Re: Essay RFC delayed.
From: Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please do not assume that Eric's description of me is accurate and truthful. His statements are typically somewhat exaggerated. Having met you personaly several times, I find no substance whatsoever in Eric's description. Hey, you could work on your table manners, but we all have our faults :-) Bruce
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
They would, if he didn't insist on saying things that puzzle and alienate and frighten people so often. I don't do this a tenth so much as you would encourage people to think. As the leader of the GNU Project, most of what I do nowadays is dealing with people--mostly hackers, but some in business, the bar, and government. I am getting pretty good at it. Since this isn't something I was born good at, I've put some careful study into how to do it. I succeed fairly often at challenging tasks that demand great delicacy, such as asking a stranger to consider changing a license; I succeed more often than not in asking other projects to affiliate with the GNU Project. And when I tell people that "everything they know about Linux is wrong", which is a hard thing to say to someone, the great majority receive the point with no offense. I've even received compliments for how I am handling this discussion. Only a tiny fraction of the community has ever dealt with me. So if you actively spread the idea that I am incompetent at my main responsibility, you can surely hamper my activities somewhat. You can also predispose people to feel alienated and frightened by me, since people have a certain tendency to perceive what they have been told to expect. I think that would be unfortunate for the community. You're entitled to your own opinion about that, but I hope that you will agree.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Signal 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Maybe his actions speak louder than his words. They would, if he didn't insist on saying things that puzzle and alienate and frighten people so often. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a "A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Mon, Aug 30, 1999 at 02:18:26AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Richard, you don't understand "human behavior" worth a damn. If you did, you would have done the job of persuading the non-hacker world competently fifteen years ago. Richard couldn't have convinced the non-hacker world to adopt free software fifteen years ago because the Internet was not there to fuel such a revolution. Elimination of the costs of fabrication and distribution has been a key component in the recent success of free software. This seems to be a well understood concept. Unlike most people, I don't consider the above observation to be an insult. If you were less monomaniacal, we might not have Emacs and a large number of other good things. Arguably you made the correct choice -- and in fact I have so argued to people who complain (for example) about your personal hygiene. Can't stand RMS? Fine. Don't deal with him. Trying to change him in any fundamental way is a waste of time, and probably not a good idea if you could manage it. We might as well start talking about your inability to walk correctly if you are going to work something like "Richard's personal hygine" into your discussions. Don't be crass. -- ___ Ean Schuessler As above Novare International Inc. so below --- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We might as well start talking about your inability to walk correctly if you are going to work something like "Richard's personal hygine" into your discussions. Don't be crass. Richard can bathe. I can't rewire my central nervous system. *Duh*! But that's not the point. *I* don't mind that Richard doesn't wash, and didn't bring it up to be insulting. He made his choice, and on the whole I think the world is probably better off for it. But neither you nor he should maintain any illusions about what he traded away. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We might as well start talking about your inability to walk correctly if you are going to work something like "Richard's personal hygine" into your discussions. Don't be crass. Okay.. I think we ought to draw this to a close. I think everybody's made their points (and then some), now let's move on... -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Bother!" said Pooh as Cthulhu rose up and ate him.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Richard can bathe. I can't rewire my central nervous system. *Duh*! Okay, can we please avoid the ad hominem attacks? The discussion was very interesting up to this point. Kyle - -- Kyle R. RoseMIT LCS NE43-309, Cambridge, MA 18 Leland Street Apt. 1 617-253-5883 Somerville, MA 02143[EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-666-0017http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ I know you can fight. But it's our wits that make us men. - Braveheart -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE3ysav66jzSko6g9wRAnowAKDN5pTbIoptfuTpjhbVdK0kh+4XLACfXscc KUIri/uerNO1/bd99bge4NQ= =pSkw -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
At 11:48 AM 8/30/1999 -0500, Signal 11 wrote: Maybe his actions speak louder than his words. Maybe he doesn't have to try to convince the other 99% of the population - it ought to be immediately obvious of the superiority of free software /based only on the result/. No explanation necessary. Maybe the Amiga should have won the "war" because it was a technically superior platform, which was immediately obvious to anyone who looked at the facts. That theory that "The best product always wins" doesn't hold up in the real world. You need to be the best /and convince people of that fact/... You can have the best mousetrap in the world... if the guys who make decisions think it sucks, it doesn't get deployed.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ok, I'm trying to stop, really. On Sun, Aug 29, 1999 at 01:37:31AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: I have never said the free software movement was a failure. I have said that it reliably fails to persuade people outside the hacker community and the 5%-7% ?NT? cohort of the merits of its case. Ah, but that is where you are wrong. The concept of free software motivated a great number of people to write free code. That free code has been put into use by millions of people. Those millions of people are a force of incredible influence that no one can ignore. Rational and unselfish individuals will always be a minority of the population. That doesn't mean that they can't have a powerful influence on the rest of society. It also doesn't mean that they must reduce their belief system to selfish and irrational terms for others to be able to consume it. It is an odd assertion that concepts such as "freedom" are not effective for influencing the average person. The world's governments have used that term with ruthless effect for generations. Most of the time nations are marching citizens off to war for selfish reasons, all the while crying "for freedom!" In the case of free software we actually have the oppurtunity to use the term term honestly. ps. I'm not ?NT?, I'm a Leo. -- ___ Ean SchuesslerDirector of Strategic Weapons Systems Novare International Inc.A Devices that Kill People company *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
You said some very insulting--and unjustifie--things to Ean. Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. There you go again, exaggerating. I never lie. Exaggeration is a half-truth, and a half-truth is often worse than a lie. Disagree all you like; that won't move reality by an angstrom. Reality is more complex than you give it credit for. You're making simplistic statements about human behavior, which cannot possibly be true.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, or urge people to refuse to give up their freedom by accepting non-free software. That's right. If we did that, we would confuse and/or alienate everybody but the 5% of the population wired just like hackers. Which is exactly what you did for fifteen years. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is *stop digging*. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: That's right. If we did that, we would confuse and/or alienate everybody but the 5% of the population wired just like hackers. Which Is this necessarily a bad thing? Realistically, the major contributors of open source have mostly been hackers. Would there be a significant reduction in the proliferation and quality of free software if linux had not gone corporate? -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Different Earths, identical mayhem." -- Professor Arturo
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Signal 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Realistically, the major contributors of open source have mostly been hackers. Would there be a significant reduction in the proliferation and quality of free software if linux had not gone corporate? Maybe not. But I think I'm not the only person tired of living in a ghetto and watching from the sidelines while Microsoft locked down the Internet. It was time to grow up and get real. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1823
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 03:12:37AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: That's right. If we did that, we would confuse and/or alienate everybody but the 5% of the population wired just like hackers. Which is exactly what you did for fifteen years. When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is *stop digging*. You know, I think that this is where I must totally disagree with you. Your contention that corporations have no notion of civic duty is both a simple minded stereotype and fundamentally untrue. The notion of shared public infrastructures is neither new nor unappetizing to large organizations. Freedom, in the sense that Richard is discussing, is central and inseparable from the functional success of the "Open Source" phenomena. The grey thinking that you are encouraging leads directly to problematic licenses like the SCSL. You might as well stop trying to make simple issues complex and deal with the matter of freedom head on. Organizations have been aware of the issues of "freedom" in free software almost since day one. They just call it "intellectual property management policy" and Richard's "freedom" is the optimal policy for Open Source software. I can recall having conversations with executives in the _accounting_ arm of EDS about Linux as a shared business infrastructure in the Fall of 1995. The popularity of free software, open source, or whatever you choose to call it is due to the fact that there was a gap in the marketplace waiting to be filled. Necessity is the mother of invention, despite the fact that you would like to stand in her place. E -- ___ Ean Schuessler An oderless programmer work-a-like Novare International Inc. Silent and motionless *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You know, I think that this is where I must totally disagree with you. Your contention that corporations have no notion of civic duty is both a simple minded stereotype and fundamentally untrue. The notion of shared public infrastructures is neither new nor unappetizing to large organizations. If you're so smart, why aren't *you* the person the Wall Street Journal calls? I know that sounds pretty snotty. I'm almost past caring that it does, because I'm fed up with the inability of supposedly intelligent people to see past their idealism and their prejudices. Your alternative fails the reality test. The shared-public-infrastructure argument has been tried; hell, I used to try it myself when I was as naive as you are. It doesn't work. Never mind whether it's "right" or not. That's not the issue here, and this consistent confusion between good ethics and good tactics is exactly your problem (and RMS's). Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. You and I both happen to be among them -- but I know I'm in a minority, and you apparently don't. Among corporate CEOs the percentage drops further because it's their *job* to be selfish; it's their *job* to maximize shareholder value at the expense of anything else. I never lie. But sometimes a partial truth is more effective than the whole deal -- and that's exactly how it is with "free software". -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. -- 16 Am. Jur. Sec. 177 late 2d, Sec 256
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Realistically, the major contributors of open source have mostly been hackers. Would there be a significant reduction in the proliferation and quality of free software if linux had not gone corporate? Quality : No, other than that which is created by the talent and resources brought to the table by "corporate" types. Proliferation: Absolutely there would be a dramatic difference. Two years ago, to bring a Linux server into an organization that was primarily, say, Windows, was a nightmarish ordeal. Been there, done that. Now, with corporate america "aware" at least of Linux, and its benefits, and it having some associated clout, it is far easier for Joe Hacker to convince his boss that "Hey you should replace that NT server with a Linux box..."
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: If you're so smart, why aren't *you* the person the Wall Street Journal calls? Everybody, back up. There is no need to get personal here. I'm fed up with the inability of supposedly intelligent people to see past their idealism and their prejudices. Eric, that idealism which you are so quick to dismiss is what fired this whole movement up and is what continues to sustain it. Idealism is what makes life interesting! It can also touch off bitter wars of attrition (aka flaming). People live by their beliefs, and only very stubbornly give them up. It is also a hallmark of human reasoning to hold beliefs which are not logically self-consistent. Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. You and I both happen to be among them -- but I know I'm in a minority, and you apparently don't. I have to disagree - that's a myth perpetuated by the mindset of american society. The idea of enlightened self-interest as the driving force behind all progress holds true for capitalism - not life in general. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it."-- Alex Schure
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Signal 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Eric, that idealism which you are so quick to dismiss Sigh. You seem to have joined the idiot chorus with this line. I'm not "dismissing" idealism at all; like you, I *live* idealism. I'm just pointing out that it makes ineffective communications tactics for reaching people who aren't like us -- that is XNTX on the Myers-Briggs grid. is what fired this whole movement up and is what continues to sustain it. Well, *duh*! Of course it is. But that doesn't tell us a damn thing about whether it's good tactics to blab about our idealism in front of people who are neuropsychologically predisposed to treat it as nothing more than evidence of insanity. Brain wiring matters. I have to disagree - that's a myth perpetuated by the mindset of american society. The idea of enlightened self-interest as the driving force behind all progress holds true for capitalism - not life in general. Disagree all you like; that won't move reality by an angstrom. I'll know that you understand human psychology better than I do when you demonstrate that you're better at I am at persuading people other than hackers. Go for it. Take my job, please. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a The abortion rights and gun control debates are twin aspects of a deeper question --- does an individual ever have the right to make decisions that are literally life-or-death? And if not the individual, who does?
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: I'm just pointing out that it makes ineffective communications tactics for reaching people who aren't like us -- that is XNTX on the Myers-Briggs grid. Well, about 25% of people are NT on the myers-briggs, if I recall correctly. That's not a small minority. And just because talking about ideals with people who are of the sensing / feeling type doesn't mean ideals are lost on them. To reach those people, you just need to be enthusiastic, energetic, charismatic(sp?), oh yeah.. and being witty helps too. I've spoken with many "normal" people on the idea of free software, linux, and that whole ball of wax. They DO understand, and it isn't hard to reach them. I mean.. it isn't hard to lay the facts out for them and connect the dots. I haven't failed yet to convince somebody that free software has more benefits to them, the end user, than it's commercial equivalents. But it is necessary to maintain some level of purity with the licensing styles of the open source / free software movement. I mean, the line has GOT to be drawn somewhere. Otherwise wierd problems crop up like the QPL's patching fiasco, or Apple's botched license. All these derivatives of the GPL, as well as licenses that almost-but-not-quite make the OSD only confuse the issue. We really do need to be united, as a community, on this issue. Unfortunately, it seems to be the one thing nobody can agree on. it. Take my job, please. I'm working on it. Unfortunately I still have 3 papers, a book, and several slashdot postings to go before I'm qualified. Oh yeah, and being only 19 I still need to finish college.[1] ;) -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Got any more good ideas, Jim?" McCoy [1] This is also my official excuse incase I say something really stupid.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Disagree all you like; that won't move reality by an angstrom. I'll know that you understand human psychology better than I do when you demonstrate that you're better at I am at persuading people other than hackers. Go for it. Take my job, please. One can always appeal to the basest desires of most people and be more successful than those that rely on principle to guide their actions. The real challenge is in getting them to see profit in working with the community while discouraging parasitism on their part. I don't see you doing this. Although the magnitude is different, what you are doing is analagous to making deals with a serial killer where you get something in return for providing him with victims. I don't see this as a very honorable way of doing business, even if what you get back ultimately benefits society as a whole. The ends do not justify the means. I agree with Richard: I would rather live in a community of ideals, even if it were a lot smaller and less functional (in a compatibility- with-the-outside-world sense). Encroaching decadence will never be a trait of _my_ community, no matter how enticing the price/performance ratio looks. I neither need nor want to deal with "reality" if it means I have to engage in this sort of behavior. Kyle - -- Kyle R. RoseMIT LCS NE43-309, Cambridge, MA 18 Leland Street Apt. 1 617-253-5883 Somerville, MA 02143[EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-666-0017http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ They can try to bind our arms, But they cannot chain our minds or hearts... - Stratovarius -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE3xxE+66jzSko6g9wRAt3RAJwJjw5ZD+7MoYlDjPCy9RM5+gxc/gCfTzk/ fsKRkQ3Ntm0l74wVYqmXYbQ= =IngN -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Signal 11 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, about 25% of people are NT on the myers-briggs, if I recall correctly. Would that it were so. All the figures I've seen are 3-5%. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects. -- Robert A. Heinlein Time Enough for Love
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: Well, about 25% of people are NT on the myers-briggs, if I recall correctly. Would that it were so. All the figures I've seen are 3-5%. That's just for the ?NT? types. If you'd like, I could look up the exact figures for you. This spring I had to give a speech on career planning, which included some information on myers-briggs. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "I just got a cold shiver down my back." -- Klinger
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Mark Wells [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I suspect that the NF people would also have some affinity for the ideals of free software. Unfortunately, there aren't many of them in either business management or technical fields. I agree on both counts. NFs tend to be artists and mystics. They're a rare type, too. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Bojay Iversen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: Hackers *are* ?NT?. That's my point. I don't know what else you thought I meant by XNTX. No no, there are 4 possible ?NT? types, which when combined together have a total mindshare of about 25%. If each of them had 3-5%, then the totals would be from 12-20%. Like i said - I'd be willing to look it up for you if you want the exact figures.. Basic arithmetic aside, this page at least has some numbers: http://userpages.itis.com/paulaf/intj.html. namely: INTJ(1%), INTP(1%), ENTP(5%), and ENTJ(5%) Authoritative? I don't know. But it looks to be put up by an INTJ, and they don't lie. ;-) intj, so I guess I'm a hacker, matt
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Kyle Rose wrote: The real challenge is in getting them to see profit in working with the community while discouraging parasitism on their part. I don't see you doing this. This is precisely what Eric does. Companies want "protect" intellectual property they have invested a significant amount of time and money into developing. Hence the sudden wide variety of licenses. As we all know the licenses that are not truly free will get ignored by the community and nothing will happen. Eric has assidiously tried to convince companies that open is better by trying to get them to adapt one of the recognized open licenses. Their legal counsel sometimes disagrees and takes their own stab at a license. Although the magnitude is different, what you are doing is analagous to making deals with a serial killer where you get something in return for providing him with victims. I don't see this as a very honorable way of doing business, even if what you get back ultimately benefits society as a whole. The ends do not justify the means. This is a "straw man" argument. Working with a business is not akin to working with a serial killer. If a company wants to release something under the Bobzilla Public License they are certainly free to do so. Whether or not that is the wisest decision for the software is another thing entirely. I agree with Richard: I would rather live in a community of ideals, even if it were a lot smaller and less functional (in a compatibility- with-the-outside-world sense). Encroaching decadence will never be a trait of _my_ community, no matter how enticing the price/performance ratio looks. I neither need nor want to deal with "reality" if it means I have to engage in this sort of behavior. You can live in the small community of free software and never leave it. Certainly no one has forced Richard to compromise his ideals or the ideals of many of the people involved with the FSF. Freeing software takes time and businesses have to make certain changes culturally in order for this to happen. They can't simply can't release their "crown jewels" without some assurance that it won't put them out of business. Businesses have mundane concerns such as payroll, healthcare, facilities and equipment to maintain. They cannot by nature move as quickly a single developer or a development team since a misstep means that you don't meet payroll with all the effects that has (mortgages are missed, people don't eat etc). I have watched this debate on this list for some time and really the problem is that Eric and Richard will never agree because their world views are different. Richards is a deontological world view. He believes that software should be free and not freeing is a bad thing. Deontological views believe in a absolute systems of morals and ideals. Eric has a consequentialist world view, which mean actions (such as software licensing) are only evil in their effects (ie a Windows monopoly on the desktop.) This deontological/consequentialist split runs through a number of issues (abortion, capitol punishment, war name an issue and its split this way.) Richard recognizes their split over "issues of principals." The problem is that to successfully run a revolution you need both types of people - those with unyieldng ideals and those who try to carry the ideals to world and make them work as broadly as possible. It also seems inevitable that there is conflict between these two. Dealing with businesses building systems for them using free software I tend to be a consequentialist. That said I would rather live in a world where all software was free, so I fight for it every day by changing the minds of merchants and businesses I deal with. -- Brian DeSpain http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 04:57:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: You know, I think that this is where I must totally disagree with you. Your contention that corporations have no notion of civic duty is both a simple minded stereotype and fundamentally untrue. The notion of shared public infrastructures is neither new nor unappetizing to large organizations. If you're so smart, why aren't *you* the person the Wall Street Journal calls? Ah ha, I see. So you are saying that corporations have no notion of civic duty because you are quoted in the Wall Street Journal? I guess I should have spent less time building free software based systems for Fortune 500 businesses and more time on the phone to the press. Wake up, man. The percentage of people who can be reached by arguments that aren't founded in selfishness is *tiny*. You and I both happen to be among them -- but I know I'm in a minority, and you apparently don't. So we should recast our movement in their selfish minded terms? I think perhaps you are the one who is asleep, and dreaming to boot. You delude yourself as to the true forces at work here. The press is the distorted reflection of reality, not the other way around. You were a convenient interpreter for these events, not a messiah. In 1993 you could already buy production Linux CDs off the shelf of retail stores, complete with X, gcc, emacs and all sorts of other gadgets. Thousands of programmers and millions of users rapidly swept into the movement because of sheer interest in Linux as a way to solve problems and have fun. Several years later, you came and wrote a fairly interesting paper detailing this process and subsequently took credit for it having occured. Free software is a shared infrastructure, just like spoken and written languages. It propogates because it is a convenient tool for manipulating and passing information and because its replication is less resource intensive than its benefits. It is a weather pattern, it is a storm that was waiting for the right set of initial conditions. You are like a weather man trying to take credit for the hurricane. If you want to blame anyone, you can blame Stallman for doing the rain dance on faith for years before the shit hit the ground. Or, if you feel pragmatic you could blame Andreesen for trying to take Netscape back to its roots after it became Wall Street's golden child. Of course, you'll take credit for persuading Netscape as well. Never mind the fact that it started out free. I would stop arguing with you, but its so much fun! -- __ Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux Novare International Inc. A company running Linux *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Why is our freedom to hack important to corporations? The answer is it isn't and they couldn't care less. Then I don't want them around. They should only get to play with us on mutually agreeable terms. Others are free to consort with the devil; I will retain my principles. By making the arguments the way Eric does is that it becomes palatable to corporations and the other freedoms we get are sorta slid in under the radar. That's exactly what I don't want. When the other freedoms aren't made clear, we end up with Qt, SCSL, and Al Gore's pages associated with "our" movement (which really isn't "our" movement, but I digress...) The free marketplace of ideas in the free software community assures that really pig-headed ideas don't fly very far. The Qt semi-free license got pretty far before it was shot down; and the new QPL _still_ sucks! That is a _perfect_ example of how the principles of the community which are not spelled out in legalese are taken advantage of. This is precisely why the principles of freedom should be stressed. Kyle - -- Kyle R. RoseMIT LCS NE43-309, Cambridge, MA 18 Leland Street Apt. 1 617-253-5883 Somerville, MA 02143[EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-666-0017http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ In order to dial out, it is necessary to broaden one's dimension. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE3xzTz66jzSko6g9wRAsnkAKDLclFYXMApZIaWnYqy+UhejzZnGACeIgWU vCFf/XEW7A6DT8UzgGkqKn4= =O6QZ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Eric S. Raymond scripsit: Hackers *are* ?NT?. That's my point. I don't know what else you thought I meant by XNTX. The Keirsey Temperament site (www.keirsey.com) says that ?NT? are about 5% of the general population, but about 15% of those who have take the Keirsey test *online*. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler scripsit: Several years later, you came and wrote a fairly interesting paper detailing this process So he did. and subsequently took credit for it having occured. Where? Sources, please. If you want to blame anyone, you can blame Stallman for doing the rain dance on faith for years before the shit hit the ground. Eric openly praised Stallman for this. Or, if you feel pragmatic you could blame Andreesen for trying to take Netscape back to its roots after it became Wall Street's golden child. Of course, you'll take credit for persuading Netscape as well. Never mind the fact that it started out free. What started out free? Mosaic was freely available but not Open Source. Netscape doesn't contain any Mosaic code; it's Internet Exploder that contains (licensed) Mosaic code. I would stop arguing with you, but its so much fun! Instead, use the energy to convince a CEO or two. See the linux-advocacy HOWTO. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
OK, everybody out of the pool! This ain't about licenses, and it ain't a discussion! Can you all just drop the [EMAIL PROTECTED] off the CC line and go share your acronyms elsewhere. I concur, although I have found this to be an exceptionally interesting discussion that has led me to greater self-awareness. =) .. kris
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: So we should recast our movement in their selfish minded terms? Now you're getting it, maybe. Yes, we should. Not because we necessarily think in those terms ourselves, but because that's how you get the job of persuasion most effectively. Several years later, you came and wrote a fairly interesting paper detailing this process and subsequently took credit for it having occured. Ean, you have the option of ceasing to sound like an idiot at any time. But you still will as long as you keep making claims like this that are (a) ad hominem, and (b) easily refuted by anybody who actually who has actually read what I wrote, then and since. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? -- Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ian Grigg wrote: OK, everybody out of the pool! This ain't about licenses, and it ain't a discussion! No, but it's the most activity I've seen on this list in a long time. Besides, I rather enjoy reading the comments between ESR and the world... even if he did call me a "member of the idiot chorus". :) So... FOO! -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "The power to tax is the power to destroy" - Chief Justice T. Marshall
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Bojay Iversen [EMAIL PROTECTED]: And the papers he has published are an attempt to define what makes the whole thing tick so that an average person (suit?) can understand it. Actually they didn't start out with even *that* much ambition. When I was writing CatB I had in mind an internal audience only -- I was just as astonished as everybody else at the Netscape thing. More, maybe. Somebody else could have written CatB. Somebody else could have done my selling job to the suits. And, in fact, I think similar developments were pretty much inevitable within a few years after the Great Internet Explosion of 1993-1994. Or, at least, that's what I tell myself to try to keep my head from swelling ;-). Historians have been arguing for three centuries over whether the times make the man or the man makes the times. Having been there for at least one critical pivot point, I can report that the answer is "yes" :-). I've felt all along like the author of CatB was in some sense an invention of the hacker tribe -- that taking "credit" for it would be nearly as silly as a fish taking credit for discovering the existence of water. On the other hand, *I* made "open source" happen. These things are never simple. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power. -- Abraham Lincoln
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote: happen. These things are never simple. No, they aren't. I don't care who gets the credit - you, richard, bruce - it doesn't matter to me. What I do care about is the community that has sprung up around the ideals of freedom of software and freedom of information. As a member of this community, I want to see it succeed. As a member of society, I want people everywhere to reap the fruits of our labor. We all helped open the door to a brave new world. A world where you have all the blueprints to build it, tinker with it, and most importantly - improve on it. I want to live in that world - desperately. I like tinkering with things. I'm the kind of person that takes things apart, just to see how they work. I can't tell you how many VCRs I took apart to figure out how the tape winds around all those cylinders, or how many late nights I spent wondering around campus tracing down wires just to see where they went. Not everybody has that kind of curiosity. Infact, I've found very few people have it. Eric, you're the bridge between us and them. Don't go and burn that bridge down because a few people disagree with how you built it. I hope I didn't come off as being too terribly utopian. ;) I'm young and inexperienced. As such, I welcome any thoughts anybody here might have. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net "Once I take over the world, remind me to snub you." Brain
Re: Essay RFC delayed
John Cowan said: The right to fork is like the right to strike: a last resort that must be preserved, so that most of the time more civil behavior is possible. The right to fork is like the right to replicate scientific results and then carry on with an independent investigation. The right to fork is like the right to create your own local culture different than the majority. The right to fork is absolute in the free software world. The right to merge your changes back into the dominant source tree is not. Don't let anyone talk you out of your freedom. Scott Johnston
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, That would be incorrect, at least from my vantage point. A core principle of the Open Source Definition is the right to fork - which is, the right to share and change software beyond the control of the original party. Whether this mandate should be viral upon derivatives is, of course, where we differ. I don't think that, whether `this mandate should be viral upon derivatives' (as in the GPL) is where we (the free software and the open source movements) differ. I believe Richard was refering more to the methods used by the Open Source movement: to hide the freedom. As far as I know, the FSF considers programs distributed under many licenses other than the GPL free software. The FSF would rather use the GPL but they still take software under many licenses with no `viral' mandates as free software. According to the open source FAQ, by Raymond, "Open Source is a marketing program for free software". In the end, Open Source *is* free foftware. However, in some people's minds, they are different terms. They think a program can be open source yet still be propietary software. They fail to remember that the point is *not* just opening the source code for everyone to see it; they seem to forget the important thing is the freedom of everyone to use the code in whatever ways they want (except, as perhaps you'd like me to point out, to restrict others' freedom). As the opensource.org web site says (or at least used to): "The real reason for the re-labeling [of Free Software] is a marketing one. We're trying to pitch our concept to the corporate world now. We have a winning product, but our positioning, in the past, has been awful. The term ``free software'' has a load of fatal baggage; to a businessperson, it's too redolent of fanaticism and flakiness and strident anti-commercialism. [...] In marketing appearance is reality. The appearance that we're willing to climb down off the barricades and work with the corporate world counts for as much as the reality of our behavior, our convictions, and our software." So the Open Source movement may have got a lot of attention and Raymond has certainly done an important job. The problem is that it hides the freedom, and that is not good. I believe this is why GNU is asking mantainers and developers of free software to "use the term 'free software' rather than 'open source'". Why would we want to hide the term free? If someone is willing to accept the term open source but not free software, if they have a problem with developing free software, I wonder why should we care to draw their attention. Alejo. -- The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution. -- Albert Einstein.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Brian Behlendorf scripsit: That would be incorrect, at least from my vantage point. A core principle of the Open Source Definition is the right to fork - which is, the right to share and change software beyond the control of the original party. The right to fork is like the right to strike: a last resort that must be preserved, so that most of the time more civil behavior is possible. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am a member of a civilization. --David Brin
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
"Derek J. Balling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not a contributor myself to GNOME, but I suspect that many of the contributors are from the "wanting software which doesn't suck" category more than they are the "It's freedom baby! Yeah!" camp. Please try and characterise the beliefs you're discussing fairly and evenly, even where you disagree: I'm sure you'd find irksome an article that constrasted the "wanting software that doesn't take away freedom" category with the "it works better, so who cares?" camp. -- __ \/ o\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Got a Linux strategy? \ / /\__/ Paul Crowley http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ /~\
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
From: Alejandro Forero Cuervo [EMAIL PROTECTED] ESR In your zeal to distance your doctrinal purity from the OSI's ESR filthy but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in ESR marginalizing both the FSF and yourself. If you keep this up, ESR you're going to end up ranting to an audience of one, in the mirror. I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. Perhaps your audience is bigger when you count them with your finger, but Richard is *far* from seeing himself in the situation you describe. There is a *huge* ammount of applications being actively developed that make part of the GNU movement. It's hard for me to understand how can you talk about the FSF marginalization. There are two totally different world-views and definitions of success here, obviously. Richard's success is being able to create and participate in a community developing and using free software, where noone is forced to use proprietary software. (There is always a free alternative to any needed proprietary software which works just as well.) It appears that this goal is nearly accomplished: Richard is able to avoid proprietary software entirely. The recent success of GNU/Linux makes it easy to forget how recently the goal seemed very far away, and Richard's views were very much "on the fringe." The work of the FSF continues as "community building" -- growing the membership and enlarging the pool of "free alternatives." Having all software be free would be nice, but a community can have rules and exist independently and separate from other communities with other rules. A sufficiently developed small community can be viable regardless of the size and number of surrounding communities. Eric's success is that no hacker must suffer using software that is not open source, and therefore cannot be modified or improved to serve the hacker better. This is quite a different goal, because it requires that NO community of proprietary software continue to exist. When Eric "wins", the FSF and community WILL BE "marginalized", because the free software movement will be a very small part of the universe of open software. As long as the goals and development of the free software community continue, "marginalized" is not a derogatory term, as I see it. Where the sparks fly between these two groups is when you consider that individuals who are working towards "open source" don't necessarily have the goals of Richard's movement in mind. They may not consider themselves (and may not act as) "good neighbors" in the sense of free software. Growing the free software community helps Eric's tribe. Growing the open source tribe doesn't always help Richard's free software community. When idealogies are concerned, sometimes getting distracted by the "good enough" idea (open source) will prevent the ideal (free software) from being considered and taking root. Richard has every right to insist that projects which are GNU projects be publicized as part of the free software movement. (Which is what started this thread) In all of this, I think it is obvious Richard would still prefer to see people outside the open source bubble move inside it, even if they don't make it all the way to the ideal. In that sense, Richard is not at war with Eric, but he would prefer that people not get distracted on their way to enlightenment. Eric recognized that not everyone was going to move into Richard's bubble, but that slighly relaxed requirements and improved marketing of "open source" would "win the suits." Convincing people outside to move inside Richard's bubble was (is?) difficult. That work needed the perseverance of an idealist like Richard who can work towards a goal without seeing much success for years. It can be lonely work. Convincing people outside to move inside Eric's bubble is a bit easier. Expanding the bubble to include the universe requires the work of a pragmatist like Eric who sees success and thirsts for more, who thrives and is encouraged by the numbers of people joining the party. The pragmatist who feels lonely, or sees others "shirking" a responsibility will at least be frustrated, or even give up in the end. In this thread, Eric expressed frustration that Richard doesn't (and didn't) settle for increasing the big bubble instead of clinging to the ideal. Happily, for us hackers, we first have Richard and then Eric. They are both brilliant. Help them out when you can. Forrest J. Cavalier III, Mib Software Voice 570-992-8824 The Reuse RKT: Efficient awareness for software reuse: Free WWW site lists over 6000 of the most popular open source libraries, functions, and applications. http://www.mibsoftware.com/reuse/
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Hear hear. Can we just drop this now, please? I think most of us, if not all, have heard this and had it beaten to death. There are fundamental disagreements involved (in case you missed that part) and we *all* have differing takes on them... We're supposed to be discussing licenses, not philosophy, yeah? Thanks, Sujal Richard Stallman wrote: I've always been careful to describe the Open Source movement as a different philosophical camp, not an enemy. I think it fails to address the most important and deepest issues, but I don't argue against what it explicitly says. I hope that Eric will treat the Free Software movement in an equally civil fashion. While we disagree on the fundamental reasons for what we advocate, we are advocating very similar things, and we should be able to keep working together. -- -- Sujal Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sujal.net/
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. I think there is no need to compare, because Eric and I mostly talk about different things. I think Eric has had some worthwhile and insightful things to say. I've been impressed and persuaded by some of them. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community. However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, or urge people to refuse to give up their freedom by accepting non-free software. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community, but it won't inevitably help our community. To keep corporate involvement on the right track, developing free software and documentation rather than selling proprietary material to us, we the individuals in the community need to take a firm and principled stand. Practical arguments are not enough. We need to talk about freedom also, and we need to do it more than just a little.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Richard Stallman wrote: I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. I think there is no need to compare, because Eric and I mostly talk about different things. I think Eric has had some worthwhile and insightful things to say. I've been impressed and persuaded by some of them. Convincing business with practical arguments can help our community. However, Eric and the Open Source movement deliberately avoid the issues that I focus on most: issues of principle. They do not say that we deserve freedom to share and change software, That would be incorrect, at least from my vantage point. A core principle of the Open Source Definition is the right to fork - which is, the right to share and change software beyond the control of the original party. Whether this mandate should be viral upon derivatives is, of course, where we differ. However I think it is as important as the right to examine code and be able to modify it for personal use, as it is the main device for securing the long-term availability of the code - code that can not be forked can wither and die against the wishes of others, either by design or accidentally. Also, I want to clarify a statement I made earlier regarding GNOME - I did not mean to imply it wasn't part of the GNU Project. I still don't think, though, that everyone who works on GNOME does so for primarily political reasons, and for that reasons I question those who claim it's part of a "movement". Clearly Richard, and Miguel, have a different opinion. That's fine. Brian
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Brian Behlendorf wrote: Also, I want to clarify a statement I made earlier regarding GNOME - I did not mean to imply it wasn't part of the GNU Project. I still don't think, though, that everyone who works on GNOME does so for primarily political reasons, and for that reasons I question those who claim it's part of a "movement". Clearly Richard, and Miguel, have a different opinion. That's fine. I want to agree with Brian here. I'm not a contributor myself to GNOME, but I suspect that many of the contributors are from the "wanting software which doesn't suck" category more than they are the "It's freedom baby! Yeah!" camp. That's not to say that they are opposed to the political concept, and its also not to say that GNOME was created with the political concept in mind. It is simply to say that a chunk of the contributors may not necessarily care so much about the political aspect. == Derek J. Balling | "Bill Gates is a monocle and a white [EMAIL PROTECTED]| fluffy cat from being a villain in the http://www.megacity.org/ | next Bond film." - Dennis Miller ==
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
I've always been careful to describe the Open Source movement as a different philosophical camp, not an enemy. I think it fails to address the most important and deepest issues, but I don't argue against what it explicitly says. I hope that Eric will treat the Free Software movement in an equally civil fashion. While we disagree on the fundamental reasons for what we advocate, we are advocating very similar things, and we should be able to keep working together.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
RMS is going to live to see a world of almost entirely ``free'' software. And he's going to get it because Linus Torvalds is better at managing developers than he is and because *I* figured out exactly how to sweet-talk the suits into buying the freedom. We two are the best allies RMS has ever had You have certainly contributed a great deal to the development of free software. You are doing a lot for a part of the job, but there are other parts you are not interested in. Neither you nor Linus is determined to have and use a completely free system, so we can't rely on you to campaign for one. You make arguments of that free software has practical advantages. They may be valid, in many cases--but there are cases where proprietary software has practical advantages. When that happens, you and Linus are willing to accept non-free software as parts of what you use. Those of us who believe free software is a matter of principle will have to work towards our goal on our own.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
The true strength of free/openware will not come from its selling point. It will come from the freedom. Even after every ideology has come and gone, the code is protected and will remain. Ironically, the ideology of the Free Software movement is very close to the point you have just made.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
If anything, GNOME is part of the "GNOME movement" - any other group trying to take credit for it or call it their own, should reconsider their position. GNOME is the GNU desktop, a part of the GNU Project. Its development was based directly on the idealism of the Free Software movement, which called for a response to the danger posed by the non-free Qt library. We are not some "other group" where GNOME is concerned. Please be better informed about our activities before making statements about how they are organized and related.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
In your zeal to distance your doctrinal purity from the OSI's filthy but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in marginalizing both the FSF and yourself. If you keep this up, you're going to end up ranting to an audience of one, in the mirror. I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. Perhaps your audience is bigger when you count them with your finger, but Richard is *far* from seeing himself in the situation you describe. There is a *huge* ammount of applications being actively developed that make part of the GNU movement. It's hard for me to understand how can you talk about the FSF marginalization. Alejo. -- The mere formulation of a problem is far more essential than its solution. -- Albert Einstein.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alejandro, fix your Reply-To header. I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. Perhaps your audience is bigger when you count them with your finger, but Richard is far from seeing himself in the situation you describe. There is a huge ammount of applications being actively developed that make part of the GNU movement. It's hard for me to understand how can you talk about the FSF marginalization. I have to chime in here with agreement, but also with a more specific distinction between Richard and Eric: Richard's message appeals to the hackers who contribute code to the movement; Eric's message appeals to the suits who might be hiring or directing these hackers. For the future of free software, Richard's message is obviously the more indispensible of the two, because all the suits in the world can't make software without the hackers to do it. I look on the increasing commercialization of GNU, Linux, and related projects with amusement; but I started using them long before commercial interests got involved, and would continue to use them were it all to suddenly disappear. Commercial interests might help get us there (where "there" is a completely free computing environment) more quickly, but either way, we will get there. Kyle - -- Kyle R. RoseMIT LCS NE43-309, Cambridge, MA 18 Leland Street Apt. 1 617-253-5883 Somerville, MA 02143[EMAIL PROTECTED] 617-666-0017http://web.mit.edu/krr/www/ I stand alone in the darkness, the winter of my life came so fast Memories go back to my childhood, to days I still recall. Oh how happy I was then; there was no sorrow, there was no pain Walking through the green fields, sunshine in my eyes... - Stratovarius -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v0.9.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE3wCyG66jzSko6g9wRAtRCAJwI8v7P7ZfNScUBNx7s2iinb0C5BgCg2+Td redqfTkpmhyOsCpXxidKNjA= =toJU -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Alejandro Forero Cuervo wrote: I believe more hackers would rather listen to Richard than to you, Eric. I disagree. I think both of them are worth listening to. One of them is trying to be practical, the other is trying to be ideological. There's nothing wrong with either approach, and some people will listen better to one than the other. But neither is "better" than the other. I don't believe it is possible to create a system that is 100% free of proprietary software (and be useable by a large number of people) - nonetheless it shouldn't stop people from striving to make that possible. We didn't believe we could land a man on the moon, nonetheless somebody tried - and we landed a man on the moon! Progress depends on unreasonable people. If Richard hadn't been so unreasonable in demanding free software and forming a grassroots movement to make that possible the more practical open source movement would never have left the launch pad. Whether open source will become the de facto standard, or act as a stepping stone to free software, I don't know. But I can tell you that this won't turn out the way anybody thought it would. That's the way social revolutions work - and don't kid yourself, this is a social revolution. -- Signal 11, BOFH to the UF list and malign.net Runs with scissors | http://www.malign.net
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Frankly Richard, I agree. You should be more of a sport. Think of the benefits you would recieve. Look at all your other colleagues that grew rich while you were splitting these philosophical hairs. Its not too late! If you "play ball" the establishment can probably still arrange for a retainer of some type, or maybe even an equity position in some hot "Open Source" IPO! Stop torturing yourself with these troublesome ideological positions! What if a few companies get rich at the expense of the people? It's inevitable anyway. Capitalize on your "brand name recognition" before its hopelessly marginalized. Maybe Eric could be your agent! He has certainly proven himself an adept promoter. Just look at what he has done for his own reputation. Why, he invented "Open Source"! Right. I take it you would have preferred to live in a ghetto for another twenty years, watching the likes of Microsoft gradually smother the net until there was no space left for people like RMS at all? I've been watching our tribe lose, and lose, and lose again since around the time you were learning not to drool milk on your bib. I got lucky enough to be in a position to do something about it, and I did. RMS is going to live to see a world of almost entirely ``free'' software. And he's going to get it because Linus Torvalds is better at managing developers than he is and because *I* figured out exactly how to sweet-talk the suits into buying the freedom. We two are the best allies RMS has ever had -- and even if *you* never grow up enough to realize it, I suspect RMS has got that figured out by now. And yes, I have stock in Red Hat and options in VA. It pleases me that I'm going to be wealthy; only idiots think wearing a hair-shirt is a form of virtue. But only a bigger idiot could observe my behavior and ever dream it was motivated by money. I doubt you're that stupid, though I admit you seem to be working hard at it above. The bottom line is that *I want to win*. I want to win for our tribe and for all the users out there who get shafted by crappy closed software every single goddamn day and for every programmer who has ever woken up in the middle of the night hating his job because all his tools and platforms suck so bad. I want to win more than you do and more than RMS ever did. Neither of you, precious idealists that you are, ever wanted victory enough. Neither of you ever had enough desire to get down in the mud and do what was *necessary*, even if it meant becoming a travelling media whore and learning suit-speak and giving up your life and your privacy and your hacking time. *I* did. And I'm glad I did. And I'll stay glad I did no matter how many jerks sneer at me for it. The price is high, but the prize is worth it. *Despite* you. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a All governments are more or less combinations against the people. . .and as rulers have no more virtue than the ruled. . . the power of government can only be kept within its constituted bounds by the display of a power equal to itself, the collected sentiment of the people. -- Benjamin Franklin Bache, in a Phildelphia Aurora editorial 1794
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Come on Eric, laugh at yourself a little. I'm just yanking your chain because you make yourself such an easy target. E ps. Thats quite a check you are writing when you say you want *win* more than RMS _ever_ has. pps. I'll give you $20 if you'll stop saying "tribe". On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 03:37:14AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Right. I take it you would have preferred to live in a ghetto for another twenty years, watching the likes of Microsoft gradually smother the net until there was no space left for people like RMS at all? [ assorted self-rightous swaggerings ] And I'll stay glad I did no matter how many jerks sneer at me for it. The price is high, but the prize is worth it. *Despite* you. -- ___ Ean Schuessler An oderless programmer work-a-like Novare International Inc. Silent and motionless *** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler wrote: Come on Eric, laugh at yourself a little. I'm just yanking your chain because you make yourself such an easy target. I agree. That last tirade against Richard was just a little bit much. I think Eric deserves praise for all his work, and also believe that it helpful to all of us (in sum). But for someone who is tolerant enough of others viewpoints to become a "media-whore", I find it quite confusing that he would criticize Richard for simply not wanting to be associated with a group whose ideals are not his own (yet portrayed in the media as being the same, which can cause confusion). [snip] pps. I'll give you $20 if you'll stop saying "tribe". I would like to add another $20 to the anti-tribe fund. :) On Fri, Aug 20, 1999 at 03:37:14AM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Right. I take it you would have preferred to live in a ghetto for another twenty years, watching the likes of Microsoft gradually smother the net until there was no space left for people like RMS at all? [ assorted self-rightous swaggerings ] And I'll stay glad I did no matter how many jerks sneer at me for it. The price is high, but the prize is worth it. *Despite* you. -Mitch -- The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Ean R . Schuessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Come on Eric, laugh at yourself a little. I'm just yanking your chain because you make yourself such an easy target. Yeah. Well, when you pull my chain, don't complain because I bite. ps. Thats quite a check you are writing when you say you want *win* more than RMS _ever_ has. I've known Richard since 1977. He's very smart. If he had ever wanted to win badly enough to face up to what was required and *do* it, I could have stayed a semi-obscure hacker happily coding away at home. I would have preferred that outcome. Turns out I'm *very* good at this bullshit; good enough that high-powered professional PR types call me a "natural" and I've seen at least one serious semiotic study of my propaganda technique (in Feed magazine late last year). I've got the right cortical wiring, I guess -- but I don't *want* it. Truly, I would have been a hell of a lot happier *not* discovering that I really am the kind of guy who can smile, and smile, and smile, and hand out soundbites carefully tuned for journalists with the attention span and IQ of toe fungus, and shake hands with fat-assed corporate predators who never had an original idea in their lives. Dammit, all that shit should have been RMS's job. I shouldn't have had to do it at all. So when anybody sounds like they're accusing me of selling out, I do tend to get a little testy. Cope with it. -- a href="http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr"Eric S. Raymond/a "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
RMS wrote: How do Open Source projects differ from the above? In two very important ways. Firstly, OSPs have no time-bound. That is, there is no deadline whereby the next version of GNOME has to be delivered, "or I agree entirely with your argument, but the words raise a background issue so important I have to make a correction. GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and we are part of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. We and they do similar things, and we can work together in practice, but our philosophical reasons are as different as could be. While some may criticise Richard his ideological bent, I do feel that the ideological *and* pragmatic aspects of this kind of open/freedomware have advanced it. I tend not to think that either is the *real* reason. To snipe at ideology is, in my view, as irrational as the worst excesses of ideologies themselves. Reference rabid McCarthyism for this kind of madness. I agree that democracy is a rationally better system; but the dogged, fanatical pursuit of communism and communists was just that - fanatical. Irrational. Could you kindly cite GNOME as an example of the Free Software movement, not one of the Open Source movement? Please don't spread the idea that the latter one includes all of us. My first personal formulation of Open Source was that it formed a useful relabelling of the thing at hand. I felt that neatly dealt with the ambiguity of 'free'. However, as the FSF and the OSI have continued to follow their own lines of canon, I come to believe that they are different. Out of the fact that GNOME is a part of the GNU project, and out of respect for the wishes of Richard, GNOME will be a Free Software project. Indeed, in most of my drafting I prefer to stick to the moniker "Free Software", simply to avoid inflaming this kind of nastiness. I will *not* however, be choosing to label it "Free Software" to stop spreading "wrong thought". That, Richard, is your fight - you can fight it for yourself, thankyou. I do admire the core principle of Stallmanism: freedom is paramount. I have, however, aired various criticisms of the philosophy from within the license-discuss forum; the "Freedom without Choice" issue being a principle one. Perhaps in a fashion that was a little too strawmanesque, I likened the GPL's forcible freedom to liberation at the hands of the Red Army: yes, you are now Freed, but forced to be Free under *our* terms. To be honest, I do not think it matters to the code. All these factions are grandstanding over something that will be the same in a hundred years time. The audience, less and less, is the hackers: the audience is more and more a more mainstream press rabidly wanting to know of dissension and bickering. The true strength of free/openware will not come from its selling point. It will come from the freedom. Even after every ideology has come and gone, the code is protected and will remain. And *that*, gentlemen, is what *I* see as the greatest strength. Apologies for what has been a wide divergence off the topic at hand. JC.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, NotZed wrote: It just happens to be a little difficult to talk about another project in this case, because Gnome is the project under study. I would have to agree with Richard, it is part of the free software movement, not the "open source" one. Although the means are often identical, the goals are not the same at all. If anything, GNOME is part of the "GNOME movement" - any other group trying to take credit for it or call it their own, should reconsider their position. Not that this has anything to do with license-discuss. Brian
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
On Wed, Aug 18, 1999 at 03:50:54PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: Richard, you should be careful what you wish for; you might get it. In your zeal to distance your doctrinal purity from the OSI's filthy but effective pragmatism, you are mainly succeeding in marginalizing both the FSF and yourself. If you keep this up, you're going to end up ranting to an audience of one, in the mirror. I would not view this as a happy outcome; you have given far too much to our community, and have far too much more to give in the future. Can't you learn to accept your victory and your allies more gracefully? Frankly Richard, I agree. You should be more of a sport. Think of the benefits you would recieve. Look at all your other colleagues that grew rich while you were splitting these philosophical hairs. Its not too late! If you "play ball" the establishment can probably still arrange for a retainer of some type, or maybe even an equity position in some hot "Open Source" IPO! Stop torturing yourself with these troublesome ideological positions! What if a few companies get rich at the expense of the people? It's inevitable anyway. Capitalize on your "brand name recognition" before its hopelessly marginalized. Maybe Eric could be your agent! He has certainly proven himself an adept promoter. Just look at what he has done for his own reputation. Why, he invented "Open Source"! In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1814 E -- ___ Ean SchuesslerNovare International Inc. "He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions." -- Thomas Jefferson
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Hello all, again. Jacques Chester wrote: [...] Brook's Law [...] BTW, it's Brooks's law (not Brook's law or Brooks' law); the current draft consistently gets this wrong. Bugger. I spotted this myself at one point, whereupon it was promptly forgotten. It's rude for me to do so, as the same rule of grammar applies to my name (Jacques/Jacques'). Projects So what are projects, and what are their factors? Brooks example can be characterised as a project with two factors, being programmers and managers. If we hold managers constant, and increase programmers, LODR tells us that productivity will increase less each time another programmer is added. Actually, Brooks's law says that productivity will *decrease* after a certain point, not just increase less. With the n**2 communications costs, eventually you reach a point where adding resources is bad not just relatively but absolutely. I no longer have Mythical Man-Month on me, so what follows may be wrong. But what you have described is the same as the LODR. After certain point, not only does the marginal output become negative, but the average total output noses over and begins to fall. Indeed, a better (and rarely-used) name for the LODR is "the Law of Increasing Costs". JC.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
How do Open Source projects differ from the above? In two very important ways. Firstly, OSPs have no time-bound. That is, there is no deadline whereby the next version of GNOME has to be delivered, "or I agree entirely with your argument, but the words raise a background issue so important I have to make a correction. GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and we are part of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. We and they do similar things, and we can work together in practice, but our philosophical reasons are as different as could be. Could you kindly cite GNOME as an example of the Free Software movement, not one of the Open Source movement? Please don't spread the idea that the latter one includes all of us. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more explanation of the difference between the two movements.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Or alternatively, simply list another project so as not to confuse the issue midstream. As Richard points out, the FSF doesn't want the terms "Open Source" and "Free Software" lumped together. Rather than switching to a different terminology mid-stream, it would make more sense to simply select a non-FSF project there to avoid confusion to the reader. At 01:04 PM 8/18/99 -0600, Richard Stallman wrote: How do Open Source projects differ from the above? In two very important ways. Firstly, OSPs have no time-bound. That is, there is no deadline whereby the next version of GNOME has to be delivered, "or I agree entirely with your argument, but the words raise a background issue so important I have to make a correction. GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and we are part of the Free Software movement, not the Open Source movement. We and they do similar things, and we can work together in practice, but our philosophical reasons are as different as could be. Could you kindly cite GNOME as an example of the Free Software movement, not one of the Open Source movement? Please don't spread the idea that the latter one includes all of us. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for more explanation of the difference between the two movements.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Oh, and btw: As wild as this sounds, I am starting to get ground into the dirt by the programming involved in getting this project to Just Work, dammit. If anyone can help me, email me, quick! :) JC.
Re: Essay RFC delayed.
Jacques Chester wrote: [...] Brook's Law [...] BTW, it's Brooks's law (not Brook's law or Brooks' law); the current draft consistently gets this wrong. Projects So what are projects, and what are their factors? Brooks example can be characterised as a project with two factors, being programmers and managers. If we hold managers constant, and increase programmers, LODR tells us that productivity will increase less each time another programmer is added. Actually, Brooks's law says that productivity will *decrease* after a certain point, not just increase less. With the n**2 communications costs, eventually you reach a point where adding resources is bad not just relatively but absolutely. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! / Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau / Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge / Politzer
