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
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
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
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
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
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
-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,
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.
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.
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
"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
-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,
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
"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
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
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%,
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
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
-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;
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
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
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
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.
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
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
"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.
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
-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
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
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
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
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
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*
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Hello again;
As it happens, I have been unable to meet my goal of
delivering the completed essay this weekend. This was
a result of classic scheduling errors - the time-vacuum
and the job underestimation.
Instead of the complete essay, I have instead included
those sections which *are* ready
63 matches
Mail list logo
