who took what, but they put in the hours and I for one am grateful.
I completely agree that Redhat needs to share the wealth by making some donations, particularly in light of M$'s current and historical attempts to make institutions 100% Micro$coff by giving away their product.
I can't respond any more for a couple days since I won't be around a computer (can you saw withdrawl?) so go ahead and last-word the topic if you like.
Very well put. Popular vs scientific writing (Score:2)
ESR's role probably serves a useful function for those that believe that horses will die unless led to water, but it is a million miles away from the antiseptic dissection of a complex subject that one would and should expect in a rational scientific study. From what we've seen so far over the years, that won't change, so I suppose we'll just have to lower our expectations or look to more dispassionate commentators whose analyses are less dogmatically coloured by personal preferences in other areas.
None of this should really surprise us though. There has never been much in common between the popular press and the scientific press in other walks of life. We have our own popular press and our own self-styled popular writers, and we should acknowledge them as such and no more.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
We rounded up Japanese-American citizens because we thought they were a security threat. We kept African-Americans enslaved because it was economically convenient. We kept women without rights because they were the "weaker sex."
Please... it's really hard to be civil when you're talking about freedom... Americans don't know the meaning of the word. We've accepted SO many intrusions into our lives, and we've done SO many things wrong, and I don't think we should tell Europe where to get off.
Socialism will, in short, deprive you of the "right" to starve, or to wield your weapons of privilege against those less fortunate.
Point to the self-made millionaires all you will, and you're still ignoring the fact that people in poverty are trapped. Not because they're lazy, not because they're stupid, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ECONOMICALLY CONVENIENT.
We have the strongest economy in the world because that's what we do: make money. If you think that money makes the government, perhaps we should get rid of the government completely and sign our souls over to PepsiCo. That would raise stock values. Other countries aren't in such a damn hurry to make money... they're content with providing for their citizens, and raising quality of life, not giving corporations tax breaks...
Jesus Christ...
Hang out in a bust-town sometime. Go talk to the people in a ghetto. Then try and tell me that you still think those people are there because of their work ethic.
Again: drop the jingoism. America is flawed, and in some very significant ways that we're relucant to mention.
Drop the Horatio Alger, too. The best indicator as to a person's class is what their parents were.
But hey, I wish my mommy and daddy had left me a trust fund... then perhaps I could be economically conservative...
Re:Marxism and communism vs nazism (Score:1)
Marxism/communism and nazism are fundamentally
the same. Their core belief is totalitarian
society. I have a right to say so. I've spent 27
years of my life living in such a society. As to
'american rednecks', let me point out that
disproportionally large number of american
academia still worship Marxism and communism.
Those people should truly be called american
REDnecks. Quite paradoxal situation, I would say.
The products of 'academic freedom' advocate the
system which fundamental unfree, and furthermore
ostracized everyone not agreed with them.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
the u.s. is in the final stages of moving from a coalition of individual states (fairly) loosely associated for mutual protection to a centralized government. this change has been coming along fairly slowly, though the backbone was laid quite awhile ago. the military has essentially been running the country's foreign policy since ww2 (if not before.) folks see the noose tightening around their necks here, and are starting to get pissy...yep, we should've been paying attention 50 years ago.
you wonder why our country seems so screwed up, bu t the answer is pretty simple. we're in the middle of evolution/revolution.
you wonder how people like esr get to be such "crackpots," but they're just trying to hold on to what few scraps of sanity we have left. you may not agree with what he feels is important, but so what...your average libertarian isn't going to spend his life trying to dictate how you live your life. our government spends more than enough time doing that.
this 'civilized' society that i've seen ranted about lately is nothing but a crock. 'civilized' society has killed more people than (just) religion. if you don't like the fact that an american wants to be able to defend himself, his family, his home, his country, his poodle, or his computer, then don't become an american...there, that was easy. if you want to get the root of your problems with the american government, the place to start isn't by trying to foist off your hundreds of years of programming that you should let the government do the dirty work of protecting yourselves on the american individual, but rather fight the american government's encroachment upon your own damned sovereignty.
i find sweet, erisian irony in the fact that the same people who are lambasting the u.s. as being the least free nation in the 'free' world (which i don't necessarily disagree with,btw) are the same ones who seem to fail to understand that our decision to stay an armed populace is a free choice which we've already made.
i'm probably coming off like a real asshole, but my nightly dose of propoganda didn't do it's job tonight, and the soma shipment was late.
i'll make no excuses about the fact that we're screwed up. but the things you people are pushing on us aren't going to solve anyone's problem. not ours, and not yours.
and to get back onto something resembling the topic, if you guys don't like esr's opinions being portrayed as 'your's' or 'the community's,' then get someone that you _do_ like to get out and fill that spot.
and to the previous poster, if you think jennings is bad, you should see what passes for our local newspaper. *sigh*
Re:Missing the point by a country mile (Score:1)
I am sure Raymond realized that some people will take offense at his statement of his political views. I am sure he also realized that this comment would start a raging flamewar on Slashdot regarding capitalism vs. socialism, or whatever. However, he realized that causing, or preventing, flamewars on Slashdot is entirely beside the point.
Raymond was not writing for Slashdot readers, he was writing for scholars and academics. CatB and its sucessors were academic papers, and as such, discussion and criticism of them properly belongs in the academic arena. Raymond made his point in order to demonstrate the obvious falsity of Bezroukov's key assertion- that CatB et al. advocate a 'vulgar Marxist' view of open-source software development. That this is false is patently obvious to anyone who has read those papers, but to drive the point home, Raymond made it clear exactly how far he is from advocating any form of Marxism. In doing so, he was perhaps unnecessarily inflamatory, but he realized that the levelheaded thinkers for whome he was writing the rebuttal would be able to tell the difference between an aside and a central point, and focus their attention on the latter.
On a related note, does anyone know where I can find a substantive response to his rebuttal?
Full disclosure: I agree, though not as strongly, with Raymond's views on Marxism. See my sig.
Re:Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and Libertariani (Score:1)
I know quite a few people who call themselves Libertarians. I cannot say if they are really Libertarians or not, it's not really my bag. I just wish more people would be "political practicalists" and do what is necessary to keep the world running without a lot of nigh-religious mumbo-jumbo.
-- Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Part 1, chapter 13, para. 9 (ed. by Edwin Curry, 1994).
I think we can all agree that that is not what we want. I know that I'd like to keep my cable TV.
Yes, deserves a better score (Score:2)
Maybe this means that there should be a second counter per article, holding a Please Up/Down count.
Be that as it may, it's good to read well-balanced items like that posted by Lord of the Files above.
Re:European Convention on Human Rights (Score:1)
It only took Europe 200 years to learn from the example of the United States that individual liberty is a good thing.
I wonder if these laws will actually be enforced to protect unpopular opinions, like Pro-Nazi views. I'll bet that Pro-Nazi views fall under the "public safety" exception. Somehow, people don't understand that Freedom of Expression is in place to protect unpopular views. Popular views don't need to be protected.
WTF is 'naziism'? (Score:1)
seriously, just because ESR didn't spell check his document doesn't mean we should just start adopting misspellings as new words.
I don't have a problem with people making spelling errors, I make them all the time, but I don't want to see people repeating them...
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Re:It's about freedom (Score:2)
It ain't political liberty. Add "Free Software" to the US Constitution right next to "Free Speech" and it will be as out of place as a turd in a punchbowl. And if you did manage to get "Free Software" enacted into law, would all the non OSS developers have to go to jail? Would cops show up at their door demanding copies of the source code so that it could be published in a public place?
ESR should read more Marx. ;-) (Score:1)
Forgetting Stalin for the moment and going back to Marx, it is definitely true that RMS in particular has given the workers the means of production (speaking especially of gcc at the moment), and while RMS emphasizes Free Software as being more akin to free speech than to free beer, there is much to be said for the fact that it makes the software more widely accessible, and this makes a lot of people uneasy. How it comes to pass that some people equate sharing information with a Stalinist police state is beyond me.
Software isn't like money: I don't have any less of it for my having shared it with others, and this is the key to recognizing the fallacy behind many of the [Open Source | Free Software] = Marxism arguments. The "from each according to their abilities" notion is obsolete in this context. Nobody is insisting upon taking the means of production or anything else away from the bourgeouisie; it's no longer necessary. We're just talking about making more copies of the means of production, which is trivially easy to do once it's written. The Free Software = Marxism argument resembles an argument that modern agriculture is Marxist because it helps prevent poor people from starving in such large numbers: it's only seeing half the picture and thereby causing something good to appear evil.
It appears that ESR has read lots of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, etc. Perhaps he ought to read more Marx in order to be better able to point out the distinct differences between Open Source and Marxism.
On a slightly different topic: abuse of patent law and copyright law by corporations is a (generally successful) attempt by corporations to make more money through regulation. Corporations that complain about regulation generally aren't opposed to regulation in principle; they just want only those regulations that make money for them. Patent and copyright law exist in fact only because the government recognizes and enforces patents and copyrights. At corporate urging, the United States is almost the only country in the world to grant patents to software. In a true laissez-faire system, existing software patents, copyrights, and licenses could be safely ignored, software piracy would be rampant, and the shrinkwrap software industry would wither. It's ironic that Communist China is the most often cited major market for pirated software! So much for Socialism and its excessive regulation!
Re:Moderators! (Score:1)
-----------------------------------------------
it'll get back around to ya. it's kinda random, and you've only got your points for three days.
i like your idea about transfering your karma to someone else, btw.
Linux Torvalds = Lenin; ESR = Trotsky (Score:1)
The smiley is in the original.
In one of the earlier posts, someone asked about Mr. Bezroukov's credentials. I think the questioon would be best answered by pointing to the site http://www.softpanorama.org/ [softpanorama.org]
Re:Missing the point by a country mile (Score:1)
So, although roughly 100% of the commentary here has been completely irrelevant to the subject at hand (the merit of Bezroukov's critique and of Raymond's reply), and instead indulged in mostly juvenile personal opinions on other matters entirely, that's all Raymond's fault. The posters here bear no responsibility for the content of their remarks.
I see.
Re:Missing the point by a country mile (Score:1)
Re:Answer to the formatted version (Score:2)
People give lip service to respecting differences, except when that difference is capitalism vs. socialism. To these same people, who respect all sorts of social conventions, capitalism is just a horror that must be brought down at all costs.
I hope my statements haven't caused you to think that of me. As Voltaire said (paraphrased): "I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
This time I'm really done.
Re:Working Hard --> Wealth?? (Score:1)
Excuse me, but that is one of the most amazing statements I have ever read in my entire life. I just cannot believe that you really believe that.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion? Do you have any evidence whatsoever, or is it just your own blind prejudices speaking?
What if (hypothetically) I am a black man born to a ghetto area with huge unemployment, terrible schooling, lucky to reach 21 without being shot (perhaps I exaggerate a little, but you get the gist), and the only jobs I can get are crap like flipping burgers, sweeping streets? Do you think I can get independently wealthy flipping burgers my entire life? Man, what planet are you on?
Maybe you're thinking I can start my own business or something? How am I going to do anything like that when I have no money, no good opportunities, and am faced by endemic racism? Even if I somehow manage to start a business and work hard for 60 hours a week and die young from a heart attack caused by overwork, isn't it very possible I'll never be "independently wealthy"?
Do you know anything about what it is really like to be poor?
I'll stop there. You realise I'm being very restrained here.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:1)
> European countries allowed to:
Does really US mass media condition
the population to think that most of the
following is no-no in Europe? Oh dear...
* buy beef from the US?
with all the tasty growth hormones?
as the health care is subsidised here,
at least for low-income people,I
don't see any harm in having some regulations
that make sure that the population doesn't
damage their health on a massive scale...
* soon, buy genetically modified food?
I guess so - not that I care much...
* go to whatever doctor they please?
sure, no problem. (you might have some hard
time convincing your GP that you really need to
go to a particular specialist, but if he refuses
to give the referral, you'd try another GP...)
* keep a majority of what they earn?
where on Earth is this possible?
money has to be spent, anyway.
I'm happily giving a considerable part of the money I earn
to the govt so that it can build things, etc etc
* own a gun?
that's dangerous in general - people'd start
shooting each other on the scale it's done
in US. I'd get very scared if I knew that
most of my neighbours have a gun. It's
nice to have a gun in an environment that is
saturated with them, yes. But if most of the
guns are police guns, I'd very much like to keep
it this way. (and not only me)
* ride on a non-car transportation >system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or >regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
not sure about train, but a bus, yes, why not?
in UK they privatised their trains, with truly
disastorous consequences (as was seen on TV last
week)
The rail tracks would have only one owner,
anyway; I'd rather prefer the owner to be
the govt than a bunch of filthy rich bastards
I have no power to control at all.
* many other things...
* take a medicine whether or not the >gov't health agency says they can?
Sure, you'd take anything you can find, who cares?
You'd walk in a coffeeshop and buy a proven, although not approved, medicine
It's de facto legal.
You'd go to a "magic mashroom" shop to buy
some dodgier stuff - as long it's not
explicitly banned, like LSD
On the ulimate side, if you'd
get terminally ill and be dying slow and painful
death, you'd go to your GP to arrange for
a fast end to the things, no problem
Greetings from Rotterdam.
Re:Libel laws (Score:1)
Re:Don't be so gentle on him. (Score:1)
Re:LBT?? (Score:1)
Re:Don't be so gentle on him. (Score:1)
And the government uses its "income" money, to fund wars that we have no business being in the FIRST place. INDIRECTLY you're income is being used to kill people. THAT'S the point.
Instead of wasting money killing people, why don't address the issues in our OWN country first.
Apparently you've never heard the old axiom: "No man has the right to be taxed without his consent."
Cheers
Are you on crack? (Score:2)
To elaborate on problems I have with him:
He has this battle cry he keeps using: "I just want to live in a world where software doesn't suck." Notwithstanding the very narrow focus of this life goal, it differs quite a lot from his litmus test of software quality: "What's the license?"
I am a BeOS person and I know for a fact that a good closed source operating system can be made. In fact, it is better in today's climate, because it has less legal problems encumbering it (such as getting code to run certain hardware). So I differ greatly with ESR on that.
I also have the impression that he has an ego of sufficient size to make him widely resented and get in the way of compromising on anything, or getting along with certain people. Certainly a person that took it upon himself to go into the spotlight like that ought to conduct himself better than he does.
And while he's right about not stuffing his libertarian pro-gun views into his essays, he certainly hangs them out there practically everywhere else. And his depiction of communism as Pure Evil was also uncalled for. I am not a communist, but come on - this is not the cold war. His politics should be kept in their own section on his web site, IMHO.
The big question about ESR is whether we want him or not. It would be a Good Thing if more businesses start seeing things our way. On the other hand, it is debatable whether ESR is helping this goal with his speaking skills and constant traveling and visiblity, or hurting it with his ego and poor ability to get along with others.
That said, I still respect him for his intelligence, the code he wrote and maintained, and because his intentions are good and perhaps he just can't tell when he rubs people the wrong way.
And regarding the critique posted earlier, I think the guy that wrote it is clearly a flake and absolutely rehashed stuff other people said earlier and better. And he grossly misread those essays. ESR put him in his place in this case, though unfortunately he also let his ego come through loud and clear.
--
grappler
Re:Missing the point by a country mile (Score:2)
By equating Socialism with Nazism, ESR himself deflected the argument from what it should have been (the relative merits of CatB and Bezroukov's critique) to an argument about Raymond's politics. IMHO, he must have known this would happen. What he was thinking, I'll never know.
The above comment(ESR should go out sometimes [slashdot.org]) never proported to be discussing the strength of ESR's response...In fact, no mention at all was made of Bezroukov's critique. The comment dealt purely with ESR's rather gratuitous attack of socialism.
You can't equate a group of people with Nazi's and expect the group to stand idly by. One must wonder what Raymond's motives were for including such a remark.
I guess that's not really fair. I can give him the benefit of the doubt. It was probably just a thoughtless remark...but a simple apology might go a long way towards appeasing many whom he offended.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
This is exactly the point.
The US does have a pretty intolerant culture at times. But, in the United States, government is limited by it's Constitution, so these cultural intolerances can't be codified into law.
Most European countries do not have guarantees like we have in the United States. I know, for example, that Europeans often have no guarantees of freedom of expression or assembly.
Socializing commerce and health care also means that the Social Democracies have totalitarian control over people's lives. This is what the Social Democracies have in common with Nazism. Without even a trial, people can be condemned to die by the government by rationed health care or denied their livelihood through capricious decisions of government control of commerce. We in the US are not much different in this regard as we are getting more "cradle to grave" services all the time.
The Europeans seem smug in their belief that Democracy will protect them from tyranny, without recognizing the fact that Democracy and tyranny are in no way incompatible. Democracy can be defined as the tyranny of the majority. Hitler rose to power in a Democracy.
We in the US feel that limited government is the only way to prevent tyranny. Of course, our Constitution is routinely ignored these days, so much of this is just nostalgia.
And, it's worked pretty well. The US enjoys the longest surviving government in a single form (under the same Constitution) in the world.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Re:Socialism as defined by a socialist (Score:2)
And that, my friend, si the crux of the argument! (Smile), now we're getting somewhere.
To be more specific than my last post, I consider my self (to make up a term) a pragmatic socialist. At this point I don't feel that utopian socialism is feasable. I advocate socialism on a smaller scale. I also think the ISO (International Socialist Organization) are generally a bunch of extremist nuts.
The Elephant and the Blind Men (Score:4)
The "Industry", capitalists all, see Open Source as free razors (software) to sell more of their razor-blades (hardware).
Hackers with no political or economic axes to grind see Open Source as individuals freed to produce great things.
The computer industry press see it as a hype machine that brings out endlessly fascinating stories.
It's like the Elephant and the Blind Men. Each one "sees" the Elephant as something from their "point of view" based on their background and experiences.
RMS has it right. It's not really about anything but freedom. Freedom to exchange ideas, whether they are embodied in speech or programs. Freedom is difficult to define and comprehend, but everyone pretty much sees it in a positive light. Everyone relates it to their own utopia.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Now you're just talking about. There's nothing inherent in socialism that says that the goverment services must be of poor quality.
As far as health care goes, look no further than the US. Health insurance is for whoever can afford it. Furthermore, costs are spiraling. While you and I are in a priviledged class who can afford health care, there are a great many people who are condemned to die simply because the government doesn't dole out health care for all. That arguement works equally well both ways.
And to address the point about the government controlling commerce. I think you ignore the benefit of government regulation. I feel that the wave of mistrust toward the government is precipitated by a corrupt government. Further more, I think that corrupt goverments become far less likely with a true democracy. The US is not a true democracy. The framers of our government didn't believe that people were smart enough to rule themselves, so they created a goverment which allowed people to rule themselves, while perpetuating a ruling class. While class boundaries are not impenetrable, I feel that the overall difficulty in penetrating them contributes to a corrupt government.
Most European countries do not have guarantees like we have in the United States. I know, for example, that Europeans often have no guarantees of freedom of expression or assembly.
This isn't because the government is a socialist one...it's just because, well, they see no need. This may be folly (time will tell). I assume these objections would be assuaged if they had a constitution like document? There is nothing in the bill of rights that is incompatible with socialism.
Well...I was going to address some of your other points (I love political discourse), but I think I've already typed enough for now. Thanks for listening to the rants of a raving socialist.
Socialism as defined by a socialist (Score:2)
I think the biggest problem that many in the US have with socialism is a pronounced distrust of the government. I would argue that this is simply cynicism brought on by a rather corrupt government. Your first two points are bad only if the government isn't doing things properly. A benign and efficient goverment should not be something to be feared. The mistrust we hold for our goverment is a sad commentary on...well...our government.
As far as high taxes go...well...If the government is efficient, and providing quality services as it should, this should be a non-issue as well.
As far as pervasive regulation goes, well, I would argue that this is in no way inherent in the socialist system...at least no more than, say, a capitalist system.
My first sentence should read... (Score:2)
Should have used the preview button.
FAQ: Risks in Open Source Development (Score:2)
However, I think that Eric misses the value in such a paper. Nikolai's paper answers the question "what are the risks in embarking in an open source development project?", and is the most focused and complete answer I've seen so far. That's very valuable from an advocacy perspective, because advocates need a single URL to point to for a thorough treatment of this frequently asked question. Otherwise, a properly skeptical skeptic won't believe that all of the homework on the subject is done.
Are there better treatments of this subject available that are as complete and focused on the question at hand? I think that this document provides a very good starting point if a better document doesn't exist. Even if a better document does exist, this points out some useful anecdotes and quotations worthy of inclusion in any answer to the risk question.
All to often... (Score:2)
Anyway, back to the original point at hand- all to often we see people of the mentality of commercial+closed-source writers, or people never exposed to the OSS culture, dismiss OSS persons as being crackpots, loonies, morons, etc... etc... it's hard to write a factual document and trying o get a serious response from a person of this mindset...
...similarly, it can be a real pain to write an article with a closed source viewpoint without being flamed, en masse, by the OSS community.... while this is *not* true for the whole, the overwhelming bulk of rebuttal mail is embarassing.
So we have two options- be a closed source writer, and be dubbed closed minded, or be an open source advocate, and be ridiculed.
It's a crazy world, I think. In the mean time, I think I'm going to take a hot bath, while the world sorts itself inside my head. I'm not going to touch my computer for another.... oh, an hour will do it...
...I need some fresh air.
... (Score:3)
Question everything. Mistrust authority - promote decentralization. Our community leaders are not excempt from this - we should question them often and in depth, because if we don't they'll be unprepared for what the rest of the world will. To paraphrase Buddha - "do not accept anything at first.. but if after careful consideration it agrees with your view, accept it and live by it." I know I mangled the quote, but you get the idea - in so many words question everything.
--
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Bezrukov's article reminds me very much good-old Soviet times, high school and/or college in Russia, and myself reading obligatory articles written by Marx, Lenin, Plekhanov and other theorists of socialism/communism. Yet it is largely style, and just a little bit the content that do that: the title of the article sounds very Lenin--Vladimir Ulianov liked very long names for his works.
Yet as I said, what is in the article (putting aside stylistics) is not really Marxist or Leninist. It is a fairly good critique the whole essense of which, IMHO, can be phrased like so:
Before you flame, I know that I have left much of the article out. But I think that pages and pages that are left behindare just illustrate and support the above stated points.
Bezrukov does attack ESR as much as having his name in the article name. Why? Because ESR represents exactly this naive, on the border of blind-folded chauvinism, view of OSS. ESR, propaganda is one thing, reality is whole a lot different.
Yes, Linux popularity grows and it is the only OS rapidly gaining ground. This growth is not solely canibalistic (at the expense of other *nixes) as Microsoft would want it to look. But there are problems as well: there still are problems with fitting Linux in a business environment (office productivity suits like StarOffice, Applixware are not exctly a good match to Microsoft Office, while they may actually be as good if not better than Lotus SmartSuit and Corel PerfectOffice). I am not sure that making Linux easier and easier to install will matter as much to success: good publicity, applications, credibility will make a much better job than a no-pain-five-minutes-see-mom-no-hands Linux distros. After all, if business community is the target, their users will not be installing the system--IT people will. Home user is a whole another matter--and a topic for a separate discussion.
ESR being a very good and a bit less extreme public person for OSS and Linux has done and still does a very good job publicising the movement. Yet he is not perfect. He also seems to get carried away lately, maybe someone else truly needs to get part of his job [tuxedo.org]? He has taken Bezrukov's article way too personally. As much as not even consulting a dictionary before using certain terms, like socialism, Marxism, communism. Do not really want to flogg this horse one more time, but:
You can never really put an equal sign between these terms. Moreover, free market economy adept should really take time and put some effort into reading Marx's Capital [amazon.com] : this is a great description of free market and how it functions. Do not let popular propagandistic views of Marx, socialism and communism prevail--it is like thinking that all Scots are wearing kilts all the time, Dutch people are riding bicycles on icy channels in wooden shoes with baskets of tulips in both hands, or Russians drinkng vodka from a samovar every morning chit-chatting with bears.
Good responses (Score:3)
Also, I think a lot of people need to insert the following into thier own startup script:
#undefine COMMUNISM == BAD
Okay, call it pseudo-C, but you get the idea.
The red scare is over folks. And with people like McCarthy able to get in power, I think our system is far from perfect. I am not very political but I do know that talking about things you don't understand is among the worst of evils, more evil than communism supposedly is.
My personal quirps about CatB is that it doesn't account for when OSS fails. And the the original critique explained this expertly. While ESR was using Linux development as his model, he didn't consider that Linux is atypical as such a project.
I many times go to links of abandoned web sites of abandoned OSS projects, enough for the pessimism in me creeps some. I think for the next paper in ESR's series, he should examine why OSS fails and how to avoid this. Such a work would be enlightening to us all.
--
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
Amtrak and Greyhound have both been on the dole for as long as I can remember.
take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?
I seem to recall RU-486 being pretty hard to get a hold of. Also, ever tried to smoke marijuana for medical reasons?
ESR just realizes the fundamental contradiction in believing that 'social democracy' as it is practiced in nearly every country in the world [...] Or in short form, the idiots are too stupid to run their own lives but are smart enough to run their neighbors.
First, ESR's "realization" didn't need to involve relating socialism to nazis.
As far as the second half goes, sounds like it describes the US to a "T". Interestingly enough, I've found most european countries to be much more tolerant in general. There are bad points, true, but the US is worse on almost all counts. At least most of Europe has eradicated the barbaric practice of executing criminals. And You can bet that the US would get even worse if that pesky constitution wasn't so hard to get around. How many iterations of that stupid CDA do we have to go through? How long before our government actually succeeds in taking our rights away?
My point is, the problem isn't goverment...it's bad government. And here in the US, we definately have bad goverment. It's just that most people here are too stupid to realise it. They simply point to the boogie man of opression in Europe (derisive snort) and put their heads back in the sand.
Sorry for the rant...I needed to vent.
Re:... (Score:2)
A discussion/critique only of "Nude Descending a Staircase" is absolutely useless if the title of my essay is "The Flaws of the Socialist Realism School of Art". Similarly, a discussion/critique only of ideas that do not appear in CatB is absolutely useless in an eassy that purports to be a disucssion/critique of CatB.
Don't be so gentle on him. (Score:2)
Marxism and socialism (which I regard as coequal in evil with Naziism).
Well, gee. So making Raymond pay some extra taxes on his precious income is equivalent to murdering 10.5 million innocent people? Really. What an interesting notion.
I always thought this guy was a moron, but that's the least of it; he's a vicious lunatic as well as a moron.
Tell ya what, Raymond: Talk to some people who survived Auschwitz and then lived in Israel in the following couple of decades, when Israel was pretty solidly socialist. Explain to them how the high taxes and bureaucracy they put up with in Israel were just as bad as being used as slave labor and then gassed. Explain that, Eric. I'm sure they'll understand. I'm sure they'll be very pleased that some arrogant jackass has finally explained it all to them.
Hey, I'm not a socialist either, but there are such things as proportion and accuracy. If you're going to shoot your mouth off about something and present yourself as an authority, get it right.
This is just another tedious example of Raymond taking criticism too personally and flying off the handle.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
Berroukov... (Score:2)
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Having lived in both Europe and the US, there is without a doubt a substantial difference in the way each deal with personal liberties, particularly with regard to personal freedom and the right of the state to interfere.
The control excerted over citizenry in many parts of Europe is far greater than in the US. As an example, as part of the EU, you may be stopped at any point and asked for identification, at certain areas around borders and train stations. There is no such equivalent in the US. You also are required in many parts of Europe to carry your passport, even as a citizen of the country. There is no requirement to posess ANY kind of identification in the US, except for certain priveleges, such as driving, gambling or drinking alcohol. At one point, when I lived in Britain, they had roving trucks that monitored who was watching TV, as to make certian the licenses were paid. There is no equivalent in the US.
You see Max, in the US there is a principal embodied in a document called The US Constitution. The basic gist of it is, the Country belongs to the people, and the government only runs it, as a sort of servant. There are certain freedoms, guaranteed, that most other countries in the world do not have. Paramount, the freedom of speech and expression, the right against self incrimination, the right to due process, the presumption of innocence, the right to vote, right against unreasonable search, right to assemble, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, and the right to bear arms, among others.
Having traveled extensively overseas during the past 20 years, with some living time abroad, in my observation there are personal freedoms allowed in the US, of which many others can only dream, particularly in terms of the judical system and the police.
Your observations of the US are stereotypical, and grossly exagerated. There are not roaming bands of gun toting theives, and everyone's neighbor doesn't sue them.
You are just resorting to the same tactics of which you accuse others. We call that hypocrisy. In truth, you know as little about the way of life in the US, and the US system of democracy, as much as you accuse others of the lack of knowledge of socialism.
A counter-CatB? (Score:4)
I tried to read the criticism. I really did. It was painful.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar was one of the first papers on open source development I had ever read. Believe me it was an eye opener and I go back to read every now and then if I feel bored.
The funny thing is that I didn't even come close to the same conclusions that Nikolai Bezroukov did. Marxist?!?!? The Red Scare is starting to become popular again I guess. Unfortunately most people are a little more clued in these days than they were in the 50's. Otherwise we'd all be screwed over if someone whispered "Commie" and pointed at us while our backs were turned (happened a lot I guess in the McCarthy years).
Nikolai Bezroukov also over-generalizes. Hell I knew that not all open source projects operate Bazaar style. That's just the tendency, not a rule set down in stone.
I have one serious problem with one argument that he makes rather loudly: Authoritarian methods will kill any given Open Source project more effectively than anything else. Woah there, that's a broad blanket statement if I ever saw one. Linux itself operates under a "benevolent dictatorship" model, where one guy says "Okay this is it: Here's our release". GNOME does not (or at least it didn't when 1.0 was released... I hear they've gotten their act together though :^). Guess which software package is stable and fast? Okay, maybe that's comparing apples and bananas, but you see my point. :^)
You *need* authoritarianism for *any* software package to work, OSS or not. Someone has to be the boss. Otherwise you get the problem of "too many chefs spoil the broth" a la GNOME 1.0.
I should stop ranting now while I have the chance. I do feel better though. :^)
This Has Little Bearing on Real Life (Score:3)
Thanks
Bruce
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
As far as health care goes, look no further than the US. Health insurance is for whoever can afford it. Furthermore, costs are spiraling.
Yes, and Mussalini made the trains run on time.
The issue is not one of efficiency, but control. When the government, even a "true Democracy", controls health care there is always the possibility of rationing that would have the current tyranny disposing of people that are unpopular.
Sure, there's rationing that occurs because of scarcity that also determines who lives or dies, but I prefer this kind of 'natural' rationing (natural because we observe it in nature) over allowing some tyrant this power.
This is the central flaw with socialism. People are willing to trade freedom for comfort. It makes people comfortable to know that people will be covered by a Universal Health Care system, they just have to give up some freedom. A little here and little there...
This isn't because the government is a socialist one...it's just because, well, they see no need.
And this is how tyrannies are allowed to form. Nobody sees a problem with denying freedoms, until they themselves need the freedom. People in Hitler's Germany didn't see Hitler as a threat to them, so why not let him take over?
The mindset of socialism goes part and parcel with this belief that an enlightened government should be given all power. Enlightened takes on different meanings at different times.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:3)
I've been trying to figure out what you mean by "socialist," because you must not be using the definition one usually encounters in the US. To an American, it suggests a strong central government, nationalization of many service industries, high taxes and pervasive regulation. This is most emphatically not the way OSS is developed. One of its key features is extreme decentralization and an astonishingly effective mechanism of self-regulation, with no governmental or central administration at all. This dovetails extremely will with Libertarian ideals.
You don't like ESR's characterization of socialism as evil, but whether you like it or not the most evil regimes of the 20th century referred to themselves as socialist. You'll have to excuse those who choose to believe them. To American - especially Libertarian - eyes, the main difference between those regimes and those of the more benign European states is the amount of actual freedom allowed by their respective governments. What looks dangerous to us is that the power of the government is not apparently limited in principle. Lives of individual Europeans are regulated to a degree that is absolutely abhorrent to Americans, in everything from what churches they may attend to what time they must put their children to bed.
He calls himself a libertarian, but openly promotes the idea of World Domination(TM), which is what we're fighting through OSS.
This is not the contradiction you seem to think it is. He is simply advocating the sort of behavior that he thinks will result in OS becoming the dominant software development model. It is exactly analogous to how a Libertarian might advocate the sort of activity (civic virtue, personal responsibility, self-reliance) that results in a society where Libertarianism can be sustained. This isn't coercion, but education.
By the same token, "go my way or be doomed" isn't a threat, its a prediction based on what ESR thinks will be the most successful software development model based on free-market economics. I realize that socialists feel threatened by the free market, but its a perfectly valid economic system.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Uhg, here's a formatted version (sorry) (Score:2)
fascism != socialism. Mussalini made the trains run on time with fear. ie. If the trains are late you'll be shot.
As far as the rest of your arguements go, they all seem to revolve around the idea that, because a socialist government provides so many services, there is an increased risk that a tryranical government will withhold those services based on some arbitrary "bias-du-jour". I would argue that the risk is no greater with socialist goverments than with any other goverments. So what do you advocate? Anarchy? That seems to be what you are driving at. With a well framed government with appropriate and working restrictions and checks and balances, your concerns should be minimized.
I think what it comes down to is that you don't trust government (a uniquely American view, I've found) and nothing anyone can say will change that. You think that tyranny is inherent in the government, and I think that tyranny is inherent in the great disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots". So I'm going to bow out of this particular arguement, and agree to disagree. It's been fun.
Cheers
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
While I think that his comparison of Socialism and Naziism is excessive, Socialism is a very repressive form of government. Yes, I've been to Europe and listened in amazement at the restrictions on personal freedom.
It's fashionable nowadays to spew feel good nonsense like, "all systems are neither better nor worse, only different." Sorry. It's simply wrong. There is a reason that the United States has had the strongest economy in the world during the 20th century, and it's called freedom. Stealing from working people and giving it to slackers hasn't worked in the past, and won't work in the future (See: France).
Bottom line, utopia is built by individuals, not by governments.
Note this is a criticism of governments, not of people. Don't take it personally.
Re:Socialism as defined by a socialist (Score:2)
Re:Uh dude... (Score:2)
He disagrees with RMS politically, that's no reason to go out of his way to personally attack and ridicule him in public. "shut up and show me the code" to the man responsible for the program ESR uses to compile HIS CODE? Even if he had to disagree, there are better (read: politer, less personal) ways to do it. The way Raymond handled that was more like certain regimes which have ostracized people for their political views and which Raymond claims to be absolutely opposed to.
Daniel
Word on Fragmentation.. (Score:2)
DEAD ON! (Score:2)
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Re:DEAD ON! (Score:2)
OSS __GIVES__ freedom to software developers and to the people using the software. You are no longer dependent on a single vendor, but only vendors that can really support their product will stay alive. If the product isn't well supported or has bugs, you can hire PROGRAMMERS (I.E. GIVE THEM JOBS) to fix your software and continuously maintain it. OSS doesn't put programmers out of business.
There's nothing in GNU that says all proprietary software must be killed off. It is simply a different model of working with things, that works well for a lot of different purposes and projects.
Let's keep it at that. This shouldn't turn into another holy war over proprietary versus Open Source applications. I see OSS succeeding to form standards.
New ideas and bleeding edge technology can remain proprietary, but when we have standards that must be used across the industry, they should be supported by open standards and open source so that one organization doesn't have the power to do the same things Microsoft did with the Windows standard.
Everything has its place. The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Unsurprising (Score:2)
I looked at it from a purely academic standpoint. Very strong solid arguments, that added a lot to the paper.
I looked at it from a personal standpoint, and saw the same thing.
I looked at it from ESR's standpoint and saw a challenge to my 'undeniable knowledge' about open source, and my media supremacy as ESR.
To put it bluntly, ESR is very egotistical and overly optimistic, assuming that if he says it, it will not only happen, but become law. This simply isn't true. I have analyzed much of what ESR has said throughout his 'reign' and have found most of it to be obviously written by an egotistical, overly boastful, angry zealot. Maybe ESR's just angry because RMS has held the spotlight for so long, and he wants a piece of the pie. Maybe it's because somebody wrote a critique that he views as a personal insult.
Either way, this is equivalent to a child's comeback. I say "you suck," ESR says "yeah, well you suck more!" We know for certain that at least one side is mature enough, hopefully, to simply say "whatever" and walk away before it becomes some ugly debacle.
ESR and Bruce Perens didn't get along with eachother for a reason. I'll save them both the embarassment of bringing those details back out into the light again, and leave it at that ESR is totally uncompromising unless it's going to further him personally, from what I have seen and heard.
People can flame me all they want, but the fact of the matter stands that ESR would probably slap the 'Open Source Certified' sticker on any product who's maker paid him off personally, under the table. He's the equivalent of a televangelist in my eyes; "can I get a hallelujiah!?" 'HALLELUJIAH!' "Can I get your credit card number?!" '4129...'
ESR makes strong points, but only politically. I've yet to see a 100% objective and reasonable writing from ESR. He has a habit of dodging the tough questions, of dodging things that could get him in trouble, of running away when he's scared of something small. In all the years I've known the brash, opinionated, certainly egotistical, and sometimes downright insane RMS, he has maintained a fair level of professionalism. ESR's level of professionalism varies wildly from paper to paper, word to word. At times he reminds me of a coworker at a former job who was recently fired for gross unprofessionalism. When it suited him, he'd be the penultimate professional idiot; always had an answer, and always said sir. But when it didn't, he'd curse up a storm, get personal, and get impolite and downright unpleasant.
I never chose ESR to represent me, or my views, or the Linux community. Who did? I don't recall anyone of any real import beyond business people with 'open source' software actually endorsing him, but I honestly haven't paid any attention. The fact of the matter remains; I'd rather ESR didn't attempt to mis-represent any community I consider myself a part of, but he's going to keep right on doing it, so long as people hail him as their saviour.
Don't get me wrong; I'd rather not have RMS representing me professionally either. RMS is a hardliner who actually gives a damn about his morals and won't compromise his views, except to extremes. (I'm sorry, but if I *ever* have to listen to 'Join us now and share the software' again I'm gonig to have to rip off RMS' lips.
ESR's behaviour, conduct, and words have turned the term 'open source' from a very meaningful term into a pair of words that just means you let people see the undocumented features and ESR slaps his personal seal of approval on it.
Means nothing to me. Honestly, I'm fairly indifferent about GPL vs LGPL vs 'Open Source' vs Commercial. I concern myself only with whether or not it gets the job done first, then I consider the possibilities later. As anyone in any IT field with half a clue would. Functionality should always come before whether or not it's "free" software by anyone's definition.
In closing, all I can say is that I'm wholly and totally displeased with the conduct and quality of work ESR has done. All he has done has create meaningless terms, poor relationships, and damaged the credibility of an entire community at times, in my opinion. Maybe he should take a hint, and start acting a great deal more professionally and less 'geeky.'
/* This is my opinion, these are my words. I'd say 'em again in a heartbeat. And quite frankly, I don't give a damn if it ticks you off. It's an opinion, and they're like assholes - everyone's got one. So deal. */
-RISCy Business | Rabid unix guy, networking guru
Socialism, Communism, Marxism, and Libertarianism (Score:2)
If I understand correctly, socialism is much like the Norwegian system. People view themselves as members of a community, and they make policy accordingly. And from what I understand, it seems to be reasonably effective. If any
So, is the Norwegian government as evil as the Nazi Germany? ESR seems to think so. And if he denies it, then his original statement suffers from the same pretentious and simplistic flaws that infest "The Cathedral and the Bazzar".
Libertarianism is, in my view, just as dangerous as communism is. There was a time when America was free of "big government" and stupid regulations. it was the late 19th century, when American cities were extremely corrupt and machine rule was commonplace. Businesses essentially compelled children to work to work for peanuts. Grown men worked for slightly more. And the term "peanuts" is actually far too generous here. The average American lived in squalid poverty while greedy businesses and crooked politicians exploited their misfortune.
Big Government restricts what we can do, but it also protects us from our own apathy, greed, and ignorance. Would we even have computers and the Internet without a federally funded university system? How many of you attend/attended college on federal Stafford loans?
The libertarians want to have their cake and eat it too. They grew up and live in a time of unprecidented prosperity, but they can't leave well enough alone. They want the benefits and security that government provides, but they don't want taxes and restrictions.
Government should not be trusted. We should always scrutinize what the government does, and we should not delude ourselves into ignoring it's faults. But we must look before we leap, and we must balance social responsibility with the preservation of personal autonomy. ESR's libertarianism is just plain irresponsible.
Sorry for spelling poorly. And I'm sorry for writing such a long post and for inevitably irritating some people. Some things just piss you off and you've gotta tell someone about it.
Take care,
Steve
Re:Good responses (Score:2)
I guess I need to brush up on my C. I was hoping no one would notice by the words Pseudo-C...
--
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:4)
* buy beef from the US?
* soon, buy genetically modified food?
* go to whatever doctor they please?
* keep a majority of what they earn?
* own a gun?
* ride on a non-car transportation system (i.e. train, bus) that isn't owned or regulated to practical ownership by the gov't?
* many other things...
* take a medicine whether or not the gov't health agency says they can?
Personally the US isn't so good about these things either, but in any case, the only difference between this and more extreme forms of state control is scope, not the essence. The essence is that a human being is being physically coerced to do something he may or may not want to do. (Sure, most people probably voluntarily only take gov't approved medicines, but just try to break the rule.) It doesn't matter if you will be summarily shot or given an elaborate trial before you are killed/inprisoned/fined if the thing you are being punished for should not be illegal. ESR just realizes the fundamental contradiction in believing that 'social democracy' as it is practiced in nearly every country in the world -- i.e. that a group of people who don't know any better than to not take bad medicine (because they have to be told what medicine is good for them by the gov't) acquire the ability to vote for laws that do tell them and others what they must not do. Or in short form, the idiots are too stupid to run their own lives but are smart enough to run their neighbors.
Rachael
Political red herrings and a missed opportunity (Score:2)
It's unfortunate not because it caused aggravation in the community (we thrive on that), but because there were quite a few real points dotted around in Nikolai's article which could usefully have been presented as a well reasoned critique of CatB, but as a result of the political red herrings the opportunity to do so has been lost, at least to Nikolai. All it's done it to make ESR hopping mad and to provoke the standard response of the stereotypical indignant American accused of anything sounding vaguely non-capitalistic. Needless to say, it was not productive.
Political and sociological analogies of that sort are just *analogies*, not anything real. Even when the forms are totally congruent, the referrents are always utterly different and so the end result ranges from questionable to ridiculous. It's not meaningful, and it's certainly not helpful.
Where is this all *going*? (Score:2)
Apparently not. It seems that someone has to self-appoint themself as standard-setter for what free software really is. So long as you are creating and submiting to an authority, even one that's setup to promote freedom, I think you're invalidating the concept of freedom.
Which is why I don't get the big debate -- if the source is available, and I can reuse it in pretty much any way I want, isn't that kind of the end of the debate?
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
In fact, it's interesting to note that many governments with obvious ideological or political styles in their names aren't in fact (perhaps in theory); examples: The People's Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, The United Kingdom, and I don't remember the government of France during the Revolution but it had a similarly ostentatious name.
Daniel
Differences are good, squabbling is bad. (Score:4)
Currently there is a very diverse group of people leading the (I have no good way to lump these without offending somebody) open source/free software movement. That's a good thing. It means they balance out each others opinions. No one knows precisely why open source/free software succeeds. Any one leader is probably at least partially wrong.
On the other hand the constant fighting is a real problem. It doesn't come across well to the mainstream world when our leaders keep acting like children. It's particularly sad to me since I like (I suspect) many people respect them all, and hate to see them make fools of themselves.
I disagree with many of ESR's comments about RMS because I symathize with RMS's position. He's devoted himself completely to a movement that as it came to fruitation (in his eyes) abandoned him. When he tried to remind people of what he had contributed (don't try to villanize this - everyone wants credit, particularly when they've worked hard) he was rejected more and more. Now he gets to read comments like "The Free Software Foundation has been a millstone around our necks." I consider that unbelievably cruel. Do I entirely agree with RMS? No. But I think he should be respected for his contributions, and instead I often see my friends mock him.
In contrast, I also understand ESR's problems with RMS. Alienating companies is a bad idea. At least for now while the movement is still growing things like Mozilla need to be encouraged. And while KDE is not perfect it's a very nice desktop, particularly for newbies, and QT's license will not destroy the free software movement. It may not help it tremendously, but when windows users who are afraid of UNIX see KDE their eyes light up. That advances open source/free software tremendously. If GNOME turns into as good a desktop, with better licesing that's great too, and all the better for being entirely free, but the KDE developers should certainly not be condemed.
I hesitate to even mention Bruce and ESR. I will anyway because I think it's very important, but I'll ask you both not to respond if all you plan to say is "he started it" or "I'm not going to forgive him" or "he's not cooperating". Again, criticism is fine, but insults don't help anything. I think open criticism of events in the open source/free software community is very important, but it needs to be done with consideration for everyone else invovled, and the recognition that no one is intentionally trying to harm the movement. And it needs to be accepted gracefully. Which is never easy to do. But a responce that says I disagree, here's why, without also coming across as trying to discredit the author is the only thing likely to lead to intelligent discussion, rather than flame wars. The thing that really bothers me about the entire incident with the Apple licence is that it has to have left Apple with a bad taste in their mouth. A calmer responce from Bruce, then answered without anger by Eric would probably not have lead to this.
Basically this (now ridiculously long) ramble amounts to: if you're going to lead make sure you recognize that the open source/free software movement is a diverse group (heck, I can't even think of a name for it that doesn't offend somebody) with diverse leaders. Who are all trying to do what is best. And who are all human. And who all have tempers. If everyone involved would respect these facts, and each other, we'd make a lot better impression on the outside world.
P.S.: And the words "I'm sorry", while never pleasant, haven't been known to kill anyone, and usually lead to a similar responce.
Missing the point by a country mile (Score:5)
We have in this thread a huge number of people either failing or refusing to address the point.
Raymond's objection was that Bezroukov's essay went out of its way to caricature and misrepresent his writings. He cited particulars where this was obviously the case. The second-level comments here, ironically, ignore the point even more than Bezroukov's did.
People: The question was whether Bezroukov's comments were relevant and reasonable. Your views on Raymond's politics, his ego, his essays, his pronouncements on the term "GNU/Linux", his skills at diplomacy or lack thereof, his abilities as a "leader", or alleged unwillingness to admit himself wrong, and sundry personal qualities have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand.
One or two posters made the almost-relevant remark that Raymond relies on works other than "TCatB" to make most of his points. That might have been a valid objection, except that Bezroukov's essay concerned those other works, too. I quote (emphasis added): "Starting with his famous paper "Cathedral and Bazaar" Eric Raymond published a series of articles (see especially his comments on the so-called Halloween documents) he promoted an overoptimistic and simplistic view of open source, as a variant of socialist (or, to be more exact, vulgar Marxist) interpretation of software development."
Bezroukov addressed this remark explicitly to Raymond's entire body of essays on open source. It is explicitly stated up-top as the thesis of his paper.
Critical commentary should be evaluated for accuracy and relevance on its internal merits. That is the proper standard for everything, there: Bezroukov's piece, Raymond's reply, and you people's alleged commentary on Raymond's reply. The commentary here has been consistently off in Cloud-Cuckooland -- which explains in part how you could possibly fail to notice that Bezroukov wrote nothing better than an extended straw-man argument.
You can do better, people. At least I bloody well hope so.
Re:Unsurprising (Score:2)
I looked at it from a purely academic standpoint. Very strong solid arguments, that added a lot to the paper.
Interesting; while I have no particular liking for ESR, I personally felt the original paper was poorly-written, had some very wooly logic, and was generally something I think my professors would flay me for turning in.
The man is a dedicated Libertarian, from stuff that I've read by them it appears to be a tenet of the philosophy.
Functionality should always come before whether or not it's "free" software by anyone's definition.
If that were true, there would quite likely be no free software, since you need at least some users to do feature-requesting and bug-finding. IT isn't the beginning and the end of the computer-using world, whatever it might think
Daniel
Re:These are real people (Score:2)
In a lot of people's minds, the rules change when someone makes themselves a public figure. I'm not sure this is right, but it's certainly pervasive and I'm not immune to it (check my recent postings
Daniel
Moderators! (Score:2)
Daniel
But Hollywood *was* infested by communists. (Score:2)
We're still suffering from McCarthyism and Cold War lies about forms of government.
But Hollywood *was* infested by communists. McCarthy was right.
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
From what I've seen, most of the people in the OSS movement are doing what they do for fun as well as expecting recipricol value back. As well. most are also doing projects which will directly benifit them in their work. Just because the recipricol rewards aren't money doesn't make it particularly socialist. It may be socialist minded, sort of like some mixed economies, but for all intensive purposes it is a compartment that is designed to outperform our choice economic system. Once the benifits that come with this system dissapear, so will the people who support it. However, I don't see it fundamentally flawed as other systems, as self-regulation is defnitely possible because there are simple alternatives. In government the system is bound by majority, but since this isn't a macro-economic system -- we have the right to do exactly as we please.
Now, people such as ESR have their own interests. This is acceptable since we live in a free economy. In case you people haven't noticed, this guy sits on the board of directors for VA Linux. The purpose of their business is to make profit. Their business plan is to leverage the lower costs and distributed software model of OSS to divert profits going in other directions to their hardware and solutions business. IBM, SGI and redhat are doing the exact same thing with different strategies. There's nothing wrong with it, It will actually benifit the community at large (albeit some market shifts and changes).
As for ESR stating that he is opposed to Microsoft's business practices; I am as well. However, I am partially opposed to his views on the invisible hand. The free market system isn't perfect. It is open to abuse. Therefore some government regulation is needed from time to time to assure that the consumer isn't defrauded of the primary objective that the system was cenceived for. Unfortunately there aren't any simple answers to these problems. Do we cater to the individual, the majority, or everyone? Each in itself has problems as well as benifits. The system is just too complex to strike perfect balance (see gap between rich and poor).
Anyway, I'm getting a little off track here. Back to Microsoft. Remember, monopoly isn't illegal. Abusing that power to leverage dominance in other industries is. If they are found guilty of doing such things, then they deserve to suffer the consequences.
Articles such as the one ESR responded to show that the community is finally questioning the system that they subscribe to. This is good. Understanding of the problem and presented solution provides refinement and response to the threats of that system. Hopefully some of what I've seen on slashdot in the past is blind advocacy. A "socialistic" compartment in an economy is acceptable -- as long as it benifits its members. I think I may have partially misjudged ESR in the past because in the world of PR, you have to be extreme to gain support -- however, I think he does see the big picture (although I do not welcome some of his other extreme beliefs).
Talks of World Domination are just attempts to get the community riled up and driven into a movement that the rest of the world notices. It doesn't necessarily mean he beleives that Open Source software must rule the industry. From his response to my comment in his question story last week, he proves that he does know what he is talking about. He agree's that open source is part of our economic system -- not some stupid socialist movement. I believe the key words to success in this (and almost every other instance) is that balance is the ultimate goal -- not an extreme.
----------
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)
Re:ESR should go out sometimes (Score:2)